[[email protected]]

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

39:36 -0700, bill wrote:
[about LOX, H2O2, etc.]
...
I don't know if such a thing would really work, or
what its
effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool
idea. I might make tinkering with it a winter project.

You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the
O2.

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the
intake and compression strokes are for.

Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet
they'd ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel;
you might need a lot of energy to make a spark through it,
however.

Liquids don't ignite.



If you are so very sure about, that i suggest that you try
mixing unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red fuming
nitric acid
(RFNA) (glacial). Take very serious precautions and read the
relevant MSDS before making the attempt.

Do you understand the difference between combustion and a
chemical reaction?

I thought not.

How about you lookup hypergolic reactions? TWIT! You were given
sufficient to learn better for yourself, but no you just attack.

Please list any land vehicles whose internal combustion engines run
on hypergolic reactions.

I do not know of any. But there are plenty of space vehicles that use
this combination, precisely because it is a hypergolic pair. The one
step upline issue was can liquids burn? These do.

Actually, the issue was liquids burning in an internal combustion
engine.

 

[[email protected]]

Show us some links to some such facilities. Nothing like that could be
done off the public record.

John

Haha.. actually that's what I thought. But it appears that the US
media has a few blind spots in their unflinching eye. lol.

A five page article appeared in Trust Magazine in Jakarta August 2006,
when we signed the deal. And there is a strong continuing interest in
Asian press. But there seems to be a disconnect between Asian and
Western press. I was invited to New York City and was interviewed by
reporters for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. And
articles were written. However, editors wouldn't run them. In time,
the reporters moved on seeking to get their name in print.

I did get a copy of A GAME AS OLD AS EMPIRE by Hiatt, from one of the
reporters which describes in one of the sections how stories get
canned from time to time

http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp#7
http://www.bni.co.id/Portals/0/Document/Coal.pdf

Page 5 of the .pdf file describes briefly what I'm doing under COAL
LIQUEFACTION PRODUCTION INDONESIA.

Now, I had a few websites and thought I could put information out
there. But upon review I decided to drop the whole marketing thing
when the project financing approach worked so well. After all, I'm
not selling equipment or facilities. I'm selling commodities. How I
make them doesn't really interest those who are buying them.

Now, the risks involved are important to evaluate, but as long as
excution risk is equal to or less than discovery risk in a more
conventional development, that's acceptable to the investors I'm
working with.

At present I'm dealing with people who are willing to make rather
large bets to solve some big resource problems and this technology
looks interesting to them since it has the potential to do that and
provide for the needs they've outlined for themselves.

As far as the other programs are concerned, UAE is even less
forthcoming and less connected to the Western media engine than
Indonesia! lol. The Palms and similar developments
notwithstanding.

But in all cases as I mentioned folks are interested in solving major
resource problems and are willing to make big bets to do that.

Indonesia is an OPEC country, and the very first OPEC country to run
out of oil. They entered secondary -that is declining - production in
2004 and those folks who invest in oil field exploration and
development for OPEC nations were willing to do something out of the
box to increase the oil reserves of Indonesia. This is one of many
solutions they're working on, though I think mine the best.

Australia is in the grip of a drought and is spending billions on
increasing their water supplies. I was asked by an Aussie who read
the articles in the Asian press could I do something about making
water with sunlight. As a result I designed a thermal version of my
system. And I proposed to a group of investors a method of using
solar energy to drive a multi-stage flash evaporator that delivers not
only fresh water, but salt also. These investors agreed to my build-
own-operate facilities model. They pre-purchased the entire output of
a facility I am now building in Australia at a discount, and agreed to
pay a small continuing fee for water as its produced.

I'll be in Sydney in a few weeks, you'll likely see more in the press
at that time.

UAE oil output is slowing though still increasing. The quality of
oil, which is the highest in the Middle East, is dipping slightly.
These are both indicators that UAE may be the next OPEC nation to
enter secondary production sometime in the near future.

