Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, May 11, 2024
Sea Dragon (video)
2:49 PM, 5/11/24:
Er, this one has a few issues. First of all, a single engine would be astronomically frickin' huge in comparison to any rocket engine ever produced. The Saturn V's F1 engines are the most powerful engines ever in production on an operational rocket, to my knowledge. That one was about twice as powerful as the Raptor engines on Starship.
In order for a single engine to lift all that mass, plus its own weight, would require an engine that is maybe ( sit down, this is big ) 100 times more powerful. Ain't gonna happen.
Or it would have to be a couple of orders of magnitude more efficient. Not likely.
This one was also nicknamed the "Big Dumb Rocket". I'd say it is dumber than that on more than more metric. This is what happens when you don't do any back of the envelope calculations. If Aerojet actually put their names on this fantasy, I'd like to know how the hell the would ever make an single engine that powerful???
end update of 10:12 am post
Did this one make my fave list of rocketry?
Actually, no. The post was called Ideas for Space, or something like that. Sea Dragon was not on that list. Sea Dragon was mentioned here, however.
There's definitely room for ideas of putting frickin' huge amounts of stuff into orbit, but this one won't be able to launch rockets at the pace that Starship will be able to. That's assuming that Starship actually works. There's a significant risk of failure in Starship, in my opinion. However, Sea Dragon seems low risk, if the idea is to put frickin' huge amounts of stuff into orbit with each launch. The launch rate would have to be increased with sheer numbers of vehicles. They would have to be towed to and from the sea, which would be a slower process of having them return to the launch site with a quick turnaround.
Sea Dragon could launch people into orbit. A return from orbit would be more conventional, with the capsule and parachute method. Huge frickin' numbers of people could be launched from these things. Plus supplies to justify the size of the beast.
There's news that SpaceX will have plenty of revenues for investment for his whims. Elon Musk likes to recycle ideas from the past. Maybe he'd jump for this one. The Starship may be just one of many rockets in the future. Governments cannot do this job. It takes an entrepreneur to do it. Anybody?
Wimmin on the wawpath
This story was on Ace, as it describes one of the wokish aspects of modern liberalism. Wimmin are wictims, and they are mad as hell and won't take it anymoah.
They've even got classes on how to act in rage-monster fashion. After all, it is that mean old patriarchy that makes them act mousey and everything. It seems that even the faculty in so-called "higher" education knock objectivity as a type of male patriarchy, of which wimmin must never emulate, by gosh.
There's even a school that shows the girls how to get mad, because they've hadn't had enough practice at it, you see. Anything to make a buck. A fool and his/her money, are soon parted.
Not to be too judgmental here, but if you're paying somebody to teach how to be angry, you really need to ax yourself a few questions. Anyway, if it helps some people, maybe it isn't all bad, but this seems to be a widdle wacky. But some folks do need help. Hopefully, they can get the right kind. That's is all.
Signs of the times
It's better to combat boil-a-frog scenarios than to battle so-called climate change. With that in mind, here's a few things to consider.
It may be tiresome to hear, but in the old days, kids really did walk 5 miles in the snow to get to school. But the boil-a-frog scenario today is having to go to school at all. What that means is that people don't really expect to work for good things. Good things are expected. An education was seen in the old days as something worth working for. If you had to walk 5 miles in the snow to get an education, that was okay. These boil-a-frog days, people might expect to wire themselves up with a chip so that they don't have to go to class in order to have access to knowledge. A computer in the brain might not be that far off. I mean, really..., having to point and click on a screen is SO yesterday. Walking to school is practically Neaderthal.
Perhaps we are headed for Jetsons territory after all. But is it really all that desirable to have robots doing everything for you? But can't you jog off those excess calories? Only if you get too many bugs to eat. No more good things to eat because ... climate change.
If you fight climate change, there won't be any of that Jetsons stuff. There won't be any technological advances, because technological advances depend upon energy, and energy is going to have a cost of some kind. Radical environmentalists don't want people to have ANYTHING that has anything to do with comfort, convenience, or pleasure. You'd be back in the caves if these wackos get their way. You WILL eat the bugs, comrade. Well, in a natural world, eating bugs may be your only sustenance, because there's nothing else! Who would actually choose to eat bugs? All the more reason for their coercive tactics. Amongst these are fake elections, fake news, fake pandemics, and general all around fakery. Shoot, there won't be any more sex because nobody will know about the birds and the bees.
