The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 8 Oct 2007 09:33 On Sep 29, 2:14 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:52:25 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:28:41 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Sep 28, 2:46 pm, rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > >>> Well I guess you could go for a rotary engine as well. Or anything you > >>> wanted if you design it yourself. > >>> The nice thing is, that the fuel system, is the simplest part. When a > >>> bigcarcompany like GM sets out to make a conceptcar, they spend > >>> millions. With HHO or whatever water system you can invent, it costs > >>> little to make the thing. > >>> So then you just put it in a nicecar. > > >>> These guys here send acarbuilder to your house, and help you build a > >>>car, in less than 7 days,http://www.lonestarclassics.com/index.cfm > > >>> Here is a conceptcar, that someone is building from scratch as a > >>> hobby.http://www.baileyspeed.com/ > >>>http://www.kitcarsforum.com/b1-concept-kit-project-t8766.0.html > > >>Actually any old existingcarwill do just fine and dandy with my h2o2/ > >>c12h26 IC engine. I could get a 1956 Buick or even a Ford Edsel up to > >>100+ empg without hardly trying, and at zero NOx to boot. > > > "Could"? Then why don't you do it? > > He probably wants to scare up some "funding" first. ;-) I certainly love getting my hands on just 10% of what similar R&D efforts get. The hybrid electric car and of its ICE that runs on such a composite clean fuel is more doable than you'd think. h2o2 as a monopropellant is only worth 2.9 Mj/kg, and the good blend of low sulphur heating oil or LS diesel is worth 44 Mj/kg. Keeping in mind that an amount greater than 7:1 as utilized of h2o2:fossil is going require those 7+ parts of h2o2 per given part of LS diesel. 7.25 * 2.9 + 44 = 65 Mj/kg of each consumed kg of that SL fossil fuel, at that there's zero NOx and the absolute minimal amount of CO2 getting contributed per given kg or if you like per Hummer or GM Volt mile. Next taking into account, instead of getting 12.5% thermal dynamic efficiency as obtained from the typical 4-Stroke or 4-cycle engine, of getting at least twice that good if not nearly 4 times as much because of using a 1-stroke or 1-cycle ICE that's not wasting all of that kinetic energy by having to deal with going through all of those wasted piston strokes. In other words, in addition to having the 65 Mj/kg to work with, it's entirely possible to reach a 50% worth of thermal dynamic efficiency, and that's not to mention the small size and minimal mass of this ICE that could be held in as little as one hand. The combined density of 1.32 g/cm3 for essentially obtaining 65 Mj/kg of the LS fuel oil is in of its self impressive. - Brad Guth -
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2007 09:40 BradGuth wrote: > h2o2 as a monopropellant is only worth 2.9 Mj/kg Monopropellant ? Are you planing on using it's 'fizz' to provide rocket style propulsion ? Graham
From: BradGuth on 8 Oct 2007 09:46 On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > 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 ofH2O2, 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 Much like anything that's new and improved, h2o2 is only spendy if not having the clean and fully renewable cache of spare/surplus energy to start off with, and as I'd said before that Warren Buffett, William Mook and myself will gladly provided all those spare teraWatts of affordably clean and renewable energy. The new and improved hybrid electric car, and of its ICE that runs on such a composite of clean fuel, is more doable than you'd think. h2o2 as a monopropellant is only worth 2.9 Mj/kg, and the good blend of low sulphur heating oil or LS diesel is worth 44 Mj/kg. Keeping in mind that an amount greater than 7:1 as utilized of h2o2:fossil is going require those 7+ parts of h2o2 per given part of LS diesel. 7.25 * 2.9 + 44 = 65 Mj/kg of each consumed kg of that SL fossil fuel, at that there's zero NOx and the absolute minimal amount of CO2 getting contributed per given kg or if you like per Hummer or GM Volt mile. Next taking into account, instead of getting 12.5% thermal dynamic efficiency as obtained from the typical 4-Stroke or 4-cycle engine, of getting at least twice that good if not nearly 4 times as much because of using a 1-stroke or 1-cycle ICE that's not wasting all of that kinetic energy by having to deal with going through all of those wasted piston strokes. In other words, in addition to having the 65 Mj/kg to work with, it's entirely possible to reach a 50% worth of thermal dynamic efficiency, and that's not to mention the small size and minimal mass of this ICE that could be held in as little as one hand. The combined density of 1.32 g/cm3 for essentially obtaining 65 Mj/kg of the LS fuel oil is in of its self impressive. BTW, that LS diesel can be easily replaced by just about anything, including the clean alternative fuel obtained from coal gassification or any number of interesting biofuels, as they'll each burn hot an clean along with having contributed zero NOx. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 8 Oct 2007 09:53 On Oct 7, 11:07 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics, Rich Grise > <r...(a)example.net> > wrote > on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:15:20 GMT > <pan.2007.10.06.22.15.50.756...(a)example.net>: > > > 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, > > Why would the engine be resource-hungry? Of course the > fuel source would be -- but Brad's hypothesis, taken at > face value, would assume terawatts of power available from > these clean, simple towers, convertable into synthesizable > hydrogen peroxide. > > Except that the towers are neither clean nor all that simple. > > - Cleanliness: The PV aspect is the most troublesome; the > research continues and may very well solve this problem > but at present the return on investment of a simple > solar cell, at currentelectricrates, is approximately > its expected lifetime -- about 20-50 years. Of course > part of it is that the PV is not part of a sophisticated > solar/wind powered tower, apparently (not that that would > make all that much difference; wind power doesn't come out > of nowhere, after all). > > - Simplicity. The tallest man-made structure is about > 341 m in height (in the USA, anyway; I'd have to check > for buildings in other places e.g. Petronas towers > in Malaysis) with quite a bit of complexity such as a > generally tapering structure (in the case of the Empire > State Building, it's blocky). Modern skyscrapers are > designed to flex. I've already mentioned the shadowing > problem; I should mention that there's a certain issue > regarding wind shadowing as well. Presumably the wind, > hitting the blades of a windmill, gets deflected in > various interesting ways, dissipating its energy -- > and rendering the wind relatively useless for a windmill > following. > > As forH2O2synthesis from raw materials -- I'd have to look. > > > 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. ;-) > > Presumably this is Brad's notion more or less as well. > However, AIUI crystallizedH2O2is very touchy to handle > -- an issue if a vehicle has been sitting for too long. > There's also the possible problem of spontaneous breakdown. > Certain contaminants in the mix -- you mention manganese > dioxide; I know nothing about it but that's certainly one > possible contaminant! -- would break down the peroxide, > either slowly over time, yielding relatively useless water > and oxygen (from a power standpoint) -- or explosively. > > At least gasoline more or less vanishes through evaporation > (though the result might be smog if there's enough of it). > It is also explosive but only under relatively controllable > conditions; it requires a rather specific fuel-to-air > ratio. Of course its flammability is a concern, but then > so are coal's, wood's, and chicken fat's, given the right > conditions. > > And gasoline is long-term stable; it's not likely to do > weird things such as polymerize or spontaneously decompose, > under proper storage conditions. > > > > > Cheers! > > Rich > > -- > #191, ewi...(a)earthlink.net > Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1). > (1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one". > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com Thanks for all the constructive feedback, as I never once said it would be easy, nor have I suggested that it's the least spendy alternative for getting that Hummer down the road. You have to admit there's number of primary and secondary advantages in burning h2o2:fossil, instead of complex gasoline and that of a mostly N2 atmosphere that's only getting more polluted by the minute. - Brad Guth -
From: Rich Grise on 8 Oct 2007 11:44
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:26:01 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:16:40 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> >>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 - > > You have a serious inferiority complex. Did some Jewish kid beat you > up or something? Or is it just that you know you're not as smart as > they are? I filtered this guy after about his third post, but would have said, "Sure, you're welcome to join in, but beware that if you say really stupid stuff, people will call you on it." :-) Cheers! Rich |