eer

F

FEerguy9

Guest
4/23/02 I am not much of a team player, and have ZERO computer skills - but I
am an industrial engineer, who has thought very deeply about the subject of
energy for this planet. After many years of discussion about this, it is my
firm conviction that EER is no more impossible than a lump of coal - from an
energy density perspective. I believe that this is the inevitable conclusion of
efforts to provide energy for this planet. I hope my clumsy writing does not
distract from the point I am trying to make.

To those who would say that energy density prohibits EER, I would ask how a
lump of coal exists.............



EER in Brief


Electronic Electricity Repository (EER) is merely a concept at this time.

This involves solid state capacitors as a usable energy storage device for
electric vehicles, and other items. Conventional wisdom limits capacitors to
power surges, and the like. The full text of this concept will suggest a way to
make them fully competitive with the internal combustion engine, while not
violating the laws of energy density.

The easiest way to explain it is to use an electric vehicle as an
example. To power an EV with EER, an array of electronic devices --
perhaps solid-state capacitors, perhaps another device -- would
contain the electrical charge accumulated from a variety of sources
of electricity. Renewable energy sources are suggested, but *any*
source of electricity would work. With the questionable future of
battery-powered EV's, and fusion as an energy source, and the political debate
about fossil fuels, there are strong reasons to take a look at EER.

In fairness, many say it cannot be done. But, perhaps another war
-- or avoiding one -- could put the right minds to work on this concept. It
*would* provide a way to be independent of foreign
oil, while providing a structure for the transition to renewable forms
of energy to power EV's - or any other device powered by electricity.

This is merely a shell of an idea, but perhaps some further thought could help
bring it about.

Frank Lincoln....72430,2407......eerguy@cs.com
**************************************************************************
**************************



A TRIP TO THE STORE IN AN EER POWERED EV

Let's suppose that the EER concept is fully developed, and built
into an electric vehicle. Let's also suppose that the newest and best
technological devices -- some of which are now being used in EV's - are
integrated into the vehicle's design. What follows is a description
of what might possibly have happened during an everyday trip to the store
in such a vehicle. (This assumes the use of an *advanced* microchip
capacitor).
Ms. Jones notices her "fuel gauge" as she starts her vehicle; it
tells her that her microchip capacitor battery is 85% full. This means
that of the vast number of microchip capacitors in her "battery", 85% are
charged with their very small electric capacitance.
She proceeds to the store, and returns home -- a quarter mile
trip. As she pulls in her driveway, she looks again at her gauge. It
reads 84%. She thinks that she used only 1% of her battery capacity for
her trip.
But, she is wrong.
She used 10% of her available charged capacitors for the quarter
mile trip. So, why didn't her gauge read 75% when she returned?
There were several devices built into her vehicle which were
replenishing used capacitors, almost as fast as she was using them. (All
figures below are guesses -- just to make the point).

1. The advanced solar panel on the roof of her vehicle was, as
always during sunlight, continuously recharging at a slow, but
steady rate. Because she had happened to drive and park in
the sunlight, the solar panel recharged 5% of her capacitors.
2. The air scoops arranged in her vehicle's design -- although
accounting for some drag -- were directing the air through
small dynamos, which recharged another 2%.
3. The regenerative brakes on all four wheels replenished another
2% of the capacitors.

So, she did, in fact, use 10% of the available capacitor charges,
but 9% were replaced by the activity of her trip.
This is nothing like perpetual motion; it is merely taking
advantage of the natural surrounding energy to replenish the energy
spent on the trip.
It is even conceivable that her "fuel gauge" might have read a
higher percentage upon her return; a shorter trip on a windier and
sunnier day, in a more sunlit route and parking spot, and many more
occasions to use the brakes, might have made that possible. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics is not violated, because energy from outside the
vehicle was being absorbed along the way.
It is noted that a battery-powered EV could have done much the
same, but the weight difference would have changed the percentages, so
as to defeat the purpose.
Frank Lincoln CS# 72430,2407
**************************************************************************
**************************



It is understood that high energy density is something that has been sought for
many years -- the concept is nothing new. What is suggested here is the
possibility that modern technology may now be in the position to actually
attain it -- to a degree that could combine the many energy sources (new and
old) into a common pool.


GIVEN:
- Trench capacitors, at the present time, have nowhere near the capability to
deal with the degree of energy that would be required in Electronic Electricity
Repository.
- The area of the plates in a trench capacitor will, for the most part,
determine the capacitance -- not exclusively, but this is the factor that is
dealt with here as having the most potential for improvement. It is assumed
that progress in the other factors -- dielectric strength, dielectric
composition, etc., will continue, and will accommodate the supposition of
surface area increase made here.

HYPOTHESIS:
- The surface area of a trench capacitor plate can be greatly increased without
increasing the perimeter, or the space required to store the capacitor.
- Etching a groove on the plate surface will do this, to a small degree, and it
is done, to some extent, today. What is surmised, here, is that, as the
technology allows, many cross-grooves could be etched *within* the first
groove. Then, with increasing precision, these cross-grooves could, in turn, be
cross-grooved. And, then those cross-grooves cross-grooved. Each successive
cross-grooving would be progressively smaller - magnitudes smaller. This could
be repeated until the molecular level was reached -- each time increasing the
surface area of the plate, and thus the capacitance. An inexact estimate of the
number of times it could be repeated is 26. It is surmised that each groove,
cross-groove, and, etc., would be matched by a ridge, a cross-ridge, and, etc.,
on the opposite plate, with corresponding shapes for the dielectric. The
resulting configuration would yield a perfectly matching set of plates
(sandwiching an appropriately shaped, and expectedly advanced dielectric). Such
a configuration and material composition may not be possible at this time, but
the direction of efforts in their respective technologies may lead to their
development in the very near future. This concept is put forth in
*anticipation* of those developments.
- In theory, each successive etching would substantially increase the area of
the plates, and thus the capacitance *without increasing their size*, their
perimeter, or the volume of space needed for them. Again, the only barrier
seems to be at reaching the molecular level, after each groove is re-grooved,
perpendicularly, and then THAT groove is re-grooved, etc. This would take
advantage of all the "inner space" available between the plate surface, and the
molecular level. (Understand that in place of "etching", Scanning Tunneling
Microscope Technology might be applied -- or even nanotechnology, if that ever
becomes reality. The point is to configure the grooves -- by whatever method.)

BENEFITS:
- An almost endless storage system for electricity.
- A way to store electricity from *any* source, from renewables to a wall
socket.
- A possible solution to the search for a better power plant for electric
vehicles.
- A structure within which to make the conversion from fossil fuels to
renewables.
- A way to accumulate the "trickle" of the many forms of renewable energy, and
combine
and store them in a practical way; a way that could give strength to the many
"weak"
and diffuse renewable energy sources.
An attempt to generally suggest HOW to accomplish EER will be made; this will
be based on the feedback received so far on this concept. For the most part,
feedback has come from various forums in CompuServe. All major objections will
be mentioned, and a way around each one will be suggested.
..
ENERGY DENSITY - This appears to be the leading objection to EER. In the
strongest terms, it is postulated, here, that there is no sacred or permanent
universal limit to energy density -- there are only hurdles. There *are* limits
to present materials and there *are* limits to a given geometry, but no
universal scientific boundary that would stand forever and always. There are
certainly physical limits to the materials *now* being used, but, this concept
of EER does, indeed, depend upon progress in this area -- improvements in
materials are bound to happen. Unless human progress is at its maximum, there
is reason for such an expectation. Especially since -- many say -- technology
is doubling every day with computer technology, and since many of the best
resources in the world are focused on this type of science. (If anything like
this concept of EER ever happens, it will be as a natural development of such
materials -- and NOT a result of this effort; that is quite thoroughly
understood.)
It is suggest here that even without improvements in dielectrics, there may be
opportunity to vastly improve their capability with the one factor -- geography
of the plates.

Just as computers changed everything about information, some form of EER may
change the way energy is dealt with. The suggestion, above, regarding etching
grooves in trench capacitor plates, and then etching those grooves, etc., is
offered as a possible way to provide the structure that would enable a
monumentally higher energy density, than has ever been achieved. If the
geometry of the plates is configured as suggested here, and they are
identically wrinkled, it is expected that a very high energy density could be
achieved by taking advantage of the inner space. The accumulation of a massive
repelling force between plates is a problem for which no answer will be
attempted here. But, mechanics aside, it appears that developing technology
will, indeed, provide the tools necessary to configure the plates.

CAPACITOR LEAKAGE - Two points here: 1) Leakage in trench capacitors is not
nearly as big a problem as it was a few short years ago -- holding a charge for
an electric vehicle, for example, would be well within the cycle of usage. In
other words, an EV would be expected to be used often enough to use the charges
before they have time to leak. 2) The percentage of loss due to leakage could
logically be offset by overloading the capacitor bank by a like percentage.
This is somewhat of a built-in inefficiency, but in time, wouldn't the leakage
problem be expected to continue to improve?

ARCHING - The concern about electrical arching between the extremely small
dimensions created by the etching and re-etching can only be explained away by
a layman in this way: the extremely small dimensions would occur between parts
of the same plate - and *not* between the opposing plates. The surfaces of the
two plates would remain equidistant over the entire area. It is expected that
the extremely small dimensions would only occur between points on the same
plate, at the same potential -- and, thus, no arching would be anticipated.

