 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Some new idea on energy project as a hobby... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Don Lancaster... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
the Universe wrote:
[quote:800f30c020]On Oct 11, 11:41 pm, DanB <a... at (no spam) some.net> wrote:
Your kids are screwed, get a grip, accept it. Unless your kids are
willing to live in a world without 'consumption'.
Do you know how many TVs in this world that are on right now and not
being watched?
I'm not sure who would complain about that way of life coming to an
end.
[/quote:800f30c020]
The far worse crisis are the number of TVs in this world that ARE being
watched.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
New_idea wrote:
[quote:ce455084f5]
One way is to use electricity to electrolysis water.....
[/quote:ce455084f5]
Ain't gonna happen. As GUARANTEED by exergy fundamentals.
Nobody could possibly be that dumb.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Benj... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 10:10 am, Don Lancaster <d... at (no spam) tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote:57b420fe6b]The far worse crisis are the number of TVs in this world that ARE being
watched.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
[/quote:57b420fe6b]
AMEN! Which is making a point about all the lies, misinformation, and
cultural pressures (for political purposes) spewing forth from the
box. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanB... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
New_idea wrote:
[quote:17c5666948]"DanB" <abc at (no spam) some.net> wrote in message
news:DVzAm.63124$j34.14799 at (no spam) newsfe01.iad...
New_idea wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/cfansoon/Electrolysis.gif
12 volts? You really are clueless.......
There is a project by Idaho National Laboratory...
[/quote:17c5666948]
And there are Darwin Awards, so what?
[quote:17c5666948]It is a good idea if we can use hydrogen to run our (existing internal
combustion)
car by just a few thousand dollars modification on our car.
The question is where to you get hydrogen gas?
[/quote:17c5666948]
Just once, because you don't seem to get it. You can take a unit of
green electric energy and displace fossil fuels on the grid.
Or, you can take a unit of electrical energy and turn it into an
inferior form of heat energy and claim and accomplishment.
Because you are not displacing heating fuel directly it is like taking 5
tons of coal, using one to produce electricity and burning the other 4
tons out in the open and doing no useful work with that heat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Autymn D. C.... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 7:10Â am, Don Lancaster <d... at (no spam) tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote:9217f00b16]The far worse crisis are the number of TVs in this world that ARE being
watched.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
[/quote:9217f00b16]
*cough*
[quote:9217f00b16]True or False?
â– Gasoline has less hydrogen in it than liquid[/quote:9217f00b16]
hydrogen does.<
Well, gasoline has 18 hydrogens and hydrogen has 2 hydrogens, so fake.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Fuel cell cars are "much more efficient" than
regular ones.[/quote:9217f00b16]
â– Silicon pv panels are a net energy source.<
True, they are not refuse but recirculate at their end of life. And
they can run PV factories off PV panels.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– On-board car electrolysis dramatically improves
fuel economy.[/quote:9217f00b16]
not much
[quote:9217f00b16]â– An electrical kilowatthour will have the same
quality and value as a hydrogen one.[/quote:9217f00b16]
The former is work, the latter heat, so fake.
[quote:9217f00b16]■"Brown’s Gas" is a revolutionary new technology
being suppressed by the oil companies.[/quote:9217f00b16]
fake
[quote:9217f00b16]â– There are no economics of scale to pv solar
energy; small and personal is better.[/quote:9217f00b16]
Fewer steps is better; this usually means broad chunks and surplus
scraps--fake.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, its
quality always remains constant.[/quote:9217f00b16]
It can so--fake.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Compact fluorescent lamps are always more
efficient than incandescent ones.[/quote:9217f00b16]
Not for money if their circuitry burns out in a few weeks--but for
watts, true.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– The main purpose of pv panels is to go offgrid.
[/quote:9217f00b16]
Fake, it's to defray coal power and emissions.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– "Temperature" measures the quantity of heat
stored.[/quote:9217f00b16]
Fake, heat is not storeed; warmth is storeed.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Energy density by weight is the most important
criteria for automotive apps.[/quote:9217f00b16]
Criteria is plural, and by weiht is energhy gravity. Drag is the
biggest sink, so fake unless we allow traincars on the road.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Terrestrial hydrogen is an energy source.
[/quote:9217f00b16]
Fake, and neither is gasoline.
[quote:9217f00b16]Power measures "how fast".
[/quote:9217f00b16]
Nope, forse/miht metes how fast; power metes how swift.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Temperature measures heat energy QUALITY.
