The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 8 Oct 2007 23:26 On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:11:19 GMT, Glen Walpert <gwalpert(a)notaxs.com> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:38 -0700, Fred Abse ><excretatauris(a)cerebrumconfus.it> wrote: > >>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:01:40 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> Feed pumps are always a big problem on rockets. They have to be light, >>> enormously powerful, pump nasty stuff, and are designed to run under >>> major stress for a couple of minutes. >> >>Feynman's point was that they were expected to run under major stress for >>a couple of minutes, then do it over again on the next launch, and so on. >>He considered the lifetime predictions to be flawed. > >He might have been right about the projections, although lifetime >projections are normally correlated against test data before being >accepted as meaningful. I never heard of any problems with the >oxidizer turbopumps failing in flight, have there been failures? Not on a shuttle. I've heard of some other rockets failing because of feed pump problems. Feedwater pumps are a big deal in steam plants. John
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 9 Oct 2007 00:36 In sci.physics, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:40:55 +0100 <470A3367.8B3FA702(a)hotmail.com>: > > > 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 ? > More likely a catalyst in a piston affair to explosively decompose it. Dunno how well that will work admittedly, specially since impurities in the tank might cause it to explosively decompose in the *tank*. However, given the fuel source -- which is of course a major issue in itself -- it might work. > > Graham > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's important, it's the ability to DO something with it. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Glen Walpert on 9 Oct 2007 10:29 On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:26:17 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:11:19 GMT, Glen Walpert <gwalpert(a)notaxs.com> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:38 -0700, Fred Abse >><excretatauris(a)cerebrumconfus.it> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:01:40 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> Feed pumps are always a big problem on rockets. They have to be light, >>>> enormously powerful, pump nasty stuff, and are designed to run under >>>> major stress for a couple of minutes. >>> >>>Feynman's point was that they were expected to run under major stress for >>>a couple of minutes, then do it over again on the next launch, and so on. >>>He considered the lifetime predictions to be flawed. >> >>He might have been right about the projections, although lifetime >>projections are normally correlated against test data before being >>accepted as meaningful. I never heard of any problems with the >>oxidizer turbopumps failing in flight, have there been failures? > >Not on a shuttle. I've heard of some other rockets failing because of >feed pump problems. Those must have been the ones using Sealol face seals :-). Early pumps were designed with methods now considered primitive. Stress/strain and vibration modal analysis of the startup phase is computationally intense, it was a bit tough in the days of the slide rule, when some of the early pumps were designed. Newer pumps including the shuttle pumps benefited from state of the art finite element analysis. >Feedwater pumps are a big deal in steam plants. Yep, those are some big pumps with a lot of parts subject to corrosion, erosion and wear. Rather different tradeoffs from the rocket feed pumps. I have done some work on these too, including the defunct Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactor primary sodium pump seal. Hot liquid sodium qualifies as a fairly nasty fluid - but only if it leaks :-).
From: John Larkin on 9 Oct 2007 11:27 On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:29:44 GMT, Glen Walpert <gwalpert(a)notaxs.com> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:26:17 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:11:19 GMT, Glen Walpert <gwalpert(a)notaxs.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:38 -0700, Fred Abse >>><excretatauris(a)cerebrumconfus.it> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:01:40 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Feed pumps are always a big problem on rockets. They have to be light, >>>>> enormously powerful, pump nasty stuff, and are designed to run under >>>>> major stress for a couple of minutes. >>>> >>>>Feynman's point was that they were expected to run under major stress for >>>>a couple of minutes, then do it over again on the next launch, and so on. >>>>He considered the lifetime predictions to be flawed. >>> >>>He might have been right about the projections, although lifetime >>>projections are normally correlated against test data before being >>>accepted as meaningful. I never heard of any problems with the >>>oxidizer turbopumps failing in flight, have there been failures? >> >>Not on a shuttle. I've heard of some other rockets failing because of >>feed pump problems. > >Those must have been the ones using Sealol face seals :-). Early >pumps were designed with methods now considered primitive. >Stress/strain and vibration modal analysis of the startup phase is >computationally intense, it was a bit tough in the days of the slide >rule, when some of the early pumps were designed. Newer pumps >including the shuttle pumps benefited from state of the art finite >element analysis. > >>Feedwater pumps are a big deal in steam plants. > >Yep, those are some big pumps with a lot of parts subject to >corrosion, erosion and wear. Rather different tradeoffs from the >rocket feed pumps. I have done some work on these too, including the >defunct Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactor primary sodium pump seal. >Hot liquid sodium qualifies as a fairly nasty fluid - but only if it >leaks :-). Speaking of nasty, in the 50's roughly, some power plants were built using mercury as the working fluid. John
From: Willie.Mookie on 9 Oct 2007 13:18
