It is OBVIOUS. (eer)


Eer is obvious.

I have battled with experts for many years about it, and taken deserved lumps
for my lack of math to back it up.

But, eer is just plain obvious. To miss it would be a shame - we NEED it.

We can collect energy from the sun, the wind, waves, tides, etc.

We can STORE that energy - and there is such an unlimited supply of sources,
that losses are not a problem.

We have technology for electric cars, and electricity has long been our way of
distributing energy for other energy needs.


Frank

FEerguy9 wrote:

It is OBVIOUS. (eer)

Eer is obvious.

I have battled with experts for many years about it, and taken deserved lumps
for my lack of math to back it up.

Idiot. You are off by six orders of magnitude. You are a little kid
squealing to its mommy about Santa Claus,

http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer/calculations.html
http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encycl/art-c03-elchem-cap.htm

But, eer is just plain obvious. To miss it would be a shame - we NEED it.

The universe doesn't give a **** what you think - if you think at
all. Learn some thermodynamics.

[snip whining crap]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

You are a little kid
squealing to its mommy about Santa Claus,

My mother is dead, thank you.


Frank

"FEerguy9" wrote in message
...

[snip]

You have trotted this out brfore. You were shot down. Why the second
coming?

Franz

"FEerguy9" wrote in message
...

[snip]

You have trotted this out brfore. You were shot down. Why the second
coming?

I need a "smoking gun" to shoot me down.

I have not seen it yet.


Frank

Franz

In sci.physics, FEerguy9

wrote
on 21 Jan 2004 04:13:40 GMT
:
"FEerguy9" wrote in message
...

[snip]

You have trotted this out brfore. You were shot down. Why the second
coming?

I need a "smoking gun" to shoot me down.

I have not seen it yet.

Your system depends on a trench capacitor. Build one and see
how well it works.

My computations suggest it won't work all that well.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer/calculations.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, FEerguy9

wrote
on 21 Jan 2004 04:13:40 GMT
:
"FEerguy9" wrote in message
...

[snip]

You have trotted this out brfore. You were shot down. Why the second
coming?

I need a "smoking gun" to shoot me down.

I have not seen it yet.

Your system depends on a trench capacitor.

It does?


Build one and see how well it works.

Yea - right!



My computations suggest it won't work all that well.

"all that well"?

Is that a crack in the opposition?


Frank

http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer/calculations.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, FEerguy9

wrote
on 22 Jan 2004 12:20:24 GMT
:

In sci.physics, FEerguy9

wrote
on 21 Jan 2004 04:13:40 GMT
:
"FEerguy9" wrote in message
...

[snip]

You have trotted this out brfore. You were shot down. Why the second
coming?

I need a "smoking gun" to shoot me down.

I have not seen it yet.

Your system depends on a trench capacitor.

It does?

Unless you wish to suggest an alternate energy repository.
I'd suggest a lead-acid battery, but even that's not the
best; however, AFAIK technology does not yet exist to
synthesize gasoline from water and carbon dioxide (though
presumably it's in work; the simplest method might be to
use engineered bacteria fed by sunlight). Nor is it clear
how well along in development a "gasoline battery" is,
although there was a news report some months back relaying
some research success with a methane-powered or
alcohol-powered beastie.



Build one and see how well it works.

Yea - right!

The essence of physics is to build one and see if it works.
Of course the chances of it working are enhanced by
a good theory, and many experimenters have gone before you
in the realm of electricity.




My computations suggest it won't work all that well.

"all that well"?

Is that a crack in the opposition?

Let's just say that but for the trench capacitor and
the idea of putting windmills on a car, your ideas are
reasonably sound. The problem with the windmills is the
drag and weight, although someone did point out that one
could have them garner power while parked -- but that can
be done with stationary units, too, and more efficiently
as they wouldn't have to be carted about.

As for the trench capacitor, it's obvious after my
computations that a dry cell holds more energy, at least
at the same voltage. (An electronic capacitor is in
fact possible, and occasionally used; it's basically an
operational amplifier[*] coupled to a real capacitor in
a certain fashion. This device requires external power.)

[rest snipped]
[*] a differential op-amp is a high-gain amplifier that
accepts two inputs; the amplified difference of those
inputs appears at the output. Most op-amp circuits are
designed with feedback to achieve the desired effect.
Physically, an op-amp is packaged in chip form.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Unless you wish to suggest an alternate energy repository.

That is EXACTLY what I suggest!



I'd suggest a lead-acid battery, but even that's not the
best; however, AFAIK technology does not yet exist to
synthesize gasoline from water and carbon dioxide (though
presumably it's in work; the simplest method might be to
use engineered bacteria fed by sunlight). Nor is it clear
how well along in development a "gasoline battery" is,
although there was a news report some months back relaying
some research success with a methane-powered or
alcohol-powered beastie.



Build one and see how well it works.

Yea - right!

The essence of physics is to build one and see if it works.
Of course the chances of it working are enhanced by
a good theory, and many experimenters have gone before you
in the realm of electricity.




My computations suggest it won't work all that well.

"all that well"?

Is that a crack in the opposition?

Let's just say that but for the trench capacitor and
the idea of putting windmills on a car, your ideas are
reasonably sound. The problem with the windmills is the
drag and weight, although someone did point out that one
could have them garner power while parked -- but that can
be done with stationary units, too, and more efficiently
as they wouldn't have to be carted about.

As for the trench capacitor, it's obvious after my
computations that a dry cell holds more energy, at least
at the same voltage. (An electronic capacitor is in
fact possible, and occasionally used; it's basically an
operational amplifier[*] coupled to a real capacitor in
a certain fashion. This device requires external power.)

[rest snipped]

[*] a differential op-amp is a high-gain amplifier that
accepts two inputs; the amplified difference of those
inputs appears at the output. Most op-amp circuits are
designed with feedback to achieve the desired effect.
Physically, an op-amp is packaged in chip form.

Over me little head.


Frank

In sci.physics, FEerguy9

wrote
on 24 Jan 2004 07:12:45 GMT
:
Unless you wish to suggest an alternate energy repository.

That is EXACTLY what I suggest!

Then you're going to have to be more specific. So far
your "electronic capacitor" idea appears to either
be physically impossible to construct or not have
the characteristics you desire and be outperformed
by a lead-acid battery or dry cell.

And those are outperformed by an engine that uses gasoline,
kerosene, or other such liquid hydrocarbon fuels (although
in a sense these cheat, by extracting energy [oxygen] from
the atmosphere). Weight for weight, gasoline or diesel
fuel has the most energy on the planet, barring such very
esoteric things such as uranium fission or hydrogen fusion,
which are unlikely to be shrunk enough to be placed into
automobiles -- although one very theoretical possibility
might be a device using nanotech to accelerate 4 protons
together.

So here's a possibility for a sustainable economy.

[1] Fusion power becomes economically viable. (This has been
30 years off for well nigh 30 years now, but one can
still hope. Of course if oil becomes expensive enough,
a lot of things become cheaper than oil...)

[2] Microbugs/bacteria are engineered that can synthesize
gasoline/kerosene/diesel fuel, in varying quantities,
from water, carbon dioxide, and either solar or fusion
energy (the fusion energy would be radiated on the
bacteria through a high-efficiency visible or UV lamp;
since fluorescents use UV internally I don't see much
of a problem here). If necessary, these are refined
in the more or less usual fashion, though ideally
refinement would not be needed. (Refineries are
primarily concerned with cracking the relatively heavy
oil molecules. I have no idea whether they can be
converted to microbug production facilities or not.)
This part does not appear all that difficult (at least,
from a very naive non-biochemist standpoint!) and is
probably already being done.

[3] The piston engine might remain much as it is, hooked
to a continuously variable transmission for maximum
efficiency. An alternative possibility is a dual-unit
gas-to-electricity-to-motor system, if it's more
efficient. (Today's hybrids work surprisingly well,
in light of the battery deadweight -- of course the
piston engine has deadweight of its own, a relatively
small battery designed exclusively for starting.)
Other possibilities include Wankels and Stirling
engines.

[4] We start harvesting trash dumps for additional carbon,
metals, and other such. These could be cleaned and
processed to either provide fuel, scrap iron, or glass
for furnaces. (To me, it is not clear whether it requires
more energy to produce a drinking glass or a plastic
tumbler of the same size.) Once the trash dumps are
harvested we set up a system where everything can be
recycled, or at least the trash reprocessed for fuel,
scrap iron, glass, etc.

[5] Isaac Asimov was a visionary in some respects, although
today we'd probably use bacteria where he hypothesized yeast.
Then again, one cannot justify the inefficiency of the cow:
90% or so of the cow's input (grass) goes either out the
other end (where it's recycled into the ground for more
grass, hopefully), or as waste heat. But we do like our
meat; the obvious solution here would be to generate
synthetic meat, or at least prepackaged foods using such.

It is not clear to me at present whether the hypothetical
4 acres/person can be improved upon or not; that sounds
whoppingly inefficient in light of the simple computation
that a human requires 125W of energy (in the form of foods)
but that 4 acres = 1.6187 hectare = 16187 m^2 = 11 megawatts,
give or take (22 megawatts during the time the sun is
actually out). That's an efficiency of 0.0011%, and probably
could be improved on.




I'd suggest a lead-acid battery, but even that's not the
best; however, AFAIK technology does not yet exist to
synthesize gasoline from water and carbon dioxide (though
presumably it's in work; the simplest method might be to
use engineered bacteria fed by sunlight). Nor is it clear
how well along in development a "gasoline battery" is,
although there was a news report some months back relaying
some research success with a methane-powered or
alcohol-powered beastie.



Build one and see how well it works.

Yea - right!

The essence of physics is to build one and see if it works.
Of course the chances of it working are enhanced by
a good theory, and many experimenters have gone before you
in the realm of electricity.




My computations suggest it won't work all that well.

"all that well"?

Is that a crack in the opposition?

Let's just say that but for the trench capacitor and
the idea of putting windmills on a car, your ideas are
reasonably sound. The problem with the windmills is the
drag and weight, although someone did point out that one
could have them garner power while parked -- but that can
be done with stationary units, too, and more efficiently
as they wouldn't have to be carted about.

As for the trench capacitor, it's obvious after my
computations that a dry cell holds more energy, at least
at the same voltage. (An electronic capacitor is in
fact possible, and occasionally used; it's basically an
operational amplifier[*] coupled to a real capacitor in
a certain fashion. This device requires external power.)

[rest snipped]

[*] a differential op-amp is a high-gain amplifier that
accepts two inputs; the amplified difference of those
inputs appears at the output. Most op-amp circuits are
designed with feedback to achieve the desired effect.
Physically, an op-amp is packaged in chip form.

Over me little head.

A bit over mine, too, as my primary emphasis in my youth
was on software development and digital circuitry. I
never was much into the analogue stuff.



Frank


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.