The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Sep 2007 09:48 BradGuth wrote: > 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 Your arrant stupidity is truly a marvel to behold. Graham
From: BradGuth on 3 Sep 2007 09:57 On Sep 1, 3:03 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Sevenhundred Elves wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > Sevenhundred Elves 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. > > > > 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. Until just now, I never once stipulated "free h2o2". However, at $.01/kwhr it's not going to be all that spendy, and our government has all the spare loot they can print, in that h2o2 could become provived nearly as free as water. Warren Buffet, Willie Moo and myself will provide all the necessary spare TeraWatts if we're given the same insider perks and offshore benefits as afforded to the likes of Exxon or of those insider friends of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) and company. If all else fails, I have a fossil and yellowcake fuel excise tax plan that'll cover everything, and then some. I also have methods of funding on behalf of accomplishing most everything else I've suggested. Of course, I'd have to be put in charge. - Brad Guth
From: Eeyore on 3 Sep 2007 10:42 BradGuth wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > > > > He believes science means you can get 'free' h202. > > Until just now, I never once stipulated "free h2o2". You might as well have. Your h2o2 ideas are plain STUPID ! You'd be better off with a cylinder of pure oxygen. Graham
From: BradGuth on 3 Sep 2007 13:51 On Sep 3, 7:42 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > > > > He believes science means you can get 'free' h202. > > > Until just now, I never once stipulated "free h2o2". > > You might as well have. > > Your h2o2 ideas are plain STUPID ! > > You'd be better off with a cylinder of pure oxygen. That too might become a good enough idea, except for the required tankage and the equally nasty if not worse off what-ifs. BTW, it also takes energy in order to produce, inventory and distribute pure O2, though less spendy amounts of energy than h2o2. In addition to whatever renewable energy that's in surplus which can be diverted into making the likes of LH2, LOx and h2o2 (you pick), we're currently pillaging and raping mother Earth's oceans for a nifty tally of extracting 100 million tonnes/year of seafood (that's not including global sport fishing or subsistence fishing), and since we've created such a good number and ever expanding volumes of ocean dead zones, whereas such I was wondering how much biofuel could be made from extracting a billion tonnes worth of jellyfish. - Brad Guth
From: BradGuth on 3 Sep 2007 14:18
On Sep 1, 7:12 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...(a)elves.invalid> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In addition to what I'd previously contributed on behalf of using h2o2, there's also a little something positive and thus constructive to being said about the renewable energy going into biofuel production. Therefore, of whatever renewable energy that's in surplus which can just as easily become diverted into making the likes of LH2, LOx and h2o2 (you pick), we're currently pillaging and raping mother Earth's oceans for a nifty tally of extracting 100 million tonnes/year of seafood (that's not including global sport and subsistence fishing), and since we've artificially via our CO2, NOx and various other toxins having created such a good number and ever expanding volumes of ocean dead zones, whereas such I was wondering how much biofuel could be obtained from extracting and processing a billion tonnes worth of jellyfish. - Brad Guth |