RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast

RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 7:35:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Icarys I checked the link you gave- as well as Wikipedia. The guy came up with a tweak to NiMH cells, but the reality is that those cells were pretty delicate for a number of years. They also had cold issues- like dumping their charge if they got too cold. I'll lay long odds what they ran into was a difficulty in manufacturing what the wonderful inventor came up with that he glossed over. There's been about a half dozen year window where NiMH cells began beating nicads and could beat Li-ion- but most battery mfgs have really moved their R+ D to lithium ion or other chemistries. Sorry- no conspiracy needed- just some likely overblown claims. If those cells were as good as claimed- then they should have beaten Panasonic and HE cells. And Wilbur- the change in albedo of the earth from solar panels is miniscule compared to the change in overall absorption due to increased CO2. Sam Before you write off the guy..Do some research..You'll find he isn't some slouch when it comes to inventing and perfecting those inventions. I don't know the guy of course but I have read a little about him..He has hundreds of pattens which most of us are using one way or another in every home. Neither of us can be sure of whether there were or not problems with his batteries. I do believe however that there are some strange discrepancies in what we have as vehicles now, yesteryear and records set for distance. I also wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that large oil companies chose to push their fuel agendas over differing technology that may have cost them profits as they may have seen it. We do see lobbyist pushing company agendas all the time, no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_R._Ovshinsky "Conspiracy" or not

samboct -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 7:51:32 AM)
Icarys I've talked to the folks at GM who were involved with future plans of the company about half a dozen years ago- back when they were pushing their skateboard concept car. It's quite clear that there is no love lost between GM and the oil companies- I was talking to GM's R+D folks- they'd be delighted getting away from the oil companies. GM wants to build cars- isn't particularly wedded to the internal combustion engine, and certainly not to gasoline as fuel source. A decade ago there was a discussion about methanol instead of gasoline- the buzz saw was of course, the lawyers. Gasoline has been grandfathered in by the EPA, but its certainly a known carcinogen (contains benzene) and could not be commercialized today if its use wasn't already established. The problem with methanol was that since its known to be toxic- GM would get sued for spills, environmental cleanups etc. GM said no way to methanol on the advice of their lawyers, although it's probably a better choice than ethanol- certainly better than ethanol from corn! But methanol is certainly easier on the environment and on humans than gasoline- less long term effects although it will cause blindness if you drink some. Hence, the push for ethanol although ethanol does have slightly higher energy density IIRC in a combustion engine than methanol- both of these alcohols pick up water quite readily which is a real problem costs a lot in dollars and energy to keep them dry. DuPont has been pushing butanol which makes a lot of sense if we could manufacture it cheaply enough- but I think that's a minor problem. But a breakthrough in getting butanol from bio sources would certainly change the equation on the use of oil very quickly.... Sam

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 8:22:26 AM)
Although butanol looks a "good bit" better than gasoline..it still has some of the same problems that combustible engines will most likely always have with regards to ecology. Do we suck the fuel from deep beneath the ground with all of it's hazards or do we suck it from the surface with it's potential hazards and then spew the fumes into the atmosphere? It's renewable but not without paying a heavy price in the future as well. In the end we may be just putting off the inevitable. That said, I'd rather put it off with the best solution available.[:D]

samboct -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 8:33:38 AM)
Icarys The beauty of bio based fuels is that they are a virtuous cycle. The CO2 which is incorporated by the plant into the biomaterial which is later burned is just released back to the atmosphere- whence it came. It's not a perpetual motion machine- the energy source is the sun which delivers photons to drive the reaction. But since the carbon is coming from the atmosphere and not the ground, the net change of carbon in the atmosphere is zero. In theory- bio based fuels are essentially a version of liquid solar power. In practice, non-sustainable farming practices are problematic- soils get depleted, and runoff does a number on aquatic ecology. Sam