This boil-a-frog stuff is so sneaky. You can watch old movies and notice a few things. People actually knew how to do things. Wow. How quaint. They cooked their own food! How primitive! In the future, a robot will shove a pill down your throat, and you will like it! Or else, comrade. If you are already the boiled frog, it will be too late to jump out.
Everything is so enlightened these days. That's why there is such a need for censorship. Right thinking must come from the barrel of a gun, comrade. But you don't need guns, let Uncle Sam take care of you. heh ,heh.
This seems so Jungian, like in that movie scene from Full Metal Jacket.
What are you going to do? Don't jump into the water and don't be a frog, I guess.
Friday, May 10, 2024
Communist mob attacks Tesla plant
The "anti-capitalists" object to "the rich", but they attack a company making cars for middle-class folks. They are full of crap all right. It's probably being done against Musk under the fig leaf of ideology. Maybe the Chinese communists are encouraging it in order to compete better with Musk.
If they're anticapitalist, why go after a factory making cars for the working class?
— Warren Redlich - Chasing Dreams (@WR4NYGov) May 10, 2024
Why not protest factories making BMW 7 series and Mercedes S Class or Maybach?
Because they're full of crap https://t.co/zQ15AjYGQk
Bannon criticizes Speaker Johnson
Nice speech. There needed to be a lot more like this all around the GOP, and it needed to come well before the primaries. Also, it needed to come in early enough to organize a slate of candidates that would have challenged the GOP Establishment.
If anyone will note, this delay on the foreign aid vote took place during the time in which the GOP Establishment would have been vulnerable to a primary challenge. Now they don't have to worry about that anymore, because too many of them are safe. Or so they think.
The public in general does not pay attention. There doesn't appear to be anyone willing to step up to the plate in a timely fashion who will do what it takes to move the needle back into a safer zone than this. What we have now is NUTS. There's no real opposition to the left. The GOP steadfastly refuses to do a DAMN THING.
That's what Bannon is bitching about. But bitch now isn't going to change the facts on the ground in a different direction. Your only alternative now is to put up with the GOP until the next election cycle, or let the Democrats win against those who are the worst of the lot. There's a lot of them who tend to vote with the Democrats. They might as well BE DEMOCRATS.
Bannon is going OFF on Speaker Johnson pic.twitter.com/rfLrKTTB5K
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 10, 2024
Next Big Future: Bussard EMC2 Fusion Project Publishes on Arxiv Wit...
5/10/24
7:53 AM
A brief search yields some basic info: 1) Discover magazine 2011 article ( last updated in 2023)
and 2) is a video ( actually a podcast), which is called "The Fusion Podcast - Dr Jaeyoung Park". It doesn't have that many views, and it's over 5 years old. Dr. Park is connected to Bussard's Polywell Fusion device and EMC Corporation. There might be more info out there, but it may be wrapped up in confidentialty, or mystery ( for want of a better term).
8:00 update end, 6:03 AM post follows:
It has been awhile since I've looked at Bussard's fusion device. The chief advantage of the Polywell Technique is that it doesn't get hot. If it gets hot, it fails. My recollection is that this wasn't the problem with Polywell Fusion. Seems like they were losing too many electrons that it needed in order to make the "well" deep enough for fusion to occur.
I'm scanning my posts on the subject, and will update this post accordingly, provided that I find anything interesting. At the moment, I don't recall what the results were on the last batch of experiments, and when those experiments occurred.
end update of 6/8/14 post:
6/8/14:
Next Big Future: Bussard EMC2 Fusion Project Publishes on Arxiv Wit...: EMC2 Fusion reports experimental results validating the concept that plasma confinement is enhanced in a magnetic cusp configuration when b...
comment:
I've been kinda sorta watching Polywell for at least 7 years. As with everything else that seems promising, it gets little support.
Thursday, May 9, 2024
How did this happen?
If this is to be believed, the Chinese will dominate the EV market very soon. This is a major coup for the Chinese if they pulled this off. Not good news for US automakers, including Tesla.
What's the secret sauce? The talk here is of batteries that last forever, are durable beyond belief, have unbelievable power density, and are cheap. How did they do all this? Or is this hype?
Wednesday, May 8, 2024
Buttkicker of propulsion system if you can make it work
5/8/24:
Muon-catalyzed fusion is a fascinating subject. It ALMOST works. If something almost works, what would it take to make it work? This is what you call a "good question". A good question, in this context, is a question that has no easy nor quick answer.
Here's a video about making muons. What to do with the muons is another question.
end update of 5/6/24 post:
5/6/24:
There's no new ideas here, just a re-post of an idea. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Here's something that could create opportunities for somebody out there. But it has to be created.
