Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Paul Burridge]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 15:12:26 -0400, "Who cares!" <Noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

EH, what the hell, her and Brittany are both has - beens..... Ole Brit
is/will be an ole married maid soon. Spitting out kids, doing her thing.
Teeny bopping days are over. They got the slut generation started, now
they'll sit back and see what they did. WC

Exactly. And in 20 years' time, they might just feel justifiably
ashamed for it when their own daughters are treated as empty-headed
whores fit only for black drug dealers to f**k.

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[David Harper]

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4101BB99.4000808@lakeweb.com>...

David Harper wrote:
Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<40FF3FEE.1090502@lakeweb.com>...


Please look at the above and make a distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'.


That was the main point of my entire response. One of the first
things I said was:


But that's beside the point. Agreed: the physics of using hydrogen is
understood. It's just a matter of what technological advances "could"
happen to make it a reality (such as nanotech or whatever).


Was that unclear?

What kind of technological advance do you have in mind that doesn't
require the precursor of a new physics?

I liken this question to asking someone in 1950 "How in the world
would a spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere without burning up?" Just
because you can't see an immediately practical solution doesn't mean
one doesn't exist or won't exist in the future.

However, as discussed before, maybe nanotech... maybe just cheaper
ways to bottle solar using hydrogen as a currency.

And the only "physical limitation" you cited was that it was not an
energy "source", but a "currency". I agreed with this in a later
post, when I understood exactly what you meant. Using it as a
currency eliminates the physical limitation you cited. This became a
non-issue.

Sources of energy are now a non issue? Sure, in that case, hydrogen
makes a wonderful fuel because now it is cheaper than fossils.

I'll repeat:
As hydrogen is not an energy source, the cost of the source is
compounded by the losses in the hydrogen vector. The limitation is
physical, and vision doesn't change that.

Fossil fuels do not provide a source of unlimited, already flowing,
almost-free energy. That's why you're so concerned with the "losses
in the hydrogen vector".

If you get hydrogen from a solar source, the losses in the hydrogen
vector aren't really an issue because you're just tapping already
released energy. As mentioned before, this is not the case with
fossil. Sure, going 100 miles on a tank of hydrogen might require
more energy than using current fossil fuels... but if it's coming from
an already tapped, much-cheaper, unlimited source, then efficiency
(assuming it's not ridiculously low) becomes a footnote.

When I traced back, the drive behind most of my comments originated
from your following statement:

You know as well as I do that the first non fossil source of hydrogen
would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical processes.

This statement assumes technological progress in other fields (i.e.
nanotech) won't become viable options first. That's when I questioned
your ability to foresee the future of technological innovation.

I'll repeat:
Probably science fiction for another 5 or 10 decades.

Yes, probably. And I'll repeat: probably, but *possible*. You said
that hydrogen "would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical
processes". Now you say "probably". I guess you're conceeding your
original statement *might not* ultimately be correct?

Perhaps our entire clash boils down to the fact that I'm more of an
optimist in terms of technological advances.

I'll repeat:
A new discovery in physics is rather unlikely and if/when it happens, it
won't just make hydrogen practical. As far as advancements go, they have
been very predictable. Look at Moore's Law for an example. Other than
the likes of high temperature superconductors, there have been no
surprises for going on a century.
---
Technological advancement is predictable based on known physics...

My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood.

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec05.html

...(enter stage left) the X-15 program: to better understand
supersonic physics and figure out what was (and was not) possible.
But this is really a side point to our original discussion.

You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. However, you
can't get to the moon with orbital mechanics alone. Other areas, such
as fluid mechanics, were also needed to get to the moon...and, as
mentioned before, the fluid dynamics of hypersonic flow was *NOT* well
understood. Two other major areas within the realm of physics that
had to be better understood to get to the moon include
super/hypersonic heat transfer (both in the engines and on re-entry
surfaces, also aided by the X-15 program) and solar physics/radiation
outside the Van Allen belts. There's plenty of others areas I'm sure
I'm forgetting or not aware of.

And all about evolving technology based on known physics.

So you're stating that super/hypersonic flight was a "known physics"
in 1950? Maybe you should re-read the above quote:

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

The physics of going to the moon was not a "known physics".
Technological evolution alone could not have gotten us to the moon in
1950. We had to learn more first via experiments, tests, etc.

Dave

 

[Don Lancaster]

David Harper wrote:

If you get hydrogen from a solar source, the losses in the hydrogen
vector aren't really an issue because you're just tapping already
released energy.

Dave

There are three elements to an energy delivery system: (1) The cost of
the feedstock, (2) the cost of the infrastructure, and (3) the
amortization of the system.

(2) and (3) almost always dominate.

