Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exhaust velocity, no. Isp, yes (which velocity is a part).On 4/3/2011 6:50 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:55:12 -0700, Don Lancaster<don@tinaja.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2011 2:03 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:50:17 -0700, the renowned Chieftain of the
Carpet Crawlers<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:12:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
You are going to have a 10,000+ PSI compressor in your garage?
The tanks on the shuttle main engine are not high pressure tanks.
Who other than you ever said a damned thing about 10,000 psi
compression?
That's the only way to turn gaseous Hydrogen into liquid at room
temperature.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
The gravimetric energy density of hydrogen per kilogram is MUCH lower
than gasoline when the mass of the CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE is included.
Isn't that a matter of scale? After all, large liquid-fueled rockets used
LH2, though some used kerosene, too.
Rockets use LH2 to obtain the maximum possible practicable exhaust
velocity for chemical propellants, and therefore a high specific
impulse.
Interesting. Cite?In fact, the Shuttle and other O2/LH2 bi-propellant rockets
actually waste quite a bit of their LH2 fuel; if the propellants were
mixed at the correct stoichiometric ratio to cause complete combustion
of the liquid hydrogen, the combustion temperature would be so high that
no engine bell material could withstand it, even with active cooling of
the bell by the cryogenic fuel.
Not!On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:07:35 -0500, the renowned
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:03:30 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:55:12 -0700, the renowned Don Lancaster
don@tinaja.com> wrote:
The gravimetric energy density of hydrogen per kilogram is MUCH lower
than gasoline when the mass of the CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE is included.
Finding ANY substance with a better energy density per kilogram than
gasoline for automotive uses is totally pointless. It might make a 30
pound difference in vehicle weight. Hydrogen is certainly NOT a
candidate in any way, shape, or form.
Probably more likely that we'll (as in 50 years from now) be using a
synthetic hydrocarbon fuel of some kind, at least where batteries and
electrics prove to be inadequate. It's hard to imagine an A380
operated off of batteries.
The volumetric energy density of hydrogen per liter is ludicrously low,
even when liquified.
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
And the mass energy density of liquid hydrogen is actually WAY higher
than gasoline, but dealing with cryogens is not inexpensive, let alone
cryogens that gas off stuff that tends to explode when mixed with air.
Hey, I've got an idea! Let's put one of those in DimBulb's garage!
Oh, the humanity!
Yes, dumbfuck, and the venting that takes place where THEY store theirOn Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:50:17 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:12:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
You are going to have a 10,000+ PSI compressor in your garage?
The tanks on the shuttle main engine are not high pressure tanks.
The shuttle's main tanks would vent into your garage, moron.
It does not require being compressed to a liquid state, idiot.Who other than you ever said a damned thing about 10,000 psi
compression?
Compressed hydrogen. Do try to think, AlwaysWrong.
Who said anything about roomn temperature?On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:50:17 -0700, the renowned Chieftain of the
Carpet Crawlers <theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:12:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
You are going to have a 10,000+ PSI compressor in your garage?
The tanks on the shuttle main engine are not high pressure tanks.
Who other than you ever said a damned thing about 10,000 psi
compression?
That's the only way to turn gaseous Hydrogen into liquid at room
temperature.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
A 24" cube of gasoline would hold as much energy as 60 gallons of gasoline.On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, the renowned Don Lancaster
don@tinaja.com> wrote:
And the mass energy density of liquid hydrogen is actually WAY higher
than gasoline,
A popular misconception and a dead wrong OUTRIGHT LIE.
The CONTAINED mass energy density of hydrogen is actually WAY lower than
gasoline when used in any automotive app. And gets ridiculously worse as
the container empties.
Further, the mass energy density is utterly and totally meaningless for
automotive apps, as voluumetric density utterly and totally dominates.
A 24" cube of liquid hydrogen holds as much energy as 15 gallons of
gasoline.
That is the whole idea with an internal COMBUSTION engine, idiots!On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:55:12 -0700, the renowned Don Lancaster
don@tinaja.com> wrote:
The gravimetric energy density of hydrogen per kilogram is MUCH lower
than gasoline when the mass of the CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE is included.
