[Rich Grise]

Completing the run at about Mach 1 it would seem, assuming constant
acceleration.

In the demo I saw (on TeeVee), the guy crashed, so the crash barrier
at the end of the track stopped him.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[MooseFET]

First, you haven't proven the claim of 200MPG. It is an extremely
unlikely number given the amount of energy in a gallon of fuel and the
wind resistance of the average car. You can't get more energy out of
the fuel than there is in it.

Second, you haven't counted the energy to make the H2O2. This process
is very lossy. The energy that went into making it is not recovered
in the car.

3rd you haven't accounted for the extra weight. More weight takes
more fuel to move. Using air, you don't need to carry all the extra
weight.

No, you are the one who doesn't get it. You are suggesting a solution
that makes matters worse. You seem unwilling to look at the facts and
consider the real science.
[.. nonsense deleted ..]
We don't buy your LLPOF worth of big-government and big-energy
arguments.

Do you have a tapeworm or multiple personalities? If not, who is we.

Lots of people don't accept science. Why don't you just use magic
unicorns to power the car. If you use magic unicorns you can go
faster than the speed of light and end up with more fuel than you
started.

[....]

But you folks continually distort and/or lie as a regular basis of
your existing. It's what government and big-energy have always done
best.

You mean we disagree with you. This is a sci.XXX news group. That
should be a hint about what you should add to your arguments. A
little math and a little physics and some chem. is needed. Go try to
put real numbers on your claims. I predict that you won't find the
rose colored picture you currently have once you put pencil to paper.

That statement is "thunderingly wrong". You really need to go try to
find some numbers. An ICE engine doesn't need to make NOx when
breathing air. This has long been proven.

You were burning carbons in your suggested method too. Your method
burns more than the existing system so you are encouraging added
polution.

Your continual naysayism

There was no "naysayism" in my post

and exclusion of evidence is noted.

There was not "exclusion of the evidence in my post".

I merely pointed out that you were posting complete and utter nonsense
and pointed directly at the flaw if what you are suggesting. I
suggest you go back and read it again.

Let us
know whenever you manage to get a bright idea that isn't the least bit
polluting or worth going to war over, because the one and only option
you folks bring to the table includes WWIII, if not worse.

I have already had several "bright ideas" that have reduced polution
in real life. A couple of the other posters here may know what I'm
refering to.

I could tell you about it but then I'd have to shoot you and you
wouldn't believe the paper work that results in.

 

[MooseFET]

France is pushing for the first 3He/fusion reactor by 2012, which is
at least taking humanity and our badly failing environment in the
right direction, with or w/o hydrogen.

....and they get a nice weapons grade byproduct too boot.

or wasn't anyone supposed to point that out?

 

[MooseFET]

Don't hold your breath on any of that.
Electricity from fusion (if it happens at all) will make the most
expensive PV seem cheap.

It isn't about the electricity.
Take a closer look and see the nifty side products.

 

[gabydewilde]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:49:33 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

...


So, how far can it go on a charge?

But it's a hand build car in the to expensive range?

Your question is like asking if the 500 euro wine gets you drunk.

If you have that much money the car will operate for roughly 3 times
your attentions span.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/3700136.html