G
Graham Cooper
Guest
Stop being OBTUSE you flat out LIAR
Herc
Stop being OBTUSE you flat out LIAR
Herc
G
Graham Cooper
Guest
On Jul 14, 7:08 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
Bike Riders do OK! 200W Bike will keep you going at 50km/hour on the
flat, bit of peddling will get you up to speed quicker without
draining power. i.e. pedal to start from the lights.
This car won't have pedals though.
1000W bike (illegal in Aus) will accelerate nicely for you.
Probably top 100km/hour my 2000W design, briefly.
Air resistance is proportional to the SQUARE of speed.
It's not noticeable at Suburb speeds, you can wear sunnies if you
like.
When you get up to 180km/hr you can't move your helmet left or right
on a motorbike, you won't be moving it back to center the wind
resistance kicks in about 150km/hr.
Herc
Bike Riders do OK! 200W Bike will keep you going at 50km/hour on the
flat, bit of peddling will get you up to speed quicker without
draining power. i.e. pedal to start from the lights.
This car won't have pedals though.
1000W bike (illegal in Aus) will accelerate nicely for you.
Probably top 100km/hour my 2000W design, briefly.
Air resistance is proportional to the SQUARE of speed.
It's not noticeable at Suburb speeds, you can wear sunnies if you
like.
When you get up to 180km/hr you can't move your helmet left or right
on a motorbike, you won't be moving it back to center the wind
resistance kicks in about 150km/hr.
Herc
B
Brad Guth
Guest
On Jul 14, 12:50 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
+hydrocarbon direct combustion turbine for the full-sized car, SUV or
maximum 4WD truck shouldn't be a problem at packing a tonne of payload
plus delivering loads of energy on demand, and otherwise capable of
giving us 100+ mpg out of that spendy hydrocarbon fuel.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
A proper hybrid fuel-cell w/lithium or HP battery, and offering the HTP
+hydrocarbon direct combustion turbine for the full-sized car, SUV or
maximum 4WD truck shouldn't be a problem at packing a tonne of payload
plus delivering loads of energy on demand, and otherwise capable of
giving us 100+ mpg out of that spendy hydrocarbon fuel.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
G
Graham Cooper
Guest
On Jul 15, 12:04 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)
Main articles: Fuel cell vehicle, Hydrogen vehicle
Automobiles
Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for
commercial sale, over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have
been released since 2009. Demonstration models include the Honda FCX
Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.[61] As of June
2011 demonstration FCEVs had driven more than 4,800,000 km (3,000,000
mi), with more than 27,000 refuelings.[62] Demonstration fuel cell
vehicles have been produced with "a driving range of more than 400 km
(250 mi) between refueling".[63] They can be refueled in less than 5
minutes.[64] The U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell Technology
Program claims that, as of 2011, fuel cells achieved 5359% efficiency
at ź power and 4253% vehicle efficiency at full power,[65] and a
durability of over 120,000 km (75,000 mi) with less than 10%
degradation
Sounds better than a battery!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Fuelcell.jpg/250px-Fuelcell.jpg
Herc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)
Main articles: Fuel cell vehicle, Hydrogen vehicle
Automobiles
Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for
commercial sale, over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have
been released since 2009. Demonstration models include the Honda FCX
Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.[61] As of June
2011 demonstration FCEVs had driven more than 4,800,000 km (3,000,000
mi), with more than 27,000 refuelings.[62] Demonstration fuel cell
vehicles have been produced with "a driving range of more than 400 km
(250 mi) between refueling".[63] They can be refueled in less than 5
minutes.[64] The U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell Technology
Program claims that, as of 2011, fuel cells achieved 5359% efficiency
at ź power and 4253% vehicle efficiency at full power,[65] and a
durability of over 120,000 km (75,000 mi) with less than 10%
degradation
Sounds better than a battery!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Fuelcell.jpg/250px-Fuelcell.jpg
Herc
K
keithr
Guest
On 14/07/2012 5:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
C
Clocky
Guest
Brad Guth wrote:
I'm all for clean, renewable energy... but I'm a realist also.
they stand today. It's an inefficient process.
I'm all for clean, renewable energy... but I'm a realist also.