You cannot create and/or advance without ideas combined with action. You cannot get it out of a Facebook post. Even if you did, you have to actually do something about it.
There was something on the web where it said the IQ went down 2 pts. Sounds about right. The culture is dumbing down everybody, and in particular, the younger generation.
The younger generation may think they can affect things through the political process. The political process isn't working very well these days. Good luck with that.
Elon Musk is doing some stuff, but the powers-that-be are trying to destroy him. That's because he doesn't play ball with them like they want. Too bad there aren't more like Musk. These billionaires are causing problems of their own. They get some money, and it all goes to their head.
You need to create real things in order to solve real problems. You can't do that by wasting time on stuff that doesn't do anything for anybody but the dude who thought up that scam, like Facebook. The young generation is pissed, but they aren't going to find solutions in the political sphere. The Zuckerbergs will just sell your information to the highest bidder. How does that help you?
end update of 4/27/22 post:
4.27.22
Revisitation of the muon-catalyzed fusion as a space=propulsion idea
An idea came to mind, and given the fact that I know very little of the field, it is only an idea. Maybe it is an idea worth pursuing, or maybe not.
The question is this: how many muons would you need to make sufficient number of reactions that could provide the necessary thrust that could make this useful? It seems that the Earth receives 10k muons per meter of muons. Would 10k's worth of muons produce much in the way of energy?
A muon can catalyze maybe 200 reactions before they get "stuck", and can't help any further. That's a couple million reactions per minute ( 10k per minute of muons/meter). To increase the muons, just increase the area that they are "collected". But how? Well, muons are electrically charged, so they can be diverted with a magnetic charge.
The muons travel at relativistic speed. Which means maybe you can't move them far.
Muons can be created on Earth using big devices. What I propose is that somehow, you can get the muons in quantity by either making them using cosmic rays, or guiding them to where you want them. Cosmic rays are moving at relativistic speed as well. That means you don't need to use a machine to accelerate them. If you can guide those cosmic rays where you want them in order to make muons... that's the question. Cosmic rays are made of charged particles, which means they can be guided. But how much and how far, and to what effect?
I suppose someone has already thought of all this. But if you can make the charged particles go where you want, and do it in sufficient quantity, you can make muons with little energy expenditure. Perhaps you could focus a beam from 10's of meters to something the size of a pin. Then use it to blast away at something that produces bunches of muons which are used to catalyze a fusion reaction. The reaction creates alpha particles, which could be ejected as thrust.
The math seems imposing. You need a LOT of muons. Because to catalyze just 1 mole of hydrogen would take 10 to the 23rd power of reactions. Therefore, it doesn't seem feasible just on this intital calculation. Even 1 square kilometer may not be enough to do the necessary quantity of reactions to catalyze just one gram of hydrogen in a reasonable amount of time.
What would 1 gram of hydrogen produce in terms of thrust? That seems like a pretty large number. But my math could be wrong, so I won't hazard a guess here. I'd guess that you'd need more than a gram of mass to get a spacecraft's velocity up to the speeds that would shorten the length of a journey by an appreciable amount.
It would be a big apparatus, so I think the idea isn't feasible. Oh, well. It was a thought.
Update
Originally posted in 2014:
2.2.18:
An idea occurred to me last night that the fusion concept that almost works could be used for this propulsion system. The fusion concept is called muon-catalyzed fusion.
The thermal system Waddington discusses would not be necessary. Instead, you want to use the alpha particles directly for thrust. Unfortunately, most of the energy release is from the neutrons, which are not handy, unless you want to breed fission fuel. The neutrons could be put to good use, though.
Since an energy source would be necessary, and that could be achieved with the SAFE nuclear fission reactor design, which NASA is dusting off the shelf.
However, there is a respectable amount of energy in the alpha particles, and this should be usable for thrust. Doubtful that this could be used for a SSTO rocket, though.
The main benefit could be larger payload fractions due to the much higher ISP, which reduces the amount of fuel required to run the propulsion system.
If the amount of thrust is sufficient, you could also transit the distance between planets in a much shorter time frame. If these two benefits are realized, human colonization would be much simplified.
The original 2014 post follows:
Fusion propulsion that is.
An idea occurred to me as I was reading about breakeven in fusion research. This topic came up maybe a couple years ago when Trent Waddington at QuantumG blog speculated a bit about using fusion propulsion even without breakeven. He noted that you can get kinetic energy out of it even without breakeven. The alpha particles would supply the reaction mass and at great velocity since they are traveling at a fraction of the speed of light.
