The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 21 Oct 2007 16:37 On Oct 8, 9:36 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote > on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:40:55 +0100 > <470A3367.8B3FA...(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. Why of course it'll work. Why shouldn't it? For accommodating each one of us American/westernised village idiots, and without my even getting this rant into various personal transportation, communications, lighting or HVAC considerations, it unavoidably takes a lot of fossil crude oil, coal, natural gas and/or even yellowcake derived energy in order to commercially produce, transport, process, extra fancy package, further transport and eventually distribute the vast bulk of our food, the majority of which (50+% upon average) gets tossed out and/or disposed of for more than one good or bad reason or another. It's often worse off on the sorts of commercial/consumer inert goods that too often get hardly utilized at all before they get discarded or stored at something that's costing us more energy than they're worth, along with many of such inert items being energy consumers to boot. Recycling is for the most part a pathetic joke, as having been costing us more energy and subsequently polluting in more ways than most of us can count, with only a few exceptions to that rule that which simply does not make up for the overall negative energy and subsequent pollution aspects of our all- inclusive recycling package. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_of_oil_equivalent 1 barrel = 5.8e6 BTU @59°F equals 6.118e9 J, or about 1.7 MW.h Figure at best roughly 50% efficiency, as that's worth 850 kw.h If it were all going into your Hummer, figure 12.5% or 213 kw.h Some of the folks I've worked for and of many others I know of couldn't hardly survive on less than an equivalent barrel worth of crude oil energy per hour. Go figure how their life style needs 168 fold as much energy as myself. In other words, we can use all the spare hydro-electric, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy we can get, plus He3 fusion if possible. > Willie.Moo/(aka William Mook) > Well I'm working on some synfuel plants right now. Once that is > underway I will do some acquisitions in the US. I am not seeking > outside investors or participation. Synfuels such as h2o2 have been a done deal for better than a century (H2O2 was discovered in 1818), that is unless there's no ongoing incentive or honest considerations for the new and improved ICE of dual fuel injected and of a one-cycle format that'll safely utilize such an energy rich fluid as h2o2, along with a little conventional fossil fuel or whatever other synfuel that'll create the absolute minimum CO2 and zilch or zero NOx. All other conventional ICEs that'll burn whatever fuel along with our mostly N2 atmosphere are going to get relatively poor empg, as well as keep polluting at maximum levels of CO2 and NOx, plus unavoidably contributing many other nasty byproducts in their birth-to-grave (aka all inclusive) energy cycle. Even utilizing H2+atmosphere is not going to entirely save our badly failing environment that's going to be continually getting hotter because of what the basic laws of physics has to do with any planet having recently obtained such a horrific mascon of a nearby moon, that's orbiting its mostly fluid planet just fast enough as to keeping our inner planetology vary much alive and geothermally kicking. It seems the usenet anti-think-tank gauntlet of naysayism has been well enough polished to see your self, and this faith-based cultism that's in charge of keeping those mostly fossil fuels and yellowcake as spendy as possible, is thereby in charge of keeping our environment as polluted and every bit as lethal as possible, especially as we merge ourselves into WWIII on behalf of surviving their mostly semitic global energy domination quest. Of one fairly recent contribution on behalf of the makings and utilizing of h2o2: "Hydrogen Peroxide and Sugar" http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/peroxide.html Besides direct energy applied usage, there's lots of other nifty h2o2 applications that shouldn't go unnoticed, or under appreciated: http://www.h2o2.com/intro/faq.html In spite of what's being orchestrated and said about myself, I'm not the actual messenger from hell that's suggesting plain old H2 or LH2 should ever be excluded, as obviously H2, LH2 and LOx are each good to go as is, and as such should also be produced via clean energy along with the energy storage likes of aluminum and magnesium as derived from whatever's the cache of clean and renewable energy that's in surplus. However, for the average end-user of liquid fuels for our Hummers, SUVs and massive trucks that are typically 10X more macho/ overkill than necessary, is exactly where the usage of h2o2+fossil or h2o2+synfuel becomes one of our most viable alternatives, especially once all those birth-to-grave energy cards are turned face up. The H2 fuel cell form of energy for personal and light commercial transportation seems doable, although fairly complex, spendy as all get out and still