Posted by dbs__usenet on November 1, 2005, 6:10 am
gcowan@eagle.ca wrote:
>
>
> > It's not burned in pure oxygen, it's burned in air.
>
> It is burned in pure oxygen.
>
> > The nano textured Li-ION will (per the press release)
> > charge quickly ... making it equal in many ways
> > to the boron for quick refueling. While heavier,
> > it is much smaller,
>
> Seven times heavier, much more than seven times denser?
> Bin packing densities for B2O3 are on the order of 1.2 kg/L.
> How does he figure Li-ion batteries are over -- "much" over
> -- 8.4 kg/L? They aren't. Two, maybe three kg/L, tops.
>
>
> In
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.toyota.prius/msg/b5e46fada008b892
> "Michael Pardee" included:
>
> > Oxidized boron and discharged batteries are not waste;
> > they are storage waiting to be re-energized.
>
> Right.
Ok, so it needs pure oxygen in quantities large enough to run an
internal combustion engine? Where does that come from? A 1 litre engine
running at 4500 RPM would seem to suck 4500 litres of oxygen per minute.
That's a lot.
I read somewhere of a silver filter to adress the above, but that would
imply that you have perfectly filtered air presented to the filter so
the filter will not clog.
If this is such a great idea, where are the proof of concept vehicles
garaged? I've seen proof of concept vehicles for all manner of strange
batteries, solar and various gasses, but never for boron. Why?
Posted by Michael Pardee on November 1, 2005, 12:25 pm
> gcowan@eagle.ca wrote:
> If this is such a great idea, where are the proof of concept vehicles
> garaged? I've seen proof of concept vehicles for all manner of strange
> batteries, solar and various gasses, but never for boron. Why?
This is certainly one of the reasons I put it in the "also ran" category for
now. We are more steps away from putting boron on the road than we are with
many of the competing technologies. Considering there was even a (failed)
proof of concept car for that odd theory about using electron spin as an
energy source, and a rumor of one for that laser-on-gallium cold fusion
thing, it is a telling point.
Mike
Posted by richard schumacher on November 1, 2005, 2:54 pm
> > If this is such a great idea, where are the proof of concept vehicles
> > garaged? I've seen proof of concept vehicles for all manner of strange
> > batteries, solar and various gasses, but never for boron. Why?
> >
> >
> This is certainly one of the reasons I put it in the "also ran" category for
> now. We are more steps away from putting boron on the road than we are with
> many of the competing technologies. Considering there was even a (failed)
> proof of concept car for that odd theory about using electron spin as an
> energy source, and a rumor of one for that laser-on-gallium cold fusion
> thing, it is a telling point.
Or even the French compressed air car that made some of the popular
media a year or so ago. These things are all hopelessly impractical,
tinkerer's wet dreams, and will never see the light of day.
Posted by G. R. L. Cowan on November 1, 2005, 5:42 pm
Michael Pardee wrote:
> > If this is such a great idea,
> > where are the proof of concept vehicles garaged?
> > I've seen proof of concept vehicles for all manner
> > of strange batteries, solar and various gasses,
> > but never for boron. Why?
> >
> This is certainly one of the reasons I put it
> in the "also ran" category for now.
> We are more steps away from putting boron on the road
> than we are with many of the competing technologies...
> it is a telling point.
It is, but only if you assume that all of the large
amount of talk that would have to precede proof-of-concept
vehicles' construction, you would not be privy to ...
I should disclose that I'm the main boron fan.
I wrote the crap about silver filters; I have learned
more since. Zeolite PSA will do the job, just barely.
It's plenty efficient enough, but big and heavy.
This rather hard-to-read paper --
http://www.adsorption.com/publications/AdsorberDes2.pdf --
makes me think the principal impurity in PSA-produced oxygen
is argon, not nitrogen as I say at
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html .
'dbs_use' points out a real difficulty with the use
of enriched oxygen in an open cycle, where the working
fluid/oxidant goes through once, and as said, the
volume rate would typically be thousands of litres per minute.
However, the 100 kW of minus-delta-'G'
that a car motor turns into 20 or 30 kW
at the drive wheels requires, if the fuel is octane,
that per minute only about 320 zero-Celsius 1-atm litres
of oxygen react. If it is boron, about 170.
So the semi-closed cycle, by replacing only the oxygen
that actually reacts or leaks, very much -- about 40 times,
I guess, -- reduces the oxygen supply problem,
and changing the reductant from octane to boron
reduces it almost twofold again.
(The reduction would not be so good if the replacement
for octane, a C-H compound, were a B-H compound.
But it's not. Just boron, no hydrogen at all.)
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Posted by Kukuriku on October 29, 2005, 11:14 pm
JBDen wrote:
> Metal: The fuel of the futurePremium
>
> * 22 October 2005
> * Kurt Kleiner
> * Magazine issue 2522 New Scientist
>
> The clean, green car of the future will cruise the highway on a tankful
> of powdered metal - welcome to the new Iron Age
>
> IF smog-choked streets test our love for gasoline and diesel engines,
> then rocketing fuel prices and global warming could end that
> relationship once and for all. But before you start saving for the
> fuel-cell-powered electric car that industry experts keep promising,
> there's something you should know. The car of the future will run on
> metal.
>
> So reckons Dave Beach, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
> Tennessee, who has come up with a plan to transform the way we fuel our
> engines. Chunks of metal such as iron, aluminium or boron are the
> thing, he believes. Turn them into powder with grains just nanometres
> across and the stuff becomes highly reactive. Ignite it, and it
> releases copious quantities of energy. With a modified engine and a
> tankful of metal, