Hydrogen??

[AllanD]

It's like saying that lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math.

I don't have to now you or see your driving habits to know that there is one basic rule which governs all others... that there is so to speak "no such thing as a free lunch"
(it's called conservation of energy)

The energy to MAKE the hydrogen is comming from SOMEWHERE, and that under real world conditions it takes between six and ten times as much energy to make hydrogen as it gives up when you burn it.

that is REALITY

So since I KNOW wha you are doing cannot possibly work
(any more than you have a trunk full of dwarves on treadmills propelling your car)
than what's left is that you:
A) have Changed your driving habits
or
B) you are an idiot that can't divide a three digit number with a two digit number and get an answer that's within 40% of reality.
or
C) I'm absolutely wrong and the Nobel comittee is about to notify you that
you are the winner for the nobel prize for either physics or Chemistry.

I'd bet everything I have (including my dick) against C.

Basically it remeinds me of the furor over "cold fusion"

This forum exsists purely to isolate these hairbrained discussions
(and the people who start them) from general discussion so they
will annoy the minimum number of people who don't have a head
full of loose screws under their tin foil head coverings.

AD

 

[thantil]

You do not listen well I said I was not going to arguge about it and You still push.
You are alo rude and vulgar.

 

[MAKG]

You are alo rude and vulgar.

You forgot "right."

Some people just don't like to be reminded that they have fallen for a scam. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reminded. MANY of the not-very-bright interpret silence as agreement.

Allan, you and me are both old farts. The initial CF fiasco was 20 years ago. I remember it fairly well, as I was working in "hot" fusion at the time. College internship. It caused quite a stir, largely because these guys were keeping the paper secret (VERY unusual). When it came out, (leaked by a reviewer) it was obvious they had rediscovered electrochemistry (i.e., made a battery).

 

[Evan]

You do not listen well I said I was not going to arguge about it and You still push.
You are alo rude and vulgar.

Does your hydrogen truck also go faster than the speed of light?

 

[AllanD]

You forgot "right."

Some people just don't like to be reminded that they have fallen for a scam. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reminded. MANY of the not-very-bright interpret silence as agreement.

Allan, you and me are both old farts. The initial CF fiasco was 20 years ago. I remember it fairly well, as I was working in "hot" fusion at the time. College internship. It caused quite a stir, largely because these guys were keeping the paper secret (VERY unusual). When it came out, (leaked by a reviewer) it was obvious they had rediscovered electrochemistry (i.e., made a battery).

MAKG, 20-0dd years ago I was also working on "Hot Fusion"
Or atleas the foundation for others to do so,
The early days of building TFTR at Princeton.
it's predecessor (the name escapes me at the moment)
was still active.

I was working on instrumentation
while My father was working on the power supply system for
the neutral beam.


AD

 

[MAKG]

We were the competition. Inertial confined fusion, LBNL and LLNL. The dopes with the Q clearances were making supersecret D-T pellets at around 1 ton TNT equivalent (that the Soviets and Germans had published in open literature -- gah!) and we were making heavy ion beams to blast them.

The Princeton weenies were doing Tokamaks, right?

 

[AllanD]

We were the competition. Inertial confined fusion, LBNL and LLNL. The dopes with the Q clearances were making supersecret D-T pellets at around 1 ton TNT equivalent (that the Soviets and Germans had published in open literature -- gah!) and we were making heavy ion beams to blast them.

The Princeton weenies were doing Tokamaks, right?

Yeah TFTR stands for Tokomak Fusion Test Reactor.

they eventually reached 10megawatts ouput and a peak temp
of >510million degrees

But they didn't fire the thing the first time until long after I left.

Later On I was working at Allied Signal on Alexandrite Lasers
They were supposed to be trying to make them just variable
enough to frequency modulate them and use the imposed
FM signal to read doppler shift.

the idea was to use the laser as a rangefinding gunsight.
Imagine for a moment what you might need a 35KW laser
as a rangefinding gunsight to shoot at...

I was impressed the first day when I realized that they were
using a 10hp motor to drive the coolant circulation pump
that kept the laser from overheating...

All I did was wire a bunch of big HV capacitors together.

Sadly most of the really big work in fusion is now being done in europe.

the newest thing that everyone is sinking money into (including the US-DOE) is being built in France.

AD

 

[MAKG]

the idea was to use the laser as a rangefinding gunsight.
Imagine for a moment what you might need a 35KW laser
as a rangefinding gunsight to shoot at...

Gee, no idea.....

Might it have something to do with, say, really big adaptive optics telescopes and heat signatures?

 

[AllanD]

No it had to do with targeting a fast moving (I mean miles per second)
object at distances (several hundred miles) and it was the gunsight
for a weapon that could EASILY actually reach out and touch those
targets virtually instantaneously (Think directed energy that passes
through most things, and greatly heats those things it can't and even
if it can't actually destroy those targets any electronics inside them
gets fried reardless of how well it's builders think they shielded them.



It's energy output is on the order of several million terawatts.... for say... 5-7 nanoseconds

Getting any ideas?

AD

 

[MAKG]

Hmm, I guess I'm working in the wrong decade. Adaptive Optics is a late-90s thing. The telescope is on Haleakala (and a few other sites), and it's for spotting those same "inconvenient" bits of equipment in sub-orbit. They use kinetic weapons these days. At least that's the rumor. The problem with big stationary exawatt lasers is that they are pretty easy targets, being the size of large buildings with optics that don't like dust, grease, or vibration.