somewhat birth-to-grave polluting once those pesky all-inclusive factors are taken fully into account. This doesn't in any way interpret as meaning that we should not have such H2 fuel cell powered cars, light SUV/trucks and even pocket utility grid modules of such clean energy derived via H2 and atmosphere, because we most certainly should. William Mook's planned use of H2 for extracting fossil oil is obviously another direct application that's nothing but a solid win-win for everyone's gipper, including mother nature's gipper. Of what we badly need is the likes of Mook's greatly improved terrestrial base of solar derived energy (though also including the likes of Buffett's wind, tidal and geothermal alternatives shouldn't be excluded or much less banished) that'll fit rather nicely into our future needs without their imposing too much land or ocean usage that's otherwise needed as is. Mook's SBLs are clearly doable, especially if those were given a moon tethered platform that'll reach those SBLs safely to with 2r of mother Earth, as to safely operate from. The problem seems that folks much like yourself do not actually understand all that much of anything about our moon's L1, or much less of what such tethered configurations have to offer. Wouldn't you folks like to see this one in a fully interactive 3D simulation, such as produced by yet another one of those spendy Google/NOVA animation infomercial productions? (I most certainly would) - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 21 Oct 2007 16:52 On Oct 9, 8:27 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:29:44 GMT, Glen Walpert <gwalp...(a)notaxs.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:26:17 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:11:19 GMT, Glen Walpert <gwalp...(a)notaxs.com> > >>wrote: > > >>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:38 -0700, Fred Abse > >>><excretatau...(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. As long as it's being safely contained, it's good to go. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 21 Oct 2007 16:55 On Oct 8, 5:21 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 12:24 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > > wrote: > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > > > Why do you and/or why would Warren Buffett hate the truth and > > > > otherwise have such disdain against our badly failing environment? > > > > Why do you continue to post your lies and hatred? > > > Now that's our warm and fuzzy semitic Michael A. Terrell, isn't it. > > Another thing you have no clue about, but it doesn't stop you from > posting your usual ignorant drivel. The basic laws of physics and the best available science is drivel? (do tell) For accommodating each one of us American/westernised village idiots, and without my even getting this rant into various personal transportation, communications, lighting or HVAC considerations, whereas it unavoidably takes a lot of fossil crude oil, coal, natural gas and/or even yellowcake derived energy in order to commercially produce, transport, process, extra fancy package, further transport and eventually distribute the vast bulk of our food, the majority of which (50+% upon average) gets tossed out and/or disposed of for more than one good or bad reason or another. It's often worse off on the sorts of commercial/consumer inert goods that too often get hardly utilized at all before they get discarded or stored at something that's costing us more energy than they're worth, along with many of such inert items being energy consumers to boot. Recycling is for the most part a pathetic joke, as having been costing us more energy and subsequently polluting in more ways than most of us can count, with only a few exceptions to that rule which simply does not make up for the overall negative energy and subsequent pollution aspects of our all-inclusive recycling package. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_of_oil_equivalent 1 barrel = 5.8e6 BTU @59°F equals 6.118e9 J, or about 1.7 MW.h Figure at best roughly 50% efficiency, as that's worth 850 kw.h If it were all going into your Hummer, figure 12.5% or 213 kw.h Some of the folks I've worked for and of many others I know of couldn't hardly survive on less than an equivalent barrel worth of crude oil energy per hour. Go figure how their life style needs 168 fold as much energy as myself. In other words, we can use all the spare hydro-electric, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy we can get, plus He3 fusion if possible. > Willie.Moo/(aka William Mook) > Well I'm working on some synfuel plants right now. Once that is > underway I will do some acquisitions in the US. I am not seeking > outside investors or participation. Synfuels such as h2o2 have been a done deal for better than a century (H2O2 was discovered in 1818), that is unless there's no ongoing incentive or honest considerations for the new and improved ICE of dual fuel injected and of a one-cycle format that'll safely utilize such an energy rich fluid as h2o2, along with a little conventional fossil fuel or whatever other synfuel that'll create the absolute minimum CO2 