Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
--- thomas malloy temall...@usfamily.net wrote: If I were appointed the car czar, I would require the vehicle's design to be reviewed by a panel of mechanics. That's a bloody good idea, speaking from a mechanic's point of view. The trash being sold for $20k+ these days is absolutely pathetic compared to what could be. Mercedes-Benz ML320 has for balljoints in the rear, made of aluminum (the metal that should be forbidden) and plastic. Each part costs $350+, with labor times to replace being about an hour per ball joint, plus time to disassemble the control arms to a point where the joints can be pressed out. The control arms are aluminum too, and sometimes crack. Also, aluminum does not rust in the saltwater environment...it DISINTEGRATES. 2006 ML320 required all four rear joints to be replaced, no warranty coverage. 51k miles. EGR systems on most modern cars fill with carbon after a relatively short time. Asian/European cars do this the worst. Terrible designs. The old, vacuum operated EGR valves in Chevrolets almost never did this. But that's the inexorable march of progress. Evaporative emissions system (stupidest idea ever) is the absolute king of failure these days. Most 1996+ cars fail low-enhanced emission test because of this pointless system. It is designed to fail. All plastic parts, overly complicated. Should be forbidden to be placed on vehicles. Either do something useful with the vapor, or forget about it. Besides, everyone is looking at CO2 these days anyways, their eyes are averted from things that are really dangerous (which this isn't, anyhow). The objective being to assure that they are easily fixable. I'd require a stainless steel underpan so that road salt wouldn't rot them out. Such a vehicle would last 1,000,000 miles. The economics of such a vehicle are totally different from one designed to cost too much to fix at 100,000 miles. Easily fixable is a very good thing, in my opinion. Making a car from stainless steel might jack up the price a bit. It is hard to weld, and 'cold welds' itself at times. But there might be a way around all this. I doubt it would last 1M miles without repair, but if you mean the actual vehicle structure would last that long, it might. Rust is the killer up here. It wouldn't be too economical to the manufacturer to make something that lasted that long without needing repairs. Of course, given that so many today think making the USA --- USSA is a good idea, many might flock to the idea. That might not be the company you want to keep, though. :) A simple reduction in the amount of bullcrap(tm) in a modern auto would DRASTICALLY reduce the price. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Howdy Kyle, Yep!, you been a mechanic. The US auto industry basked in their glory days after WW2 and by 1950 had performed the miracle of reverse engineering from a fair to middlin' 1940 model into a 1950 disaster that did not recover until the Japanese stumbled across the how to book written by the master at GM way back when. Japan finally got the joke around 1980 and concentrated on quality which forced US makers to start putting all the gears that belonged in the transmission. By the 90's the US caught on to the shell game Japan and Germany had going by building the vehicle in sucha way that only a wizard could work on one. Like, try to replace the fuel pump on a 1982 Mitsibishi car engine or a chev 2003 PU 1500 series windshield washer plastic tank. Fortunately , all this came much later than WW2. GM and Int'l Harvester built a 2 1/2 ton GI 6x6 that won WW2 in Europe. These 270 cu.in 6 cylinder engines were repairable all the way down to wet sleeves. Had a buddy that served as a motor sgt for Patton. He told of Patton coming up to the front line where his tank batallion was stalled at a river. Patton order his motor sgt to run the 6x6 's into the river until they formed a bridge so the tanks could cross. Later, the motor sgt was court marshaled for destruction of gov't property. Richard --- thomas malloy temall...@usfamily.net wrote: If I were appointed the car czar, I would require the vehicle's design to be reviewed by a panel of mechanics. Kyle wrote, That's a bloody good idea, speaking from a mechanic's point of view. The trash being sold for $20k+ these days is absolutely pathetic compared to what could be.