That's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes... but they don't change the facts as
they stand today. It's an inefficient process.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 14/07/2012 7:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
Doesn't matter. Greenies don't include the CO2 released by rotting human
corpses when calculating greenhouse impacts.
Sylvia.
Doesn't matter. Greenies don't include the CO2 released by rotting human
corpses when calculating greenhouse impacts.
Sylvia.
B
Brad Guth
Guest
On Jul 12, 3:45 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
hardly a soul in Usenet/newsgroups ever cared, other than to topic/
author stalk and bash his ideas into the ground. Perhaps it was the
all-knowing mindset of Mook that made his proposed use of his solar
derived hydrogen sound a bit too good to be true, although his
creating of relatively cheap hydrogen and oxygen from water and solar
energy (even at twice his proposed cost) wasn't any ruse or spoof, and
that hydrogen as used in a fuel-cell can produce 60% efficiency with
as near to zero environmental impact as energy gets.
Relatively low cost hydrogen is certainly not a problem.
The problem is with the closed mindset of most individuals and that of
government and Big Energy that wants absolutely nothing to do with any
of it unless it's only provided by their Oligarch Rothschild cartel.
Steven Chu wasn't of any help either.
I happen to prefer the mobile use or application of HTP along with the
high quality of liquid synfuel hydrocarbons derived from Mokenergy
coal, as a dual-fuel method of providing terrific energy density from
a very small internal combustion engine that could power any full
sized hybrid car, truck or bus of any size without those energy or
operational range limitations of conventional hybrids. A hydrogen
peroxide battery is also a terrific application of solar energy
derived HP, and Mook's clean synfuel from coal via his hydrogen from
solar energy, was yet another terrific win-win for all of us.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
William Mook had that one nicely covered as of a decade ago, and notOn Jul 12, 6:50 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 12/07/2012 6:04 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
"The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! It's clean!"
True statement!
As I said.. even it was an issue, it just raises the question whether
it is necessary to supply O2 Tanks on top of H2.
Herc
I think Rotary Engines are more suitable for H2, I heard the fuel
intake is separate to the combustion section so it can handle higher
temperatures.
but H2 is the Hard Problem! It's not TOO HARD - 2H. It's H2!|
*****
The Easy Problem is 80% of car usage is <50km at 60km/hour with one
person load.
If people had short range city cars (ELECTRIC) and H2 for the highway
and towing, then Electric is ideal for a city environment!
The problem is "competition", the govt. has to level the field. When
Volvo brought out cars 30% heavier than the norm they fared better in
front on crashes! 10G impact if it slows you down, the smaller car
suffers 30G impact going from forward to backward in the same time
frame.
With specialised cars for short range in cities, and H2 for highways,
you could abandon the 1 tonne 4WD style for Electrics, go for a Dune
Buggy style with a compact perspex shell. Keeps pollution out of the
city too!
Yes, keeps it firmly where it belongs - either around the coal-fired
power stations used to generate the electricity for electrolysis, or
around the steam reformation plants.
Sylvia.
electricity for electrolysis is not a 24 hour application.
You need to get some sun.
Herc
hardly a soul in Usenet/newsgroups ever cared, other than to topic/
author stalk and bash his ideas into the ground. Perhaps it was the
all-knowing mindset of Mook that made his proposed use of his solar
derived hydrogen sound a bit too good to be true, although his
creating of relatively cheap hydrogen and oxygen from water and solar
energy (even at twice his proposed cost) wasn't any ruse or spoof, and
that hydrogen as used in a fuel-cell can produce 60% efficiency with
as near to zero environmental impact as energy gets.
Relatively low cost hydrogen is certainly not a problem.
The problem is with the closed mindset of most individuals and that of
government and Big Energy that wants absolutely nothing to do with any
of it unless it's only provided by their Oligarch Rothschild cartel.
Steven Chu wasn't of any help either.
I happen to prefer the mobile use or application of HTP along with the
high quality of liquid synfuel hydrocarbons derived from Mokenergy
coal, as a dual-fuel method of providing terrific energy density from
a very small internal combustion engine that could power any full
sized hybrid car, truck or bus of any size without those energy or
operational range limitations of conventional hybrids. A hydrogen
peroxide battery is also a terrific application of solar energy
derived HP, and Mook's clean synfuel from coal via his hydrogen from
solar energy, was yet another terrific win-win for all of us.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
B
Brad Guth
Guest
On Jul 14, 7:44 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
another terrific notion to go along with Mokenergy synfuel from coal,
or just to directly utilize his solar generated hydrogen and oxygen
which can't be all that insurmountable nor spendy if we truly wanted
to develop the cleaner alternatives of renewable energy.