UAE has oodles of sunlight. So, it makes sense for UAE to use sunlight
to desalinate seawater from the Persian Gulf for use by that nation,
and then produce hydrogen from some of the distilled water, and use
that solar hydrogen locally in lieu of residual oil and natural gas
they're now burning to provide electricity for their nation. The UAE
installation will also use additional hydrogen to upgrade residual oil
to gasoline. This increases the value of exported fuel since a
barrel of gasoline is worth about $32 more than a barrel of residual
oil, and at present 44% of all the oil produced in that country is
residual oil. The stranded residual oil is upgraded and exported also
as is the natural gas which is liquified and exported since hydrogen
is displacing both in country. Eventually as oil output declines,
liquified hydrogen shipments will be offered to the market - but
hydrogen sales are not critical since the oil upgrades will have paid
for everything (in fact have already paid for everything) Since
sunlight will continue to fall on UAE long after the oil is depleted,
creating a liquid hydrogen tanker system fed by seawater and sunlight
will serve UAE for a long long time. Since reduction of residual oil
will impact the fuel oil markets, these will be the ones that will be
targeted for early adoption of LNG and later LH shipments.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gosh, I bet you get more wingnuts than we do!

Don't forget all the left hand threaded lugnuts. They are even
worse.

--
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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

I give you refrigerator magnets, and that's the thanks I get.

Now all he needs is for someone to give him a refrigerator.


--
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

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:36:40 -0700, Willie.Mookie wrote:

...> Approximately half the volume of a crystalline wafer is lost during

...

Whatever happened to "edge-defined film growth"? That's where they
pull a flat ribbon of silicon from the melt, and then just use
it "sideways".

Obviously, it's unfeasible for one reason or another - anybody
know those reasons?

Thanks,
Rich

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/silicon.html

The DOE and others are doing research on this topic.

It all has to do with large scale ordering. A crystal has large scale
order. Something like glass or a mixture of tiny crystalline
particles, does not. The crystalline structure has huge advantages in
the efficiently moving electrical energy around. When folks try to
coat a substrate with silicon they can't for one reason or another,get
a pure crystalline structure with long period order. They get either
glassy material, or what is known as polycrystalline structures.
These either don't work, or don't work well enough to be worth the
effort.

Yet.

My approach is to create a low cost super-performing lans array that
works with expensive mono-crystalline solar cells operating at high
intensity. In this way I reduce costs to less than $0.07 per peak
watt.

Should this sort of process lower the cost of solar panels, it won't
hurt me. Because I can install the new low cost PV into my system,
and reduce costs further. That's because my low cost lens system is
dramatically lower cost than anything else out there.

The cost of monocrystalline silicon wafers are about $1 per square
inch. A 200 micron thick sheet of PET can cover over 4 square yards
for $1. (I use precision molded PET ultrasoncially bonded in a water
bath to create large lens arrays) This is a 5,000 to 1 cost
advantage.

Lets say edge defined film reduces the cost by a factor of 20 - so we
get a square inch for 5 cents. This reduces the cost per watt of
conventional panels to perhaps $1 per watt. But it cuts my costs in
about half - to $0.04 per peak watt.

 

[John Larkin]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/silicon.html

The DOE and others are doing research on this topic.

It all has to do with large scale ordering. A crystal has large scale
order. Something like glass or a mixture of tiny crystalline
particles, does not. The crystalline structure has huge advantages in
the efficiently moving electrical energy around. When folks try to
coat a substrate with silicon they can't for one reason or another,get
a pure crystalline structure with long period order. They get either
glassy material, or what is known as polycrystalline structures.
These either don't work, or don't work well enough to be worth the
effort.

Yet.

My approach is to create a low cost super-performing lans array that
works with expensive mono-crystalline solar cells operating at high
intensity. In this way I reduce costs to less than $0.07 per peak
watt.

Should this sort of process lower the cost of solar panels, it won't
hurt me. Because I can install the new low cost PV into my system,
and reduce costs further. That's because my low cost lens system is
dramatically lower cost than anything else out there.

The cost of monocrystalline silicon wafers are about $1 per square
inch. A 200 micron thick sheet of PET can cover over 4 square yards
for $1. (I use precision molded PET ultrasoncially bonded in a water
bath to create large lens arrays) This is a 5,000 to 1 cost
advantage.

Lets say edge defined film reduces the cost by a factor of 20 - so we
get a square inch for 5 cents. This reduces the cost per watt of
conventional panels to perhaps $1 per watt. But it cuts my costs in
about half - to $0.04 per peak watt.

Got patents?

John

 

[BradGuth]

[email protected] posted to sci.electronics.design:







If you do not like the reception you get here do not post here.
Nobody here is forcing you to post here.

The reception here usenet naysay land is exactly what I'd expect from
such a cesspool of Yids or pretend Atheists. I'm just glad that I can
return the warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I
and my trusty battery of lose cannons can muster.

