Methinks you're another brown-noed minion of the Third Reich, or
perhaps of something far worse since you folks continually claim to
know all there is to know, and then some.
- Brad Guth -
Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the
ENVIRONMENT, we can't worry about filty lucre.
What are you, a greedy Republican?
Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's
why we need visionaries like Al Gore, bold men
not afraid to take on the special interests, leading
by example.
BradGuthwrote:
I suggest you find out the frontal area and drag coefficient of a Hummer, plus its
weight and rolling resistance.
If you had the ability to do the required 'sums' I'm sure you'll find that the power
required to propel it under a typical driving regime will never allow '100 mpg' or its
equivalent. Ditto for 200 mpg and the Volt.
BradGuth said:Double ditto right back at you, as I've been there and done that.
Methinks you're another brown-noed minion of the Third Reich, or
perhaps of something far worse since you folks continually claim to
know all there is to know, and then some.
- Brad Guth -
It very obvious you haven't.
Let's just say that you are not providing us with any breakthrough,
startlingly "new" information, dumbass.
I agree. What else is our government good for, if not to impress us
with all of it's wizardly expertise and can-do mindset.
-
The all electric car is technically doable,
although having even a
small onboard ICE for the minimal cruising needs of sustaining 60+ mph
might represent a good compromise, especially if it's contributing
zero NOx and minimal CO2 at a hybrid usage of 200 empg per fossil fuel
usage.
The Electric Car / sci.electronics.design
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/2bfee708dee351b9?
Double ditto right back at you, as I've been there and done that. Of
course double-ditto-duh once again, as it's hybrid city or local
commute empg, and having replaced our mostly N2 atmosphere with that
robust fluid of h2o2, so that we obtain the most clean energy and best
amount of bang per gallon of whatever fossil or biofuel, is actually
accomplished within existing physics and doable technology.
I believe the mass ratio is something like roughly 7:1 up to 7.2:1 for
h2o2/c12h26 (hydrogen peroxide / kerosene or RP-1), a little better on
certain heavier fuel oils such as diesel No.2 and perhaps nearly as
good enough with plain old gasoline, and a bit worse off with certain
biofuels, though all dual fuel injected and 100% computer controlled
(of course), so that your little zero NOx engine for that hybrid
Hummer or GM Volt can safely mix and match to almost any combination
of fossil and biofuels as your heart desires.
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
We're also talking about a fairly small radial turbine or some other
rotary efficient engine that's driving a direct coupled high speed
alternator. I suppose you've got those insurmountable problems with
that as well.
What's your sorry excuse for being such an all-knowing naysay stick in
the mud?
- Brad Guth -
That is true, because those related laws of physics certainly haven't
changed, and there's not really any new and improved science from the
past few decades.
In other words, the h2o2 + whatever fuel combinations are still the
same, still capable of offering a zero NOx and minimal CO2 exhaust,
and still capable of getting 100 empg on behalf of that hybrid Hummer,
or 200 empg from that GM Volt. Just exactly like the clean energy
extracted from the sun, wind or whatever hydroelectrics including
tidal derived energy is still representing the same old clean and
renewable energy on behalf of delivering multiple teraWatts (as many
as you'd like), just as it was capable of accomplishing such as of
decades ago.
BradGuth said:See above, and comprehend. Or is that asking too much?
BradGuth said:That is true, because those related laws of physics certainly haven't
changed, and there's not really any new and improved science from the
past few decades.
In other words, the h2o2 + whatever fuel combinations are still the
same, still capable of offering a zero NOx and minimal CO2 exhaust,
and still capable of getting 100 empg on behalf of that hybrid Hummer,
or 200 empg from that GM Volt.
Where are the calculations ?
100 mpg Hummers are simply NOT possible.
Conventional piston engines don't make obnoxious amounts of nitrogen
oxides. Seems to me that H2O2 is an awfully inefficient way to get
oxygen, when it's free for the asking all around us.
H2O2 is a damned expensive way to transport oxygen. And aluminum is a
damned expensive way to transport electricity.
Explain to us what is the relationship between H2O2 and all those
terawatts of clean, cheap energy. Since we're engineers, some numbers
would be appreciated.
Wild idea breakthroughs are a staple around here. The burden of proof
is on the presenter, to explain why it might work and then to explain
why it isn't already being done. Sorry, conspiracy theories are not
accepted.
[snip]The all electric car is technically doable, although having even a
small onboard ICE for the minimal cruising needs of sustaining 60+ mph
might represent a good compromise, especially if it's contributing
zero NOx and minimal CO2 at a hybrid usage of 200 empg per fossil fuel
usage.
And the creation of H2O2 is done precisely how, again?
Clearly this is the fuel of the future (if one can deal
with the fact that it's highly explosive, but that's a
technical detail), but can neither be harvested from plants
nor extracted from minerals without some sort of process.
I'd like to know the details thereof, if you don't mind.
I've posted such numbers dozens of times, and your PC or MAC can
otherwise search for and thus uncover all the fancy numbers you'd care
to review. However, from time to time I'll edit and thereby revise
upon a given application.
What is it about the clean and renewable 40 kw/m2 of a given tower
footprint of solar and wind derived energy do you not understand?
If not for the makings of h2o2 and aluminum, what else would you smart
folks do with a spare teraWatt of energy?
How else would you go about burning coal at it's peak efficiency
without water, at minimal CO2 and without causing NOx?
BTW, here's a wild idea breakthrough:
A piston engine of 4 cycles is about as mechanically inefficient of an
IC enigne as it gets, and the burning of a mostly N2 atmosphere is
every bit as dumbfounded physics on steroids as it gets, and the last
time I'd checked that's no conspiracy theory.
MooseFET said:At 15 MPH with tires so hard they ring, it is.
The main problem with the Hummer on the highway is that it is less
streamlined than a brick.
OK, refresh my memory: if we convert aluminum oxide to metallic
aluminum by electrolytic smelting, and convert the aluminum back to
electricity in a Al-H2O2 battery, what's the net efficiency?
And for each KWH of delivered energy, how much H2O2 do we need, how
much did it cost, and how much energy did it take to make it?
Tower footprints can be arbitrarily small; it's what's hung on the top
of the tower that costs.
Energy is not measured in terawatts. And I'm not aware of any "spare"
power of terawatt magnitude. If we had terawatts of clean, cheap
"spare" power, why wouldn't we use it to power the electric grid,
saving a lot of coal and natural gas?
Piston engines haven't changes fundamentally in 100 years, despite
lots of challenges from turbines, Sterling monstrosities, various
weird rotary engines, steam, fuel cells, whatever. That's pretty
impressive. Still pistons, rings, cranks, cams, poppet valves, spark
plugs.
BradGuth said:I've posted such numbers dozens of times
John said:OK, refresh my memory: if we convert aluminum oxide to metallic
aluminum by electrolytic smelting, and convert the aluminum back to
electricity in a Al-H2O2 battery, what's the net efficiency?
Then god forbid, don't you folks dare change a damn thing, as there's
still ice to melt and our frail environment to trash according to your
original plan.
- Brad Guth -
