Re: The Electric Car

BradGuth wrote:

On Sep 24, 1:10 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:54:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Sep 24, 8:19 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:03:49 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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.

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.

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?

What does it matter, if the original resource of those electrons came
from a 100% renewable and squeaky clean resource?

Of course it matters. Which entity, private or public, that has a
source of electrical energy, will elect to throw it away at, say, 20%
efficiency, when they can sell it on the open market, for whatever is
the going price?



Isn't 10% of something that's clean and renewable better off than 100%
of what's further pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth
that's anything but renewable?

No. As I suspected, you are yet another dreamer who imagines all the
wonderful things we could do if energy were free. It ain't.



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?

It's within the regular laws of physics, and it's on the internet. Go
fish.

No, you have the idea, and are flogging it to a bunch of engineers.
Show us some numbers.

But of course, you can't.



What is it about spare/surplus clean energy that you do not
understand?

It doesn't exist, which makes it a lot harder to understand.

Perhaps you need to speak with wizard Willie Moo, or simply address
the 65,000 teraWatts of solar energy influx that's mostly (99.9999%)
going to waste, or that of the Earth/moon energy of 2e20 joules that's
equally 99.9999999% or greater ignored and/or wasted.

Solar energy is low density and is only on during the day, in good
weather. There are no commercially viable solar-electric capture
technologies in existance today, other than for niche and novelty
applications, like satellites and emergency call boxes. If solar
electric generation became feasible some day, its first priority would
be daytime peaking generation, which it's ideally suited for. If
vehicles were electrically powered, via batteries or your aluminum
thing, the power would be used night-time, off-peak, and hence not
solar.







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.

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.

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.

We're engineers: our job is to change things. What separates you from
us is that we actually do it, and our stuff works.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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. 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?
- Brad Guth -


OK, Dip***. Since you have all the answers, where is your working
prototype. If you tell us that you can't afford to build it, you have
just proven that it can't be done.

As far as looking it up on the internet, there are more crap websites
than Roto Rooter could ever unclog.


--
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
.

Quantcast