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Jed Rothwell wrote: Pickens also wants to run cars on compressed gas which I think is a waste of money. We should make all cars into plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles (for short ranges), run them on electricity most of the time and use the If I were appointed the car czar, I would require the vehicle's design to be reviewed by a panel of mechanics. The objective being to assure that they are easily fixable. I'd require a stainless steel underpan so that road salt wouldn't rot them out. Such a vehicle would last 1,000,000 miles. The economics of such a vehicle are totally different from one designed to cost too much to fix at 100,000 miles. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:38:49 -0900: Hi, [snip] The reason Si is such a great element for energy transportation and storage is, if you look at energy production on a global basis, there is so much of it cheaply available in desert areas, where the solar energy to refine it is located. And it has a double whammy - money is to be made on both the energy and the byproduct. This is a fairly quickly implementable scheme for power utilities, and the economics certainly *were* there if they aren't now, and should be there again soon. Availability would be an important bonus, however according to the Wiki page on silanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane), silane is toxic, and also pyrophoric. The latter would probably prevent its use as an automotive fuel, since any accident leading to a tank rupture would instantly result in a fire (not sure about the heavier silanes). [snip] Similar dangers exist for compressed natural gas (CNG). In fact, quick ignition of natural gas in the case of an accident might prevent large explosions. CNG is compressed to 3000 PSI, thus the energy released by a broken tank can turn the tank into a high energy projectile, so that too is of concern. I certainly must agree that I wouldn't want to be filling up a car tank with silane gas, due to the fact any leaks would tend to explode (pop) or catch fire! 8^) My point in mentioning silane and tetrasilane was mainly to point out there is a variety of silicon based fuels or feed stocks that are analogs to carbon based fuels. By enviromentally friendly I meant in terms of carbon use and CO2 generation. The actual proposal I referenced was to ship pure solid silicon, possibly coated or encapsulated to avoid reaction with air or water. See (again): http://tinyurl.com/cuaryk However, silane is manufactured and shipped for use in a variety of industrial processes. It is a gas at STP so has the advantage it can be shipped by pipeline. I wouldn't see silane gas as a good prospect for powering motor vehicles, but it might have application for large scale power. Silane has application in making thin silicon coatings, which has application in solar cell manufacturing. [Btw, also check out Fig. 6 on page 7 of the above reference for an interesting perspective on energy density vs safety of various fuels.] Silane is not very toxic. It is mainly an irritant. See the MSDS: http://www.vngas.com/pdf/g97.pdf The handling toxicity risk seems comparable to gasoline or MTBE: http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/OC/octane.html http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/BU/tert-butyl_methyl_ether.html In global trades, solid silicon provides an alternative to shipping anhydrous ammonia, which can be extremely hazardous. Silicon does have a problem in that in the event of a shipwreck it can form ammonia when exposed to water and air. For long term damage to the environment this is not as bad as oil, but it would be pretty hazardous to the crew I would think, but not as hazardous as liquid anhydrous ammonia. Adequate encapsulation should prevent the major risks of exposure to water and air for the silicon. It seems to me a feasible scheme to run power plants with solid Si. An alternative means of solar energy storage and transport is to directly create anhydrous ammonia. This takes less energy than making hydrogen, creates a liquid product for transport, and the ammonia is valuable for fertilizer production, and other chemical feed stock uses, as well as for energy production. Anhydrous ammonia is currently shipped by barge, truck and ship, despite the obvious safety concerns. I would think encapsulated solid silicon would be a big step up in safety, as would some silicon compounds. Unless some very good means of storing hydrogen is found, silicon and silicon compounds appear to provide a means to convert world energy production to renewable means, i.e. solar and wind, using existing technology now. No great scientific discoveries required. Makes me wish it were my idea. 8^) OTOH, it is just another idea out there waiting for the right opportunity, and may never have its day. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
I wrote: I think an LNG trucking fleet is very feasible That should have said: I think a long haul LNG fueled trucking fleet is very feasible Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Agreed since the LNG gasoline equivalent energy is similar to Methanol (~1.5). Terry On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I wrote: I think an LNG trucking fleet is very feasible That should have said: I think a long haul LNG fueled trucking fleet is very feasible Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Horace Heffner wrote: You must be thinking of heavies like propane. Sorry. I meant LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas). Gas consisting primarily of propane, propylene, butane, and butylene in various mixtures. Stored as a liquid by increasing pressure. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Horace Heffner wrote: One of the products of tetrasilane combustion, SiO2, is a solid and is valuable for many things, including the making of solar cells. If I'm not mistaken, its common name is quartz, AKA glass (but without the impurities). Presumably the stuff comes out of the combustion process as individual molecules, not bound to anything -- i.e., as a gas. Thinking about this as a possible combustion product from zillions of futuristic cars, one wonders, is it safe to breath vaporized glass? As I seem to recall, the liquified version -- sodium silicate, aka water glass -- is considered bad stuff to drink. I've never heard anything about breathing glass gas, though, as it's not something one commonly encounters, the vapor pressure of silica being very low at ordinary temperatures.
