The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 6 Oct 2007 18:06 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:35:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to .... >> >> > Do you understand the difference between combustion and a >> >> > chemical reaction? >> > >> >> 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. Well, you know, it's not that much of a stretch to call a rocket motor internal combustion - or should that be internal hypergolic? ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 6 Oct 2007 18:07 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:35:02 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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? Yes - the Official Term is "Shooting The Breeze." ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 6 Oct 2007 18:15 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:15:56 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > 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.) Well, if it wasn't so expensive, and resource-hungry, it could theoretically make for a real simple internal "combustion" engine- just get some BHP (basic hydrogen peroxide - essentially 100% H2O2); and instead of a spark plug, a lump of catalyst, like MnO2; it'd be a two-stroke - at TDC or so, squirt a dollop of H2O2, it catalyzes into H2O + O2 + heat; driving the power stroke; then there's an exhaust stroke, which consists of, Ta-Da! water and oxygen; then you do it again. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 6 Oct 2007 18:23 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:34:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:39:10 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: >>Please consider the practical difficulties of taking a variable output >>solar generator that varies its output in response to season, weather >>and time of day operating with Direct Current and connecting that >>source reliably to a grid of Alternating Current loads. When you do >>large-scale intertie studies, something more than charging car >>batteries,then you have diseconomies of scale that suggest $2 per watt >>on the first go round, that over time and with experience will likely >>drop to $0.70 per watt. At these prices your costs rise to $0.06 per >>peak watt and tend toward $0.02 per peak watt. > > I don't see that. At 0.2 cents per kwh, essentially free, it would > seem easy to dump power into the grid when it was available, > specifically on hot sunny days when a/c loads are at their maximum. > Relatively small peak solar output, say 5% of the relevant grid load, > would be welcome for their fuel savings. Of course, without some > storage mechanism, big percentages are less appealing, but 5% is still > big bucks, especially as you can charge premium pricing for > peak-period power. Since we're talking billions and billions of dollars here anyway, how about using hydro dams for storage of excess energy - just run the turbines backwards and pump water back into the reservoir! ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: krw on 6 Oct 2007 18:23
In article <1191686928.548884.168020(a)w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com says... > 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: > > >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. Nice. Then you wouldn't mind sharing the information (since, after all, that is the purpose of a patent). Numbers please! -- Keith |