[/quote:9217f00b16]
Temperature is a quotiend of a quantity and a quantity, so--okay, as
long as you also consider speed a quality.
[quote:9217f00b16]RANKIN ( 0, 491, 691 degrees )
KELVIN ( 0, 273, 373 degrees )[/quote:9217f00b16]
Those aren't degrees.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– ENERGY SOURCES - A substance or process
( such as gasoline ) that can add fully burdened[/quote:9217f00b16]
net new BTU’s of energy to the economy.
â– ENERGY CARRIERS - A substance or process
( such as hydrogen ) that has to be "filled" with
old net energy before it can deliver.<
Gasoline doesn't grow in tarpits. Where are your calculations?
[quote:9217f00b16]â– ENERGY SINKS - A substance or process ( such
as today’s pv or corn ethanol ) that uses much[/quote:9217f00b16]
more net old energy than it delivers.<
There are many PV materials, and concentrators are cheap. See how
short payback is on Power4Home.com.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Taken in their totality, all pv solar panels to
date are a large net energy sink.[/quote:9217f00b16]
â– An energy sink that will get worse as new
dollars are thrown at emerging technologies.
â– Thus, not one net watthour of conventional
silicon pv energy has ever been produced.<
Proof?
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Proof of this is that not one power utility is
yet using pv for routine peaking.[/quote:9217f00b16]
Proof?
[quote:9217f00b16]â– VOLUMETRIC energy density asks "How big?"
[/quote:9217f00b16]
Joules are bigness; metres are greatness.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– You always have to consider the CONTAINED
gravimetric energy density. No means of[/quote:9217f00b16]
storing hydrogen is know that is remotely as
dense by weight as contained gasoline.<
Wrong--diesel, benzene, cýclics.
[quote:9217f00b16]Gasoline 9000 Wh/l 13,500 Wh/Kg
LNG 7216 Wh/l 12,100 Wh/Kg[/quote:9217f00b16]
Propane 6600 Wh/l 13,900 Wh/Kg
Ethanol 6100 WH/l 7,850 Wh/Kg
Liquid H2 2600 Wh/l 39,000* Wh/Kg
150 Bar H2 405 WH/l 39,000* Wh/Kg<
1,2-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5220, 112·2, ·793 = 36·9 = 10·2
benzene, H6C6: 3267 kJ/mol, 78·1 g/mol, ·874 g/mL = 36·56 MJ/L = 10·15
kWh/L
cýclohecsane, H12C6: 3930, 84·16, ·778 = 36·33 = 10·1
1,1-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5215, 112·2, ·774 = 36· = 10
1,1,3-trimethylcýclohecsane, H18C9: 5882, 126.2, ·765 = 35·7 = 9·9
1,4-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5210, 112·2, ·766 = 35·6 = 9·9
methylcýclohecsane, H14C7: 4565, 98·19, ·77 = 35·8 = 9·94
1,3-dimethylcýclopentane, H14C7: 4587, 98.19, ·762 = 35·6 = 9·9
cýclopentane, H10C5: 3290, 70·13, ·75 = 35·2 = 9·8
methylcýclopentane, H12C6: 3938, 84·16, ·75 = 35·1 = 9·7
isooctane, H18C8: 5461·3, 114·23, ·69 (·71 gasoline) = 33·1 (34) = 9·2
(9·4)
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Gasoline ( and diesel ) have exceptional
energy density combined with low cost and[/quote:9217f00b16]
acceptable standards of safety and delivery.
â– Any alternative solution MUST seek parity
somewhere near 9000 watthours per liter.
â– Like it or not, gasoline is likely to remain
the de facto standard of energy density
comparison for the foreseeable future.
â– The best of lithium batteries are 36 TIMES
larger than gasoline. Standard lead acid
batteries are 200 times larger AND heavier.<
larger = broader -> greater
Why not run on hýbrid coal then if weiht doesn't matter for cars?
Li,Na + C + O2.
[quote:9217f00b16]■There ain’t no free lunch.
â– You cannot win.[/quote:9217f00b16]
â– You cannot break even.
â– Everything eventually goes to
hell in a handbasket.<
Which means there ai so some free lunch: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+maxwells_demon.
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Specifically, exergy measures the recoverable
and reversible energy fraction remaining.[/quote:9217f00b16]
another word for Gibbs free energhy?
[quote:9217f00b16]â– The exergy in gasoline can be around one-third
that of electricity. Because it is hard to build a[/quote:9217f00b16]
gasoline generator above 33 percent efficiency.<
what about after a shielded horizòn sink?