Hydrogen-anything is virtually certain to be noncompetitive with other
options. Because of unmanagable (2) and (3).

Especially if there is an electrical intermediary stage thus creating a
staggering loss of exergy.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Who cares!]

"Paul Burridge" <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ih7g0lpjme8436k4f710ndrvkvrkpp78h@4ax.com...

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 15:12:26 -0400, "Who cares!" <Noone@nowhere.com
wrote:

EH, what the hell, her and Brittany are both has - beens..... Ole Brit
is/will be an ole married maid soon. Spitting out kids, doing her thing.
Teeny bopping days are over. They got the slut generation started, now
they'll sit back and see what they did. WC

Exactly. And in 20 years' time, they might just feel justifiably
ashamed for it when their own daughters are treated as empty-headed
whores fit only for black drug dealers to f**k.

Ya know, given the way many of them act/think, and if society doesn't get
much better (and I doubt it will), they most likely won't give a damned.
They'll just perpetuate what they started. Actually, like most "famous"
people, they'll be married, divorced, sleeping around many many times before
they are too old to do so. And, for those interested in giving a shit about
it, they'll continue to watch them on Entertainment tonight or by reading
the Bathroom rags found in super markets. So and so slept with so and so.
Instead of my initials, I'll sign this WHO CARES? (to the last part!)

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

David Harper wrote:

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4101BB99.4000808@lakeweb.com>...

David Harper wrote:

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<40FF3FEE.1090502@lakeweb.com>...

Please look at the above and make a distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'.

That was the main point of my entire response. One of the first
things I said was:

But that's beside the point. Agreed: the physics of using hydrogen is
understood. It's just a matter of what technological advances "could"
happen to make it a reality (such as nanotech or whatever).

Was that unclear?

What kind of technological advance do you have in mind that doesn't
require the precursor of a new physics?

I liken this question to asking someone in 1950 "How in the world
would a spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere without burning up?" Just
because you can't see an immediately practical solution doesn't mean
one doesn't exist or won't exist in the future.

You didn't answer the question.

Instead, you seem to have created a 1950 question as if it were some
fundamental truth.

However, as discussed before, maybe nanotech... maybe just cheaper
ways to bottle solar using hydrogen as a currency.

And predictably, at least 5 decades off. At that, you still won't beat
back the physical limitation. With thermochemical processes running 60%
efficient, I fail to see how nanotech will revolutionize the use of
hydrogen.

And the only "physical limitation" you cited was that it was not an
energy "source", but a "currency". I agreed with this in a later
post, when I understood exactly what you meant. Using it as a
currency eliminates the physical limitation you cited. This became a
non-issue.

Sources of energy are now a non issue? Sure, in that case, hydrogen
makes a wonderful fuel because now it is cheaper than fossils.

I'll repeat:
As hydrogen is not an energy source, the cost of the source is
compounded by the losses in the hydrogen vector. The limitation is
physical, and vision doesn't change that.


Fossil fuels do not provide a source of unlimited, already flowing,
almost-free energy. That's why you're so concerned with the "losses
in the hydrogen vector".

You are claiming my concern?

If you get hydrogen from a solar source, the losses in the hydrogen
vector aren't really an issue because you're just tapping already
released energy. As mentioned before, this is not the case with
fossil. Sure, going 100 miles on a tank of hydrogen might require
more energy than using current fossil fuels... but if it's coming from
an already tapped, much-cheaper, unlimited source, then efficiency
(assuming it's not ridiculously low) becomes a footnote.

This has been beat to death on these threads. If you don't displace
fossil sources of energy with that solar, and produce hydrogen instead,
it does nothing but make some folks feel fuzzy good. This hydrogen has
the equivalent effect of getting 5 or 10 percent, (depending on the
technology), of the heating value of coal to the wheels of a vehicle.

The only way what you write can look good is to deny the real world
accounting of energy.

When I traced back, the drive behind most of my comments originated
from your following statement:

You know as well as I do that the first non fossil source of hydrogen
would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical processes.

This statement assumes technological progress in other fields (i.e.
nanotech) won't become viable options first. That's when I questioned
your ability to foresee the future of technological innovation.

I'll repeat:
Probably science fiction for another 5 or 10 decades.

Yes, probably. And I'll repeat: probably, but *possible*. You said
that hydrogen "would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical
processes". Now you say "probably". I guess you're conceeding your
original statement *might not* ultimately be correct?

Do you know why I use the word 'probably'?
--circle one: yes, no --

And I'll repeat it again:
"Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation." Technological
innovation does not defeat physical limitations.

The limitations are:
It is not an energy source.
It has a very poor energy density.
It suffers losses during handling at somewhat reasonable energy densities.

