The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2007 21:28 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:20:56 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:13:35 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> BradGuth wrote: >> >>> I haven't invented or even discovered one damn thing. >> >> Thought as much. >> > >Hey, I once reinvented the astable multivibrator! ;-) > >Cheers! >Rich I invented the dual-slope adc, some years before Fairchild patented it. And the token-ring LAN, too. John
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2007 21:34 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:12:49 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: >I am not selling equipment. I sell on forward contracts commodities. >The people who buy the commodities don't care about where they get >them. They just need them by a certain date. But they pay me today >for a discounted price. And they accept the execution risk. Which is >equivalent to discovery risk in developing resources. There are of >course no market risk since these are commodities. > >With this money I build own and operate facilities that use solar >hydrogen to make gasoline from coal by direct hydrogenation, >facilities that make fresh water and salt crystals from sea water >using solar heat in a multi-stage flash evaporator, and facilities >that upgrade residual oil to gasoline using hydrogen in a direct >hydrogenation process. Show us some links to some such facilities. Nothing like that could be done off the public record. John
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 5 Oct 2007 21:55 In sci.physics, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:41:29 +0100 <47038DF9.140CC49(a)hotmail.com>: > > > BradGuth wrote: > >> Robert Adsett <s...(a)aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote: >> > >> > That's why you put the solar cells on the windmill blades :) >> >> >> I like it; blades with PVs as engineered by Robert Adsett. >> >> At least that's a constructive thought, of waste not, want not. > > Let me see. > > Wind turbine blades flex. > > Photocells break if flexed. The new organic ones should not have this problem, though I'm not sure about their efficiency. There's of course the little issue of how one transfers the current from the moving blades to the stator. > > Stupid, stupid idea. I've seen better ones, but at least it's theoretically doable; one might even consider putting small batteries on the blades and allowing them to blink at night to warn approaching aircraft, or something. Granted, that's probably not all that practical either. > > Graham > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129: std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++) if(*i == thing) {...} -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 5 Oct 2007 22:15 In sci.physics, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:55:17 -0700 <1191452117.181775.313960(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>: > On Oct 3, 1:28 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:39:36 -0700, bill wrote: >> >> [about LOX, H2O2, etc.] >> ... >> >> >> > I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its >> >> > effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might >> >> > make tinkering with it a winter project. >> >> >> You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2. >> >> > Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake >> > and compression strokes are for. >> >> Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd >> ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need >> a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however. > > Use at least 100 bar injection, if not 1000 bar. > > Using h2o2 + fossil whatever will likely ignite itself, as should LO2-- >>O2 and fossil whatever. > - Brad Guth - > It might very well do so, at that. Of course, depending on the circumstances one might get a rocket or a bang, neither of which is very desirable from a controllability standpoint...and you've yet to answer the question regarding where one gets the hydrogen peroxide from, precisely. Besides, the general idea is *not* to use fossil fuels whatsoever, if I understood you correctly. H2O2, presumably, would simply replace them, distributed in gas stations much like gasoline is today. (Yeah, right.) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 5 Oct 2007 22:00
In sci.physics, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:48:56 -0700 <1191372536.757674.226500(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: > On Oct 1, 8:25 pm, The Ghost In The Machine > <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >> In sci.physics,BradGuth >> <bradg...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote >> on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0700 >> <1191280799.545597.239...(a)n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sep 30, 11:20 pm, The Ghost In The Machine >> > <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >> >> >> Where? Oh, you must be seeing things again. In any event, anyone >> >> who knows chemistry can figure out the above fact. I'm still curious >> >> as to how you get 40 kW/m^3 from variants of solar energy. >> >> > A 100~125 meter tall tower will take up roughly 100 m2 worth of >> > surface footprint at it's base, that which can't easily be utilized >> > for all that much other than a fluid storage tank or perhaps on behalf >> > whatever fluid processing that could rather easily be contained within >> > the somewhat less than 100 m2 interior. However, on top of this >> > sucker is a good 3.5~4.5 MW wind turbine, and well enough below the >> > blade sweep is a very large DVD like disk of those 25% efficient PV >> > cells (we're talking better than twice that amount if using William >> > Mook's multi-band and special lens enhanced PV cells) that'll track >> > sunrise