eer

[John Fields]

Me:
Me:

What I doubt is that you have the resources to substantiate your claims
or, for that matter, the most basic understanding of the physical
processes involved in converting the various forms of renewable energy
available into forms which we can use. For example, can you tell me how
much power an average human dissipates?

You:

Well, in MY case, it is 100% of my power, trying to explain the obvious to you
folks in here.

---
The problem with that is that you don't have the capability of grasping
the obvious so all you're really doing is spouting irrelevant wishful
thinking. For example, the answer to the question I posed multiplied by
the number of people inhabiting the planet will give you the number of
watts the human race dissipates just by being alive. That, then,
relates to the caloric intake of the race which partially translates
into the minimum amount of arable land required to keep the population
alive. So, let me rephrase the question in terms which might muddle you
less:

Given an intake of 2000 calories per day, how much power (in watts) does
a human dissipate?
---


Me:

If that's true, what's plain to see is that you're a stupid fucking idiot. No
"we shall see" about it, it's abundantly evident in the present.

You:

We shall see.

---
We have seen.
---




Me:

And, you're no visionary, just an opinionated asshole projecting his
vindication into the future.

You:

A visionary asshole?

---
No. The predictions of visionaries come to fruition.

--
John Fields

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031114110512.29282.00000310@mb-m10.news.cs.com>...

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031113032812.19942.00000134@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

Where L is a lump of coal, and C is a lump sized capacitor
that holds one lump of energy.

That is pretty much it.

Which, any way you slice it, is still baloney.

How much energy is actually contained in a lump of coal?

Well, as Saint Albert taught us, E = mc^2...so why aren't
you going after THAT much energy, rather than the piddling
little amount you get from burning the stuff?

Because the piddling little amount is more than we need.


Frank

But the piddling little amount in the coal is still 30 times
more than what you can put in a capacitor without tearing the
atoms apart, so why not forget it and go fishing? Or are you
fishing?

"Tearing the atoms apart"?

Gosh! That is the 643rd smoking gun reason why eer will not work.

Congrats!


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

Me:
Me:
What I doubt is that you have the resources to substantiate your claims
or, for that matter, the most basic understanding of the physical
processes involved in converting the various forms of renewable energy
available into forms which we can use. For example, can you tell me how
much power an average human dissipates?

You:
Well, in MY case, it is 100% of my power, trying to explain the obvious to
you
folks in here.

---
The problem with that is that you don't have the capability of grasping
the obvious so all you're really doing is spouting irrelevant wishful
thinking. For example, the answer to the question I posed multiplied by
the number of people inhabiting the planet will give you the number of
watts the human race dissipates just by being alive. That, then,
relates to the caloric intake of the race which partially translates
into the minimum amount of arable land required to keep the population
alive. So, let me rephrase the question in terms which might muddle you
less:

Given an intake of 2000 calories per day, how much power (in watts) does
a human dissipate?
---


Me:
If that's true, what's plain to see is that you're a stupid fucking idiot.
No
"we shall see" about it, it's abundantly evident in the present.

You:
We shall see.

---
We have seen.
---




Me:
And, you're no visionary, just an opinionated asshole projecting his
vindication into the future.

You:
A visionary asshole?

---
No. The predictions of visionaries come to fruition.

We will both be dead and buried.


Frank

 

[Bill Bowden]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20031124010033.12215.00000581@mb-m25.news.cs.com>...

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031114110512.29282.00000310@mb-m10.news.cs.com>...

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031113032812.19942.00000134@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

Where L is a lump of coal, and C is a lump sized capacitor
that holds one lump of energy.

That is pretty much it.

Which, any way you slice it, is still baloney.

How much energy is actually contained in a lump of coal?

Well, as Saint Albert taught us, E = mc^2...so why aren't
you going after THAT much energy, rather than the piddling
little amount you get from burning the stuff?

Because the piddling little amount is more than we need.


Frank

But the piddling little amount in the coal is still 30 times
more than what you can put in a capacitor without tearing the
atoms apart, so why not forget it and go fishing? Or are you
fishing?

"Tearing the atoms apart"?

Gosh! That is the 643rd smoking gun reason why eer will not work.

Congrats!


Frank

Tearing atoms apart wasn't my smoking gun, it was Tom LeCompte who
said you would never get even 1/3 the energy of a battery into a
capacitor made from any type of matter before the atoms get pulled
apart. Tom holds a Ph.D. in Physics, so he probably understands the
subject at least as well as you do.

Here's Tom's #1 smoking gun one more time:

"A capacitor stores energy in an electric field. The energy is ~4.4 x
10^-12 E^2 V J/mV^2 where E is the field and V is the volume. The
limit on the field is where atoms themselves get pulled apart; it will
be about a billion volts per meter - lets be generous and call it 5
billion volts per meter. The volume of a AA battery is 6.4 cm^3 or 6.4
x 10^-6 m^3, so running the numbers, the maximum energy a AA battery
sized capacitor can store is about 700 J.

