At 5:51 PM 2/16/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:56:48 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
If a smaller and a larger sphere collided at just the right speed,
you might get a ridge line where they joined, and the resultant
object would not be spherical because
Shipping liquid air or LN2 via large tanker has the terrific advantage that
pollution would not be a risk. However, shipping LN2 is just not
economically feasible due to the low energy density of 570 kJ/kg. LNG has
an energy density of 5.15x10^4 Btu/kg, or 5.43x10^4 kJ/kg, about 95 times
that of
This looks like a good way of "transporting"
renewable energy (in this case from hot sunny countries).
Nick
http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD00079095.pdf
R C Macaulay wrote:-
On to the harvesting of ocean tides and
currents.. thats a bridge too far. The maintenance alone kills the idea even
before the costs of construction per kilowatt hour generated is added
up.
Richard
Try looking
athttp://www.bluenergy.com/index.html
A little pencil work:
The heat of vaporization of liquid air is 88 Btu/lb (86 Btu/lb for LN2)
at 2546 Btu/hp-hr.
At 25% overall thermal efficiency (~10,000 Btu/Hp-Hr)120 lbs of LN2 would
have to be carried to deliver that 1.0 Hp-Hr.
LN2 at $.10/lb would cost you $12.00/Hp-Hr. :-)
OTOH,
Here is a handy psychrometric calculator that allows
calculation of how many pounds of air are required at
various temperatures-pressures to vaporize LN2 (86 Btu/lb heat of vaporization) etc.
as well as relative humidity-dew point etc.
http://www.linric.com/webpsy.htm
Frederick
Vorts,
The current issue of Newsweek has a full-page back
cover ad for a two hour special on UFOs hosted by Peter Jennings Thursday of
next week.
Should be interesting. Jenning's doesn't do small
stuff.
MIke Carrell
From: Mike Carrell
Vorts,
The current issue of Newsweek has a full-page back cover
ad for a two hour special on UFOs hosted by Peter
Jennings Thursday of next week.
Should be interesting. Jenning's doesn't do small stuff.
MIke Carrell
Hi Mike,
Many within the UFO community
I meant to add the obvious alternative to:
If you redesign it for Cryo-air, and only expand CA
through
the engine itself... then that is not enough, as you will
need enormous fuel tanks, and a larger engine... BUT if
you
add a turbine to the exhaust (turbo-generator, not turbo
compressor)
Nick Palmer wrote.. try looking at Blue
Energy.com.
The Sea Islanddesign back in the 1980's( proposed)
looked remarkably similar to the Blue Energy project.
The Sea Island plan was scrubbed because of the cost per
kilowatt/hr produced PLUS the cost of maintenance.
Anyone familar with "
In a message dated 2/15/05 6:17:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What hemisphere, exactly? If that include South America (Venezuela)
it is probably true. There is also a lot of oil in Canada and
Alaska. Of course it would cost a fortune to extract it. If he means
oil at
In a message dated 2/15/05 5:24:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
. This makes feasible many additional locations
for major wind energy generation, like Alaska. With sufficient research
and appropriate legislation, Alaska alone has the potential to provide the
US energy
Michael Foster writes,
570 kJ/kg? That low, eh?
OK keep in mind the apples-to-apples comparisons.
I would seem that heating energy content becomes a
relatively unimportant crtierion, indeed misleading, for
comparison in a pure expansion situation (so long as you
cross over the barrier of
At 6:35 AM 2/16/5, Michael Foster wrote:
--- On Wed 02/16, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shipping liquid air or LN2 via large tanker has the terrific advantage that
pollution would not be a risk. However, shipping LN2 is just not
economically feasible due to the low energy density
At 10:06 AM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote:
It's so-called energy content alone can be very
misleading at the bottom line.
Jones
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom line. Assuming
conservation of energy, the high expansion ratio merely extracts the 370
kJ/kg energy available from
Hi Steve,
snip It is likely to be nothing more than SOP. It often turns out to be
more useful to look in the opposite direction from where all the hype is
being focused on.
All too true, disinformation at large.
Regards,
Mike
There, they finally said it:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_life_050216.html__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
A critical technology needing developent is economical CO2 extraction from
the atmosphere or seawater. If this is accomplished then the energy
transport/storage problem for a hydrogen economy is solved. We can convert
to a combined hydrogen/methane economy. Hydrogen can be used in the manner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we use mini-airships, blimps and balloons which have windmills and
solar panels on them as well as communications equipment, then we can have
windmills floating above every city to generate power . . .
As I pointed out before, there are four problems with this plan:
Slight typo correction: Methanol is formed from CO or CO2 using a copper
catalystat 750 PSI and 245 C:
3H2 + CO2 - CH3OH + H2O
2H2 + CO - CH3OH
Regards,
Horace Heffner
Horace,
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom line.
Assuming
conservation of energy, the high expansion ratio merely
extracts the 370
kJ/kg energy available from gas expansion.
I disagree, as do the the researchers of the report cited
yesterday and others who are actively
--- On Wed 02/16, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had gasoline prices been this high a decade ago, we would
probably already have liquid-air hybrids on the road today,
but not with the cryo-air produced aboard the vehicle
itself- that is very wasteful. A Dewar tank is sufficient
Horace
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom
line. Assuming conservation of energy,
I disagree, as do the researchers of the report cited
yesterday and others who are actively working on this. I
hope to get around to typing in some of their findings
later
today. You are
Michael
What I would like to know, if you can tell us, what is the
actual available energy in a kg of liquid air used in a
piston
engine?
I think what you would really want to know is what is the
maximum energy content form an engineered liquid, based on
air, including the strain energy of
At 2:32 PM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom
line. Assuming conservation of energy,
I disagree, as do the researchers of the report cited
yesterday and others who are actively working on this. I
hope to get around to typing in some of
Horace
If you say COE doesn't apply to liquified air systems then
the ball is
entirely in your court. You are off into a way different
discussion. It
is up to *you* to prove your assertion either
theoretically or
experimentally.
It is the same discussion, and COE can (or nor) apply IF all
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Best Use for Wind energy?
snip
(wow! there is an earthquake going on right
now! Feels like a 4 or 5 magnetude) a
Some miscellaneous thoughts about CO2 harvesting and other hydrogen energy
transporting issues follow.
The arctic and antarctic may be good places to harvest CO2 directly from
the atmosphere. Lots of wind in places there, and (seasonally)
temperatures almost low enough to condense CO2 directly
I really did not want to get trolled into this red herring issue, but
here's a brief response anyway.
At 5:38 PM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote:
It is the same discussion, and COE can (or nor) apply IF all
the relevant variables are known in advance. What I am
saying is that a *full energy
29 matches
Mail list logo