Perhaps our entire clash boils down to the fact that I'm more of an
optimist in terms of technological advances.

I'll repeat:
A new discovery in physics is rather unlikely and if/when it happens, it
won't just make hydrogen practical. As far as advancements go, they have
been very predictable. Look at Moore's Law for an example. Other than
the likes of high temperature superconductors, there have been no
surprises for going on a century.
---
Technological advancement is predictable based on known physics...


My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood.

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec05.html

...(enter stage left) the X-15 program: to better understand
supersonic physics and figure out what was (and was not) possible.
But this is really a side point to our original discussion.

You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. However, you
can't get to the moon with orbital mechanics alone. Other areas, such
as fluid mechanics, were also needed to get to the moon...and, as
mentioned before, the fluid dynamics of hypersonic flow was *NOT* well
understood. Two other major areas within the realm of physics that
had to be better understood to get to the moon include
super/hypersonic heat transfer (both in the engines and on re-entry
surfaces, also aided by the X-15 program) and solar physics/radiation
outside the Van Allen belts. There's plenty of others areas I'm sure
I'm forgetting or not aware of.

And all about evolving technology based on known physics.

So you're stating that super/hypersonic flight was a "known physics"
in 1950? Maybe you should re-read the above quote:

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words. Here is the timeline supersonic science:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

Notice that the fine tuning of Mach's work was done in the 30s. Now date
Mach...

The physics of going to the moon was not a "known physics".
Technological evolution alone could not have gotten us to the moon in
1950. We had to learn more first via experiments, tests, etc.

If you are going to make this claim, please cite the unknown physics of
going to the moon in 1950.

Dave

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Who cares! <Noone@nowhere.com>
wrote (in <n5SMc.125$191.107@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net&gt about
'Osama Found Hanged 272', on Sun, 25 Jul 2004:

Instead of my initials, I'll sign this WHO
CARES? (to the last part!)

You could have adopted the name of the archetypal Customer Relations
Officer, Hugh Caires.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Who cares!]

Never heard of that one.... Thanks! WC

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:Ut2AdCCMy$ABFwP+@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Who cares! <Noone@nowhere.com
wrote (in <n5SMc.125$191.107@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net&gt about
'Osama Found Hanged 272', on Sun, 25 Jul 2004:
Instead of my initials, I'll sign this WHO
CARES? (to the last part!)

You could have adopted the name of the archetypal Customer Relations
Officer, Hugh Caires.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[David Harper]

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4103F281.8090806@lakeweb.com>...

Fine, further discussion of hydrogen as a fuel won't get us anywhere.
However, I can't let the following comments slide.

David Harper wrote:
So you're stating that super/hypersonic flight was a "known physics"
in 1950? Maybe you should re-read the above quote:

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words.

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he wasn't a journalist, but a
*professor* in physics.

Here is the timeline supersonic science:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

Notice that the fine tuning of Mach's work was done in the 30s. Now date
Mach...

This is another outlandish statement. If Mach's work had been "fine
tuned" in the 30's, the following would not have happened (by the way,
this is from the source *YOU* cited):

"The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the
realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed
test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38
out of a high-speed dive, and crashed."

After this incident:
"Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the
mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed
research airplane to become a reality."

(again, from your own source)

Mach did some groundbreaking work, but showing shock waves on a bullet
isn't all the info NASA needed on HYPERsonic flow to go to the moon.

From *YOUR OWN* article:

"John Stack nicely summarized the situation in 1938:

The development of the knowledge of compressible-flow phenomena,
particularly as related to aeronautical applications, has been
attended by considerable difficulty. The complicated nature of the
phenomena has resulted in little theoretical progress, and, in
general, recourse to experiment has been necessary. Until recently the
most important experimental results have been obtained in connection
with the science of ballistics, but this information has been of
little value in aeronautical problems because the range of speeds for
which most ballistic experiments have been made extends from the speed
of sound upward; whereas the important region in aeronautics at the
present time extends from the speed of sound downward."

Also (from your own article):

"In order to learn about the aerodynamics of transonic flight, the
only recourse appeared to be a real airplane that would fly in that
regime."

If you are going to make this claim, please cite the unknown physics of
going to the moon in 1950.

See above. I think your article just did for me.

Dave

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <Ut2AdCCMy$ABFwP+@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Who cares! <Noone@nowhere.com
wrote (in <n5SMc.125$191.107@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net&gt about
'Osama Found Hanged 272', on Sun, 25 Jul 2004:
Instead of my initials, I'll sign this WHO
CARES? (to the last part!)

You could have adopted the name of the archetypal Customer Relations
Officer, Hugh Caires.

I thought for customer service one was to to go to Hellen Waite.

