"Androcles" <Headmaster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Pik%j.33123$cZ3.978@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "hanson" <hanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:tOh%j.8558$nx6.7393@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | "Androcles" <Headmaster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> | news:nnh%j.35882$_c7.31118@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | > "hanson" <hanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> | > news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message
>
news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2-bd3f-c864a4a4b99e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | > | > Mark Thorson <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> | > | >> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
> | > | >> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
> | > | >> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
> | > | >
> | > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote:
> | > | > It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the
efficiency
> | > | > of the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is
> | > | > that this is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the
> | > | > fuel goes out the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel
in
> | > | > a properly tunedengine is combusted. The two energy
> | > | > losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
> | > | > engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust.
While
> | > | > there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic)
engines,
> | > | > the biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal
temps
> | > | > get too high all existing lubricants break down.
> | > | > Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot
> | > | > take out too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's
> | > | > ability to breath,reducing horsepower for a given engine
> | > | > size. We can indeed increase thermal consumption by this
> | > | > road, but it results in a heavier engine.
> | > | > That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
> | > | > trans****tation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but
more
> | > | > fuel sufficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes
up,
> | > | > requiringmore energy, so we end up still burning more fuel :-(
> | > | >
> | > | hanson wrote:
> | > | Don, you are kind but you won't change any minds in the
> | > | Alternative- or Hydrogen fuel cults. They have their minds
> | > | made up to get to their vapid heaven... with a religious passion.
> | > | Whenever the fuel prices rise you see 2 phenomena emerging:
> | > | (1) the compulsive savers who wish to beat the trans****tation
> | > | game at any cost and hence believe anything.
> | > | (2) the conning saviors who accommodate their fantasies
> | > | with any scam the can lay on (1)
> | > | Here is how the current dreams and schemes of (1) and (2)
> | > | will end up, since these 2 cults reject not only the iron
existence
> | > | of the laws of thermodynamics but also refuse to believe in
> | > | games that the powerful oil boys play:
> | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
>
> | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/0aa53c5ef7317f6b
>
> | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34
>
> | > | ahahaha.... ahahahanson
> | > |
> | Androlces wrote:
> | > I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, don't you?
> | > The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to
> | > electrolyze
> | > the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen
> | > around in a compressed state without cooling it to way down
> | > low, which adds up to danger.
> | > What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with
> | > a way of making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when
> | > you need it but safe enough to toss around. Don't you
> | > chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
> | > can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive
> | > substance like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
> | > .
> | hanson wrote:
> | Yes, all the technologies for AF & H have been here for a long time.
> | But the issue is whether they will catch on widespread and for good.
> | I say no, because even after tapping and using up only 1% of all the
> | existing C&CH reserves, the real "Peak Oil" is at least 1500 years
> | in the future... See details of why in above links. The last time, in
> | the 1970's when has we such an oil spasm... Prez Carted ordered the
> | SYNFUEL project which the oil boys promptly bankrupted simply by
> | dropping the crude oil price to $10 (ten) / bbl... ahahaha...
> | This time around it boils down to a contest of wills:
> | ::: Is it cheaper to change the lifestyle of some 4 billion people
> | ::: (EU, US, IN, CH etc) by green preachings.... or to force a
> | ::: change of the behavior in a pitifully small fraction of 0.6% of
> | ::: that 4 billion, in some 25 million Iraqis? ...
> | ::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
> | ::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...
> | >
> | ahahaha .. See the "why" details in the above links... ahaha..
>
Androcles wrote:
> You missed my grin.
> I don't write "hahaha" when I'm joking, that's your logo.
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... I wondered what that [ :-))) ] was in Kasners
mangled post when I replied to him... Sorry about that, chief.
>
Androcles wrote:
> Even I know hydrogen bonded to carbon is fuel, whether in
> a potato, cellulose, polyethylene, gasoline or chicken ****.
> There really is not much
> difference between a carbohydrate and a hydrocarbon,
>
hanson wrote :
..... yeah, right AFA your remark on "energy is in the bond" but only
right, sort of, on "not much difference between a carbohydrate and
a hydrocarbon". See, written in a brutto fa****on the Hydrocarbons
are essentially -(CH2)x ... which stores far more energy then do the
Carbohydrates which are essentially --(CH2O)x, wherefrom you
can easily see that CH2O can be rewritten into C + H2O or into
CO + H2... IOW, Carbohydrates are half burnt down Hydrocarbons
and carry much less energy in them. See here for more on the issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/35be49f4be7ddb4b
wherein it says:
Methane or Octane is 100% fuel -- Ethanol is only 60% fuel and
Methanol even less with only 44% fuel... the rest is water...
ahahahaha....
>
Androcles wrote:
> the energy is in the bond, not the elements, and the economics
> is in the cost of extracting it. So when I suggested bonding
>hydrogen to carbon I was reinventing
> Nature's wheel.
> This was the first use of the all natural hydrogen energy system:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_steam_engine
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stephenson%27s_Rocket.jpg
> If the green ****s want it green, then this wood burner is as green as
> it gets: http://www.erichall.eu/images/USA2002/sw2026.jpg
> Not even the Iraqis want that.
>
hanson wrote:
No, the Iraqis don't need that in the first place, and the Green
****s wouldn't tolerate it neither because in many respects their
green gaja religion is as extremist and fanatical as are the
monotheistic religions, in particular the Jewish and the Islamic
cults. The Enviros must be implicated in the sick & silly oil game
as much as the kikes and Ass-venters are. To wit: Green terrorism:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d8c8b22b4ffedd09
wherein it says:
"If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
today plenty of cheap electricity, like France & Japan. We'd
have licked rad-chem disposal problems, we'd have modern
batteries and advanced capacitors in our cars instead of
gas-tanks and we would be driving in hi-powered nonpolluting
electric cars, and we would not be implicated and heavily
influenced by the irrational behavior of America's parasite, Israel
who has not managed to live in peace with its neighbors for
the last 60 years and has conned the US into treaty guarantees
that Israel will get all the oil it needs first, form the US, even if the
US must ration oil for it own citizens..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
If it would not have been for the Green ****s, in all likelihood we
would also have the H-fusion problems licked, and we would not
be survival dependant on, & being held hostage by Venez-Hugos,
Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios.... all of'em fomenters and financiers of
terrorism against the West ... the same West which has brought
to these upstarts wealth and power in the first place.... ahahahaha....
ironic, isn't it... ahahaha... No good deep ever goes unpunished!
>
To boot, if the green cocksuckers would not have impeded the
development of nuclear reactors for the last 40 years we would
not have their latest issue neither they crying now over, their
alleged Anthropic Global Warming of today... ahahaha... ..
hahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
> --
> Androcles wrote:
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
|
