The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 1 Sep 2007 13:48 On Aug 31, 6:00 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > "rlbell.ns...(a)gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There are only two ways to produce useful amounts of LH2 and H2O2, > > > economically-- new coal generation and new nuclear generation. While > > > I personally want the latter, thanks to wrongheaded environmentalists, > > > the former is more likely. > > > Have you not heard of Warren Buffet or Willie Moo? > > > If that's not good enough, I've got energy footprints of 40 kw/m2. > > Energy is NOT measuered in kW ! > > Graham Then measure it in joules worth of flatulence or whatever you like. It's still roughly 100 fold better energy density per terrestrial surface m2 than your typical all-inclusive (aka birth to grave) worth of nuclear derived energy. - Brad Guth
From: Eeyore on 1 Sep 2007 18:03 Sevenhundred Elves wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > > > > Sevenhundred Elves wrote: > > > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > > > > > > > Up to 1000 shp of hybrid energy under that Hummer hood should do a > > > > > little better than 15 mph. > > > > > > > > You're a Grade-A IDIOT ! > > > > > > Please, such comments are of no use at all. > > > > They're as much use as any other response where 'Brad Gruth' is concerned. > > > > > > > Instead, what Brad needs to understand is that there are some major > > > flaws in his plan to make H2O2 in the vehicle while it is on the road. > > > > > > The flaw that's easiest to point out is this: > > > > > > It takes energy to convert water to H2O2, and this energy would have to > > > be brought along in the car somehow. But if you already have a way of > > > bringing the energy along, it is an unnecessary complication to use it > > > to convert water to H2O2 and then use that H2O2 to fuel the car. It > > > would be easier and more energy-efficient to use that stored energy to > > > fuel the car directly. > > > > Your mistake is to assume the 'Brad Gruth' gives a damn about any of the above > > or even remotely cares about the science. He doesn't. I (along with many others) > > have tried to understand his ideas and explain his errors but quite simply he > > doesn't care. He is wedded to his stupid h2o2 ideas (and the 1000hp Hummer) come > > rain or shine. > > I can, of course, only hope that he cares to ponder what I said above. > > Brad, did you read it, and did you find it has any bearing on your > ideas? See his responses. He believes science means you can get 'free' h202. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Sep 2007 18:38 BradGuth wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Your mistake is to assume the 'Brad Gruth' gives a damn about any of the above > > or even remotely vares about the science. He doesn't. I (along with many others) > > have tried to understand his ideas and explain his errors but quite simply he > > doesn't care. He is wedded to his stupid h2o2 ideas (and the 1000hp Hummer) come > > rain or shine. > > > In other words, you and others of your naysay kind don't believe in > the regular laws of physics or in the best available science. We > understand, perfectly. You're using the 'royal we' now are you, you charlatan ? Graham
From: Sevenhundred Elves on 1 Sep 2007 22:12 BradGuth wrote: > On Aug 31, 6:43 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...(a)elves.invalid> > wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > >BradGuthwrote: > > > > > > Up to 1000 shp of hybrid energy under that Hummer hood should do a > > > > little better than 15 mph. > > > > > You're a Grade-A IDIOT ! > > > > Please, such comments are of no use at all. > > > > Instead, what Brad needs to understand is that there are some major > > flaws in his plan to make H2O2 in the vehicle while it is on the road. > > ??? "on the road" ??? (are you nuts?) No. Frankly, I thought YOU were. Some of the things you have said in this forum... Well, let's just say they don't fall within the scope of polite debate. But if you don't intend to make the H2O2 while you drive, why would you find it necessary to have a chemical plant in your car? Let the gas stations sell it instead. Makes for a lighter car. > > > > The flaw that's easiest to point out is this: > > > > It takes energy to convert water to H2O2, and this energy would have to > > be brought along in the car somehow. But if you already have a way of > > bringing the energy along, it is an unnecessary complication to use it > > to convert water to H2O2 and then use that H2O2 to fuel the car. It > > would be easier and more energy-efficient to use that stored energy to > > fuel the car directly. > > > > S. > > My goodness, naysayism is taken to a new and improved level, of your > being dumb and dumber (aka dumbfounded) way past the point of no > possible return. Even your out-of-context is out of context. Good > grief, are you not from Earth? > - Brad Guth Please, tell me again what problems you aim to solve with your proposed use of H2O2. I believe one valid point of it is to reduce the amount of nitrous compounds in the exhaust. What else do you have? S.
From: BradGuth on 3 Sep 2007 09:41
On Sep 1, 3:38 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Your mistake is to assume the 'Brad Gruth' gives a damn about any of the above > > > or even remotely vares about the science. He doesn't. I (along with many others) > > > have tried to understand his ideas and explain his errors but quite simply he > > > doesn't care. He is wedded to his stupid h2o2 ideas (and the 1000hp Hummer) come > > > rain or shine. > > > In other words, you and others of your naysay kind don't believe in > > the regular laws of physics or in the best available science. We > > understand, perfectly. > > You're using the 'royal we' now are you, you charlatan ? > > Graham I'd rather be an honest "charlatan" than whatever else makes you folks happy campers. I'd hate to think I'm getting a brown nose like yourself. Perhaps you can explain how a nearly 30% inert GLOW with merely a 60:1 ratio of rocket to payload can so quickly get nearly 50 tonnes into orbiting our moon. I can understand getting perhaps as much as 25 tonnes into lunar orbit, but that's not what supposedly happened. Unless it was just their robotic picture taking portion that orbited our moon, especially since that much was then and still is doable to photograph, process that film, scan and transmit such nifty images back to Earth. - Brad Guth |