ATOMIC LEVEL - In a pretty thorough analysis in the LEAP forum, it was
indicated that "the whole idea of a capacitor thus breaks down as we approach
atomic dimensions". (The following assumes abilities predicted by some as to
etching, Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, atomic force microscope,
lithography, or other methods.) If you make one groove (G1) in a capacitor
plate, that certainly does not approach atomic dimensions, yet it does increase
the surface area of the plate (without increasing its perimeter). Then, if you
go back and make another groove (G2) WITHIN G1's SURFACE, you are closer -- but
still not near the atomic level. Then if the surface of G2 is etched (or STM'd)
with G3, you are closer yet; closer -- but still a long way from the atomic
level. How far? Well, the number 26 seems to hold up as the number of times you
could re-etch grooves, before you hit bottom.
( Each successive etching step would be, say, a hundred times smaller than the
previous one. G3 is a hundred times smaller than G2. G2 is a hundred times
smaller than G1, and etc. G26 would be the smallest, and would begin to enter
atomic dimensions.)
Now, backing up, let's say you made a hundred tiny grooves on the surface of
the original plate -- so you have 100 G1's. Within each G1, you etch 100 much
smaller G2's. Within each G2 you etch 100 G3's, which are yet, again, much
smaller. This is a million grooves at the 3rd of 26 steps. If you could
continue on in this way for 26 re-groovings of the grooves, how many grooves
would you have at the 26th step? And, by how much would you have increased the
surface area of that plate? And how much more dipole moment effect would now
take place? And how much more ability to hold charge would you have? If the
number 26 makes you cranky, stop at 20, or 12.
The point is this: there is a tremendous amount of "inner space" available
*before* you reach atomic level. Perhaps an optimum number could be safely
reached. Even 12 would seem to provide a monumental increase in charge storage
ability. Subject to mathematicians' scrutiny, there may be 10^24 grooves, when
you are only halfway down to atomic level, and free of the terrible things that
happen there. At the halfway point, you have monumentally increased the surface
area, without threatening stability. Assuming that the dielectric follows the
shape of the plate exactly, have you not vastly increased the number of
molecules subject to polar realignment in the electric field? Could it be said
that, even though the individual dipole moments would stay at the same in
magnitude, there is an opportunity to create a tremendously larger number of
them, by taking advantage of the inner space available?

MASS PRODUCTION - Some of these techniques to reform very small structures are
very slow and very expensive. Some question was raised as to their adaptability
to a mass production situation. As with any change in technology, first efforts
are not usually efficient. But there seems to be enough advantages to EER so
that the forces of supply and demand would push the costs down. Once in the
competitive market, improvements in technique could be expected.

GROOVES TOO SMALL? - A statement made in one of the forums was, "There is a
limit to how small the grooves can be before they don't work any more." As this
was from a good source, it is taken seriously. If some of the logic, above,
doesn't account for this, there may be difficulty, here.

DISCHARGE TIME - Capacitors normally discharge very quickly, so wouldn't they
make a rather bad storage device? No detailed answer will be attempted, here,
but can't this be controlled with a very low discharge current, with a high
resistance?

Electricity is -- or can be -- the common denominator for all energy sources,
from solar to hydro. It is for exactly this reason that EER could employ each
and every energy source. All the new renewable technology could be "fed" into
EER - without exception. Yet, at the same time, conventional sources could
contribute to it -- every drop of oil and every lump of coal on this planet
could be used, purposely. Could this captured energy not then be put to use, as
needed, and when needed, by controlling the energy bursts to simulate
conventional electricity flow?

*******************

The technology that would be needed for EER *seems* to be within sight - with
some faith required, perhaps, for the materials. Basically, it is the ability
to sculpt materials at the molecular level which brought about this revised
approach to EER. I have never seen the etching process, nor STM; this whole
concept of extremely small sculpting to obtain extremely high surface area is
drawn from my imagination -- and the little I have read about these processes.
I am motivated by the extreme advantages that would come about, and the
apparent ability to accomplish this; if not on a production basis, then at
least on a prototype basis, to start. I'm certain there are still technical
errors in this effort -- it is hoped that the general idea was communicated
with some adequacy. This *seems* possible - or within reach - to me, and it
*seems* as though it would bring about profound benefits, and it *seems* to me
that it is a logical way to approach energy at this point in time.

But, I defer to the experts.
**************************************************************************
**************************

I have no patent on this idea. My motivation is not monetary.

I understand that this could not be done today, because of limits on existing
dielectrics, and perhaps other items. My position is that EER is not
impossible, given advances in some technologies.

Please respond by Email
or call at (248) 288-3459
eerguy@cs.com

Please keep in mind that EER would allow energy from any and all sources to be
stored and combined in such a way that an electric vehicle could, at some later
time, be powered by it.





Separating a steel sample using a tensile tester could be useful in EER.

The jagged edges could be cut off, just past their breakpoint. Call these two
pieces of jagged metal our capacitor plates. The broken pieces are matched
molecular for molecule. If a dielectric is molded between the two jagged ends,
the fit could not be better. "d" is maintained. The area of the matching jagged
edges is much, much more than the cross section of the steel sample. We then
have matching capacitor plates without using STM to configure all the surfaces.



Note: EER may not solve all energy problems, but in my opinion, it could
certainly power personal vehicles.

Anyone who receives this is free to publish.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040816042955.10759.00001298@mb-m13.news.cs.com...
4/23/02 I am not much of a team player, and have ZERO computer skills -
but I
am an industrial engineer, who has thought very deeply about the subject
of
energy for this planet. After many years of discussion about this, it is
my
firm conviction that EER is no more impossible than a lump of coal - from
an
energy density perspective. I believe that this is the inevitable
conclusion of
efforts to provide energy for this planet. I hope my clumsy writing does
not
distract from the point I am trying to make.
No, it's mostly your clumsy and erroneous reasoning that
does that. You continue to blather about this being possible
"from an energy density perspective" while steadfastly ignoring
that which has been pointed out to you over and over again:
chemical and electrostatic storage of energy are two very
different things, and you're comparing apples to watermelons
AT BEST.

You are, in plain and simple terms, not only wrong, but
utterly, aggressively, completely, pig-headedly wrong.
Your so-called "theories" are laughable on so many levels
we can't even begin to count them all here. You have become
the classic crackpot, so in love with your own thoughts that
your belief in them is purely religious in nature - meaning that
not only do these beliefs fly in the face of all evidence, but you
are actively ignoring such evidence when people try to
bring it to your attention. If you really ARE "an industrial
engineer," then please at least try to recall that little thing
called the scientific method, and subject your own beliefs to
it. It's not too late to stop looking like a blathering idiot.

EER in Brief
It doesn't work. At all.

There, you can't get much briefer than that.

Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040816042955.10759.00001298@mb-m13.news.cs.com...
4/23/02 I am not much of a team player, and have ZERO computer skills -
but I
am an industrial engineer, who has thought very deeply about the subject
of
energy for this planet. After many years of discussion about this, it is
my
firm conviction that EER is no more impossible than a lump of coal - from
an
energy density perspective. I believe that this is the inevitable
conclusion of
efforts to provide energy for this planet. I hope my clumsy writing does
not
distract from the point I am trying to make.

No, it's mostly your clumsy and erroneous reasoning that
does that. You continue to blather about this being possible
"from an energy density perspective" while steadfastly ignoring
that which has been pointed out to you over and over again:
chemical and electrostatic storage of energy are two very
different things, and you're comparing apples to watermelons
AT BEST.
Why n EARTH wouLD i WANT TO DO THAT?


You are, in plain and simple terms, not only wrong, but
utterly, aggressively, completely, pig-headedly wrong.
Your so-called "theories" are laughable on so many levels
we can't even begin to count them all here. You have become
the classic crackpot, so in love with your own thoughts that
your belief in them is purely religious in nature - meaning that
not only do these beliefs fly in the face of all evidence, but you
are actively ignoring such evidence when people try to
bring it to your attention.
If you really ARE "an industrial
engineer,"
bie, gmi, 1971


then please at least try to recall that little thing
called the scientific method, and subject your own beliefs to
it. It's not too late to stop looking like a blathering idiot.

EER in Brief

It doesn't work. At all.
Not YET


Frank
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040818043633.04872.00001527@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
No, it's mostly your clumsy and erroneous reasoning that
does that. You continue to blather about this being possible
"from an energy density perspective" while steadfastly ignoring
that which has been pointed out to you over and over again:
chemical and electrostatic storage of energy are two very
different things, and you're comparing apples to watermelons
AT BEST.

Why n EARTH wouLD i WANT TO DO THAT?
You tell us; after all, this is YOUR delusion.

then please at least try to recall that little thing
called the scientific method, and subject your own beliefs to
it. It's not too late to stop looking like a blathering idiot.

EER in Brief

It doesn't work. At all.

Not YET
Not ever.


Bob M.
 
Apparently, the half-life of his education was about 4 years. Now that
nearly 9 half-lives have passed, the information is almost completely turned
to lead or some other dense, head-occupying substance.

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840
 
FEerguy9 wrote:
4/23/02 I am not much of a team player, and have ZERO computer skills - but I
am an industrial engineer,
--------------
Liar! Any actual engineer would know better.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
FEerguy9 wrote:
[]
No, it's mostly your clumsy and erroneous reasoning that
does that. You continue to blather about this being possible
"from an energy density perspective" while steadfastly ignoring
that which has been pointed out to you over and over again:
chemical and electrostatic storage of energy are two very
different things, and you're comparing apples to watermelons
AT BEST.