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
I meant Ethanol. Methanol is close to 2.0 On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed since the LNG gasoline equivalent energy is similar to Methanol (~1.5). Terry On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I wrote: I think an LNG trucking fleet is very feasible That should have said: I think a long haul LNG fueled trucking fleet is very feasible Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: One of the products of tetrasilane combustion, SiO2, is a solid and is valuable for many things, including the making of solar cells. If I'm not mistaken, its common name is quartz, AKA glass (but without the impurities). Pure SiO2 powder is called silica. It comes in a variety of crystalline forms. One form is called sand. Google it. For example see: http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1114 Presumably the stuff comes out of the combustion process as individual molecules, not bound to anything -- i.e., as a gas. Thinking about this as a possible combustion product from zillions of futuristic cars, one wonders, is it safe to breath vaporized glass? As I seem to recall, the liquified version -- sodium silicate, aka water glass -- is considered bad stuff to drink. I've never heard anything about breathing glass gas, though, as it's not something one commonly encounters, the vapor pressure of silica being very low at ordinary temperatures. This low vapor pressure for sodium silicate doesn't sound right. Water glass is a solution - and if you leave it sit out the *water* evaporates, just as with salt water. As a kid I used to grow crystalline gardens in it by adding various chemicals to it from my chemistry set. Note that I said: I think this kind of fuel might best be used in external combustion engines, which are also easily made multi-fuel, even solid fueled. One reason this is important is that silicon can be combusted with *zero* emissions. The water vapor is condensed and the SiO2 trapped by bubbling the emissions through the water. The SiO2 emissions are in the form of a powder, i.e. can be compacted into a solid. Another reason is that silicon in solid form can be directly used as fuel. The article I referenced thought there would be a high economic value to the recovered SiO2, especially to the electronics industry. See: http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/ PROD00079095.pdf http://tinyurl.com/cuaryk Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:55:41 -0900: Hi, [snip] Note that I said: I think this kind of fuel might best be used in external combustion engines, which are also easily made multi-fuel, even solid fueled. One reason this is important is that silicon can be combusted with *zero* emissions. The water vapor is condensed and the SiO2 trapped by bubbling the emissions through the water. The SiO2 emissions are in the form of a powder, i.e. can be compacted into a solid. Another reason is that silicon in solid form can be directly used as fuel. The article I referenced thought there would be a high economic value to the recovered SiO2, especially to the electronics industry. See: It might be simpler to react the SiHx with water first to produce SiO2 (precipitate), and Hydrogen gas. Then burn the Hydrogen in the engine, and avoid the issue altogether. The SiO2 would collect in the mixing tank and thus be easily reclaimed. In the fuel density graph you referred to, the most commonly used fuels lie roughly along a diagonal of the graph, i.e. they are a good compromise between weight and volumetric density. The best one in that regard would appear to be Lithium Borohydride, which could also be utilized in the manner just described here above. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Hey T-Bone - you didn't ask, but let me tell you a deep secret Assuming that there are no better alternatives than combustion - and hopefully there will be - then why not convert methane into heavy alcohols first, using coal as the predominant carbon source?(and end up with an ideal auto fuel) i.e. in order to get a clean-burning liquid form of coal, start by by extending methane and/or to obtain a more easily transportable form of methane, especially when exploiting sites far offshore: combine the various ingredients (CH4, C(coal), H2O) with solar heat and catalyst and react into a mix of heavy alcohols - 'on-the-fly' so to speak, and such that this can be accomplished even in deep water. No expensive liquefaction will be needed for transport. In the gulf or Mexico, where much of our methane comes from, think about this: perhaps using a factory-ship 'parked' next to the drilling platform, where T-bone could probably (with political will-power from the new admin) convert methane, coal and water directly to butanol and higher alcohols. Butanol is a 4 carbon molecule C4H9OH but the 5 and 6 carbon