Ethanol Powered Aircraft

In article . com,
"Denny" wrote:

I started a couple of hours ago researching the production of ethanol,
use of land, fetilizers, an thos dam tracters.. I juss fin the sbjek
too be too dam comp, comp, cmmp, uhhh hard to ger reel faks... scuze me
I'm gonna resea, resear, resur, unhhh, opena nother pint...

d ennnn i

Denny, you're not suppose to drink the ethanol when you are doing the
ethanol research!

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...

Morgans wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
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.

If the penalty is less than the gain, it's a win. There is a penalty
for producing electricity on the edge of town and wiring it to your
house vs. having your own home generator. Most of us decided that the
gain of using municipal power outweighs the penalty of having to pipe
it to our house (in which it losses power in the transit).

-Robert

I guess I didn't state what I meant well enough.



You take some hydrocarbon and burn it to make electricity, you lose some in
waste heat. You take the electricity, and pipe it somewhere, and you lose
some in line loss. You take some of that electricity and put it into making
hydrogen, and you lose some more, or store it in a battery and lose some of
it that way. You use the electricity to make a car go, and you lose some
of the electricity to heat, again, or by burning the hydrogen.

Loss energy due to efficiency is inevitable.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote


As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
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%...

....Ken

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message ups.com...

For those of you who have not yet decided that this guy Ludwig is a dufus and / or a troll.... natural gas is not
methane. Although methane makes up approximately 96% of the local natural gas here, there are many other
constituents.

96% is "most", most of the time. Where I'm from.

Several of the products that he says are stored at human habitable
temperatures... well lets just say
that he is wrong at least on the ones that I am most familiar with. For instance, ammonia is stored at
temperatures
around -28 degrees f. As a matter of fact, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia are all cryogenically stored.

Nitrogen must be cryogenic to be in liquid form. CO2 and NH3 are
stored in regular steel tanks and when both gas and liquid are in the
tank, and the tank is allowed to sit with no flow, the tank assumes
ambient temperature (or higher in the sun) and the pressure inside is a
direct function of the product's temperature. Same with Freon (most
kinds), propane, etc. Nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium, are a liquid
at earth temperatures only under freakish pressures. There is said to
be solid methane at the bottom of the ocean in certain places but what
is the absolute pressure at those depths? About ten thousand psi is the
practical limit for pressure vessels. That's why these gases are
transported cryogenically or as _gases_ in the 2-3000 psi welding type
cylinders.


You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue. The more you try to defend your incorrect
drivel the deeper you get. Be a man and back off and admit you don't know what you are talking about.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen... Once we no longer need the oil from the Middle East...

Besides the repulsive words that follow, 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?

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

The simple solutions aren't.

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

"Jose" wrote

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

Nah, moles in the reactors will not do any good. They are just small
rodents.

Anyway, moles in reactors would be quickly killed from all of the radiation.

g

You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit "send."
;-)
--
Jim in NC

"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net wrote

You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases
for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue.
The more you try to defend your incorrect
drivel the deeper you get.

God forbid that I would in any way defend anything that this nutjob says,
but I think there is incomplete statements on both your parts going on here.

You store these gasses at low temps, because it is impractical to store them
at the crazy pressures that they would have to be, if kept at room
temperature. The way things are done, in a real world? Very cold, with
some pressure to help out, so you get a you are right, on this one.

Yes, as he said, they can be kept at room temperatures. Almost anything can
be. Practical? No. Wrongly stated? No.
--
Jim in NC

You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit "send."
;-)

Nope. From the moment I hit "reply".

Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.

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

Jose wrote:
You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit
"send."
;-)

Nope. From the moment I hit "reply".

Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.

Jose

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

I must have missed something.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:47:01 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Jose wrote:
You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit
"send."
;-)

Nope. From the moment I hit "reply".

Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.

Jose

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

I must have missed something.

Give the hamsters a couple of generations in the tunnels.

Don