The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 09:43 On Oct 6, 8:58 am, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > sci.electronics.design: > > > > > > > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> sci.electronics.design: > > >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> >> sci.electronics.design: > > >> >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> >> >> sci.electronics.design: > > >> >> >> > In sci.physics 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. > > >> >> >> > 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. You really don't get it, do you. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 09:50 On Oct 6, 11:34 am, John Larkin > Oh, I did find your patent (looked under the wrong name first try) > > http://www.google.com/patents?id=PER6AAAAEBAJ&dq=7081584&num=20 > > That looks both interesting and challenging. Why burden its chance of > success by betting on hydrogen generation, distribution, and use too? Why are you folks so deathly afraid of having a commercial cache of hydrogen made efficiently and affordably, not to mention h2o2? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 10:15 On Oct 6, 3:06 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:35:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com j...(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? ;-) Word games are clearly all important in this semitic anti-think-tank of a usenet from their typical naysay hell on Earth. If each ICE cycle were given the 1000 bar shot of h2o2 plus given another injector shot of fossil or biofuel whatever at the top of each 2-cycle piston stroke, as such it is going to work very nicely. Of course all is easily computer controlled so that there's just the right amount of each applied at the exact correct timing and duration of injection into this mostly ceramic component engine, even if it's limited to the crude 2-cycle piston technology. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 10:16 On Oct 6, 3:07 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:35:02 +0000, jimp wrote: > > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barr...(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." ;-) But apparently that's not allowed unless you're a born-again Yid. - Brad Guth -
From: krw on 7 Oct 2007 10:34
In article <MPG.21721a3269cefc069897ea(a)free.teranews.com>, sub2 @aeolusdevelopment.com says... > In article <e4ggg3hml9cqdfn29u9akime696us7ltar(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin > says... > > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:38:30 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > >> >Page 5 of the .pdf file describes briefly what I'm doing under COAL > > >> >LIQUEFACTION PRODUCTION INDONESIA. > > >> > > >> 20 million barrels of solar-powered coal-oil conversion per day, by > > >> 2011? I'll check back and see how you're doing. > > >> > > > > > >That was a typo - it was 20 million barrels per quarter. > > > > Hey, what's a couple of orders of magnitude between friends? > > I hadn't figured you for an astronomer John. That phrase figured > prominently in my introductory astronomy course as an undergrad. To astronomers, "significant digits" is the term for the number of digits in the exponent are believable. ;-) -- Keith |