Now at merely 10% of the breakeven point, you'd have enough alpha particles emitted that could give some decent thrust, or so I speculate.
Another thought arose as to the Bremsstrahlung radiation which is such a problem with nuclear fusion as a power source. The thought is this: could you use that for propulsion in space? Like directing the X-rays in the opposite direction of movement like from light pressure from the sun or from lasers.
If you could get enough light pressure and alpha particles from your fusion device, it may be enough to power a spacecraft through the solar system. Just 1% of the electrical energy input into the system may be enough. ( honking big speculation alert ).
Muon-catalyzed fusion is a fascinating subject. It ALMOST works. If something almost works, what would it take to make it work? This is what you call a "good question". A good question, in this context, is a question that has no easy nor quick answer.
Here's a video about making muons. What to do with the muons is another question.
end update of 5/6/24 post:
5/6/24:
There's no new ideas here, just a re-post of an idea. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Here's something that could create opportunities for somebody out there. But it has to be created.
You cannot create and/or advance without ideas combined with action. You cannot get it out of a Facebook post. Even if you did, you have to actually do something about it.
There was something on the web where it said the IQ went down 2 pts. Sounds about right. The culture is dumbing down everybody, and in particular, the younger generation.
The younger generation may think they can affect things through the political process. The political process isn't working very well these days. Good luck with that.
Elon Musk is doing some stuff, but the powers-that-be are trying to destroy him. That's because he doesn't play ball with them like they want. Too bad there aren't more like Musk. These billionaires are causing problems of their own. They get some money, and it all goes to their head.
You need to create real things in order to solve real problems. You can't do that by wasting time on stuff that doesn't do anything for anybody but the dude who thought up that scam, like Facebook. The young generation is pissed, but they aren't going to find solutions in the political sphere. The Zuckerbergs will just sell your information to the highest bidder. How does that help you?
end update of 4/27/22 post:
4.27.22
Revisitation of the muon-catalyzed fusion as a space=propulsion idea
An idea came to mind, and given the fact that I know very little of the field, it is only an idea. Maybe it is an idea worth pursuing, or maybe not.
The question is this: how many muons would you need to make sufficient number of reactions that could provide the necessary thrust that could make this useful? It seems that the Earth receives 10k muons per meter of muons. Would 10k's worth of muons produce much in the way of energy?
A muon can catalyze maybe 200 reactions before they get "stuck", and can't help any further. That's a couple million reactions per minute ( 10k per minute of muons/meter). To increase the muons, just increase the area that they are "collected". But how? Well, muons are electrically charged, so they can be diverted with a magnetic charge.
The muons travel at relativistic speed. Which means maybe you can't move them far.
Muons can be created on Earth using big devices. What I propose is that somehow, you can get the muons in quantity by either making them using cosmic rays, or guiding them to where you want them. Cosmic rays are moving at relativistic speed as well. That means you don't need to use a machine to accelerate them. If you can guide those cosmic rays where you want them in order to make muons... that's the question. Cosmic rays are made of charged particles, which means they can be guided. But how much and how far, and to what effect?
I suppose someone has already thought of all this. But if you can make the charged particles go where you want, and do it in sufficient quantity, you can make muons with little energy expenditure. Perhaps you could focus a beam from 10's of meters to something the size of a pin. Then use it to blast away at something that produces bunches of muons which are used to catalyze a fusion reaction. The reaction creates alpha particles, which could be ejected as thrust.
The math seems imposing. You need a LOT of muons. Because to catalyze just 1 mole of hydrogen would take 10 to the 23rd power of reactions. Therefore, it doesn't seem feasible just on this intital calculation. Even 1 square kilometer may not be enough to do the necessary quantity of reactions to catalyze just one gram of hydrogen in a reasonable amount of time.
What would 1 gram of hydrogen produce in terms of thrust? That seems like a pretty large number. But my math could be wrong, so I won't hazard a guess here. I'd guess that you'd need more than a gram of mass to get a spacecraft's velocity up to the speeds that would shorten the length of a journey by an appreciable amount.
It would be a big apparatus, so I think the idea isn't feasible. Oh, well. It was a thought.
Originally posted in 2014:
2.2.18:
An idea occurred to me last night that the fusion concept that almost works could be used for this propulsion system. The fusion concept is called muon-catalyzed fusion.
