Ethanol Powered Aircraft

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:04:03 GMT, Jose
wrote:
Besides the repulsive words that follow

Awh, gee, I'm not ****in' politically correct... That just breaks my
****in' heart...

don't you think that a country that can't educate itself, that
still believes in gods and spirits, that rejects evolution, and
that believes taking shoes off and banning toothpaste
and fine wines on carry-on luggage keeps us safe, is not
really the right country to entrust bunches of nuclear reactors to?

Hmmm... The way you describe it, it must really suck to live up there
in Connecticut... I can understand it though -- It must suck having to
live around so many Damn Yankees...

Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead
won't have moles in the reactors?

The simple solutions aren't.

And sometimes the complicated solutions aren't needed... There's
probably two ways to solve this problem... One is to just nuke the
whole ****in' Middle East... The other is to make their product
virtually worthless... As enticing as the first method might be, I
would prefer the second so that they have longer to contemplate how
they screwed up... Hell, we can always go back to the first way...

Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to clean.

They dragged some sort of brush behind them, and were trained to run
through the tunnels. I don't know which one, I think it was in Europe.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Morgans wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
Loss energy due to efficiency is inevitable.

But if the gain in efficiency is more than the loss, who cares. Its not
very efficient for me to run a Honda generator in my backyard so I
choose to hook up to the power grid, even though there is power loss in
delivering power to my house.

-Robert

RST Engineering wrote:

Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Jim

You have just pointed out the level of overall ignorance that pervades
this country these days. That's part of the reason why we are in the
situation we are in in the first place.... ignorant people elect ignorant
politicians.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
and cranks.

Can you provide any information to back that statement up?

The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
Allisons are in the same boat.

Turbine engines are extremely expensive.... turbine conversions have been
certified for a few types but waay to expensive for most people. You
are not gonna get people who own classic airplanes to pretty much destroy
their collector value by installing a turbine... even if it could be done.


Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.

If its so easy why haven't you come out with the kit and STC for all these
airplanes? Can wee sue you if things don't work out?

Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).


I don't think you are running on all cylinders.

Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from
a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Jim

You have just pointed out the level of overall ignorance that pervades
this country these days. That's part of the reason why we are in the
situation we are in in the first place.... ignorant people elect ignorant
politicians.

Oh?

Won't you be so kind as to explain why you feel your statement is true, and
how it is, that gives you a reason to call a person ignorant?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

Won't you be so kind as to explain why you feel your statement is true, and
how it is, that gives you a reason to call a person ignorant?

Look up the definition of "ignorant" and determine for yourself
whether or not the word applies to many of the posts in this thread.

Jose wrote:
Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to
clean.

They dragged some sort of brush behind them, and were trained to run
through the tunnels. I don't know which one, I think it was in Europe.

Jose
We must be talking about different kinds of accelerator tunnels. Last
one I was in was like 10 feet high by 10 feet wide.

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Morgans wrote:

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is
a large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less
expensive, etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines.
Whether that central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference,
as long as its more efficient than the individual engines.

The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the
energy being lost.

This is "theoretically" true but not "practically" true. A central
power station that is burning petroleum products to generate
electricity would likely be using large gas turbines with efficiencies
pushing 60%. Transmission losses to the end used might account for 2%
and the electric motors of the cars would be running about 95%. So
overall "system" efficiency would be running over 55%...which is
*much* higher than your typical Otto cycle internal combustion engine
at around 25%...

That description is more theory than reality. The current installed base
of thermal power plants in the US, mainly coal-fired is about 35 percent
efficient. Yes, there are new turbine designs that approach 60 percent,
fired by natural gas, but there aren't many of them around, nor are many
being planned. More typical for new natural gas, simple cycle plants is
an efficiency of about 45 percent.

Distribution losses in just the last 1/4 mile from the local substation
to your home are probably 2 or 3 percent. Overall losses of the entire
grid are in the order of 15 percent.

Finally, you have left out the charge/discharge losses of batteries on
the electric cars, which are perhaps 70 percent efficient with current
technologies.

Multiplying all of that out, yields an overall efficiency of about 20 or
25 percent.

"ktbr" wrote
Look up the definition of "ignorant" and determine for yourself
whether or not the word applies to many of the posts in this thread.

Back up, there!

So you are referring to the entire content of the thread, not just to Jim's
addition to the thread?

So that is why you wrote, "You have just pointed out the level of overall
ignorance that pervades
this country these days." ? My emphasis, here; you wrote, "You".

Does that not point to one person's contribution, instead of the "many of
the posts in this thread." ?

I am familiar with the mean(s) of the word ignorant. I'm trying to pin down
what, exactly, is the "ignorant" part of the post you are referencing.

Is it a word, or a group of words? Is it, "Fusion reactors use hydrogen as
fuel" ?

Is it, "to make helium plus energy." ?

Is it, "It is almost impossible to "make" hydrogen" , or perhaps, "although
you can liberate it (hydrogen) from a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water)." ?

Is it just one word, out of all of them, that threw you over the edge?

Help me out here. I'm trying to understand.
--
Jim in NC