Only several hundred miles? Sounds like a reentry-stage strategy. These days, it seems boost stage is the more active target. But of course I only know what I can glean from the nonclassified literature (i.e., it may be complete misinformation).

 

[James Denton]

You do not listen well I said I was not going to arguge about it and You still push.
You are alo rude and vulgar.

That's right they want listen-----That's all they going to do is run,down what some of us know that will work......Just wish they take some of that time and build one.

 

[AllanD]

Hmm, I guess I'm working in the wrong decade. Adaptive Optics is a late-90s thing. The telescope is on Haleakala (and a few other sites), and it's for spotting those same "inconvenient" bits of equipment in sub-orbit. They use kinetic weapons these days. At least that's the rumor. The problem with big stationary exawatt lasers is that they are pretty easy targets, being the size of large buildings with optics that don't like dust, grease, or vibration.

Only several hundred miles? Sounds like a reentry-stage strategy. These days, it seems boost stage is the more active target. But of course I only know what I can glean from the nonclassified literature (i.e., it may be complete misinformation).

the Targets were warhead Bus packages or individual warheads
in the "coast" phase of their flight, ideally just prior to reentry.

Remember the Bomb-pumped X-ray Laser?

"adaptive optics"? Uhhh.... Nope.

Just a brute force approach to the physics.

Each "main" lasers could only be fired ONCE and you didn't want to be within several hundred miles of one when it did

One of my high school friends (Physics degree from Syracuse)
insisted it was "impossible".. depends on your definition of "laser"
or "coherent radiation", with the power budget involved it's
not like you needed to worry about focus....

It's like using a blunderbuss to kill houseflies at 3feet.
or Holding a claymore mine on a broom handle to get
a burglar in the next room.... not nearly as "elegant"
as a wooden club.

Definatly not "elegance" to make an engineer happy.
But not quite as crude as an "Omega" space drive (LOL

but VERY effective.

Remember while there is a limitation on how many
pulse bundles you hang on on it (weight limitations for the launch platform) if you only put a few (3-4) on an ICBM platform designed to launch nine or more RV's on an intercontintal flight path you can still have the thing reach an intercept point fairly quickly.

Then again taking Old ICBMs and replacing the warheads with
garbage pails full of lug nuts and bursting them in the path of incomming warheads would be also be frightfully effective.

and give a great light show to somebody as the nuts that don't hit anything subsequently reenter at 15,000mph

Hell simply launching such a "package" from somewhere in
the pacific would make a great finale to the macy's fireworks display on the 4th of july

Imagine the sight of several thousand man made meteors
(each the size of an acorn) burning up on their way out
over the atlantic

Remember that the average "shooting star" is between the size of a grain of sand and a peppercorn.


AD

 

[MAKG]

Hell simply launching such a "package" from somewhere in
the pacific would make a great finale to the macy's fireworks display on the 4th of july

While it sure would be a nice light show, I don't think the folks on ISS or any number of LEO satellites (say, KH-xx, whatever xx is these days, and especially the four LEO astronomical telescopes out there now) would be very happy with that.

Not to mention the US Space Command folks.

While something launched from an ICBM would be suborbital, it still would be rather fast, especially compared to things coming the other way or in orbital paths. Thousands of MPH should never be underestimated. It scares the crap out of the manned-spaceflight folks.

 

[AllanD]

Yeah, and considering that a typical ICBM has an apogee
of ~800miles, it'd definatly be flying past the orbital path
of most LEO stuff.

But imagine how upset the manned spaceflight people would
be to have a warhead trans-stage carrying three RV's go
wizzing past on it's way to apogee or the three RV's and the suborbital
"space junk" trans stage (or spent third stage booster) comming back down
from it's 800 mile apogee...

If THOSE things start flying nobody will be worried about what
might get taken out as "collateral dammage by interceptor platforms...
everyone will have bigger worries.

how does the total cost of Hubble compare to say... NYC, LA or Atlanta?

AD


AD

 

[68fbjjz109]

Has any on here tried to inject gaseous hydrogen? After reading about Hydrogen injected biodesiels built by John Goodwin and his impressive results a friend of mine and i decided to try it with my ranger.

We went to the local Gas Supplier rented a large tank of hydrogen, placed a argon regulator on the tank from my buddies welder, ran a tube from the regulator to a non used vacum line on my ranger. My ranger is a 89 2.9 lifted 8 inches with 36'' TSL's, with 3.73's. When we opened the regulator the motor was at idle and increased some 500 RPM's, and the exhuast smelled very sweet almost as if was burning coolant. (from what i have read hydrogen reduces emissions when mixed with gasoline). My ranger typically gets around 12 mpg on the highway. I filled my truck with gas and my buddy and i drove about 100 miles and the gas station to Cabelas in Hamburg at approximately 60-65mph. Upon returning the the gas station and filling back up to comfirm the apparent improve in fuel mileage, my ranger average 19 mpg. My ranger would continually provide the same results on the high way.

I think thats a pretty significant improvemnt seeing it was a hasty experiment.

Though what interests me the most is my buddies 4.0 explorer ran (rough) and drove on just hydrogen. I would like to convert my mustang to run on just hydrogen or hydrogen and natural gas.