Why n EARTH wouLD i WANT TO DO THAT?
-----------------
Profound psycho-emotional defect.


If you really ARE "an industrial
engineer,"

bie, gmi, 1971
-----------------
Accident or abject lie.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20040816042955.10759.00001298@mb-m13.news.cs.com>...

4/23/02 I am not much of a team player, and have ZERO computer skills - but I
am an industrial engineer, who has thought very deeply about the subject of
energy for this planet. After many years of discussion about this, it is my
firm conviction that EER is no more impossible than a lump of coal - from an
energy density perspective. I believe that this is the inevitable conclusion of
efforts to provide energy for this planet. I hope my clumsy writing does not
distract from the point I am trying to make.

To those who would say that energy density prohibits EER, I would ask how a
lump of coal exists.............
And how much energy is in a lump of coal?
How about a lump of Uranium for nuclear power?
If your eer capacitor can store the energy of a lump of coal,
why not Uranium? And don't say baby steps, or "small steps",
that's just BS. And don't say you can't do simple math, you
are an engineer aren't you?

-Bill
 
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20040816042955.10759.00001298@mb-m13.news.cs.com>...

4/23/02 I am not much of a team player, and have ZERO computer skills - but
I
am an industrial engineer, who has thought very deeply about the subject of
energy for this planet. After many years of discussion about this, it is my
firm conviction that EER is no more impossible than a lump of coal - from
an
energy density perspective. I believe that this is the inevitable
conclusion of
efforts to provide energy for this planet. I hope my clumsy writing does
not
distract from the point I am trying to make.

To those who would say that energy density prohibits EER, I would ask how a
lump of coal exists.............



And how much energy is in a lump of coal?
aBOUT THE SAME AS A like-sized eer collection+.



How about a lump of Uranium for nuclear power?
Want *THAT* in your car?


If your eer capacitor can store the energy of a lump of coal,
why not Uranium? And don't say baby steps, or "small steps",
that's just BS. And don't say you can't do simple math, you
are an engineer aren't you?
Once+.


Frank
 
FEerguy9 wrote:
[]
No, it's mostly your clumsy and erroneous reasoning that
does that. You continue to blather about this being possible
"from an energy density perspective" while steadfastly ignoring
that which has been pointed out to you over and over again:
chemical and electrostatic storage of energy are two very
different things, and you're comparing apples to watermelons
AT BEST.

Why n EARTH wouLD i WANT TO DO THAT?
-----------------
Profound psycho-emotional defect.


If you really ARE "an industrial
engineer,"

bie, gmi, 1971
-----------------
Accident or abject lie.
Very intentionaL AND VERY TRUE+.


fRANK
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040823125935.26045.00002149@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
And how much energy is in a lump of coal?

aBOUT THE SAME AS A like-sized eer collection+.
Wrong (again).

Try answering the question quantitatively, if you can.

Question: why is the energy "released from a lump of
coal" when you burn it so much less than what you'd
get if you could actually convert the mass to energy,
ala the Gospel According to St. Albert (E=mc^2)?

Why does the energy content obtainable electrically from
a charged capacitor similarly differ from what you'd get
if you simply burned the capacitor, or again did the
complete-mass-to-energy-conversion trick?

Answer those, and you might start to understand why just
about everyone here considers you to be a crackpot.

Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040823125935.26045.00002149@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
And how much energy is in a lump of coal?

aBOUT THE SAME AS A like-sized eer collection+.

Wrong (again).

Try answering the question quantitatively, if you can.

Question: why is the energy "released from a lump of
coal" when you burn it so much less than what you'd
get if you could actually convert the mass to energy,
ala the Gospel According to St. Albert (E=mc^2)?

Why does the energy content obtainable electrically from
a charged capacitor similarly differ from what you'd get
if you simply burned the capacitor, or again did the
complete-mass-to-energy-conversion trick?

Answer those, and you might start to understand why just
about everyone here considers you to be a crackpot.
Really?

Hmmmm

Better not answer, then+.


Frank
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040823141458.10744.00002511@mb-m25.news.cs.com...
Question: why is the energy "released from a lump of
coal" when you burn it so much less than what you'd
get if you could actually convert the mass to energy,
ala the Gospel According to St. Albert (E=mc^2)?

Why does the energy content obtainable electrically from
a charged capacitor similarly differ from what you'd get
if you simply burned the capacitor, or again did the
complete-mass-to-energy-conversion trick?

Answer those, and you might start to understand why just
about everyone here considers you to be a crackpot.

Really?

Hmmmm

Better not answer, then+.
I didn't expect you to, of course. It would be nice if
you would give some sign of actually trying to consider
the above questions, since they are VERY relevant to
what you've been posting about - but then, ignoring
relevant information is what we've come to expect
from you, Frank.