What part of humanity and that of our frail environment are you folks
planning upon screwing today?
- Brad Guth -

 

[John Larkin]

Haha.. actually that's what I thought. But it appears that the US
media has a few blind spots in their unflinching eye. lol.

A five page article appeared in Trust Magazine in Jakarta August 2006,
when we signed the deal. And there is a strong continuing interest in
Asian press. But there seems to be a disconnect between Asian and
Western press. I was invited to New York City and was interviewed by
reporters for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. And
articles were written. However, editors wouldn't run them. In time,
the reporters moved on seeking to get their name in print.

I did get a copy of A GAME AS OLD AS EMPIRE by Hiatt, from one of the
reporters which describes in one of the sections how stories get
canned from time to time

http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp#7
http://www.bni.co.id/Portals/0/Document/Coal.pdf

Page 5 of the .pdf file describes briefly what I'm doing under COAL
LIQUEFACTION PRODUCTION INDONESIA.

20 million barrels of solar-powered coal-oil conversion per day, by
2011? I'll check back and see how you're doing.

Now, I had a few websites and thought I could put information out
there. But upon review I decided to drop the whole marketing thing
when the project financing approach worked so well. After all, I'm
not selling equipment or facilities. I'm selling commodities. How I
make them doesn't really interest those who are buying them.

Now, the risks involved are important to evaluate, but as long as
excution risk is equal to or less than discovery risk in a more
conventional development, that's acceptable to the investors I'm
working with.

At present I'm dealing with people who are willing to make rather
large bets to solve some big resource problems and this technology
looks interesting to them since it has the potential to do that and
provide for the needs they've outlined for themselves.

As far as the other programs are concerned, UAE is even less
forthcoming and less connected to the Western media engine than
Indonesia! lol. The Palms and similar developments
notwithstanding.

But in all cases as I mentioned folks are interested in solving major
resource problems and are willing to make big bets to do that.

Indonesia is an OPEC country, and the very first OPEC country to run
out of oil. They entered secondary -that is declining - production in
2004 and those folks who invest in oil field exploration and
development for OPEC nations were willing to do something out of the
box to increase the oil reserves of Indonesia. This is one of many
solutions they're working on, though I think mine the best.

Australia is in the grip of a drought and is spending billions on
increasing their water supplies. I was asked by an Aussie who read
the articles in the Asian press could I do something about making
water with sunlight. As a result I designed a thermal version of my
system. And I proposed to a group of investors a method of using
solar energy to drive a multi-stage flash evaporator that delivers not
only fresh water, but salt also. These investors agreed to my build-
own-operate facilities model. They pre-purchased the entire output of
a facility I am now building in Australia at a discount, and agreed to
pay a small continuing fee for water as its produced.

I'll be in Sydney in a few weeks, you'll likely see more in the press
at that time.

Can't wait. Please post the links.

John

 

[BradGuth]

Got patents?

Got brain? as for getting the very most out of whatever's off the
shelf?

Not each and everything that's new and improved needs another big ass
spendy patent that'll cost millions if not billions in order to
enforce on any global scale, though I believe our William Mook
actually has some patents.

BTW, my usenet posting is getting blocked and/or diverted by those in
charge, as it taking next to forever to get anything to stick. I
don't suppose you'd know anything about such matters?
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

In sci.physics,BradGuth
<[email protected]>
wrote

39:36 -0700, bill wrote:
[about LOX, H2O2, etc.]
...
I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its
effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might
make tinkering with it a winter project.
You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2.
Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake
and compression strokes are for.
Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd
ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need
a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however.

Use at least 100 bar injection, if not 1000 bar.

Using h2o2 + fossil whatever will likely ignite itself, as should LO2--
- Brad Guth -

It might very well do so, at that. Of course, depending on the
circumstances one might get a rocket or a bang, neither of which
is very desirable from a controllability standpoint...and you've
yet to answer the question regarding where one gets the hydrogen
peroxide from, precisely.

h2o2 is rather easily derived from those teraWatts of spare/surplus
and squeaky clean energy, just like you've been told a million times
before.

Besides, the general idea is *not* to use fossil fuels
whatsoever, if I understood you correctly.

As in this case, you never undstand me correctly. (but that's entirely
intentional of yourself, isn't it)

H2O2, presumably, would simply replace them, distributed
in gas stations much like gasoline is today.

