The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 6 Oct 2007 11:58 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to >> sci.electronics.design: > >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to >> >> sci.electronics.design: >> > >> >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to >> >> >> sci.electronics.design: >> >> > >> >> >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: >> >> >> >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(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. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Liquids don't ignite. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> If you are so very sure about, that i suggest that you try >> >> >> mixing unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red >> >> >> fuming nitric acid >> >> >> (RFNA) (glacial). Take very serious precautions and read the >> >> >> relevant MSDS before making the attempt. >> >> > >> >> > Do you understand the difference between combustion and a >> >> > chemical reaction? >> >> > >> >> > I thought not. >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> How about you lookup hypergolic reactions? TWIT! You were >> >> given sufficient to learn better for yourself, but no you just >> >> attack. >> > >> > Please list any land vehicles whose internal combustion engines >> > run on hypergolic reactions. >> > >> > > >> I do not know of any. But there are plenty of space vehicles that >> use >> this combination, precisely because it is a hypergolic pair. The >> one >> step upline issue was can liquids burn? These do. > > Actually, the issue was liquids burning in an internal combustion > engine. > > It does not seem to be stated quite that way. Plus there is always the compression issue in an IC engine. Gasses compress but liquids don't.
From: Willie.Mookie on 6 Oct 2007 12:08 On Oct 6, 10:37 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:59:47 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:36:40 -0700, Willie.Mookie wrote: > > >> ...> Approximately half the volume of a crystalline wafer is lost during > >> > the slicing operation. > > >> ... > > >> Whatever happened to "edge-defined film growth"? That's where they > >> pull a flat ribbon of silicon from the melt, and then just use > >> it "sideways". > > >> Obviously, it's unfeasible for one reason or another - anybody > >> know those reasons? > > >> Thanks, > >> Rich > > >http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/silicon.html > > >The DOE and others are doing research on this topic. > > >It all has to do with large scale ordering. A crystal has large scale > >order. Something like glass or a mixture of tiny crystalline > >particles, does not. The crystalline structure has huge advantages in > >the efficiently moving electrical energy around. When folks try to > >coat a substrate with silicon they can't for one reason or another,get > >a pure crystalline structure with long period order. They get either > >glassy material, or what is known as polycrystalline structures. > >These either don't work, or don't work well enough to be worth the > >effort. > > >Yet. > > >My approach is to create a low cost super-performing lans array that > >works with expensive mono-crystalline solar cells operating at high > >intensity. In this way I reduce costs to less than $0.07 per peak > >watt. > > >Should this sort of process lower the cost of solar panels, it won't > >hurt me. Because I can install the new low cost PV into my system, > >and reduce costs further. That's because my low cost lens system is > >dramatically lower cost than anything else out there. > > >The cost of monocrystalline silicon wafers are about $1 per square > >inch. A 200 micron thick sheet of PET can cover over 4 square yards > >for $1. (I use precision molded PET ultrasoncially bonded in a water > >bath to create large lens arrays) This is a 5,000 to 1 cost > >advantage. > > >Lets say edge defined film reduces the cost by a factor of 20 - so we > >get a square inch for 5 cents. This reduces the cost per watt of > >conventional panels to perhaps $1 per watt. But it cuts my costs in > >about half - to $0.04 per peak watt. > > Got patents? > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes.
From: jimp on 6 Oct 2007 13:35 In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > sci.electronics.design: > > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> sci.electronics.design: > > > >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> >> sci.electronics.design: > >> > > >> >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> >> >> sci.electronics.design: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> >> >> >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(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. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Liquids don't ignite. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> If you are so very sure about, that i suggest that you try > >> >> >> mixing unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red > >> >> >> fuming nitric acid > >> >> >> (RFNA) (glacial). Take very serious precautions and read the > >> >> >> relevant MSDS before making the attempt. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do you understand the difference between combustion and a > >> >> > chemical reaction? > >> >> > > >> >> > I thought not. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> How about you lookup hypergolic reactions? TWIT! You were > >> >> given sufficient to learn better for yourself, but no you just > >> >> attack. > >> > > >> > Please list any land vehicles whose internal combustion engines > >> > run on hypergolic reactions. > >> > > >> > > > > >> I do not know of any. But there are plenty of space vehicles that > >> use > >> this combination, precisely because it is a hypergolic pair. The > >> one > >> step upline issue was can liquids burn? These do. > > > > Actually, the issue was liquids burning in an internal combustion > > engine. > > > > > It does not seem to be stated quite that way. Plus there is always > the compression issue in an IC engine. Gasses compress but liquids > don't. If one were to make an injected, hypergolic, IC engine, you would squirt the fuel in at the top of the piston stroke; no compression required. You have a point to all this nonsense? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: John Larkin on 6 Oct 2007 14:05 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:08:48 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Oct 6, 10:37 am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:59:47 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:36:40 -0700, Willie.Mookie wrote: >> >> >> ...> Approximately half the volume of a crystalline wafer is lost during >> >> > the slicing operation. >> >> >> ... >> >> >> Whatever happened to "edge-defined film growth"? That's where they >> >> pull a flat ribbon of silicon from the melt, and then just use >> >> it "sideways". >> >> >> Obviously, it's unfeasible for one reason or another - anybody >> >> know those reasons? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rich >> >> >http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/silicon.html >> >> >The DOE and others are doing research on this topic. >> >> >It all has to do with large scale ordering. A crystal has large scale >> >order. Something like glass or a mixture of tiny crystalline >> >particles, does not. The crystalline structure has huge advantages in >> >the efficiently moving electrical energy around. When folks try to >> >coat a substrate with silicon they can't for one reason or another,get >> >a pure crystalline structure with long period order. They get either >> >glassy material, or what is known as polycrystalline structures. >> >These either don't work, or don't work well enough to be worth the >> >effort. >> >> >Yet. >> >> >My approach is to create a low cost super-performing lans array that >> >works with expensive mono-crystalline solar cells operating at high >> >intensity. In this way I reduce costs to less than $0.07 per peak >> >watt. >> >> >Should this sort of process lower the cost of solar panels, it won't >> >hurt me. Because I can install the new low cost PV into my system, >> >and reduce costs further. That's because my low cost lens system is >> >dramatically lower cost than anything else out there. >> >> >The cost of monocrystalline silicon wafers are about $1 per square >> >inch. A 200 micron thick sheet of PET can cover over 4 square yards >> >for $1. (I use precision molded PET ultrasoncially bonded in a water >> >bath to create large lens arrays) This is a 5,000 to 1 cost >> >advantage. >> >> >Lets say edge defined film reduces the cost by a factor of 20 - so we >> >get a square inch for 5 cents. This reduces the cost per watt of >> >conventional panels to perhaps $1 per watt. But it cuts my costs in >> >about half - to $0.04 per peak watt. >> >> Got patents? >> >> John- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Yes. > > Cool; what are the numbers? I couldn't find any with your name on them. John
From: Rich Grise on 6 Oct 2007 17:53
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:55:36 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, Eeyore >> 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. That's trivial. You don't even need slip rings. Just have the PVs drive a rotor coil, much like a car alternator, and pick up the energy with another set of stator coils. (separate from the ones that extract the physical motive energy, of course). You couldn't use that for your main rotor current, however, because then they wouldn't generate anything at night. Unless, of course, you put some batteries and a charge controller in your rotor, which seems to be growing exponentially. ;-) Cheers! Rich |