alcohols would work as well. CH4 (methane) + H2O + C (from coal) + heat (solar, etc) -- C4H9OH + CO2 ... not sure the relative proportions - but certainly more tonnage of coal is converted into clean fuel this way than practically any other way. Methane supplies most of the hydrogen. This could serve as an interim solution until a better *non-fossil* alternative gets established. I do not think it will involve silicon- the bonding with oxygen is too strong. Jones BTW - the Cerrejón mine in Colombia is near the Gulf coast. It has reserves of over 6 Trillion pounds (3 billion tons of cheap low-sulfur, low-ash coal minable at less than $20 ton. The entire US consumption is ~1 billion tons per year and all of that is much dirtier than this coal. The actual price for clean coal on the world market is now much higer, due to demand, but still this single mine is perhaps the key to using butanol made from coal and deep-water methane - which along with biobutanol could eaily replace Arab oil in the USA. It would probably be a huge psychological strategy - if BO could be convinced of this, to *ban all oil imports from OPEC members*. Ban all Cartels. Period. Aramco be damned. Maybe Boone didn't go far enough with that suggestion!
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:40 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: It might be simpler to react the SiHx with water first to produce SiO2 (precipitate), and Hydrogen gas. Then burn the Hydrogen in the engine, and avoid the issue altogether. The SiO2 would collect in the mixing tank and thus be easily reclaimed. Good idea! In the fuel density graph you referred to, the most commonly used fuels lie roughly along a diagonal of the graph, i.e. they are a good compromise between weight and volumetric density. The best one in that regard would appear to be Lithium Borohydride, which could also be utilized in the manner just described here above. The reason Si is such a great element for energy transportation and storage is, if you look at energy production on a global basis, there is so much of it cheaply available in desert areas, where the solar energy to refine it is located. And it has a double whammy - money is to be made on both the energy and the byproduct. This is a fairly quickly implementable scheme for power utilities, and the economics certainly *were* there if they aren't now, and should be there again soon. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:38:49 -0900: Hi, [snip] The reason Si is such a great element for energy transportation and storage is, if you look at energy production on a global basis, there is so much of it cheaply available in desert areas, where the solar energy to refine it is located. And it has a double whammy - money is to be made on both the energy and the byproduct. This is a fairly quickly implementable scheme for power utilities, and the economics certainly *were* there if they aren't now, and should be there again soon. Availability would be an important bonus, however according to the Wiki page on silanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane), silane is toxic, and also pyrophoric. The latter would probably prevent its use as an automotive fuel, since any accident leading to a tank rupture would instantly result in a fire (not sure about the heavier silanes). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
T-Bone did succeed in getting some discussion going on transportation fuels and a mention of wind energy. Using an alternate to diesel for heavy trucking is too much a stretch. Back in another life, the trucking industry replaced gasoline engines with diesel engines.. Cummins Diesel engines being the winner. It would take a special designed engine to run on LPG and some years to work out the bugs. Maybe the new Angel engines could adapt their design. Meanwhile the best engine direction to proceed is hybrid electro technology for the long haul. Industrial manufacturers in the US can build anything that sells but uncertainty prevents a crusade . While on the subject of uncertainty. The solution to mass energy needs is staring Washington in the face while the National Science Foundation is side tracked with porn on their computer. A home based combo soar cell array- small vertical wind turbine set-up that also provides peak storage hydrogen can be integrated into a heat-a/c package with water and waste water recycling features. Sat on a state long range water planning board ten years back and mentioned that we would see the day come when a home wouldn't have a sewer line exiting the property and only use a small amount of piped in water. A central a/c heat pump would be combined to recycle water and most of the electri power would come from solar and wind.. Some one asked when I thought this would happen.. I replied.. when we run out of water, when electric power shortages begin and when the rivers and lakes become toxic with bacteria, viruses and drugs to the point the water can no longer be dis-infected with existing methods. How long off one may ask??? When it's in the best interest of the survivors to survive. Most people do not want to survive which is why all the plans of BO are a waste. . Just as the account of the Lemings that rush to the sea to drown when overpopulation happens..this strange occurance, which can be described as a death wish. This phenemona happens in humans.. they just use a different avenue than drowning in the ocean. It has started..and it manifests itself in many ways.. it is most obvious in public schools and prisons. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:48:11 -0600: Hi, [snip] Sat on a state long range water planning board ten years back and mentioned that we would see the day come when a home wouldn't have a sewer line exiting the property and only use a small amount of piped in water. A central a/c heat pump would be combined to recycle water and most of the electri power would come from solar and wind.. Some one asked when I thought this would happen.. I replied.. when we run out of water, when electric power shortages begin and when the rivers and lakes become toxic with bacteria, viruses and drugs to the point the water can no longer be dis-infected with existing methods. How long off one may ask??? When it's in the best interest of the survivors to survive. Most people do not want to survive which is why all the plans of BO are a waste. . Just as the account of the Lemings that rush to the sea to drown when overpopulation happens..this strange occurance, which can be described as a death wish. This phenemona happens in humans.. they just use a different avenue than drowning in the ocean. It has started..and it manifests itself in many ways.. it is most obvious in public schools and prisons. Richard IMO the problem isn't that people have a death wish, but rather that they have so little imagination that they don't understand/believe what's going to happen, until it does, and even if they do believe it, they think it will happen to someone else, not to them. Some are so stupid, they don't even understand it when it's happening to them. A few individuals do have vision (many on this list), but they have the devil's own job trying to convince the rest. This is the downside of Democracy - rule by the sheeple. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
#7 in the Absolute Worst Predictions of 2008: I think you'll see (oil prices at) $150 a barrel by the end of the year -- T. Boone Pickens, June 20, 2008 Oil was then around $135 a barrel. By late December it was below $40. My comment: This does not in any way prove that the price of oil is not being manipulated by insiders. At best it proves that T. Boone is NOT an insider. But more likely, it proves that he is playing a small part in the larger scheme - of which he was not fully appraised. I suspect he lost more money percentage-wise than the average-Joe. ... for the time being... From: Jed Rothwell This fellow T. Boone Pickens has a wonderful name but he has been making some technical errors which detract from his claims.
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Howdy Jed, Better known in Texas as T-Bone Pickens, He is the personification of the Texas Oilman with a history to match. Owns Mesa Petroleum and Mesa Water.. He taught Phillips Petro and several others the fine art of the deal while taking their britches. However, he has stirred the pot and brought an awareness to the younger generation with his TV message on oil import deficits so his national ads have some worth. A side note.. Jed.. please continue with your work effort in LENR.. loyal, steadfast, persistent and dedicated in all your efforts to make a change in the world of energy.. THANK YOU ! Jed. Your cantankerous admirer, adjunct bartender and resident card sharp, at the Dime Box Richard
Re: [Vo]:Pickens wrong about trucks
Jones Beene wrote: #7 in the Absolute Worst Predictions of 2008: I think you'll see (oil prices at) $150 a barrel by the end of the year -- T. Boone Pickens, June 20, 2008 I believe the price of oil plummeted because of the economic crisis, and I do not think anyone predicted a crisis of this magnitude. In other words, we can't blame Pickens for missing this one. I expect that as soon as Wall Street and the economy recover, oil will be back above $100. My point about Pickens is that he should hire some technical experts to vet his statements before he goes on the national media talking about hybrid heavy tractor trailer trucks. Here he is saying there is no such thing and here is the Coca-Cola Co. ordering hundreds of them! Heck, he wouldn't need to hire an expert. I could do it for him. By the way, LNG powered automobiles are common in Japan, especially taxies. LNG is liquid at room temperature. - Jed