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 9:31:49 AM)
quote: In practice, non-sustainable farming practices are problematic- soils get depleted, and runoff does a number on aquatic ecology. I understand the processes. We've got a long way to go if we choose this direction. Especially when you think of the amounts of power we consume now and what the worlds population will be in 10, 20 and 50 years in the future. I'm optimistic here though. If we keep trying and use more forethought than we seem to use now we can make a way. As I've stated before, it's probably going to take a combination of many things including a change in mindset from "us". I wanted to address something else you said and forgot. I'm not looking to diminish what you've said but have you spoken with people that were in charge of making directions for the company? R&D guys are great but they are the dreamers of the car companies not usually the ones making the final decisions. If we followed them instead of the almighty dollar we might be in different places in the world. Here's to the future.[sm=chug.gif]

samboct -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 9:57:09 AM)
Hi Icarys In terms of the people I've spoken to at GM (or heard speak)- one of the guys was Allen Taub- he was a VP and there was another guy whose name escapes me at the moment- he gave one of those pie in the sky talks (flying cars etc. really not practical) but he was also pretty high up in the company. I've also spoken with guys and gals in their R + D department, and you're right, they don't pick the direction of the company- they just work on what they get told is the direction. But I tend to believe these folks as a direction, rather than press releases, because GM is paying their salaries. Conversely, we've seen that GM is rather dysfunctional- they can be working in one area and some MBA whizzbang will come along and shut it down making noises about "shareholder value" - a term that has little to do with being a well run company. Note- GMs R+D folks should not be sneered at, they were pretty good. But when I heard that their R+D dept had been cut from 1800 to 600- that's when I sold my GM stock. Sam

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 10:30:27 AM)
I'm definitely not sneering at R&D guys or dreamers...These are the people that come up with the great ideas and make them happen. I was sincere when I said maybe we'd be in a different place if there were more of them at the helm.

samboct -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/4/2010 10:43:00 AM)
Some people- especially those that write for automotive magazines, often sneer at the R+ D folks at GM. Their displeasure is misplaced- it's the management of the company that's been problematic. Note that R+ D folks often aren't really the dreamers- those tend to be some top level people. The R+ D folks at (actually, I should say WERE at) GM are much more pragmatic- they want to turn those ideas into reality. Oil companies on the other hand- have zip imagination. I've met people from BP, Shell, Chevron etc- often VPs or CEOs who show up at a meeting, give a talk that says that yes, we know that the era of cheap oil is over, but we can continue with what we've got using new extraction technology for 50 years- maybe more. They wave their hands about carbon sequestration, and try to assure people like Sanity (Tom) that they know what they're doing. They do- in terms of oil. In terms of anything else- fuggadaboutit.....Oil companies view themselves as banks, with oil as their deposits. They generally have problems moving into other businesses because they don't have a good imagination and don't understand that other businesses have different business models- like intellectual capital and workforces that actually matter. Same problem that banks have when they take over a business. How often have you seen a banker make a go of a business? I'm short changing some of the oil companies here- at least a few of them probably do recognize the value of their workforce. Sam

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/10/2010 1:33:59 PM)
Here's another link to a hopefully soon to be future. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/is-nissan-building-a-car-that-charges-itself-5153/

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/10/2010 3:44:15 PM)
One more :> http://www.supercapacitors.org/ Combine a few or more of these with batteries and Bam! You have a car that will charge in a flash and slowly feed the car batteries over a much longer time period. They are working on this for electric cars, which I believe is right around the corner. Make solar grid tie ins or independent systems mandatory in new home construction (Setup funds to retrofit older homes)..Build large scale solar power plants and hurry the hell up with the full electric car...We might see a remarkable change in the world as a whole..Ecologically speaking.

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/10/2010 3:47:50 PM)
Maybe one more! http://gas2.org/2009/06/14/xr3-225-mpg-plug-in-hybrid-trike-headed-for-production/

samboct -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/10/2010 8:08:51 PM)
Supercaps are getting their clocks cleaned by the newest generation of batteries. If you have a fast charge battery, you don't need a supercap for automotive. But there are lots of applications such as trains, cranes, paper mills etc. where they work well. The longevity is a real plus, but they tend to be expensive to purchase, and the power electronics to deal with them is a lot more complicated than a battery. Sam

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 10:37:43 AM)
Do you have a link to them? Why do you think super-capacitors wouldn't be a viable route if they are already working in other areas? At least a few companies are taking this path along with MIT as well. I did find a new type of battery while I was searching for other links on electric cars but I can't find it again. It's some new bio-degradable super battery. I had an idea when I was younger for wheel based electric alternators...I just recently found a link on Siemens which had a very similar idea they are working on. I would imagine with this idea and all the other new ones coming down the pike..It won't be "long" before we have a replacement for the automobiles we use today.

Aneirin -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 10:45:41 AM)
Just wondering, the Gulf oil platform that exploded, what's happening with it, has the mess been cleaned up, as I am hearing nothing about it, it as if it never happened, which is quite different from the BP disaster.