So, once again, with feeling - why IS the energy
stored in the charged capacitor (electrical energy)
different from what you'd get by burning that same
capacitor? ANY ideas, Frank?

Bob M.
 
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20040823125935.26045.00002149@mb-m28.news.cs.com>...
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20040816042955.10759.00001298@mb-m13.news.cs.com>...


And how much energy is in a lump of coal?

aBOUT THE SAME AS A like-sized eer collection+.

How about a lump of Uranium for nuclear power?

Want *THAT* in your car?

Why not? The uranium is less volitile than the charged
capacitor. If your eer capacitor shorts out, it dumps
all the energy at once, and there goes your car and
capacitor up in flames.

-Bill
 
On 18 Aug 2004 08:36:33 GMT, feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote:

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040816042955.10759.00001298@mb-m13.news.cs.com...
4/23/02 I am not much of a team player, and have ZERO computer skills -
but I
am an industrial engineer, who has thought very deeply about the subject
of
energy for this planet. After many years of discussion about this, it is
my
firm conviction that EER is no more impossible than a lump of coal - from
an
energy density perspective. I believe that this is the inevitable
conclusion of
efforts to provide energy for this planet. I hope my clumsy writing does
not
distract from the point I am trying to make.

No, it's mostly your clumsy and erroneous reasoning that
does that. You continue to blather about this being possible
"from an energy density perspective" while steadfastly ignoring
that which has been pointed out to you over and over again:
chemical and electrostatic storage of energy are two very
different things, and you're comparing apples to watermelons
AT BEST.

Why n EARTH wouLD i WANT TO DO THAT?



You are, in plain and simple terms, not only wrong, but
utterly, aggressively, completely, pig-headedly wrong.
Your so-called "theories" are laughable on so many levels
we can't even begin to count them all here. You have become
the classic crackpot, so in love with your own thoughts that
your belief in them is purely religious in nature - meaning that
not only do these beliefs fly in the face of all evidence, but you
are actively ignoring such evidence when people try to
bring it to your attention.

If you really ARE "an industrial
engineer,"

bie, gmi, 1971


then please at least try to recall that little thing
called the scientific method, and subject your own beliefs to
it. It's not too late to stop looking like a blathering idiot.

EER in Brief

It doesn't work. At all.

Not YET
No matter how many times you post yout drivel, it still won't work.
All it will do is get you LART'ed for SPAMMing, as it has in the past.

Widely known crackpot:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=feerguy&btnG=Google+Search

Note: I didn'r generate the following abuse report. I'm merely
reposting it here to show how prolific feerguy is in his habitual
multiple posting:

------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [USENET] feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) BI = 21
This is the only article in this thread
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
Date: 2004-02-25 21:03:52 PST
Abuse-spotted-in: alt.energy.renewable
Abuse-Subject: Reported for spamming
Type-of-abuse: [EMP]
Description: Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as
the term "spam" usually carries, but it is more accurate and
self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially, "too many separate copies of
a substantively identical article."
Abuse-from: feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9)

FEerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
eerguy2000@yahoo.com

Please LART this loser.

Please see _Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines_
<http://www.killfile.org/faqs/spam.html>.