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote (in <MPG.1b6ed07125aea9d99896b3@news.individual.net&gt about 'Osama
Found Hanged 272', on Mon, 26 Jul 2004:

In article <Ut2AdCCMy$ABFwP+@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Who cares! <Noone@nowhere.com
wrote (in <n5SMc.125$191.107@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net&gt about
'Osama Found Hanged 272', on Sun, 25 Jul 2004:
Instead of my initials, I'll sign this WHO
CARES? (to the last part!)

You could have adopted the name of the archetypal Customer Relations
Officer, Hugh Caires.

I thought for customer service one was to to go to Hellen Waite.

She is his manager.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

David Harper wrote:

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4103F281.8090806@lakeweb.com>...

Fine, further discussion of hydrogen as a fuel won't get us anywhere.
However, I can't let the following comments slide.

Would you agree we should not put our hopes for energy solutions into
hydrogen?

David Harper wrote:

So you're stating that super/hypersonic flight was a "known physics"
in 1950? Maybe you should re-read the above quote:

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words.

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he wasn't a journalist, but a
*professor* in physics.

I did not see the name of an author at the beginning or end of the
article. So, I don't know why I should accept the quote blindly.

Here is the timeline supersonic science:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

Notice that the fine tuning of Mach's work was done in the 30s. Now date
Mach...


This is another outlandish statement. If Mach's work had been "fine
tuned" in the 30's, the following would not have happened (by the way,
this is from the source *YOU* cited):

"The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the
realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed
test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38
out of a high-speed dive, and crashed."

After this incident:
"Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the
mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed
research airplane to become a reality."

(again, from your own source)

Mach did some groundbreaking work, but showing shock waves on a bullet
isn't all the info NASA needed on HYPERsonic flow to go to the moon.

From *YOUR OWN* article:

"John Stack nicely summarized the situation in 1938:

The development of the knowledge of compressible-flow phenomena,
particularly as related to aeronautical applications, has been
attended by considerable difficulty. The complicated nature of the
phenomena has resulted in little theoretical progress, and, in
general, recourse to experiment has been necessary. Until recently the
most important experimental results have been obtained in connection
with the science of ballistics, but this information has been of
little value in aeronautical problems because the range of speeds for
which most ballistic experiments have been made extends from the speed
of sound upward; whereas the important region in aeronautics at the
present time extends from the speed of sound downward."

Also (from your own article):

"In order to learn about the aerodynamics of transonic flight, the
only recourse appeared to be a real airplane that would fly in that
regime."


If you are going to make this claim, please cite the unknown physics of
going to the moon in 1950.


See above. I think your article just did for me.

The Bell X-1 broke the 'sound barrier' in 1947 and it wasn't an
accident. It was not done with an unknown science.

So, back to the point. In 1950 it was understood that a rocket could get
a man to the moon. It was understood that there was no physical
limitation to stand in the way. They knew perfectly well it was only a
mater of developing the technology.

Hydrogen has physical limitations. It is not a matter of developing some
technology to make it a viable energy vector.

Dave

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[daestrom]

"Jed Checketts" <jedcheck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e98177f2.0407240126.147e8514@posting.google.com...

"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<42XLc.77933$bp1.41753@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
"Jed Checketts" <jedcheck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e98177f2.0407212044.35090f5d@posting.google.com...
Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:<40FE87F6.549B6C6@tinaja.com>...
"Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:

"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40FDC08C.CDEE8A96@tinaja.com...
Jed Checketts wrote:
...
HYDROGEN WILL ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE ENERGY BY MASS THAN
GASOLINE.
PERIOD. THIS IS SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.
...
CONTAINED TERESTRIAL HYDROGEN HAS MUCH --->LESS<--- ENERGY BY
MASS
THAN
CONTAINED GASOLINE!

This is simple engineering fact.

Pay attention Don. He proposed storing the hydrogen in Sodium
Aluminum
Hydride. The design of such a system may need work, but it is not
the
same
as storing the gas. In principle, I expect it is possible to argue
that
NaAlH (and water) could be stored in thin walled tanks, and that
the
converter and NaALOHx storage would not require that much
additional
weight.
Not sure I believe that but it should be discussed and you didn't
do
that.

It gets much worse when you throw heavy sodium and heavy aluminum
into
the tank, of course.

Much worse than what?

Sodium aluminum hydride:

NaAlH4 + 2 H2O --> NaAlO2 + 4 H2

Note that you produce 8 Kg of hydrogen for each 54 Kg of Alanate.


Okay, so check my math here....