and zilch or zero NOx. All other conventional ICEs that'll burn whatever fuel along with our mostly N2 atmosphere are going to get relatively poor empg, as well as keep polluting at maximum levels of CO2 and NOx, plus unavoidably contributing many other nasty byproducts in their birth-to-grave (aka all inclusive) energy cycle. Even utilizing H2+atmosphere is not going to entirely save our badly failing environment that's going to be continually getting hotter because of what the basic laws of physics has to do with any planet having recently obtained such a horrific mascon of a nearby moon, that's orbiting its mostly fluid planet just fast enough as to keeping our inner planetology vary much alive and geothermally kicking. It seems the usenet anti-think-tank gauntlet of naysayism has been well enough polished to see your self, and this faith-based cultism that's in charge of keeping those mostly fossil fuels and yellowcake as spendy as possible, is thereby in charge of keeping our environment as polluted and every bit as lethal as possible, especially as we merge ourselves into WWIII on behalf of surviving their mostly semitic global energy domination quest. Of one fairly recent contribution on behalf of the makings and utilizing of h2o2: "Hydrogen Peroxide and Sugar" http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/peroxide.html Besides direct energy applied usage, there's lots of other nifty h2o2 applications that shouldn't go unnoticed, or under appreciated: http://www.h2o2.com/intro/faq.html In spite of what's being orchestrated and said about myself, I'm not the actual messenger from hell that's suggesting plain old H2 or LH2 should ever be excluded, as obviously H2, LH2 and LOx are each good to go as is, and as such should also be produced via clean energy along with the energy storage likes of aluminum and magnesium as derived from whatever's the cache of clean and renewable energy that's in surplus. However, for the average end-user of liquid fuels for our Hummers, SUVs and massive trucks that are typically 10X more macho/ overkill than necessary, is exactly where the usage of h2o2+fossil or h2o2+synfuel becomes one of our most viable alternatives, especially once all those birth-to-grave energy cards are turned face up. The H2 fuel cell form of energy for personal and light commercial transportation seems doable, although fairly complex, spendy as all get out and still somewhat birth-to-grave polluting once those pesky all-inclusive factors are taken fully into account. This doesn't in any way interpret as meaning that we should not have such H2 fuel cell powered cars, light SUV/trucks and even pocket utility grid modules of such clean energy derived via H2 and atmosphere, because we most certainly should. William Mook's planned use of H2 for extracting fossil oil is obviously another direct application that's nothing but a solid win-win for everyone's gipper, including mother nature's gipper. Of what we badly need is the likes of Mook's greatly improved terrestrial base of solar derived energy (though also including the likes of Buffett's wind, tidal and geothermal alternatives shouldn't be excluded or much less banished) that'll fit rather nicely into our future needs without their imposing too much land or ocean usage that's otherwise needed as is. Mook's SBLs are clearly doable, especially if those were given a moon tethered platform that'll reach those SBLs safely to with 2r of mother Earth, as to safely operate from. The problem seems that folks much like yourself do not actually understand all that much of anything about our moon's L1, or much less of what such tethered configurations have to offer. Wouldn't you folks like to see this one in a fully interactive 3D simulation, such as produced by yet another one of those spendy Google/NOVA animation infomercial productions? (I most certainly would) - Brad Guth -
From: Michael A. Terrell on 21 Oct 2007 20:19 BradGuth wrote: > > On Oct 8, 5:21 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > wrote: > > BradGuth wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 12:24 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > > > wrote: > > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > > > > > Why do you and/or why would Warren Buffett hate the truth and > > > > > otherwise have such disdain against our badly failing environment? > > > > > > Why do you continue to post your lies and hatred? > > > > > Now that's our warm and fuzzy semitic Michael A. Terrell, isn't it. > > > > Another thing you have no clue about, but it doesn't stop you from > > posting your usual ignorant drivel. > > The basic laws of physics and the best available science is drivel? > (do tell) YAWN. Try to twist it all you want, loser. Every time you post, you add proof of your ignoarnce, and inability to tell the truth. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: BradGuth on 22 Oct 2007 04:56
On Oct 9, 10:18 am, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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. Our John Larken has issues with damn near everything under that sun which orbits is semitic flat Earth, and then some. - Brad Guth - |