Extremely high pressure storage tanks for automotive hydrogen are
doable, although the next logical step down is to simply provide HTP
which is a liquid that can be directly used by itself or along with a
small amount of hydrocarbons in a dual-fuel engine that requires no
atmospheric intake whatsoever, and offers a clean exhaust that we can
all live with.
A hydrogen plus HTP and synfuel from coal based economy, along with
quality fuel-cell technology and dual-fuel internal combustion engines
is a perfectly good plan, even if it's not for everyone.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
Actually a battery that's using 50% hydrogen peroxide is simply
another terrific notion to go along with Mokenergy synfuel from coal,
or just to directly utilize his solar generated hydrogen and oxygen
which can't be all that insurmountable nor spendy if we truly wanted
to develop the cleaner alternatives of renewable energy.
Extremely high pressure storage tanks for automotive hydrogen are
doable, although the next logical step down is to simply provide HTP
which is a liquid that can be directly used by itself or along with a
small amount of hydrocarbons in a dual-fuel engine that requires no
atmospheric intake whatsoever, and offers a clean exhaust that we can
all live with.
A hydrogen plus HTP and synfuel from coal based economy, along with
quality fuel-cell technology and dual-fuel internal combustion engines
is a perfectly good plan, even if it's not for everyone.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
B
Brad Guth
Guest
On Jul 15, 3:11 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
Mokenergy derived hydrogen and oxygen from solar energy is relatively
cheap and perhaps gets us as close to renewable as it ever needs to
get. Unfortunately there's no enforced law making any of us use such
technology, although there are enforced policies making us go to war
over hydrocarbons and to otherwise pay for its Karma.
Are you also opposed to thorium fueled reactors?
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
others of your mainstream perpetual naysay kind always have to offer.
Mokenergy derived hydrogen and oxygen from solar energy is relatively
cheap and perhaps gets us as close to renewable as it ever needs to
get. Unfortunately there's no enforced law making any of us use such
technology, although there are enforced policies making us go to war
over hydrocarbons and to otherwise pay for its Karma.
Are you also opposed to thorium fueled reactors?
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
B
Bob Casanova
Guest
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:
Oh, the irony...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
B
Bob Casanova
Guest
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:05:47 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
Run away! Run away!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
[Crickets...]
Run away! Run away!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 7/15/2012 5:25 PM, keithr wrote:
a single block.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**Indeed. Which, when you think on it, should take a little longer than
a single block.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
G
Graham Cooper
Guest
LOOK ABOVE!
you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.
****
H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP! It's FREE!
Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
in perspex)
was $5/square meter?
The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
fuel.
The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!
You don't need H2 production at night! That's the point! It's stored
SOLAR ENERGY.
O2 (if it's even needed) comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.
Herc
B
Brad Guth
Guest
On Jul 15, 2:22 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mokenergy), and the mainstream status-quo of forever hydrocarbons
hasn't bought into any of it.
Yes, H2 can become relatively cheap, though perhaps not ever as cheap
as offered by William Mook, and otherwise it's ideally suited for fuel-
cell applications, as well as for dozens of applications in
commercial, industrial and retail/end-use.
Supposedly the Boeing solar panel division (Spectrolab) has actually
broken the 100% PV efficiency by converting IR through UV, although
that's with a rather spendy advanced product that most of us can't
possibly afford. Commercially and otherwise for space or military
applications they currently offer a spendy 43% efficiency factor.
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/msce.pdf
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
It has actually been better put across by William Mook (aka
Mokenergy), and the mainstream status-quo of forever hydrocarbons
hasn't bought into any of it.
Yes, H2 can become relatively cheap, though perhaps not ever as cheap
as offered by William Mook, and otherwise it's ideally suited for fuel-
cell applications, as well as for dozens of applications in
commercial, industrial and retail/end-use.
Supposedly the Boeing solar panel division (Spectrolab) has actually
broken the 100% PV efficiency by converting IR through UV, although
that's with a rather spendy advanced product that most of us can't
possibly afford. Commercially and otherwise for space or military
applications they currently offer a spendy 43% efficiency factor.
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/msce.pdf
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
G
Graham Cooper
Guest
Yeh but the sunlight just hits the DIRT anyway!
there's a million spare acres outside every city.
You could use 0.00000001% efficient Solar Panels and just put up more
of them!
Sure you have to get the technology as economical as feasible 1st.
This isn't a put-as-many-panels-on-your-roof-as-you-can-fit problem!
If you can mass produce 5% efficient panels for 1/4 the price of 10%
efficient panels then that's what you would use at a Power/H2 plant.
Herc
B
Brad Guth
Guest
On Jul 15, 4:41 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
conversion efficiency touted by Mokenergy, although the basic concept
of utilizing such spare/surplus land for accommodating his custom
solar collectors was never in doubt of offering a perfectly viable
clean energy alternative. Mook's hydrogen even at twice his suggested
production cost was still a very good return on investment, not to
mention squeaky clean and renewable, other than solar farm maintenance
that would always represent a small carbon footprint.
A solar farm using 20% efficient PVs would still be a whole lot less
all-inclusive spendy than any conventional nuclear reactor, not only
per GW but per acreage once everything (aka birth-to-grave) about
conventional nuclear generated energy is taken into account. Mass
produced PVs by China and India could do those items for as little as
$1/watt installed, and because hardly any skilled labor is necessary
once this solar farm process is set in motion is why the annual upkeep
shouldn't have to exceed 10 cents per installed watt (roughly $7.50/m2/
yr).
Once the H2 and Ox plus amounts of LH2 and LOx is made and stored it
can be further distributed and/or directly used on demand in order to
generate a great deal of clean energy via fuel-cells.
You really should compare notes with Mook, although be forewarned that
he usually has to run the whole show, taking most if not all of the
credit for the best methods of doing just about everything. Otherwise
Mook is a relatively harmless but way better than average educated
person that only happens to come across as a know-it-all.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
Exactly correct, and I never once accepted the higher level of
conversion efficiency touted by Mokenergy, although the basic concept
of utilizing such spare/surplus land for accommodating his custom
solar collectors was never in doubt of offering a perfectly viable
clean energy alternative. Mook's hydrogen even at twice his suggested
production cost was still a very good return on investment, not to
mention squeaky clean and renewable, other than solar farm maintenance
that would always represent a small carbon footprint.
A solar farm using 20% efficient PVs would still be a whole lot less
all-inclusive spendy than any conventional nuclear reactor, not only
per GW but per acreage once everything (aka birth-to-grave) about
conventional nuclear generated energy is taken into account. Mass
produced PVs by China and India could do those items for as little as
$1/watt installed, and because hardly any skilled labor is necessary
once this solar farm process is set in motion is why the annual upkeep
shouldn't have to exceed 10 cents per installed watt (roughly $7.50/m2/
yr).
Once the H2 and Ox plus amounts of LH2 and LOx is made and stored it
can be further distributed and/or directly used on demand in order to
generate a great deal of clean energy via fuel-cells.
You really should compare notes with Mook, although be forewarned that
he usually has to run the whole show, taking most if not all of the
credit for the best methods of doing just about everything. Otherwise
Mook is a relatively harmless but way better than average educated
person that only happens to come across as a know-it-all.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
K
keithr
Guest
On 16/07/2012 6:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
needed adjusting) it would be the torque converter.
ambient temperature was 11 C, hot air started coming out of the heater
at about 0.4Km, the temperature was in the working zone just before
0.7Km. Car manufacturers have been using the ECU setting to promote fast
warm up for some years in order to meet pollution requirements.
It wouldn't be the gearbox dissipating that power (unless the bands
needed adjusting) it would be the torque converter.
Having thought about it, no it shouldn't. I went out this morning, the
ambient temperature was 11 C, hot air started coming out of the heater
at about 0.4Km, the temperature was in the working zone just before
0.7Km. Car manufacturers have been using the ECU setting to promote fast
warm up for some years in order to meet pollution requirements.