For 90 kg of reactants (54kg of NaAlH4 and 36kg of H2O), you get 8kg of
H2.
For each 1kg of H2 you can expect about 141.9 MJ of energy. That works
out
to about 12.6 MJ per kg of reactants. If you don't carry the 2H2O, then
it
would be 21 MJ per kg of NaAlH4.

And gasoline carries about 43.8 MJ/kg when reacted with air.

So, explain again how 12.6 MJ per kg is so competitive with 43.8
MJ/kg????

If we are talking about providing hydrogen to a fuel cell, the above
is already competitive from an overall energy density standpoint.
Remember, 43.8 MJ of energy in the form of gasoline will give you far
less energy than this in the form of hydrogen if a gasoline to
hydrogen reformer is used.

Hydrogen energy converted to electrical energy in a fuel cell is more
efficient than gasoline energy converted to mechanical energy via
pistons and a crankshaft. This efficiency greatly impacts the numbers
for overall energy density of the system including the fuel.
Likewise, if you are going to convert gasoline into hydrogen you need
a gasoline reformer which takes up space and is in many cases a large
component of the system. This must be factored into the energy
density numbers as it is part of an overall system.




For the above example, 8 Kg of hydrogen are produced from each 23 Kg
of Lithium Borohydride.


Re-working for LiAlH4, I get 38kg for every 8kg of H produced, not 23kg
(7+27+4*1). But add on the 36kg of water and we have 74kg of reactants
for
8kg of H. That works out to about 15.3 MJ per kg of reactants.
Excluding
the water, we get about 29.87 MJ per kg of LiAlH4. Better, but not
tremendously so.

It should be (7+11+4) (I could be wrong about the 11 for Boron, it
could be 11.5 or something and I don't have this one memorized but 27
is for Aluminum). There is a big weight savings by substituting Boron
for Aluminum. However, when the entire system is considered, for a
variety of reasons including that the aluminate is easier to recycle
than the borate, my money is on Aluminum.

Yea, my bad. I saw the LiAlH4 formula, and the 23Kg and completely missed
where you switched to LiBH4.

<snip>

For Lithium Borohydride it would be 1135/22 (I'm assuming you are
correct on the 1135 number) This is 51.6 MJ/kg which is higher than
the 43.8 MJ/kg you report for gasoline. And the energy density
number for the lithium hydride is MUCH higher than gasoline than even
the 51:44 ratio once you factor in the efficiency difference between a
fuel cell and a combustion engine.

About the water issue: Assuming that water doesn't have to be carried
is reasonable since MORE water is produced by the fuel cell than what
the hydrolysis would need:

4 H2 + 2 O2 --> 4 H2O *FUEL CELL*

Now it's getting interesting. By eliminating the need to carry 36kg of H2O
for every 22kg of 'fuel', it looks more promising.

What are you assuming for fuel-cell, controller, motor losses. An often
used number for gasoline to wheels is ~20%. Advanced electric motor can be
+90% and controllers of VFD often run in the 85% to 90% range. But which of
the *many* different numbers quoted efficiencies for fuel cells are you
assuming?

LiAlH4 + 2 H2O --> LiAlO2 + 4 H2 *HYDROGEN TANK*

What is the heat of formation/reduction of this reaction? Is it exothermic
or endothermic? If exo, is there any use for this energy on the vehicle or
is it a 'loss'? Since this fuel is manufactured, I presume that any energy
liberated in the above reaction must be supplied in the manufacture of the
fuel. And unless it can be recovered on the vehicle, it would be an
'infrastructure' loss. Not that gasoline doesn't have a lot of
'manufacture/infrastructure' losses, but it would be good to have some
comparitive information about this part of the fuel cycle.

daestrom

 

[Brett]

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4105178F.2060702@lakeweb.com>...

David Harper wrote:
Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4103F281.8090806@lakeweb.com>...

Fine, further discussion of hydrogen as a fuel won't get us anywhere.
However, I can't let the following comments slide.

Would you agree we should not put our hopes for energy solutions into
hydrogen?

David Harper wrote:

So you're stating that super/hypersonic flight was a "known physics"
in 1950? Maybe you should re-read the above quote:

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words.

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he wasn't a journalist, but a
*professor* in physics.

I did not see the name of an author at the beginning or end of the
article. So, I don't know why I should accept the quote blindly.


Here is the timeline supersonic science:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

Notice that the fine tuning of Mach's work was done in the 30s. Now date
Mach...


This is another outlandish statement. If Mach's work had been "fine
tuned" in the 30's, the following would not have happened (by the way,
this is from the source *YOU* cited):

"The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the
realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed
test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38
out of a high-speed dive, and crashed."

After this incident:
"Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the
mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed
research airplane to become a reality."

(again, from your own source)

Mach did some groundbreaking work, but showing shock waves on a bullet
isn't all the info NASA needed on HYPERsonic flow to go to the moon.

From *YOUR OWN* article:

"John Stack nicely summarized the situation in 1938:

The development of the knowledge of compressible-flow phenomena,
particularly as related to aeronautical applications, has been
attended by considerable difficulty. The complicated nature of the
phenomena has resulted in little theoretical progress, and, in
general, recourse to experiment has been necessary. Until recently the
most important experimental results have been obtained in connection
with the science of ballistics, but this information has been of
little value in aeronautical problems because the range of speeds for
which most ballistic experiments have been made extends from the speed
of sound upward; whereas the important region in aeronautics at the
present time extends from the speed of sound downward."

Also (from your own article):

"In order to learn about the aerodynamics of transonic flight, the
only recourse appeared to be a real airplane that would fly in that
regime."


If you are going to make this claim, please cite the unknown physics of
going to the moon in 1950.


See above. I think your article just did for me.

The Bell X-1 broke the 'sound barrier' in 1947 and it wasn't an
accident. It was not done with an unknown science.

So, back to the point. In 1950 it was understood that a rocket could get
a man to the moon. It was understood that there was no physical
limitation to stand in the way. They knew perfectly well it was only a
mater of developing the technology.

Hydrogen has physical limitations. It is not a matter of developing some
technology to make it a viable energy vector.


Dave

Best, Dan.

Fellas, please forgive me, even though I find this subject extremely
interesting, what does this have to do with electronics repair?

 

[David Harper]

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4105178F.2060702@lakeweb.com>...

David Harper wrote:
Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4103F281.8090806@lakeweb.com>...

Fine, further discussion of hydrogen as a fuel won't get us anywhere.
However, I can't let the following comments slide.

Would you agree we should not put our hopes for energy solutions into
hydrogen?

Yes. If I had to bet, I wouldn't put hydrogen as a front-runner of
possible candidates to replace/supplement fossil (nor did I ever say I
think it was). However, I would not discount it either. It's
certainly possible. Only the future will tell.

You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words.

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he wasn't a journalist, but a
*professor* in physics.

I did not see the name of an author at the beginning or end of the
article. So, I don't know why I should accept the quote blindly.

But you assumed he was a journalist?

Go down a directory:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/

He's a professor.

The Bell X-1 broke the 'sound barrier' in 1947 and it wasn't an
accident. It was not done with an unknown science.

You're making one enormous assumption with this statement: that in
order for something to be accomplished, *everything* about it has to
be understood before hand. This is most certainly not true. If your
statement is correct, then explain the following:

1. Fact: the X-1's original contract called for it to be stable up to
only 0.8 Mach. Why didn't they design it for 1.0 Mach if they
understood supersonic flight? The fact is, they didn't know what kind
of effects they'd encounter over 0.8 Mach. That's why they did many,
many incremental flights slowly increasing in speed, and adjusting
things based on knowledge gained.

If they completely understood supersonic flight from the beginning,
why didn't they just break the sound barrier on the first flight?

2. The X-1 lost its elevator effectiveness when it first reached
about .94 Mach. This was not unexpected by the designers. If
supersonic flight was truely understood, then why was this allowed to
happen? (note the word "discovery" in the following quote):

"So important was this discovery that nearly every transonic and
supersonic aircraft since that time has had an all-movable horizontal
stabilizer..."

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/HistoricAircraft/X-1/techdata.html

3. The X-1 had straight wings. Look at every supersonic aircraft
after that. They have swept wings. Why? Because engineers didn't
fully understand the advantages of swept wings in terms of supersonic
flight. Or do you have another suggestion?

If you need some more quotes, here's a few:

[of the x-planes]
"Their sole purpose was to explore and document the unknown."

"The unusual part was that these aircraft had no obvious purpose other
than expanding our knowledge of aeronautics."

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Supersonic.html

"Although the X-15 has provided much new knowledge about this
once-feared region, its return journey from there has proved even more
fruitful."

"...reentry flight has been mastered, and many previous unknowns no
longer remain."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-60/ch-1.html

So, back to the point. In 1950 it was understood that a rocket could get
a man to the moon.

Actually, your original comment was:
"In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well understood."

They knew it might be "possible". Saying we KNEW it could be done in
1950 is false. What if solar radiation outside the Van Allen belts
had been 100,000 times what it really is? What if the X-15 had
experienced aerodynamic heating that heated the leading edges to 2200F
at only Mach 3.5 instead of 6.7? Hindsight's 20/20, and these were
unknowns in 1950.

It was understood that there was no physical
limitation to stand in the way.

See above comments. You're saying people in 1950 could predict the
future with 100% accuracy. Also, your forgetting an additional point
of mine was that it only took 20 years from 1950. Sure, alot of
people probably figured it might be possible to get to the moon (once
the knowledge AND technology developed), but how many people would
have thought it possible in only 20 years?

Dave

 

[Rich Grise]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:23:51 GMT, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote:

It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because that's
what most of them say they are.

Really?? All the ones I've seen are purported to be of Christina
Aguilera, which is why I've not bothered to look. There's enough trash
on my computer without that old trollop adding to it.

Apparently fat asses are in this year.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

David Harper wrote:

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4105178F.2060702@lakeweb.com>...

David Harper wrote:

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<4103F281.8090806@lakeweb.com>...

Fine, further discussion of hydrogen as a fuel won't get us anywhere.
However, I can't let the following comments slide.

Would you agree we should not put our hopes for energy solutions into
hydrogen?


Yes. If I had to bet, I wouldn't put hydrogen as a front-runner of
possible candidates to replace/supplement fossil (nor did I ever say I
think it was). However, I would not discount it either. It's
certainly possible. Only the future will tell.


You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words.

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he wasn't a journalist, but a
*professor* in physics.

I did not see the name of an author at the beginning or end of the
article. So, I don't know why I should accept the quote blindly.


But you assumed he was a journalist?

Go down a directory:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/

He's a professor.


The Bell X-1 broke the 'sound barrier' in 1947 and it wasn't an
accident. It was not done with an unknown science.


You're making one enormous assumption with this statement: that in
order for something to be accomplished, *everything* about it has to
be understood before hand. This is most certainly not true. If your
statement is correct, then explain the following:

1. Fact: the X-1's original contract called for it to be stable up to
only 0.8 Mach. Why didn't they design it for 1.0 Mach if they
understood supersonic flight? The fact is, they didn't know what kind
of effects they'd encounter over 0.8 Mach. That's why they did many,
many incremental flights slowly increasing in speed, and adjusting
things based on knowledge gained.

If they completely understood supersonic flight from the beginning,
why didn't they just break the sound barrier on the first flight?

2. The X-1 lost its elevator effectiveness when it first reached
about .94 Mach. This was not unexpected by the designers. If
supersonic flight was truely understood, then why was this allowed to
happen? (note the word "discovery" in the following quote):

"So important was this discovery that nearly every transonic and
supersonic aircraft since that time has had an all-movable horizontal
stabilizer..."

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/HistoricAircraft/X-1/techdata.html

3. The X-1 had straight wings. Look at every supersonic aircraft
after that. They have swept wings. Why? Because engineers didn't
fully understand the advantages of swept wings in terms of supersonic
flight. Or do you have another suggestion?

If you need some more quotes, here's a few:

[of the x-planes]
"Their sole purpose was to explore and document the unknown."

"The unusual part was that these aircraft had no obvious purpose other
than expanding our knowledge of aeronautics."

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Supersonic.html

"Although the X-15 has provided much new knowledge about this
once-feared region, its return journey from there has proved even more
fruitful."

"...reentry flight has been mastered, and many previous unknowns no
longer remain."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-60/ch-1.html


So, back to the point. In 1950 it was understood that a rocket could get
a man to the moon.


Actually, your original comment was:
"In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well understood."

They knew it might be "possible". Saying we KNEW it could be done in
1950 is false. What if solar radiation outside the Van Allen belts
had been 100,000 times what it really is? What if the X-15 had
experienced aerodynamic heating that heated the leading edges to 2200F
at only Mach 3.5 instead of 6.7? Hindsight's 20/20, and these were
unknowns in 1950.


It was understood that there was no physical
limitation to stand in the way.


See above comments. You're saying people in 1950 could predict the
future with 100% accuracy. Also, your forgetting an additional point
of mine was that it only took 20 years from 1950. Sure, alot of
people probably figured it might be possible to get to the moon (once
the knowledge AND technology developed), but how many people would
have thought it possible in only 20 years?

Hi Dave,
I'll concede. In the light of the information you have provided, my
original comment should be considered wrong.

But at the least, they had a science to grind on. What I don't see is a
hydrogen science with mysteries to solve. And I've been all over the
hydrogen thing. So, at least without new information, I don't believe
hydrogen can be made part of an energy solution. There may be some kind
of material science breakthrough to conquer the storage problem, but
that just a rather small 'if' from here.

Dave

Thanks, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[David Harper]

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<41070499.1010603@lakeweb.com>...

Hi Dave,
I'll concede. In the light of the information you have provided, my
original comment should be considered wrong.

But at the least, they had a science to grind on.

You're correct. It wasn't all unknowns. There was some science for
them to build on.

