Re: The Electric Car

BradGuth bradguth@xxxxxxxxx posted to sci.electronics.design:

On Sep 24, 8:20 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BradGuth bradg...@xxxxxxxxx posted to sci.electronics.design:





On Sep 24, 10:05 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
BradGuthwrote:

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?

Brad Gruth doesn't care about efficiency. In his world there
will be limitless FREE solar power to do this.

I guess you know lots more than most of us village idiots, as to
where that 64,000+ teraWatts of solar energy is going, along with
the 7.2e20 kw that's continually existing somewhere between us
and our moon, not to mention terrestrial wind that's seriously
kicking our AGW butts, plus tidal flows and geothermal energy
that's clearly for the taking by those half as smart as Warren
Buffett, and that's only demanding that you be 1% as smart as our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

Are you saying thar Eeyore and company isn't 1% as smart as GW
Bush?

At which point of course he simply shows himself to be a
clueless IDIOT.

At least the mindset of this supposed "clueless IDIOT" hasn't
imposed or otherwise caused any collateral damage or carnage of
the innocent. How about your energy sucking and global polluting
self? - Brad Guth -

Well, hell, there you go throwing some large numbers around. where
do
they come from? Do you even know? Where did you get 64,000
terawatts? Where did you get 7.2E20 kW? - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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 -

Throwing numbers around again; where do they come from?

.

Quantcast