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 7/16/2012 12:54 PM, keithr wrote:
vehicles I have experience with. I've never driven a Subaru from cold. I
still reckon the Subaru should take a little longer, due to the greater
total block mass (required for strength) and greater surface area.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**Thanks for doing the test. That is certainly a little quicker than
vehicles I have experience with. I've never driven a Subaru from cold. I
still reckon the Subaru should take a little longer, due to the greater
total block mass (required for strength) and greater surface area.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
G
Graham Cooper
Guest
On Jul 16, 11:25 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
it's cheap as chips! another alternative is thin black piping like
that used
on roofs to solar heat pools.
You can collect heat from the sun very cheaply, but the peltier
devices
to get electricity from hot water would cost more than solar panels.
Or a transparent plastic cover over a shallow Lake would heat up in
only
a couple days. Those bubble wrap pool covers are like steam baths in
summer!
Stirling Engines would only be say DELTA 30 DEGREES / 270 efficient.
My Evap Cooler Droplet Catching design was meant to get the COLD
Terminal
down an extra 10-20 degrees to double the efficiency of Solar Sterling
Stations.
Bit of a nightmare generator to build though.
http://camaffiliate.com/DRY-AIR-INTAKE.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/INTERNAL-EVAPORATION-UNIT.jpg
G. Cooper (BInfTech)
--
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-THEOREM
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TURING
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GODEL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PROOF
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-MATHS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LOGIC
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BRAIN
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-REAL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-SETS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HALT
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-P-NP
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GUT
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-AI
LOGIC AXIOM - The Closure Of Tautologies
E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} <-> PROOF( E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} )
MATHEMATICS AXIOM - The Examination of Theories
E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} <-> !PROOF( !E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} )
PROOF(C) :- C
PROOF(C) :- DERIVE(A,B,C)
DERIVE(A,B,C) :- PROOF(A), PROOF(B), TAUT(A,B,C)
8203215
!A0(A1) = NOT(PROOF(8203215)) <-/-> E(Y) Y={x|f(x)}
10 IF HALT(this-program-ref) THEN GOTO 10
ORIGINS OF CHAITAN'S OMEGA AND |R|>|N|
************
| 5GL / WHY? WHEN?
| 4GL / WHAT? not HOW! ?person(P)
| 3GL / FUNCTION STACK proc(a,b)
| 2GL / MNEMONICS LDA 0101
| 1GL/ MACHINE CODE 101 0101
== CPU
it's cheap as chips! another alternative is thin black piping like
that used
on roofs to solar heat pools.
You can collect heat from the sun very cheaply, but the peltier
devices
to get electricity from hot water would cost more than solar panels.
Or a transparent plastic cover over a shallow Lake would heat up in
only
a couple days. Those bubble wrap pool covers are like steam baths in
summer!
Stirling Engines would only be say DELTA 30 DEGREES / 270 efficient.
My Evap Cooler Droplet Catching design was meant to get the COLD
Terminal
down an extra 10-20 degrees to double the efficiency of Solar Sterling
Stations.
Bit of a nightmare generator to build though.
http://camaffiliate.com/DRY-AIR-INTAKE.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/INTERNAL-EVAPORATION-UNIT.jpg
G. Cooper (BInfTech)
--
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-THEOREM
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TURING
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GODEL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PROOF
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-MATHS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LOGIC
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BRAIN
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-REAL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-SETS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HALT
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-P-NP
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GUT
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-AI
LOGIC AXIOM - The Closure Of Tautologies
E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} <-> PROOF( E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} )
MATHEMATICS AXIOM - The Examination of Theories
E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} <-> !PROOF( !E(Y) Y={x|f(x)} )
PROOF(C) :- C
PROOF(C) :- DERIVE(A,B,C)
DERIVE(A,B,C) :- PROOF(A), PROOF(B), TAUT(A,B,C)
8203215
!A0(A1) = NOT(PROOF(8203215)) <-/-> E(Y) Y={x|f(x)}
10 IF HALT(this-program-ref) THEN GOTO 10
ORIGINS OF CHAITAN'S OMEGA AND |R|>|N|
************
| 5GL / WHY? WHEN?
| 4GL / WHAT? not HOW! ?person(P)
| 3GL / FUNCTION STACK proc(a,b)
| 2GL / MNEMONICS LDA 0101
| 1GL/ MACHINE CODE 101 0101
== CPU