The thermal system Waddington discusses would not be necessary. Instead, you want to use the alpha particles directly for thrust. Unfortunately, most of the energy release is from the neutrons, which are not handy, unless you want to breed fission fuel. The neutrons could be put to good use, though.
Since an energy source would be necessary, and that could be achieved with the SAFE nuclear fission reactor design, which NASA is dusting off the shelf.
However, there is a respectable amount of energy in the alpha particles, and this should be usable for thrust. Doubtful that this could be used for a SSTO rocket, though.
The main benefit could be larger payload fractions due to the much higher ISP, which reduces the amount of fuel required to run the propulsion system.
If the amount of thrust is sufficient, you could also transit the distance between planets in a much shorter time frame. If these two benefits are realized, human colonization would be much simplified.
The original 2014 post follows:
Fusion propulsion that is.
An idea occurred to me as I was reading about breakeven in fusion research. This topic came up maybe a couple years ago when Trent Waddington at QuantumG blog speculated a bit about using fusion propulsion even without breakeven. He noted that you can get kinetic energy out of it even without breakeven. The alpha particles would supply the reaction mass and at great velocity since they are traveling at a fraction of the speed of light.
Now at merely 10% of the breakeven point, you'd have enough alpha particles emitted that could give some decent thrust, or so I speculate.
Another thought arose as to the Bremsstrahlung radiation which is such a problem with nuclear fusion as a power source. The thought is this: could you use that for propulsion in space? Like directing the X-rays in the opposite direction of movement like from light pressure from the sun or from lasers.
If you could get enough light pressure and alpha particles from your fusion device, it may be enough to power a spacecraft through the solar system. Just 1% of the electrical energy input into the system may be enough. ( honking big speculation alert ).
Cold Fusion is back
She says this a lot in this video: "there's just one problem". There's always a problem until there isn't one. Whatever THAT is supposed to mean. Here's an attempt: "things will work out eventually". There's just one problem with that: what if it doesn't? Then don't worry about it.
Substack: The Illusion Of Revolution by Quoth the Raven
Methinks the Taibbi has quaffed a glass of water to wash down a red pill.
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
The Palestinian Student's Godfather: Saul Alinsky by Richard Pollock
Behold the modern liberal Democrat Party. Didn't Alinsky dedicate his book "Rules for Radicals" to Satan?
Monday, May 6, 2024
Stirling Engines
5/6/24:
PDF file of the NASA Stirling Engine test on a delivery truck.
If this engine just charged a battery pack, and if the battery pack was much smaller, you might have a winner. The set up would be a series hybrid that charged a battery pack with about 45 mile range. You'd have the option of having it charged at home, or work; or you'd just run the Stirling engine when necessary for a re-charge of the battery as needed. That would work like the Chevy Volt set up. Range anxiety would be a thing of the past. Just fill up like with an ICE.
The Volt has not been popular, and may not be available anymore. Why not? That's beyond the scope here.
Electric engines are getting smaller and more efficient. So the weight of the thing should be less than a battery-only Tesla-like set up. Not only electric engines getting smaller and more efficient, so are batteries. But even with those improvements, batteries are too heavy and expensive.
end update of 12/08/23 post:
12/08/23: Update to last post of 10/22/21:
Automakers turning to hybrids?
Actually, they could turn to Stirling Engines, or better yet, Stirling/Electric hybrids. The two types should complement each other nicely. Stirlings take awhile to warm up. A charged battery is ready to go. The Stirling can keep the battery charged, and end range anxiety.
Batteries are expensive and heavy. The batteries could be a lot smaller, and the hybrid Stirling can be smaller too. It has been shown that most trips are less than 45 miles round trip. A small battery could handle that much driving, and the Stirling can keep it charged up, as needed. The amount of power needed would be relatively small for constant speed, which is what is done most of the time. Consequently, the Stirling can keep up with the demand while not having to deliver all the power needed at one time. The electric motor can do that. Extra power for acceleration could come from ultracapacitors, which can also be charged by the Stirling motor.
Nuclear power can supply the energy to convert to hydrogen. Especially true if the cost of energy can come way down, as it is projected with the Focus Fusion device. In the meantime, nuclear power could be used from molten salt reactors. In such a case, no emissions would be produced at all. There would be some waste from the molten salt reactors, and no waste worth mentioning from the Focus Fusion device.
end update:
Comment:
This topic isn't new here on this blog, but what is new is this video. I hadn't seen it before. The thing that is different here is that it is a complete engine concept tested in real live situations over a period of time.
A Stirling engine was tested in a truck by NASA. Actually, more than one truck. One of the trucks was a service vehicle used on an airbase in Virginia. The other looked like a regular old pickup truck. The pickup appears to have driven everywhere you'd drive a conventional vehicle.
Popping the hood doesn't reveal anything radically different. It doesn't look like a conventional engine though. Incidentally, this test was done a long time ago. Back in the eighties, perhaps. The vehicle looks that way. It doesn't look modern.
The curious thing is why this technology hasn't been adopted. It is said to be "too heavy". The engine was only 75 hp, but what people don't realize is that most of the horsepower in a conventional engine is unnecessary. Internal combustion engines cannot start under a load. I'm thinking that public acceptance may be low for some reason, or that auto manufacturers may fear taking a chance on something different could be too risky of a decision.
There was a Ford program during the Energy Crisis of the seventies that tested Stirling engines in cars. The fault there was that it took too long to warm up. That could be an issue, but that issue could be overcome if they really wanted to do it.
Why bother with the Stirling engine at all? It is said to be clean and efficient. It can run on any heat source. For me, I'd like to be able to get one as a power generator. But these things are impossible to find. You can certainly find toys, but nothing serious like a generator. What gives?
If you were to scratch the surface of all the things that have appeared to have gone wrong, you might find a common denominator with this question. Just saying. It could well be the thing that I've been discussing since day one on this blog. Our culture may well have become dysfunctional. It is a "better mousetrap", but for some reason, it doesn't succeed. It makes no sense, but there's your common denominator. It's like mandating a vaccine to solve a problem that doesn't exist ( in children, covid is not an issue). If a "vaccine" that doesn't work can be thusly mandated, then it might be easy to understand why a motor that would be cleaner and more efficient cannot be adopted for some strange reason. The highest cost "solution" to solve a non-problem that has the least probability of success is the path taken. The very defintion of dysfunctional.
Update:
NASA report on the Stirling Engine Program
Comment:
After reading through the full report done back in the late eighties, I can see why the Stirling Engine has not replaced the internal combustion engine. For its size, it just doesn't put out the performance.
It could be adequate though. It all depends upon customer expectations. People are a bit used to better performance than these can offer, however. It would not be a marketing hit. It would probably be a dud.
Some folks would find the economy to be an attraction. Yet the internal combustion engine has some room to grow, apparently. The new Eco-boost engine in Fords packs quite a punch for its size. The fuel economy would be pretty good too, I imagine. That's why it was developed.
That doesn't dissuade me from being interested though. The value of this engine is that it doesn't need specialized fuel. It was tested with a lot of different fuels, so it can be used with most anything that can be burned. In fact, it doesn't require anything but a heat source. Therefore, the possibility of running a Stirling engine on concentrated solar power is a real possibility.
PDF file of the NASA Stirling Engine test on a delivery truck.
If this engine just charged a battery pack, and if the battery pack was much smaller, you might have a winner. The set up would be a series hybrid that charged a battery pack with about 45 mile range. You'd have the option of having it charged at home, or work; or you'd just run the Stirling engine when necessary for a re-charge of the battery as needed. That would work like the Chevy Volt set up. Range anxiety would be a thing of the past. Just fill up like with an ICE.
The Volt has not been popular, and may not be available anymore. Why not? That's beyond the scope here.
Electric engines are getting smaller and more efficient. So the weight of the thing should be less than a battery-only Tesla-like set up. Not only electric engines getting smaller and more efficient, so are batteries. But even with those improvements, batteries are too heavy and expensive.
end update of 12/08/23 post:
12/08/23: Update to last post of 10/22/21:
Automakers turning to hybrids?
Actually, they could turn to Stirling Engines, or better yet, Stirling/Electric hybrids. The two types should complement each other nicely. Stirlings take awhile to warm up. A charged battery is ready to go. The Stirling can keep the battery charged, and end range anxiety.
Batteries are expensive and heavy. The batteries could be a lot smaller, and the hybrid Stirling can be smaller too. It has been shown that most trips are less than 45 miles round trip. A small battery could handle that much driving, and the Stirling can keep it charged up, as needed. The amount of power needed would be relatively small for constant speed, which is what is done most of the time. Consequently, the Stirling can keep up with the demand while not having to deliver all the power needed at one time. The electric motor can do that. Extra power for acceleration could come from ultracapacitors, which can also be charged by the Stirling motor.