to sunset, as well enough elevated above the local terrain and >> > whatever trees so that full solar benefit is easily maintained. >> >> The only problem is that those solar cells cast a shadow. Is there >> anything nearby? Oh, another tower? Won't do that other tower >> much good, will it? >> >> Oops. >> >> >> >> > Of course, further below the 8000 m2 PV disk or array of solar energy >> > collection that'll more than added those daytime 500 kw is either >> > common/public open space that's usable as is, >> >> If one likes shade. >> >> >> >> >> >> > as well as capable of >> > accommodating whatever multi-(<3)-story light commercial structures or >> > perfectly safe habitats for us humans that can't seem to ever get >> > enough energy to badly waste. >> >> > Of course the tower portion above the large primary disk/array of PV >> > cells can itself be covered in those conventional PVs of 25% >> > efficiency, as quite possibly contributing yet another 100 kw by day >> > without measurably degrading the huge wind turbine aspects of this >> > tower that's likely made in China. >> >> > Thus far that's capable of off-the-shelf averaging more than 4 MW per >> > 100 m2 of a given tower's surface footprint (there's a little more >> > that's underground, but that doesn't count because it's out of sight >> > and doesn't detract from land usage), just like I've told each of >> > those other "The Ghost In The Machine" individuals before. >> >> There's only one, numbnutz. Unless you want to claim I have multiple >> personalities. (Maybe I do. Depends on my mood. You can't tell.) >> >> >> >> > Of course not every location on Earth is best suited for extracting >> > wind energy, but most places suited for wind farming or those of >> > individual private installation sites are typically also good solar PV >> > sites. So, all and all it's offering a clean and renewable win-win >> > that's good for safely delivering 40 kw/m2. Like I'd asked before; >> > how many spare/surplus teraWatts of clean energy would you folks like >> > Warren Buffett, William Mook and myself to deliver? >> >> How many hectares of land (1 hectare = 2.47 acres or 10000 m^2) would >> it require, even assuming your 40 kW/m^2? >> >> And how much would that land cost? >> >> Also, the current power utilization of the US is about 4 >> trillion kWh/year, or 456 gigawatts. Oil consumption is >> about 20.73 million bbl/day, or 1.46 terawatts (since 1 >> barrel of oil is about 6.1 gigaJoules). >> >> The good news: you've got enough power. >> >> The bad news: it'll cost. >> >> >> >> > One million towers and we're speaking of 4 squeaky clean teraWatts. >> >> Highly debatable, mostly because PV fab costs are relatively high. >> They are, however, coming down to the point where ROI thereon >> might be 5 years, if one is lucky. >> >> Also, there's still the shadow issue. A 100 m high tower >> is going to cast at least a 100 m shadow. This will more >> than double the acreage requirement ... and may quadruple >> it, depending on how much usable sunlight one wishes over >> the course of a day. > > A renewable energy farm of such tower derived clean energy may be as > few as one. Then there's offshore installations. Go figure. One tower of 100 m radius would create 4 MW. Hardly enough for powering the entire state of California, though one might build a neighborhood around it (it would presumably power about 1000 homes or so surrounding it, on a good day). Assuming it worked, of course, as specified. > >> >> A naive calculation, taking into account the shadow >> problem, suggests about 400 megahectares, or 1.5 million >> square miles. This is more than twice the size of the >> state of Alaska. > > We could all use a little extra shade. Global warming, you know. Shaded land can't grow crops as well. > >> >> That would be quite a facility, and be readily visible from >> space. >> >> > 1e6 towers X $1e7 each is merely $1e13 of our hard earned loot as >> >> $1e13 is about the yearly GDP of the entire US at present. >> >> > wisely spent over as little as a decade, would have cost us far less >> > than our 9/11 fiasco, and we'd all be clean energy set for life. I'd >> > call this one an all out war on behalf of extracting clean energy, >> > except there wouldn't be any spendy shock and awe of collateral damage >> > and such massive carnage of the innocent. >> >> > Perhaps fewer towers and more of tidal and geothermal derived energy >> > might become the compromise, of having merely 100,000 such towers, and >> > the rest of the clean/renewable energy pie coming in from those tidal >> > and geothermal considerations, plus watever hydroelectric and nuclear >> > we can mange without causing ourselves more harm than good. >> >> You have written your Congressperson with this proposal, right? > > Obviously you have no honest intentions of polishing or otherwise > constructively contributing squat, much less pitching on our behalf. I am not the one making the proposal. You are. > Of course neither would the likes of your friend GW Bush, but I'd bet > Hitler would, especially if it meant winning a war, such as our war > against global warming and otherwise salvaging our badly failing > environment. GW Bush is many things, but "friend" he is not. > > In that case, we'll just run our cars, SUVs, trucks and most > everything else under the sun that's orbiting your flat Earth on nasty > old coal and mostly N2, just the way "The Ghost In The Machine", ENRON > and the ExxonMobil swarm of denial and naysayers like it. N2? You are a confused puppy. The most likely fuel source would be converted coal -- and that has many problems. But it would work for awhile, coupled with ambient oxygen (O2). > - Brad Guth - > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129: std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++) if(*i == thing) {...} -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |