[MooseFET]

Please don't feed the troll. Guth is a stupid freak, and
replying to him is pissing in the wind.

What I don't get is why he is spending all this time on H2O2. NeO4 is
harder to make and store but has a lot more energy per pound. If you
had a tank full of it, you could get 200MPG out of a Hummer.

 

[Duane C. Johnson]

Hi paradox137;

I read a report on a high density capacitor that
could be charged in 5 minutes and used as a battery
for a hybrid vehicle. On one charge the average
car could go 500 miles. Assuming no technical
problems this will be a life saver.

That's a big assumption!
Thy charge any EV for 500 miles of operation would
require very high charging power from the grid to do
it in 5 minutes.
It's ludicrous to think one will be able have the
required sub station in your back yard.
And you neighbors will each need one to.

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
[email protected] (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

 

[Eeyore]

No, there is a group claiming the same energy capacity as a lead acid
battery from a capacitor. So far, you need a microscope to see their
experimental unit. Unfortunately I don't remember the link.

You mean EEStor.

They've yet to make even a 'prototype'. I suspect they've misunderstood some basic
fundamentals about barium titanate dielectrics. Like their voltage coefficient !

It may simply be a scam.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Hi paradox137;



That's a big assumption!
Thy charge any EV for 500 miles of operation would
require very high charging power from the grid to do
it in 5 minutes.
It's ludicrous to think one will be able have the
required sub station in your back yard.
And you neighbors will each need one to.

That's the other side of the equation.

Such claims are utter bullshit for a miilion practical reasons like the one you
mention.

Graham

 

[bill]

How about a propane hybrid?

What I don't get is why he is spending all this time on H2O2. NeO4 is
harder to make and store but has a lot more energy per pound. If you
had a tank full of it, you could get 200MPG out of a Hummer.

Which part of "stupid freak" is confusing? he is simply obsessed
with h2o2, and will hear of no facts which contradict his lame plan.

 

[[email protected]]

I read a report on a high density capacitor that could be charged in 5
minutes and used as a battery for a hybrid vehicle. On one charge the
average car could go 500 miles. Assuming no technical problems this will
be a life saver.

Even if such a capacitor existed, Ohm's law, the basic equations for
a capacitor and a few calculations say this is bullshit unless you
are charging from a power substation with cables as big around as
your leg.

 

[Bill Ward]

What I don't get is why he is spending all this time on H2O2. NeO4 is
harder to make and store but has a lot more energy per pound. If you had
a tank full of it, you could get 200MPG out of a Hummer.

Wouldn't that be rated in square miles per gallon?

 

[John Larkin]

Propane and h2o2 is perfectly fine and dandy, as the given hybrid car,
suv or Hummer could manage to operate rather nicely on both at the
same time, because there's a lot of clean energy in h2o2/propane to
work with.
- Brad Guth -

Propane and air would be even better. Propane piston engines are very
clean and very reliable, rately even needing oil changes.

The shorter the aliphatic chain, the more energy is delivered by
hydrogen and the less delivered by carbon. Given that methane is kinda
hard to store, propane (C3H8) or butane (C4H10) are good choices, if
only we had an economical way to manufacture them.

H2O2 sounds like nasty, dangerous, expensive stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide#Hazards

"The saying is 'peroxides kill chemists'"


John

 

[John Larkin]

Are your intellectual status quo farts still unable to get out? Your
naysayism is very Third Reich, you know. All that you've suggested
was technically accomplished as of 200 years ago, or more.

The laws of physics and the best available science are 100% on my side
of this rant, including the one and only salvation of our badly
failing environment is what I'm proposing.

Our environment is not "badly failing." That makes for good TV news,
and political fund-raising, but it's not really happening.

Ah, you have The One And Only Answer to The Salvation of the Earth.
What's the word for that, messiah?

You and others of your
kind are proposing absolutely nothing other than to stay the sooty
fossil consuming and NOx + CO2 producing course. Is there a hidden
message somewhere within that mindset of yours?

Well, here are some not-hidden messages:

1. Climate has always changed.

2. Manmade CO2 hasn't been proven to be the cause of current warming,
if indeed there is unusual warming, beyond natural cycles.

3. If we are going to have more CO2 and higher temps, it's not
necessarily bad. It may well be good, on balance.

4. We *are* going to pump all the available oil and gas out of the
ground and burn it. Get used to that.

5. If we want to keep crud out of the air, we should avoid coal and
tar sands. The best available technology is nukes.

6. Solar PV may be economical some day, but there's still the energy
storage problem. Solar is far from free. Solar thermal generation is
absurd.

7. Electricity is far too valuable as electricity to waste it by
converting it at low efficiency into other energy storage media.

8. Petrochemicals are far too valuable as motor vehicle fuels and
chemical feedstocks to waste producing inefficient stuff like
hydrogen.

9. Things that work made it to the top of the heap because they work.

10. The engineering mindset is to design new things, but things that
work.

11. H2O2 is nasty, dangerous, expensive, silly stuff.


John

 

[John Larkin]

physics and math, pretty much works each and every time unless you're
stuck with having to use some hocus-pocus conditional physics that
doesn't take little pesky things like the actual truth into account.

64,000 teraWatts of terrestrial solar energy is conservative. There's
actually lots more solar energy that doesn't manage to get
sufficiently through our polluted plus somewhat wet and reflective
atmosphere, so perhaps as such it doesn't hardly count. Of orbital
physics that relates to working against the mutual pull of gravity is
exactly what it is. In the case of the Earth/moon consideration it's
worth roughly 2e20 joules per each and every second, and the last time
I'd checked there were still 3600 of them seconds per hour.
- Brad Guth -

How might one harness the moon's kinetic energy, other than tide
power?

What's the 2e20 joules/sec represent? How much the moon loses to tidal
forces, ocean tides and heating the earth/moon crusts?

Imagine a gigantic weight, mounted on springs, that wiggles around
roughly once a day, driven by the moon's gravitation. Couple that
motion to a generator. Do the math.

Of course, we'd eventually slow down the moon, and it would start
clipping off the tops of mountains and cell-phone towers.

John

 

[Robert Adsett]

My.

So I take it Brad can live without the nutrients and oxygen generated by
the ecosystem's use of the sun's energy?

'Earth Moon energy' is another of Brad's psychotic delusions.

Well, there is energy in the orbital system and some tidal power systems
have been built to extract some. Even if it were possible you wouldn't
want to take a significant fraction of the energy out of the system.
Imagine the consequences!

Robert

 

[Jim Thompson]

My.

So I take it Brad can live without the nutrients and oxygen generated by
the ecosystem's use of the sun's energy?


Well, there is energy in the orbital system and some tidal power systems
have been built to extract some. Even if it were possible you wouldn't
want to take a significant fraction of the energy out of the system.
Imagine the consequences!

Robert

"Imagine" is not in Brad's capabilities. He's just a parrot of the
science fiction magazines.

...Jim Thompson

 

[BradGuth]

How might one harness the moon's kinetic energy, other than tide
power?

Via the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element should give us access to some
small percentage of that energy without causing great harm, such as
pulling that moon towards Earth might be worth avoiding, especially
since it's way too damn close for our own good as it is.

BTW, it's not actually orbital kinetic energy, but more like the raw
energy of gravity and centripetal related force that's available, as
well as to whatever differential of teraVoltage and available amps of
electron flow that's worth extracting, and of course that's in
addition to whatever's solar and moon combined IR that should also be
impressive.

What's the 2e20 joules/sec represent?

The kgf that's converted into terrestrial surface joules worth of what
such a 7.35e22 kg orb that's being summarily flung about Earth, as
though on the end of an impressive string, that's clearly offset by
the mutual gravity of attraction. Obviously all that push-pull and
centripetal energy is going somewhere.

How much the moon loses to tidal
forces, ocean tides and heating the earth/moon crusts?

I believe the greater tidal force of the sun is actually in charge,
and if anything the moon is simply in the process of gaining energy as
extracted from Earth, not losing it. If it were losing energy it
would be getting closer to us, not further away. So, perhaps just
that alone is worth our tapping into.

Imagine a gigantic weight, mounted on springs, that wiggles around
roughly once a day, driven by the moon's gravitation. Couple that
motion to a generator. Do the math.

That's true enough, as representing multiple teraWatts of perfectly
clean energy that's just going to waste. My LSE-CM/ISS and of its
dipole element might rather easily take some of that give and take
motion into account.

Of course, we'd eventually slow down the moon, and it would start
clipping off the tops of mountains and cell-phone towers.

By then we'd be using the moon itself as a cell-phone tower platform
and just as likely living within the moon, although by then it would
be a good billion years past the time of our having extracted the very
last drop of oil or kg worth of any other nasty fossil fuel, including
yellowcake being in damn short supply, there will no longer be any
terrestrial magnetosphere, and our sun would be measurably starting in
on it's red giant phase. So what's the difference?

BTW, I'd first relocate our moon's orbit out to being interactively
halo parked within Earth's L1, thereby obtaining 3~3.5% worth of solar
isolation, so that such cell-phone tower clipping shouldn't ever get
to be a problem.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

The conspiracy is you claiming to know anything, like those phony
bastards who claim to be war vets, but never served.