Along with whatever fossil and/or biofuel, exactly like I've clearly
stipulated a million times before.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

In sci.physics,BradGuth
<[email protected]>
wrote



One tower of 100 m radius would create 4 MW. Hardly enough
for powering the entire state of California, though one
might build a neighborhood around it (it would presumably
power about 1000 homes or so surrounding it, on a good
day).

Assuming it worked, of course, as specified.





Shaded land can't grow crops as well.

Silly me, that's right, as apparently global warming and pollution
does not exist in your world, nor does technology. Are you Muslim, or
something far worse?

How many other innocent humans have you and others of your kind killed
today?

I am not the one making the proposal. You are.

Your orchestrated naysayism and intent to topic/author bash is noted.

GW Bush is many things, but "friend" he is not.

Your actions are what clearly proves otherwise.

N2? You are a confused puppy. The most likely fuel source
would be converted coal -- and that has many problems.
But it would work for awhile, coupled with ambient oxygen (O2).

Your new drugs are not performing as they should. Try LSD.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

Brad does seem to be proof they are no more immune to anti-semitism than
any other christian denominations.

You mean that we're opposed to such horrific crimes against humanity
and that of trashing our frail environment, as that's exactly what
your usage of anti-semitism represents is the Yid's God given right to
summarily rape, pillage, and plunder at free will, as will as for
putting their own kind on a stick for a faith-based PR stunt.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

BradGuthwrote:

Even Willie's not good enough for you now ?

I thought you said you were big time buddies.

I support his honest research and better ideas of utilizing existing
technology, not the fact of his being another officially snookered and
dumbfounded soul that has gotten past that point of no return about
accepting each and every word of government and of their faith-based
puppeteers, is what I'd ever go along with.

At least our William Mook/Willie.Moo has always shared his talent and
expertise, so unlike yourself.
- Brad Guth -

 

[JosephKK]

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

39:36 -0700, bill wrote:
[about LOX, H2O2, etc.]
...
I don't know if such a thing would really work,
or what its
effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool
idea. I might make tinkering with it a winter
project.

You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the
O2.

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what
the intake and compression strokes are for.

Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I
bet they'd ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the
fuel; you might need a lot of energy to make a spark
through it, however.

Liquids don't ignite.



If you are so very sure about, that i suggest that you try
mixing unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red
fuming nitric acid
(RFNA) (glacial). Take very serious precautions and read the
relevant MSDS before making the attempt.

Do you understand the difference between combustion and a
chemical reaction?

I thought not.



How about you lookup hypergolic reactions? TWIT! You were
given sufficient to learn better for yourself, but no you just
attack.

Please list any land vehicles whose internal combustion engines
run on hypergolic reactions.

I do not know of any. But there are plenty of space vehicles that
use
this combination, precisely because it is a hypergolic pair. The
one
step upline issue was can liquids burn? These do.

Actually, the issue was liquids burning in an internal combustion
engine.

It does not seem to be stated quite that way. Plus there is always
the compression issue in an IC engine. Gasses compress but liquids
don't.

 

[[email protected]]

Got patents?

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes.

 

[Robert Adsett]

You mean that we're opposed to such horrific crimes against humanity
and that of trashing our frail environment, as that's exactly what
your usage of anti-semitism represents is the Yid's God given right to
summarily rape, pillage, and plunder at free will, as will as for
putting their own kind on a stick for a faith-based PR stunt.
- Brad Guth -

QED

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

How so? I thought the fundamental limitation of DC was that it was
harder to transport over long distances (even at 500kV which is what I
think the big DC interconnects use).

http://www.abb.de/cawp/gad02181/34e09dbfd8144050c1256f9d00507231.aspx

Depends on voltage. What is true at 100kV is not necessarily true at
1000kV.

Recall that for a DC power line losses are current times resistance
squared, and that power transmitted is current times volatage.

So, as you raise voltage you get a lowering of losses. A 1,000kV line
has 1/10th the resistance losses per unit power as a 100kv line.

AC on the other hand because it is constantly varying has EMF
radiation along the line. This isn't a lot over short distances at
60HZ, but adds up over long distances.

The results when you carry out the engineering is that at 500kV for
example, an AC line loses more power if its over 600 km long than a DC
line. At 10,000kV you should be able to transmit power efficiently
around the world. If such things become possible, it would allow us
to build a powernet to rival the internet.
,

I know they do HV DC mains grid interlink in Japan, but that is
because the country has 50Hz and 60Hz power grids in different parts
of the country. Why do US utilities do DC interlink on a single
frequency?