[quote:9217f00b16]â– The irreversible destruction of exergy through
electrolysis is ludicrous.[/quote:9217f00b16]
huh? worse than a battery recharge?
[quote:9217f00b16]â– Stainless steel is unusable for electrodes because
of the hydrogen overvoltage of iron. Costly and[/quote:9217f00b16]
often renewed platinized platinum is needed.<
What about carbon, nickel, tin, or lead?
-Aut |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Autymn D. C.... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 8:43 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote:b3268b692d]Gasoline 9000 Wh/l 13,500 Wh/Kg
LNG 7216 Wh/l 12,100 Wh/Kg
Propane 6600 Wh/l 13,900 Wh/Kg
Ethanol 6100 WH/l 7,850 Wh/Kg
Liquid H2 2600 Wh/l 39,000* Wh/Kg
150 Bar H2 405 WH/l 39,000* Wh/Kg
1,2-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5220, 112·2, ·793 = 36·9 = 10·2
benzene, H6C6: 3267 kJ/mol, 78·1 g/mol, ·874 g/mL = 36·56 MJ/L = 10·15
kWh/L
cýclohecsane, H12C6: 3930, 84·16, ·778 = 36·33 = 10·1
1,1-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5215, 112·2, ·774 = 36· = 10
1,1,3-trimethylcýclohecsane, H18C9: 5882, 126.2, ·765 = 35·7 = 9·9
1,4-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5210, 112·2, ·766 = 35·6 = 9·9
methylcýclohecsane, H14C7: 4565, 98·19, ·77 = 35·8 = 9·94
1,3-dimethylcýclopentane, H14C7: 4587, 98.19, ·762 = 35·6 = 9·9
cýclopentane, H10C5: 3290, 70·13, ·75 = 35·2 = 9·8
methylcýclopentane, H12C6: 3938, 84·16, ·75 = 35·1 = 9·7
isooctane, H18C8: 5461·3, 114·23, ·69 (·71 gasoline) = 33·1 (34) = 9·2
(9·4)
[/quote:b3268b692d]
1,2-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5220, 112·2, ·793 = 36·9 = 10·2
benzene, H6C6: 3267 kJ/mol, 78·1 g/mol, ·874 g/mL = 36·56 MJ/L = 10·15
kWh/L
cýclohecsane, H12C6: 3930, 84·16, ·778 = 36·33 = 10·1
1,1-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5215, 112·2, ·774 = 36· = 10
methylcýclohecsane, H14C7: 4565, 98·19, ·77 = 35·8 = 9·94
1,1,3-trimethylcýclohecsane, H18C9: 5882, 126.2, ·765 = 35·7 = 9·9
1,4-dimethylcýclohecsane, H16C8: 5210, 112·2, ·766 = 35·6 = 9·9
1,3-dimethylcýclopentane, H14C7: 4587, 98.19, ·762 = 35·6 = 9·9
cýclopentane, H10C5: 3290, 70·13, ·75 = 35·2 = 9·8
methylcýclopentane, H12C6: 3938, 84·16, ·75 = 35·1 = 9·7
isooctane, H18C8: 5461·3, 114·23, ·69 (·71 gasoline) = 33·1 (34) = 9·2
(9·4) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hhc314... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 2:41 am, DanB <a... at (no spam) some.net> wrote:
[quote:e9ebdb3545]hhc314 wrote:
ROFL!!!!
Where do you believe electricity in sufficient quantities to power
millions of cars come from?
Harry,
You need to crunch numbers. The 'size' of the infrastructure is not the
problem.
[/quote:e9ebdb3545]
Cruncy numbers? I'm a physicist. What do you believe that I do most
of the time?
[quote:e9ebdb3545]
http://lakeweb.com/money/solar.gif
That is everything. Electricity and electric transportation, fully
packed, for the U.S.
[/quote:e9ebdb3545]
Nonsense. Nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to the
problem.
[quote:e9ebdb3545]It is about competing with very cheap oil and that the 'very cheap' oil
is at the end of existence.
[/quote:e9ebdb3545]
Dan, there we agree. It's only on the solution that we disagree. All
chemical reaction based fuels are, I believe, a thing of the past.
Nuclear combined with electrical energy transmission is the fuel of
the future. Sure, transmission challenges exist, but the PRR solved
some of them way back in 1938 with the introduction of the GG-1
electric locomotive (still in use), and in NYC all of the Metro North
trains are electrically powered. The source of the energy is obvious,
already in use througout the world (with the US sadly lagging
behind). Nuclear generated electricity is the key. The transmission
systems for independent vehicles remains the current problem.