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 5:43:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Supercaps are getting their clocks cleaned by the newest generation of batteries. If you have a fast charge battery, you don't need a supercap for automotive. But there are lots of applications such as trains, cranes, paper mills etc. where they work well. The longevity is a real plus, but they tend to be expensive to purchase, and the power electronics to deal with them is a lot more complicated than a battery. Sam I think I found something on it. This article is older though. http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/

samboct -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 6:26:05 PM)
Well, OT- Aneiren- check out this link on Ven's thread. Seems to me that the missing oil from BP has been found. It's a little surprising that it's on the sea floor, but it may have been the reaction of the dispersant. Maybe the Gulf oil has gone that way too... Icarys- Ran some numbers on the costs of supercaps- check JSR Micro (IIRC)- nice supercaps developed in Japan. But compared to the newest lipoly batteries which have C discharge rates of over 50C (50 times capacity)- along with an ability to be charged at over 5C, it's going to be hard to justify the cost of supercaps at this point. The lipolys are cheaper for a given watt application, easier to use (lipoly voltage stays constant as a function of charge- supercap voltage decays linearly making the power electronics more complex and probably even have better power density. The only advantage to the supercaps is the very long cycle life- measured in the millions. In terms of wheel based alternators- it's called regenerative braking these days and was really a good app for a supercap. Doesn't seem to have caught on yet, but I could be wrong here. If you're using direct drive motors for the drivetrain, then it's really pretty easy to brake the wheel and get some charge back out-assuming that your battery can take that rate of charge. Some hybrid systems using both supercaps for this charging/braking were to be coupled with batteries to match the charge rates. Sam

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 8:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Well, OT- Aneiren- check out this link on Ven's thread. Seems to me that the missing oil from BP has been found. It's a little surprising that it's on the sea floor, but it may have been the reaction of the dispersant. Maybe the Gulf oil has gone that way too... Icarys- Ran some numbers on the costs of supercaps- check JSR Micro (IIRC)- nice supercaps developed in Japan. But compared to the newest lipoly batteries which have C discharge rates of over 50C (50 times capacity)- along with an ability to be charged at over 5C, it's going to be hard to justify the cost of supercaps at this point. The lipolys are cheaper for a given watt application, easier to use (lipoly voltage stays constant as a function of charge- supercap voltage decays linearly making the power electronics more complex and probably even have better power density. The only advantage to the supercaps is the very long cycle life- measured in the millions. In terms of wheel based alternators- it's called regenerative braking these days and was really a good app for a supercap. Doesn't seem to have caught on yet, but I could be wrong here. If you're using direct drive motors for the drivetrain, then it's really pretty easy to brake the wheel and get some charge back out-assuming that your battery can take that rate of charge. Some hybrid systems using both supercaps for this charging/braking were to be coupled with batteries to match the charge rates. Sam Regenerative braking isn't what I was talking about exactly. I'm talking about basicly building the core idea of an alternator into a wheel that would generate power while the car is in motion. Regenerative braking in my opinion is thinking small. Like I said I had this idea at 15 years old. I got the inspiration from the old bike wheel headlights they used to have when I was a kid. Here's the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPSoNfmuBXc As for the supercaps...I think one of the links eluded to them being used as a bank of batteries. Just as I stated earlier..Quick charging supercaps like you'd pull into a station for gas and then the power would be fed into the main batteries as you drove..Making a refuel fast and easy.

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 8:21:35 PM)
Check this out :>. For those who are looking for a bargain and could care less about looks but still would like an electric car. (That would include me) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano#Electric_vehicle

samboct -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 8:24:22 PM)
"I'm talking about basicly building the core idea of an alternator into a wheel that would generate power while the car is in motion." Sorry-won't work. Something has to propel the car in the first place- adding an alternator in this fashion will cost you energy, not get you extra. Sam

Icarys -> RE: Gulf oil platform explodes, burning off La. coast (9/11/2010 8:36:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "I'm talking about basicly building the core idea of an alternator into a wheel that would generate power while the car is in motion." Sorry-won't work. Something has to propel the car in the first place- adding an alternator in this fashion will cost you energy, not get you extra. Sam Tell Siemens that. Did you bother looking at the link? I'm curious..What part of that video do you have trouble conceptualizing? You understand how electricity works so how could you possibly say that it wouldn't work? Added: I think you've misunderstood in your rush to debunk..These wheel-in-alternators would be secondary power sources. Not primary. Only used to further the range. As long as the cars in motion it would recharge..and who knows..One on each wheel might produce a good bit of extra power.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02