That's another advantage certainly. And one reason DC lines are used
to tie the California grid with the rest of the US across the
Continental Divide. But Edison and Westinghouse's famous talk on the
advantages of AC - while accurate for 120 V lines - are not accurate
for HVDC lines. And since today's HVDC voltages were impossible in
the 1890s, we can't even say Edison and Westinghouse were wrong in
their choice in that era.

The size of the USA compared to the wavelength of 60Hz is not
negligible, but it doesn't seem excessive either.

Ultra-HVDC should make intercontinental power transmission possible.
It will remain infeasible for AC due to EMF losses. Also, unipolar
transmission is an interesting way to reduce costs in electron
gathering systems among dispersed DC sources. (HVDC lite)

Indeed. And there is an obvious conclusion.

Not at all.

Please consider the practical difficulties of taking a variable output
solar generator that varies its output in response to season, weather
and time of day operating with Direct Current and connecting that
source reliably to a grid of Alternating Current loads. When you do
large-scale intertie studies, something more than charging car
batteries,then you have diseconomies of scale that suggest $2 per watt
on the first go round, that over time and with experience will likely
drop to $0.70 per watt. At these prices your costs rise to $0.06 per
peak watt and tend toward $0.02 per peak watt.

Furthermore, since demand for energy exists when lighting conditions
are poor,or light is non-existent, then you can't provide 100% of your
power by direct intertie. This mean you cannot take control and
dominate the market. Which means you're sucking hind tit as a
business. Which means its not the way to enter the market.

The way to enter the market is to first get your primary costs down,
then, to make synfuels with solar hydrogen, and sell them on a scale
that permits you to achieve your costs. THEN sell hydrogen to
conventional generators, THEN sell electricity directly where
appropriate (once the intertie program I outlined elsewhere is
completed) - in any event, in developed nations, remote users and off-
grid applications will always be a tertiary market. Not so in less
developed nations, or developing nations. But those nations don't use
much energy anyway, and so they're at best secondary.

Bottom line, it is very efficient to use electricity directly. It is
not capital efficient or market wise. Which are important factors
when building a business.

For the record I have had conversations with AEP, Southwestern, and
First Energy about doing joint ventures. I did not obtain the sort of
relationship I sought, and so things didn't go anywhere. They did not
wish to enable me to dominate the energy business, which is my goal.
Those who buy gasoline on forward contracts could care less about how
I get the gasoline I sell them, or what it means to other producers.
So, that's what I did.

There have been a few impressive solar concentrators. Largely for
smelting exotic materials research and the odd one can do superheated
steam generation too.

But given the expense of refined silicon for high efficiency solar
panels it seems worthwhile to at least double the incident solar flux
onto them by using mirrors. It makes the wind loading worse of course.
But mirrors are cheap and solar panels expensive (even more so when
you have to worry about keeping them weatherproof).

But unless you have advanced optics of the type I've briefly sketched
here, you have other costs. I used molded PET plastic to make faceted
mirrors that are 4' x 4' and only a few inches thick. Vacuum coat the
PET on the back with aluminum, and its 98% reflective. Mold EPS in
the same shape, slight interference fit, and insert in the coated
plastic pan, after painting the backside to keep it from oxidizing,
and you have a highly reflective, highly stiff and stable mirror
system. Put in a few lightweight aluminum stringers, and you can
build big lightweight arrays that you attach to a space frame of any
size. Focus light to a point - but then depending on the degree of
concentration, you've got to point the thing, and the accuracy of THAT
starts adding to the cost. Especially when you intall it in a windy
location.

If someone can make plastic semiconductor based photovoltaic cells
that are chemically stable under sunlight then the economics could
shift,

That's a possibility. But another is CPV- concentrated photovoltaics
- which is what I'm doing. With an appropriate optical bandpass, and
proper electronic and optical structures - and liquid filled lens
medium with the focal point INSIDE the lens, and the PV device passive
cooled by circulating fluid in the lens itself - I reliably operate at
1,000x solar intensity and even $1 per square inch silicon doesn't add
much to total system costs.

but for the moment solar power is best at doing hot water

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

39:36 -0700, bill wrote:
[about LOX, H2O2, etc.]
...
I don't know if such a thing would really work,
or what its
effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool
idea. I might make tinkering with it a winter
project.

You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the
O2.

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what
the intake and compression strokes are for.

Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I
bet they'd ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the
fuel; you might need a lot of energy to make a spark
through it, however.

Liquids don't ignite.