Solar generated electricity cannot solve this distribution problem, no
provide sufficent energy to satisfy the demand. Everyone realizes
that, at least if they are educated and not simply putting out wishful
thoughts.
Batteries are fine for local transportation, but not for long
distances. The feds do fund a project called IVHS (Intelligent Vehicle
Highway System). but it is drastically under-funded. A part of IVHS
concerns supplying energy to independent vehicles (both cars and
trucks) through the use of roadway based supplies of operating energy
to the vehicles. This is the problematic part, since no one has any
real ideas on how to accoplish this in a practical way. IVHS also
includes provisions for "driverless" vehicle operation, which is much
closer to a solution.
The problem is that there is no readily availble third rail of
catenary solution, as is done with trains and trolley cars. Enery
sources are not the issue, but transmission of of that energy to
moving vehicles is. Electromagnetic coupling is not adequate for the
purpose, as anyone familiar with electromagnetics can tell you. Works
fine for charging your toothbrush, but is not viable for applications
involving moderate to large power demands.
It's an interesting challenge, and the government should really fund
more research in this area..
[quote:e9ebdb3545]It is about that markets, with all their 'efficiency' will never address
that the 'very cheap' oil will not exist, over night now.
[/quote:e9ebdb3545]
Again, chemical fuels will completely vanish during this century, so
price of chemical fuels is a moot point, and not the problem. Realize
that we have an abundant supply of energy, and effictive transmission
is the major issue.
[quote:e9ebdb3545]
This is usenet. I don't expect anyone here to get their head out of
their ass and seriously crunch the numbers.
[/quote:e9ebdb3545]
I have done just that, and come to the above conclusions. So what if
I am a physicist, we are all half nuts and do this sort of thing
simply for fun!
[quote:e9ebdb3545]Your kids are screwed, get a grip, accept it. Unless your kids are
willing to live in a world without 'consumption'.
[/quote:e9ebdb3545]
Dan, without consumption, there won't be another generation after
them.
Sadly, our current government adminstration seems to be leading us to
disaster when little more than 15 years back we were all thinking
about that "Shining City on a Hill"..
Harry C. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanB... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hhc314 wrote:
[quote:6e02431e32]On Oct 12, 2:41 am, DanB <a... at (no spam) some.net> wrote:
hhc314 wrote:
ROFL!!!!
Where do you believe electricity in sufficient quantities to power
millions of cars come from?
Harry,
You need to crunch numbers. The 'size' of the infrastructure is not the
problem.
Cruncy numbers? I'm a physicist. What do you believe that I do most
of the time?
[/quote:6e02431e32]
.....
[quote:6e02431e32]http://lakeweb.com/money/solar.gif
That is everything. Electricity and electric transportation, fully
packed, for the U.S.
Nonsense.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
Just because you believe so?
[quote:6e02431e32]Nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to the
problem.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
That is an 'all eggs in one basket' mentality, it should be part of the
mix. At that, with nuclear supplying less than 20% electrical demand...
<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.html>
<http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_More_U_mines_needed_as_nuclear_grows_1009091.html>
To 'only' nuclear on a planet where demand for energy is growing does
not add up. I have nothing against reasonable nuclear energy. But it is
not a panacea for our future.
[quote:6e02431e32]
It is about competing with very cheap oil and that the 'very cheap' oil
is at the end of existence.
Dan, there we agree. It's only on the solution that we disagree.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
I am not offering a solution. I was pointing out that we have plenty of
solar power.
[quote:6e02431e32]All
chemical reaction based fuels are, I believe, a thing of the past.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
They are our present mainstay, that is the point.
<http://lakeweb.com/money/USEnFlow02-quads.pdf>
[quote:6e02431e32]Nuclear combined with electrical energy transmission is the fuel of
the future. Sure, transmission challenges exist, but the PRR solved
some of them way back in 1938 with the introduction of the GG-1
electric locomotive (still in use), and in NYC all of the Metro North
trains are electrically powered. The source of the energy is obvious,
already in use througout the world (with the US sadly lagging
behind). Nuclear generated electricity is the key. The transmission
systems for independent vehicles remains the current problem.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
See, this is what I consider the real problem, that folks look to
continue this industrial revolution, growing the population of the
planet to some 10 billion in fifty years, with an attitude that we can
replace limited fossil resources as if there were nothing to it.
[quote:6e02431e32]
Solar generated electricity cannot solve this distribution problem, no
provide sufficent energy to satisfy the demand.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
Look at the map, there is sufficient solar power.