FEerguy9

<20031002052657.15436.00000134@mb-m23.news.cs.com>
<20031005022303.10042.00000299@mb-m21.news.cs.com>
<20031010094651.27387.00000074@mb-m10.news.cs.com>
<20031010124126.05693.00000436@mb-m10.news.cs.com>
<20031020194954.06910.00000540@mb-m28.news.cs.com>
<20031102035209.05943.00000022@mb-m28.news.cs.com>
<20031106093627.22901.00000047@mb-m06.news.cs.com>
<20031110104359.19718.00000393@mb-m01.news.cs.com>
<20031111153849.29052.00000021@mb-m10.news.cs.com>
<20031112081255.28524.00000091@mb-m11.news.cs.com>
<20031114194906.27873.00000235@mb-m06.news.cs.com>
<20031120042133.16593.00000510@mb-m07.news.cs.com>
<20031122100307.08302.00000497@mb-m24.news.cs.com>
<20031122191822.11586.00000646@mb-m22.news.cs.com>
<20031124004900.12215.00000580@mb-m25.news.cs.com>
<20031125032103.27873.00000859@mb-m06.news.cs.com>
<20031125130813.29219.00000957@mb-m10.news.cs.com>
<20031125203824.12078.00000716@mb-m26.news.cs.com>
<20031125210911.12078.00000721@mb-m26.news.cs.com>
<20031129025246.27944.00001085@mb-m06.news.cs.com>
<20031212062826.13580.00000809@mb-m10.news.cs.com>
<20031217210208.26022.00001204@mb-m06.news.cs.com>
<20031217221233.14163.00001069@mb-m14.news.cs.com>
<20031217210118.26022.00001202@mb-m06.news.cs.com>
<20031218141251.03799.00001298@mb-m07.news.cs.com>
<20031228015944.04203.00001922@mb-m29.news.cs.com>
<20031228042507.04203.00001929@mb-m29.news.cs.com>
<20031228061322.11201.00001618@mb-m11.aol.com>
<20031228071211.19067.00001686@mb-m13.aol.com>
<20031229012826.11114.00001821@mb-m11.news.cs.com>
<20031230035234.11235.00001682@mb-m11.aol.com>
<20031230035329.11235.00001683@mb-m11.aol.com>
<20031230053702.08030.00001731@mb-m16.news.cs.com>
<20031230214159.09564.00001912@mb-m17.news.cs.com>
<20031231010546.09564.00001947@mb-m17.news.cs.com>
<20040103053949.04265.00002160@mb-m29.news.cs.com>
<20040104170109.19091.00002109@mb-m13.news.cs.com>
<20040104170157.19091.00002110@mb-m13.news.cs.com>
<20040107103725.13641.00002258@mb-m10.news.cs.com>
<20040110120030.19067.00002655@mb-m13.news.cs.com>
<20040110115705.19067.00002654@mb-m13.news.cs.com>
<20040110205422.12262.00003252@mb-m05.news.cs.com>
<20040110204215.12262.00003250@mb-m05.news.cs.com>
<20040110195209.12262.00003240@mb-m05.news.cs.com>
<20040111030234.15365.00003027@mb-m03.news.cs.com>
<20040111030856.15365.00003032@mb-m03.news.cs.com>
<20040120232010.24702.00000420@mb-m16.news.cs.com>
<20040120113931.19973.00000317@mb-m17.news.cs.com>
<20040120114002.19973.00000318@mb-m17.news.cs.com>
<20040120112427.19973.00000305@mb-m17.news.cs.com>
<20040125011225.11541.00000743@mb-m12.aol.com>
<20040126102344.13115.00000458@mb-m20.news.cs.com>
<20040126102543.13115.00000459@mb-m20.news.cs.com>
<20040128221322.13587.00000511@mb-m24.news.cs.com>
<20040128221403.13587.00000512@mb-m24.news.cs.com>
<20040131205700.27224.00001188@mb-m11.news.cs.com>
<20040131215849.27224.00001193@mb-m11.news.cs.com>
<20040224055835.09014.00000277@mb-m14.aol.com>
<20040224055913.09014.00000278@mb-m14.aol.com>
<20040224085058.25181.00000272@mb-m07.news.cs.com>

--
 
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:chrWc.8600$qr1.7795@news.cpqcorp.net...
I didn't expect you to, of course. It would be nice if
you would give some sign of actually trying to consider
the above questions, since they are VERY relevant to
what you've been posting about - but then, ignoring
relevant information is what we've come to expect
from you, Frank.
EER is just a idea Frank dreamed to troll this newsgroup. After all this
time he's still not been able to explain what it actually IS. He just posts
vague statements that wind people up...

A more interesting question is ...Why is the world putting so much money
into hybrid RV research and Hydrogen technology when plain and simple
battery technology is showing so much promise?

Here are details of a "home made electric car" that has submitted to the
same officual fuel economy tests as gas car in Europe... It did 200 miles
per charge on the official urban cycle!....

http://www.evuk.co.uk/news/

Scroll down to "February, 2004"
Quote:

"I have been road-trialling a set of Thunder Sky Lithium batteries in the
car for more than a year now and they have been performing very well. I
finally got the official testing carried out by AEA Technology so that we
now have official urban cycle and extra urban cycle power consumption tests
( tested to BS EN 1986-1:1997). The attachment shows the car on the rolling
road. These tests showed as follows:

Extra urban cycle: 255 km/156 miles
Urban cycle: 326 km/ 204 miles
Urban cycle power consumption: 0.121 kWh/km
Extra urban cycle power consumption: 0.155 kwh/km
Maximum speed measured during tests: 114 kmh/71 mph
Useable energy stored in batteries: 39.6 kWh
Motor: Advanced DC with Regenerative Braking
 
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:plBYc.230330$ik7.11875460@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

A more interesting question is ...Why is the world putting so much money
into hybrid RV research and Hydrogen technology when plain and simple
battery technology is showing so much promise?
oops a typo, that should be "EV" not "RV".
 
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:plBYc.230330$ik7.11875460@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
A more interesting question is ...Why is the world putting so much money
into hybrid RV research and Hydrogen technology when plain and simple
battery technology is showing so much promise?
I think there are at least two answers to that one.

First, while battery technology IS advancing, it has a long
way to go before it matches the energy density of a tank
of gas, or even of a comparably-sized tank of hydrogen.
It is simply not yet practical to produce a pure EV, battery
powered, with acceptable range to compete with gas-powered
IC vehicles. The hybrids can actually better the purely-IC vehicles
already, and can be produced at a reasonable cost, so that's
what we're seeing now.

The second reason is going to be a bit more complicated to
address - right now, there's essentially no infrastructure
to support battery-powered vehicles; places to charge your
battery, other than plugging the car in while parked at home,
are very rare. Further, there's no good means of duplicating
the efficiency of energy delivery you get from a stop at the
gas station (i.e., pull in, and after no more than 3-5 minutes
your vehicle is ready to go its full range again). What's needed
is not just sufficient energy density, but some way to (safely!)
recharge the thing in a relatively short period. A similar
set of problems, by the way, face the concept of hydrogen
power.

There's a third problem with both battery EVs and pure
hydrogen, come to think of it, and it would be even worse with
something like Frank's nonsensical "EER" notion - vehicle
safety. For a battery to work efficiently, it's going to have to
have a very low internal resistance - so what happens if, in
an accident, the battery terminals wind up shorted? Answer:
instant arc-welding. Further complicating this is the fact that
a lot of the battery technologies possible (and esp. things like
good ol' inexpensive lead-acid) are based on some rather
nasty chemicals - you DO NOT want the battery to spill
or be breached in an accident. In the case of hydrogen
power, the only way you're going to carry enough hydrogen
is under extreme pressure (so there's the safety issue again)
or in liquid form (unlikely, and no better from a safety standpoint).
Hydrogen in any event is very difficult to manage - it does
not want to stay put, and will leak out of just about anything.

On the other hand, gasoline provides a simple way to carry
a lot of energy on board, the hazards are relatively easy to
deal with (let's face it, Hollywood notwithstanding, cars simply
DO NOT burst into huge fireballs in >99.9% of accidents), and
there's already a well-established infrastructure for distribution
and delivery. Batteries, hydrogen, etc., while certainly promising,
have a tough job ahead of them with respect to displacing
gasoline. There's little doubt that it has to happen some day, but
it's also pretty easy to see why hybrids are getting the attention
right now.

Here are details of a "home made electric car" that has submitted to the
same officual fuel economy tests as gas car in Europe... It did 200 miles
per charge on the official urban cycle!....

http://www.evuk.co.uk/news/
That would appear to be a dual-seat vehicle with extremely
limited cargo space - and there's no mention of what running
various accessories (the headlights, heating or air conditioning,
etc.) would do to the range. It is probably best to compare
something like this with, say, a motorcycle, rather than with a
full-sized car. Something along these lines is far more likely to
compete with with a bike...as a purely urban vehicle, what
would its advantages be over a motorcycle or even a large
scooter?

Bob M.
 
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:d7LYc.9091$yA1.487@news.cpqcorp.net...

First, while battery technology IS advancing, it has a long
way to go before it matches the energy density of a tank
of gas, or even of a comparably-sized tank of hydrogen.
I saw a recent article in Scientific American (or was it New Scientist?)
about hydrogen. If I remember correctly it discussed hydrogen in the context
of our total need for energy and how to use and transport that energy
efficiently. I believe they concluded that if we manage to figure out how to
make a lot of hydrogen cleanly then the best use for it is not in cars. It
would be better to use it for local power generation and home heating - and
use the oil saved in our cars. I was a bit surprised but there you are.

It is simply not yet practical to produce a pure EV, battery
powered, with acceptable range to compete with gas-powered
IC vehicles.
200+ miles is very acceptable for second cars use.

The hybrids can actually better the purely-IC vehicles
already, and can be produced at a reasonable cost, so that's
what we're seeing now.
I believe I read the Jester cost only Ł6000 to make one off.

The second reason is going to be a bit more complicated to
address - right now, there's essentially no infrastructure
to support battery-powered vehicles; places to charge your
battery, other than plugging the car in while parked at home,
are very rare.
No hydrogen gas stations either.

Further, there's no good means of duplicating
the efficiency of energy delivery you get from a stop at the
gas station (i.e., pull in, and after no more than 3-5 minutes
your vehicle is ready to go its full range again).
You mean something as quick as "unplugging" the battery and fitting a new
one? Batteries do wear out so it's likely that battery packs will be rented
items anyway.

That would appear to be a dual-seat vehicle with extremely
limited cargo space - and there's no mention of what running
various accessories (the headlights, heating or air conditioning,
etc.) would do to the range.
Oh I agree it's not an SUV but it's a heck of a lot better than the car
companies seem to manage with their all electric cars - it just seems like
they ain't really trying.
 
"CWatters" wrote
:
: 200+ miles is very acceptable for second cars use.
:

My "Second Car" will go 400 miles while towing a 6000 pound
trailer, can your dream car do that?
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top