What I don't see is a
hydrogen science with mysteries to solve. And I've been all over the
hydrogen thing. So, at least without new information, I don't believe
hydrogen can be made part of an energy solution. There may be some kind
of material science breakthrough to conquer the storage problem, but
that just a rather small 'if' from here.

You do make many good points. Hydrogen isn't a viable option right
now, nor will it be unless certain tech advances allow it to become
practical. Like I said before, If I were a betting man, I'd place my
money on something else other than a hydrogen.

Thanks, Dan.

Dave

 

[Xen0gen]

"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<I1803B.Lt5@news.boeing.com>...

"Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1090439435.427516@news-1.nethere.net...
...
Furthermore production of methanol uses some of the energy in the carbon
when coal is the percursor. Using only the hydrogen wastes the carbon
component.

When the coal is used as the only energy source, it makes no dif (ignoring
some possible differences in efficiency)whether you produce H2 only or HxCx,
you still use all the energy that was in the carbon. It is probably a better
process from a CO2 perspective, to produce hydrogen from some alternative
source, then use all the carbon in making a fuel oil, but in that case, you
would not want to use the coal at all to make hydrogen. This would, of
course, "waste" all the carbon in the coal, eh?

Anyone else seen the recent research about the PSII (photosynthesis
II) protein. I would assume that mass production of this protein, or a
simpler version tailored to our needs, could begin within the next
decade. This would provide the most fuel efficient set up I can think
of. You could have water stored in a tank (that's easy) and have a
panel on the roof of the car similar to a solar panel filled with the
protein and run water through it to get hydrogen. However the storage
of the separated components is still an issue.

here's a link to what I'm talking about:
http://www.reactivereports.com/37/37_1.html

 

[Don Lancaster]

Xen0gen wrote:

"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<I1803B.Lt5@news.boeing.com>...
"Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1090439435.427516@news-1.nethere.net...
...
Furthermore production of methanol uses some of the energy in the carbon
when coal is the percursor. Using only the hydrogen wastes the carbon
component.

When the coal is used as the only energy source, it makes no dif (ignoring
some possible differences in efficiency)whether you produce H2 only or HxCx,
you still use all the energy that was in the carbon. It is probably a better
process from a CO2 perspective, to produce hydrogen from some alternative
source, then use all the carbon in making a fuel oil, but in that case, you
would not want to use the coal at all to make hydrogen. This would, of
course, "waste" all the carbon in the coal, eh?

Anyone else seen the recent research about the PSII (photosynthesis
II) protein. I would assume that mass production of this protein, or a
simpler version tailored to our needs, could begin within the next
decade. This would provide the most fuel efficient set up I can think
of. You could have water stored in a tank (that's easy) and have a
panel on the roof of the car similar to a solar panel filled with the
protein and run water through it to get hydrogen. However the storage
of the separated components is still an issue.

here's a link to what I'm talking about:
http://www.reactivereports.com/37/37_1.html

See the original metalloradicals papers a few years back in Science.
Also http://www.tinja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a link.
--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Adam Aglionby]

added alt.lasers and sci.electronics.repair as a crosspost

"Charles R. Kaiser" <ckaiser@aci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2mqk2hFpenalU1@uni-berlin.de...

Hello Group,

This morning I discovered that the CD-RW drive in our sound effects
computer had failed. I noticed this when I tried to play some MP3 files
while I was working. When I looked at the front panel of the CD-RW,
both the "Disc In" and "Writing" LEDs were illuminated. I did a restart
of the system and every thing fired up as normal, then when I tried to
eject the CD from the drive, my system hung.

When I restarted again, Windows failed to fully load. Since the CD
drive seemed to be the problem, I took it out of the machine. The
computer booted with no trouble. I had to use the emergency eject
button to get the CD out of the drive, and when I got it out, I saw the
result of the failure! The "Writing" LED was lit for a reason! The
drive failed with the laser ON! The CD actually has a deformed area on
the surface where the laser was lazing the surface of the disc. This
area carries over to both sides of the CD and the disc surface is cloudy
in an area that covers about 1/6th of the disc's surface.

Has anyone ever seen this happen before? There is no reason that the
computer should have been writing to the CD, it was full and closed to
further writing, but the laser sure did a number on the CD! Very odd.

--
Charles R. Kaiser HOKC - Godtar - http://www.godtar.com
"There's two dates in time that they'll carve on your stone
And everyone knows what they mean. What's more important
Is the time that is known in that little dash in between"

Direct all incoming fire to:
44° 00' 43" N
79° 27' 06" W

1/6 of surface sounds a bit big are to melt for a wee laser even the 30 odd
mW (? IRC) of a CDRW. Wnoder if its heat related otherwise?
A few drives used to have a small fan mounted at back, guess laser diode and
supply run a bit toasty.

Adam