Finding ANY substance with a better energy density per kilogram than
gasoline for automotive uses is totally pointless. It might make a 30
pound difference in vehicle weight. Hydrogen is certainly NOT a
candidate in any way, shape, or form.
Probably more likely that we'll (as in 50 years from now) be using a
synthetic hydrocarbon fuel of some kind, at least where batteries and
electrics prove to be inadequate. It's hard to imagine an A380
operated off of batteries.
The volumetric energy density of hydrogen per liter is ludicrously low,
even when liquified.
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
And the mass energy density of liquid hydrogen is actually WAY higher
than gasoline, but dealing with cryogens is not inexpensive, let alone
cryogens that gas off stuff that tends to explode when mixed with air.
Then why didn't they use gasoline for the manned moon missions or forAnd the mass energy density of liquid hydrogen is actually WAY higher
than gasoline,
A popular misconception and a dead wrong OUTRIGHT LIE.
You are clueless. It has abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with theAnd gets ridiculously worse as
the container empties.
This retarded bastard was probably on the retard crew that jumped allto shatter more
ridiculous hydrogen myths.
No shit, dumbass. Competing with that number is NOT the goal, idiots!gasoline/kerosine always stored more
energy per unit.
On 4/3/2011 6:50 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:55:12 -0700, Don Lancaster<don@tinaja.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2011 2:03 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:50:17 -0700, the renowned Chieftain of the
Carpet Crawlers<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:12:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
You are going to have a 10,000+ PSI compressor in your garage?
The tanks on the shuttle main engine are not high pressure tanks.
Who other than you ever said a damned thing about 10,000 psi
compression?
That's the only way to turn gaseous Hydrogen into liquid at room
temperature.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
The gravimetric energy density of hydrogen per kilogram is MUCH lower
than gasoline when the mass of the CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE is included.
Isn't that a matter of scale? After all, large liquid-fueled rockets used
LH2, though some used kerosene, too.
Rockets use LH2 to obtain the maximum possible practicable exhaust
velocity for chemical propellants, and therefore a high specific
impulse. In fact, the Shuttle and other O2/LH2 bi-propellant rockets
actually waste quite a bit of their LH2 fuel; if the propellants were
mixed at the correct stoichiometric ratio to cause complete combustion
of the liquid hydrogen, the combustion temperature would be so high that
no engine bell material could withstand it, even with active cooling of
the bell by the cryogenic fuel.
You learned nothing about the Saturn IV booster engines!? They haveIn fact, the Shuttle and other O2/LH2 bi-propellant rockets
actually waste quite a bit of their LH2 fuel; if the propellants were
mixed at the correct stoichiometric ratio to cause complete combustion
of the liquid hydrogen, the combustion temperature would be so high that
no engine bell material could withstand it, even with active cooling of
the bell by the cryogenic fuel.
Interesting. Cite?
Isn't the effective exhaust velocity directly proportional to Isp?On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:05:22 -0400, Bitrex<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net
wrote:
On 4/3/2011 6:50 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:55:12 -0700, Don Lancaster<don@tinaja.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2011 2:03 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:50:17 -0700, the renowned Chieftain of the
Carpet Crawlers<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:12:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
You are going to have a 10,000+ PSI compressor in your garage?
The tanks on the shuttle main engine are not high pressure tanks.
Who other than you ever said a damned thing about 10,000 psi
compression?
That's the only way to turn gaseous Hydrogen into liquid at room
temperature.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
The gravimetric energy density of hydrogen per kilogram is MUCH lower
than gasoline when the mass of the CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE is included.
Isn't that a matter of scale? After all, large liquid-fueled rockets used
LH2, though some used kerosene, too.
Rockets use LH2 to obtain the maximum possible practicable exhaust
velocity for chemical propellants, and therefore a high specific
impulse.
Exhaust velocity, no. Isp, yes (which velocity is a part).
I learned about that from the audio recording of a series of lecturesIn fact, the Shuttle and other O2/LH2 bi-propellant rockets
actually waste quite a bit of their LH2 fuel; if the propellants were
mixed at the correct stoichiometric ratio to cause complete combustion
of the liquid hydrogen, the combustion temperature would be so high that
no engine bell material could withstand it, even with active cooling of
the bell by the cryogenic fuel.