Nuclear power can supply the energy to convert to hydrogen. Especially true if the cost of energy can come way down, as it is projected with the Focus Fusion device. In the meantime, nuclear power could be used from molten salt reactors. In such a case, no emissions would be produced at all. There would be some waste from the molten salt reactors, and no waste worth mentioning from the Focus Fusion device.
end update:
Comment:
This topic isn't new here on this blog, but what is new is this video. I hadn't seen it before. The thing that is different here is that it is a complete engine concept tested in real live situations over a period of time.
A Stirling engine was tested in a truck by NASA. Actually, more than one truck. One of the trucks was a service vehicle used on an airbase in Virginia. The other looked like a regular old pickup truck. The pickup appears to have driven everywhere you'd drive a conventional vehicle.
Popping the hood doesn't reveal anything radically different. It doesn't look like a conventional engine though. Incidentally, this test was done a long time ago. Back in the eighties, perhaps. The vehicle looks that way. It doesn't look modern.
The curious thing is why this technology hasn't been adopted. It is said to be "too heavy". The engine was only 75 hp, but what people don't realize is that most of the horsepower in a conventional engine is unnecessary. Internal combustion engines cannot start under a load. I'm thinking that public acceptance may be low for some reason, or that auto manufacturers may fear taking a chance on something different could be too risky of a decision.
There was a Ford program during the Energy Crisis of the seventies that tested Stirling engines in cars. The fault there was that it took too long to warm up. That could be an issue, but that issue could be overcome if they really wanted to do it.
Why bother with the Stirling engine at all? It is said to be clean and efficient. It can run on any heat source. For me, I'd like to be able to get one as a power generator. But these things are impossible to find. You can certainly find toys, but nothing serious like a generator. What gives?
If you were to scratch the surface of all the things that have appeared to have gone wrong, you might find a common denominator with this question. Just saying. It could well be the thing that I've been discussing since day one on this blog. Our culture may well have become dysfunctional. It is a "better mousetrap", but for some reason, it doesn't succeed. It makes no sense, but there's your common denominator. It's like mandating a vaccine to solve a problem that doesn't exist ( in children, covid is not an issue). If a "vaccine" that doesn't work can be thusly mandated, then it might be easy to understand why a motor that would be cleaner and more efficient cannot be adopted for some strange reason. The highest cost "solution" to solve a non-problem that has the least probability of success is the path taken. The very defintion of dysfunctional.
Update:
NASA report on the Stirling Engine Program
Comment:
After reading through the full report done back in the late eighties, I can see why the Stirling Engine has not replaced the internal combustion engine. For its size, it just doesn't put out the performance.
It could be adequate though. It all depends upon customer expectations. People are a bit used to better performance than these can offer, however. It would not be a marketing hit. It would probably be a dud.
Some folks would find the economy to be an attraction. Yet the internal combustion engine has some room to grow, apparently. The new Eco-boost engine in Fords packs quite a punch for its size. The fuel economy would be pretty good too, I imagine. That's why it was developed.
That doesn't dissuade me from being interested though. The value of this engine is that it doesn't need specialized fuel. It was tested with a lot of different fuels, so it can be used with most anything that can be burned. In fact, it doesn't require anything but a heat source. Therefore, the possibility of running a Stirling engine on concentrated solar power is a real possibility.
Did Richard Nixon win in 1968 because he appeared on TV show "Laugh-in"?
Humphrey might have thought so. But Humphrey had his chance, and he declined. This TV show might have changed heestwa. Even in the end, they really did sock it to him.
Biden handlers advertisement on MSNBC is like Animal Farm
Seen at ZeroHedge...
Comment:
Quality over Quantity? The ad shown was belligerent and hostile. This is Brandon's idea of quality?
Abortion and scandal mongering. That's all they've got. Dark Brandon to complete the witch's brew.
False Flag Nation
This agrees with what I've been saying all along. I'll keep on pounding on that until something stops me from doing it. I'd stop if I became convinced that I'm wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong. There are four lights!
False-flag Nation - American Thinker https://t.co/Hv8ZKmP5DR Comment: Amen.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) May 6, 2024
Times have changed--- Trump v Slick Willy
Trump may be lying about his affairs with women. But Slick Willy got caught lying.
Slick Willy got impeached for lying. There was the blue dress. Trump got impeached twice. No evidence was presented.
Democrats said "it was all about sex". People shrugged it all off. Now Trump is in court, and it is all about sex. No laws were broken. But the Democrats are up in arms.
Democrats said "it's the economy, stupid". Now it is the stupid economy and stupid people who don't know how good they got it. Or so Democrats say.