<http://lakeweb.com/money/solar.gif>
"The Sun provides Earth with as much energy every hour as human
civilization uses every year...."
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7107/full/443019a.html>
[quote:6e02431e32]Everyone realizes
that, at least if they are educated and not simply putting out wishful
thoughts.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
Apparently, everyone that has not crunched the numbers...
[quote:6e02431e32]
Batteries are fine for local transportation, but not for long
distances. The feds do fund a project called IVHS (Intelligent Vehicle
Highway System). but it is drastically under-funded. A part of IVHS
concerns supplying energy to independent vehicles (both cars and
trucks) through the use of roadway based supplies of operating energy
to the vehicles. This is the problematic part, since no one has any
real ideas on how to accoplish this in a practical way. IVHS also
includes provisions for "driverless" vehicle operation, which is much
closer to a solution.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
Aw, come on. This is just a bunch of fluff that has nothing to do with
our fundamental challenge where the future of energy is concerned.
[quote:6e02431e32]
The problem is that there is no readily availble third rail of
catenary solution, as is done with trains and trolley cars. Enery
sources are not the issue, but transmission of of that energy to
moving vehicles is. Electromagnetic coupling is not adequate for the
purpose, as anyone familiar with electromagnetics can tell you. Works
fine for charging your toothbrush, but is not viable for applications
involving moderate to large power demands.
It's an interesting challenge, and the government should really fund
more research in this area..
[/quote:6e02431e32]
More of the same...
[quote:6e02431e32]It is about that markets, with all their 'efficiency' will never address
that the 'very cheap' oil will not exist, over night now.
Again, chemical fuels will completely vanish during this century, so
price of chemical fuels is a moot point, and not the problem. Realize
that we have an abundant supply of energy, and effictive transmission
is the major issue.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
Realize that your dreams of nuclear opulence are not going to come true
in the real world. If they were, we would be doing it now.
[quote:6e02431e32]This is usenet. I don't expect anyone here to get their head out of
their ass and seriously crunch the numbers.
I have done just that, and come to the above conclusions. So what if
I am a physicist, we are all half nuts and do this sort of thing
simply for fun!
[/quote:6e02431e32]
And I have asked you before, 'Do you have kids?' Is trashing their
future 'just for fun?'
[quote:6e02431e32]
Your kids are screwed, get a grip, accept it. Unless your kids are
willing to live in a world without 'consumption'.
Dan, without consumption, there won't be another generation after
them.
[/quote:6e02431e32]
That is a bold statement. As if not flying around the country means
sudden death. I really don't think you understand what I'm saying....
[quote:6e02431e32]Sadly, our current government adminstration seems to be leading us to
disaster when little more than 15 years back we were all thinking
about that "Shining City on a Hill"..
[/quote:6e02431e32]
Riiight... As if this were all about partisan politics. Get a grip... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tj Frazir... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
thats a waist of electric making H.
But farm and fleet windmill and a belt pully for a AC 3phase 4 hp might
set you back 500 bucks.
wire it direct to electric heaters or an airAC.
dont convert it for evrything esle just use what ever it makes .
Ifyou did use a converter and phased it to conect to the house box then
the thing wount last long and waist the money your trying t save.
And if you live south just put the air ac pump on the belt and run a
hose .
You nead the BIG pully on the mill and the small one on the AC motor 3
phase 3 or 4 hp.
Then conect more heaters then you can fry so hook up 5 hp worth of
heaters.
You can do it for $ 200 and save $ 200 12 times a year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tj Frazir... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As long as your idia dont crash thier energy scam profits they like it.
Big oil dont fear windmills. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tj Frazir... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg
Address:http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg Changed:4:43 PM
on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
head help building the whale 2 or 3 just ask.
17 HP 24/7 for 20 years on $ 10 month.
250 MPG at 277 HP and 400 MPG at 71 hp.
$ 2000 builds a car steam power 4 cylnder water rocket driving a slide
vane rotor.
$ 1000 builds a home power plant hot water heater/whale engine on
steam.
its good for 20 years It reuses its steam in the hot water tank at
home.
the entire house electric heat and all for 10 bucks a month and is
more reliable then the electric co.
Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg
Address:http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg Changed:4:43 PM
on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
A 1 toncar gets 25 mpg and a 25 ton truck gets 7 mpg so then 1 truck
ton gets 175 mpg so why dont your car !
one stroke per second. 10 cubic inch steam at 10 cubic inch per second
at 650 psi. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:41 am
|
|