If you are so very sure about, that i suggest that you try
mixing unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red
fuming nitric acid
(RFNA) (glacial). Take very serious precautions and read the
relevant MSDS before making the attempt.

Do you understand the difference between combustion and a
chemical reaction?

I thought not.



How about you lookup hypergolic reactions? TWIT! You were
given sufficient to learn better for yourself, but no you just
attack.

Please list any land vehicles whose internal combustion engines
run on hypergolic reactions.

I do not know of any. But there are plenty of space vehicles that
use
this combination, precisely because it is a hypergolic pair. The
one
step upline issue was can liquids burn? These do.

Actually, the issue was liquids burning in an internal combustion
engine.

It does not seem to be stated quite that way. Plus there is always
the compression issue in an IC engine. Gasses compress but liquids
don't.

If one were to make an injected, hypergolic, IC engine, you would
squirt the fuel in at the top of the piston stroke; no compression
required.

You have a point to all this nonsense?

 

[John Larkin]

Yes.

Cool; what are the numbers? I couldn't find any with your name on
them.

John

 

[John Larkin]

http://www.abb.de/cawp/gad02181/34e09dbfd8144050c1256f9d00507231.aspx

Depends on voltage. What is true at 100kV is not necessarily true at
1000kV.

Recall that for a DC power line losses are current times resistance
squared, and that power transmitted is current times volatage.

So, as you raise voltage you get a lowering of losses. A 1,000kV line
has 1/10th the resistance losses per unit power as a 100kv line.

AC on the other hand because it is constantly varying has EMF
radiation along the line. This isn't a lot over short distances at
60HZ, but adds up over long distances.

The results when you carry out the engineering is that at 500kV for
example, an AC line loses more power if its over 600 km long than a DC
line. At 10,000kV you should be able to transmit power efficiently
around the world. If such things become possible, it would allow us
to build a powernet to rival the internet.
,

That's another advantage certainly. And one reason DC lines are used
to tie the California grid with the rest of the US across the
Continental Divide. But Edison and Westinghouse's famous talk on the
advantages of AC - while accurate for 120 V lines - are not accurate
for HVDC lines. And since today's HVDC voltages were impossible in
the 1890s, we can't even say Edison and Westinghouse were wrong in
their choice in that era.


Ultra-HVDC should make intercontinental power transmission possible.
It will remain infeasible for AC due to EMF losses. Also, unipolar
transmission is an interesting way to reduce costs in electron
gathering systems among dispersed DC sources. (HVDC lite)


Not at all.

Please consider the practical difficulties of taking a variable output
solar generator that varies its output in response to season, weather
and time of day operating with Direct Current and connecting that
source reliably to a grid of Alternating Current loads. When you do
large-scale intertie studies, something more than charging car
batteries,then you have diseconomies of scale that suggest $2 per watt
on the first go round, that over time and with experience will likely
drop to $0.70 per watt. At these prices your costs rise to $0.06 per
peak watt and tend toward $0.02 per peak watt.

I don't see that. At 0.2 cents per kwh, essentially free, it would
seem easy to dump power into the grid when it was available,
specifically on hot sunny days when a/c loads are at their maximum.
Relatively small peak solar output, say 5% of the relevant grid load,
would be welcome for their fuel savings. Of course, without some
storage mechanism, big percentages are less appealing, but 5% is still
big bucks, especially as you can charge premium pricing for
peak-period power.

Furthermore, since demand for energy exists when lighting conditions
are poor,or light is non-existent, then you can't provide 100% of your
power by direct intertie. This mean you cannot take control and
dominate the market. Which means you're sucking hind tit as a
business. Which means its not the way to enter the market.

If you want to dominate the market, that's one huge and likely-to-fail
roll of the dice. Too many new and risky technologies all have to work
at once; the investment is huge and the compounded probability of
success is absurdly small. If you can make solar power at 0.2 cents
per kwh, you have a viable, not to mention huge, business model that
can grow incrementally.

The way to enter the market is to first get your primary costs down,
then, to make synfuels with solar hydrogen, and sell them on a scale
that permits you to achieve your costs.

Better: get your primary costs down and sell the energy as peaking
power, top dollar. Grid-tie inverters *aren't* very expensive.

Oh, I did find your patent (looked under the wrong name first try)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=PER6AAAAEBAJ&dq=7081584&num=20


That looks both interesting and challenging. Why burden its chance of
success by betting on hydrogen generation, distribution, and use too?

John