The seas are said to be rising due to climate change, say the Democrats. But Galveston Bay Texas looks exactly the same to me as it did 60 years ago.
Democrats say a lot of things. I'll trust my own eyes, ears, and brain.
Thank you very much.
Sunday, May 5, 2024
James Woods responds to lefty rant
Watch this guy and then read Wood's response in his tweet embedded below. Or do it in the opposite order. I'll comment below.
Do you fly in airplanes? Do you heat your home? Do you have air-conditioning? Do you drive a car? Ed Begley has been riding a bicycle for decades. He's a good ambassador for his point of view. Try putting your money where your mouth is. pic.twitter.com/i7niRZ4OAK
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 1, 2024
Comment:
His rant is hyper-emotional and insulting. It's intended to browbeat any dissent into agreement. There was a guy in Germany who acted a lot like that. Adolf Hitler physically intimidated people. Read about it. Even highly ranked generals would flinch in the presense of Der Fuhrer. Therefore, there is no debate possible with someone like this. That's the whole point. No debate is wanted.
One could distill the essense of his arguments based on what few facts that he does manage to shout out at you. There are 8 billion people on Earth, he says. Yes, that's true. The population growth is faster than ever. Yes, that's true. However, a completely self-imposed draconian solution may be a cure that is worse than the disease.
Two, his ideas about use of resources is entirely based upon the notion that resources are limited. Atoms and molecules do not go away. One of my favorite ideas was the mastery of energy. With enough abundant energy, the recycling of all materials can take place at an affordable rate. The reason it cannot be done now is the high cost of energy. With enough energy, many of these problems become manageable. Resources can be virtually unlimited.
But we cannot have unlimited energy because the same people who scream like this will not actually apply any useful solutions. Indeed, their idea is to have mankind return to the caves. This will mean that 99% of the human race will have to die. The "solutions" therefore, are no solutions at all.
Windmills and solar power really aren't very useful. A number of potentially useful technologies have to BEG for support. Why can't he do something like that instead of yelling and insulting people who do not agree with him?
Bombal interviews Braxman about web privacy
Braxman names a search engine alternative to Google. I've been following both of these guys for the last several months. Perhaps we should adopt a liberal tactic of "raising awareness". "Normies" as they are called here, will deny that there's a problem. Obviously, I don't agree.
Tucker Carlson Admits What Politician Truly Scares Him
It's Newsome, the Rubin says, because Gov. Newsome is willing to be authoritian. That scares Carlson.
My take is that it doesn't take authoritarianism to clean things up. Remove those who are creating the chaos, and then you'll have order. But Collyfornia wouldn't get rid of Newsome. At least, not now. Perhaps if they were encouraged to get rid of him?
How would you do that? I'd say you'd strip them of their status as a state until they brought their state into compliance with basic laws. The Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government. If a state won't comply with that, that state should lose its status as a state. The Civil War is a guide for such a scenario. A refusal to keep order is a violation of the Constitution.
Taibbi: "What happened to you, man?"
Here's a snippet of what's behind a paywall. Therefore, I have to make a quick judgment based upon an incomplete sample. I'd say that the thing that has happened to the guy is that he left the tribe. For these tribalists, the tribe is everything. Even when the tribe is wrong about something.
As for me, I'd rather be on the side of of the side that is on the side of the truth. So what IS the truth? The side that says that there is an objective truth, or the side that says the truth is whatever you want it to be? If the truth is that nothing matters but your will, then what good is it if you are on the "out" side?
By the way, the commies in the former Soviet Union, only cared about themselves. Just so we all understand what is at stake here. It isn't about what they say it is about. It is about themselves--- first, foremost, and always.
Paper or plastic?
Seen on Instapundit. This "Republican" has pounced.
The lefty governments in certain jurisdictions have forced people to use more plastic with their ill-conceived plastic bag ban. Now the increased costs have been passed to consumers, and there's no environmental benefit. Indeed, it has made the problem worse.
Feel good lefty politics solves no problems. It can actually make the claimed problems even worse.
The lefty governments in certain jurisdictions have forced people to use more plastic with their ill-conceived plastic bag ban. Now the increased costs have been passed to consumers, and there's no environmental benefit. Indeed, it has made the problem worse.
Feel good lefty politics solves no problems. It can actually make the claimed problems even worse.
New Jersey Bag Ban Followed By Increased Use Of Plastic via @forbes https://t.co/MkzC5v13TC Comment: It is ironic that it doesn't do a thing for the environment, but it does raise the cost of living.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) May 5, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)