On Oct 8, 3:24 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:39:53 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >On Oct 7, 2:01 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:37:21 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> >On Oct 6, 10:53 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:48:42 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >On Oct 6, 6:26 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:12:49 +0000, Willie.Mookie 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. > > >> >> >> So, in other words, you're a swindler? > > >> >> >No. > > >> >> >> I was once a paralegal assistant > > >> >> >Really? > > >> >> >> in a litigation based on almost the exact same scam. > > >> >> >So, you've seen my financing documents have you? You are publicly and > >> >> >categorically making statements about my business practices based on a > >> >> >careful legal review of my financing documents? > > >> >> >> They lost. > > >> >> >Haha.. Did they now? > > >> >> >> Thanks, > >> >> >> Rich > > >> >> >http://www.emfi.biz/oil_gas_financing.asp > > >> >> >I would suggest that anyone interested read up on how oil and gas > >> >> >fields get financed. Basically if you have rights to the property, > >> >> >have a geology report that says there might be oil or gas on that > >> >> >property,and an engineering report from qualified vendors that give an > >> >> >estimate of production cost, you can sell a portion of the potential > >> >> >output to build up productive capacity on that property. > > >> >> >In similar fashion, I have rights to 1.5 billion tons of coal. I have > >> >> >rights to 36,000 hectares of sunny land. I have independent > >> >> >confirmation that I can make 7 bbls/ gasoline for each ton of coal, > >> >> >and I have vendor reports that give precise costs and time frames. > >> >> >Why shouldn't I sell a poriton of the potential output to build up > >> >> >this productive capacity on that property? Fact is, I can. > > >> >> Well, it's just fairly seldom that our little electronic circuit > >> >> design group is graced by billionaires who will soon be in control of > >> >> most of the energy market of the world. > > >> >> Frankly, circuit design sounds like more fun. > > >> >> John- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >I understand. > > >> >But please understand I have a daughter who's mom and whom are Swiss > >> >citizens, and since I'm eligible and there are advantages in it for > >> >me, I'm getting my residency papers and with those will buy a couple > >> >of houses in Geneva and a chalet in the Rhone valley. > > >> >One house is for my daughter and her mum, and the other for me, and > >> >the chalet is to create an income neutral situation - the townhouse I > >> >bought for them 4 years ago may be rented as well. > > >> >The rent brings in enough every season to cover recurring costs on > >> >all households. Which the accountants like. Meanwhile Swiss real- > >> >estate is very stable - a good inestment - so,its well worth the money > >> >- I'm obviously not carrying any debt. > > >> Hell, you're already a billionaire. All that level of expense is way > >> below the noise floor, not worth an hour of your time. > > >> John- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >Really? That assmes a certain level of opportunity costs and a > >certain level of productivity and a competition for resources that > >doesn't exist. Actually, its just my way of having fun., > > >Ah well, old habits die hard. I never rented an apartment in > >college. I rented a house and sublet rooms and lived for free. I > >signed a long-term lease and fixed up the place in my spare time, and > >made money from my housing. > > >I never bought a car to drive. I bought nice convertibles (usually two > >and kept one to drive) in the fall that were definite fixer uppers > >(I'm an engineer dammit) and fixed them up in my garage over the > >school year, and in the spring sold two, at a nice profit, and drove a > >nice car all summer with some spending money in my pocket! lol. Then > >repeated the performance the following fall. > > >So, I turned my cost centers into profit centers. > > >Then, when I could I got a part time gig as a research associate at > >the university, and got insurance and so forth... > > >And I began watching Wall Street Week on PBS back in the 70s and > >invested in the market when it was at 780 - which also produced a nice > >return and made me credit worthy citizen. > > >The only thing I would do differently is I would have bought my house > >in school and sold it after I graduated rather than paying rent. But > >like I said, you've either got the knack or you don't! What else am I > >gonna do with my 'free time'? SPEND MONEY!? eew... haha.. > > >I was thinking about breaking down and buying a boat, the 158' > >Laurison Mustang Sally was for sale recently by Rich Schaden of > >Quiizon's subs, but I couldn't figure a way to make it pay. So, I > >vacillated and someone else bought it. ah well. > > I've known a few people who were very good at making money, in the > sense of making money for its own sake, without actually creating > anything. Sounds like you have issues about money. Its impossible to make money and not create value. That's what it means to make money. If you end up with a lot of money in your pocket and have not created value, then you are not a business person, you are a crook. That's the genius of free-markets. All the exchanges are voluntary, so wealth is created necessarily. > They seemed to mostly do it for sport, to be a winner and to > flaunt it. Not true. People who are good at making money take it seriously and ask themselves serious questions like where's the value? > As Larry Ellison [1] says, it's not enough that I win, > everybody else has to lose. It appears you have a reference, but you don't really. I think your belief reflects more your issues with money than reality about those who make money. Its been my experience that folks like Larry Ellison are more into win win situations. He was selling one if old yachts down in Florida last October and I did not get the impression that he was any different than any other successful person in this regard. He's very concerned about making a 'good' deal - meaning one where everyone is ahead at the end of the day. > These guys, like many politicians, seem to often be sexual atheletes Again you are projecting. You figure they have more wealth than you so they also have more sexual opportunity than you. haha.. Fact is, folks who make a lot of money spend time doing just that leaving less time for play. > too, again in the sense of scoring and winning. Not so. More a sense of creating. > After realizing thet > they have mostly conquered half of the population, they often go after > the other half. Again not so. > I knew one guy like this that made a huge fortune and > had literally thousands of sexual partners. Sure we all do - they're called sports figures and rock stars. These folks are atypical of most solid business sorts. > He never read an entire > book in his life, Yet one of the success habits of highly successful people is a regular reading regimen. I think you are confused between gangsters, public figures and business folk. You may also be confused about being Rich and being Wealthy. Oprah is Rich. Bill Gates is Wealthy. If Bill Gates woke up one morning and found that he had as much money as Oprah, he'd jump out of a window. > and couldn't sit through a movie; there was nothing > in it for him. You are taking a questionable anecdotal experience you are claiming happened and applying it universally to all people inappropriately. > We're mainly engineers here, not overly concerned about money. We > mostly like to build things. I'm an engineer and I likely have built more stuff and better stuff than you. I take pride in the fact that I have created substantial wealth by creating products of substantial value. > > John > > [1] Funny how I always dislike guys named Larry. We have a friend who > used to be Larry, nice guy, but last year he changed his name to > Jerome.- Hide quoted text - The issues you have with money bear no relation to those who actually have created vast fortunes and true wealth. This is to be distinguised from folks who are temporarily rich due to some factor other than true wealth creation. > - Show quoted text - |