A NiCad AA battery stores about 2000 J. An equivalent amount of
gasoline stores something over 20,000 J.

So we already have technology that works at least a factor of 3 better
than what you propose. "

End of smoking gun #1

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031124010033.12215.00000581@mb-m25.news.cs.com>...

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031114110512.29282.00000310@mb-m10.news.cs.com>...

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031113032812.19942.00000134@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

Where L is a lump of coal, and C is a lump sized capacitor
that holds one lump of energy.

That is pretty much it.

Which, any way you slice it, is still baloney.

How much energy is actually contained in a lump of coal?

Well, as Saint Albert taught us, E = mc^2...so why aren't
you going after THAT much energy, rather than the piddling
little amount you get from burning the stuff?

Because the piddling little amount is more than we need.


Frank

But the piddling little amount in the coal is still 30 times
more than what you can put in a capacitor without tearing the
atoms apart, so why not forget it and go fishing? Or are you
fishing?

"Tearing the atoms apart"?

Gosh! That is the 643rd smoking gun reason why eer will not work.

Congrats!


Frank

Tearing atoms apart wasn't my smoking gun, it was Tom LeCompte who said you
would never get even 1/3 the energy of a battery into a capacitor made from any

type of matter before the atoms get pulled apart. Tom holds a Ph.D. in Physics,
so he probably understands the subject at least as well as you do.

WAY better than me, I'm sure!

Here's Tom's #1 smoking gun one more time:

"A capacitor stores energy in an electric field. The energy is ~4.4 x
10^-12 E^2 V J/mV^2 where E is the field and V is the volume. The
limit on the field is where atoms themselves get pulled apart;

Even with massive surface areas?

it will be about a billion volts per meter - lets be generous and call it 5
billion volts per meter. The volume of a AA battery is 6.4 cm^3 or 6.4 x 10^-6

m^3, so running the numbers, the maximum energy a AA battery sized capacitor
can store is about 700 J.

A NiCad AA battery stores about 2000 J. An equivalent amount of
gasoline stores something over 20,000 J.

So we already have technology that works at least a factor of 3 better
than what you propose. "

No - actually, I would exprct something close to gasoline.

End of smoking gun #1

Not a chance.


Frank

 

[Bill Bowden]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20031125203346.12078.00000715@mb-m26.news.cs.com>...

So we already have technology that works at least a factor of 3 better
than what you propose. "

No - actually, I would exprct something close to gasoline.

Sure, and you probably expect Santa Claus to land on your
rooftop in a flying sled. Why don't you write Santa and
ask for an eer cap to power your EV? If he doesn't have
any, maybe he will give you a flying reindeer so you won't
need the EV?

End of smoking gun #1

Not a chance.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031125203346.12078.00000715@mb-m26.news.cs.com>...

So we already have technology that works at least a factor of 3 better
than what you propose. "

No - actually, I would exprct something close to gasoline.


Sure, and you probably expect Santa Claus to land on your
rooftop in a flying sled. Why don't you write Santa and
ask for an eer cap to power your EV? If he doesn't have
any, maybe he will give you a flying reindeer so you won't
need the EV?

Santa never did and never will exist.

SORRY!!


Frank

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031122091302.08302.00000493@mb-m24.news.cs.com...

I need but two "numbers" to explain eer.

1) Near-infinite.

2) Almost nothing.

You need a lot more than that. You need to show SOME
reason for anyone believing that the silly thing would work
as claimed, which you have utterly failed to do. Further, many,
many people far more skilled in the art than you have shown
quite conclusively why your notions simply don't work. You
should not, therefore, be too surprised that no one is taking you
seriously.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031125203346.12078.00000715@mb-m26.news.cs.com...

Even with massive surface areas?

Frank, just in case you didn't see this question earlier -

Suppose I start with a simple parallel-plate capacitor, as
shown:

_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


Now, without changing anything else - i.e., leaving the plate
spacing, the overall length and width of the plates themselves
the same - I carve deep trenches in both plates, such that
the total exposed surface area is increased by a factor of 10.

What happens to the capacitance?


Bob M.

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031125203346.12078.00000715@mb-m26.news.cs.com...

Even with massive surface areas?


Frank, just in case you didn't see this question earlier -

Suppose I start with a simple parallel-plate capacitor, as
shown:

_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


Now, without changing anything else - i.e., leaving the plate
spacing, the overall length and width of the plates themselves
the same - I carve deep trenches in both plates, such that
the total exposed surface area is increased by a factor of 10.

You dig trenches in both plates?

What happens to the capacitance?

Not a thing.


Frank

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031204091425.16134.00000110@mb-m22.news.cs.com...

You dig trenches in both plates?

If you like, sure.

What happens to the capacitance?

Not a thing.

Wrong.

Bob M.