You keep spouting off about 'the regular laws of physics' The only
physic you're familiar with is a laxative, which is 'the irregular laws
of physics'


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell

MY goodness, another silly Yid like mindset of naysayism that's going
usenet postal, instead of simply looking on the positive/constructive
bright side of things.
- Brad Guth -

 

[Jim Thompson]

Via the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element should give us access to some
small percentage of that energy without causing great harm, such as
pulling that moon towards Earth might be worth avoiding, especially
since it's way too damn close for our own good as it is.

BTW, it's not actually orbital kinetic energy, but more like the raw
energy of gravity and centripetal related force that's available, as
well as to whatever differential of teraVoltage and available amps of
electron flow that's worth extracting, and of course that's in
addition to whatever's solar and moon combined IR that should also be
impressive.

The kgf that's converted into terrestrial surface joules worth of what
such a 7.35e22 kg orb that's being summarily flung about Earth, as
though on the end of an impressive string, that's clearly offset by
the mutual gravity of attraction. Obviously all that push-pull and
centripetal energy is going somewhere.


I believe the greater tidal force of the sun is actually in charge,
and if anything the moon is simply in the process of gaining energy as
extracted from Earth, not losing it. If it were losing energy it
would be getting closer to us, not further away. So, perhaps just
that alone is worth our tapping into.


That's true enough, as representing multiple teraWatts of perfectly
clean energy that's just going to waste. My LSE-CM/ISS and of its
dipole element might rather easily take some of that give and take
motion into account.


By then we'd be using the moon itself as a cell-phone tower platform
and just as likely living within the moon, although by then it would
be a good billion years past the time of our having extracted the very
last drop of oil or kg worth of any other nasty fossil fuel, including
yellowcake being in damn short supply, there will no longer be any
terrestrial magnetosphere, and our sun would be measurably starting in
on it's red giant phase. So what's the difference?

BTW, I'd first relocate our moon's orbit out to being interactively
halo parked within Earth's L1, thereby obtaining 3~3.5% worth of solar
isolation, so that such cell-phone tower clipping shouldn't ever get
to be a problem.
- Brad Guth -

So stop just running off at the mouth and build a demo model.

If you're right, you'll be a hero.

If you're wrong, you'll be a laughing-stock... in other words, no
change from right now ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

MY goodness, another silly Yid like mindset of naysayism that's going
usenet postal, instead of simply looking on the positive/constructive
bright side of things.
- Brad Guth -

It doth seem like every other word out of you mouth is anti-Semitic.

What's your problem? Inadequacy? Little pecker ?

...Jim Thompson

 

[John Larkin]

Via the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element should give us access to some
small percentage of that energy without causing great harm, such as
pulling that moon towards Earth might be worth avoiding, especially
since it's way too damn close for our own good as it is.

OMG, tethers now!

BTW, it's not actually orbital kinetic energy, but more like the raw
energy of gravity and centripetal related force

Force isn't energy. Gravity isn't energy. Only energy is energy. We
don't seem to be making progress here.

that's available, as
well as to whatever differential of teraVoltage and available amps of
electron flow that's worth extracting, and of course that's in
addition to whatever's solar and moon combined IR that should also be
impressive.

The kgf that's converted into terrestrial surface joules worth of what
such a 7.35e22 kg orb that's being summarily flung about Earth, as
though on the end of an impressive string, that's clearly offset by
the mutual gravity of attraction. Obviously all that push-pull and
centripetal energy is going somewhere.


I believe the greater tidal force of the sun is actually in charge,
and if anything the moon is simply in the process of gaining energy as
extracted from Earth, not losing it. If it were losing energy it
would be getting closer to us, not further away. So, perhaps just
that alone is worth our tapping into.

You didn't answer my question: What does 2e20 joules/sec (what we dumb
engineers would call "watts") represent? How is that number arrived
at?

That's true enough, as representing multiple teraWatts of perfectly
clean energy that's just going to waste. My LSE-CM/ISS and of its
dipole element might rather easily take some of that give and take
motion into account.

My proposal was sarcastic. You'd have seen that instantly if you could
do the math.

John

 

[Eeyore]

By then we'd be ........likely living within the moon

Brad's detachment from reality is something to behold !

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

MY goodness, another silly Yid like mindset of naysayism

Yid? Jewish scientists and inventors have been instrumental in
changing the world.

John

 

[bill]

Propane and air would be even better. Propane piston engines are very
clean and very reliable, rately even needing oil changes.

The shorter the aliphatic chain, the more energy is delivered by
hydrogen and the less delivered by carbon. Given that methane is kinda
hard to store, propane (C3H8) or butane (C4H10) are good choices, if
only we had an economical way to manufacture them.

H2O2 sounds like nasty, dangerous, expensive stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide#Hazards

"The saying is 'peroxides kill chemists'"

John

now you've done it, you have blasphemed about guth's god of h2o2,
any mention of the serious and severe dangers with handling,
manufacture and storage of high purity h2o2 provoke full armed
responses from that particular stupid freak.