Interesting. Cite?
Because the effective exhaust velocity for hydrocarbons is lower. TheOn Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, Don Lancaster<don@tinaja.com> wrote:
And the mass energy density of liquid hydrogen is actually WAY higher
than gasoline,
A popular misconception and a dead wrong OUTRIGHT LIE.
Then why didn't they use gasoline for the manned moon missions or for
space shuttle engines, or for ANY rocket engines, for that matter?
E = 1/2 MV^2, M matters too.On 4/3/2011 10:15 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:05:22 -0400, Bitrex<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net
wrote:
On 4/3/2011 6:50 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:55:12 -0700, Don Lancaster<don@tinaja.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2011 2:03 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:50:17 -0700, the renowned Chieftain of the
Carpet Crawlers<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:12:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
You are going to have a 10,000+ PSI compressor in your garage?
The tanks on the shuttle main engine are not high pressure tanks.
Who other than you ever said a damned thing about 10,000 psi
compression?
That's the only way to turn gaseous Hydrogen into liquid at room
temperature.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
The gravimetric energy density of hydrogen per kilogram is MUCH lower
than gasoline when the mass of the CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE is included.
Isn't that a matter of scale? After all, large liquid-fueled rockets used
LH2, though some used kerosene, too.
Rockets use LH2 to obtain the maximum possible practicable exhaust
velocity for chemical propellants, and therefore a high specific
impulse.
Exhaust velocity, no. Isp, yes (which velocity is a part).
Isn't the effective exhaust velocity directly proportional to Isp?
In fact, the Shuttle and other O2/LH2 bi-propellant rockets
actually waste quite a bit of their LH2 fuel; if the propellants were
mixed at the correct stoichiometric ratio to cause complete combustion
of the liquid hydrogen, the combustion temperature would be so high that
no engine bell material could withstand it, even with active cooling of
the bell by the cryogenic fuel.
Interesting. Cite?
I learned about that from the audio recording of a series of lectures
given for a course at MIT by Shuttle engineers - they also have them on
video here:
http://academicearth.org/lectures/the-origins-of-space-shuttle
Unfortunately I can't now recall the specific lecture, probably the one
on propulsion.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine sez:
"Liquid fueled engines are often run fuel rich, which results in lower
temperature combustion. Cooler exhaust reduces heat loads on the engine
allowing lower cost materials, a simplified cooling system, and a lower
performance engine."
In the lecture (circa 2005) this engineer stated that they pretty much
ran the engines at the maximum temperature the state of the art in the
mid 1970s would allow, and that in many respects the SSMEs are still
state of the art when it comes to liquid bi propellant engines.
RP-1 is essentially kerosene, AlwaysWrong. Guess what "RP" means, DimBulb?On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:
And the mass energy density of liquid hydrogen is actually WAY higher
than gasoline,
A popular misconception and a dead wrong OUTRIGHT LIE.
Then why didn't they use gasoline for the manned moon missions or for
space shuttle engines, or for ANY rocket engines, for that matter?
He is a presumptuous twit, like you, idiot.KBW > I'm a vegetarian
IMBJR > I bet you eat fish, though, like a lot of vegetarians.
Archie > I'll bet that you couldn't be any more of an utter retard if
you tried.
Have you picked sides already, Nymbecile? LOL
Name one manned booster (US) that used a petroleum propellant?On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:30:48 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipper...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
And the mass energy density of liquid hydrogen is actually WAY higher
than gasoline,
A popular misconception and a dead wrong OUTRIGHT LIE.
Then why didn't they use gasoline for the manned moon missions or for
space shuttle engines, or for ANY rocket engines, for that matter?
RP-1 is essentially kerosene, AlwaysWrong. Guess what "RP" means, DimBulb?
Why don't you lot just bugger off back to where you came from andOn Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:00:59 -0500, Kent Wills wrote:
I'm a vegetarian
I bet you eat fish, though, like a lot of vegetarians.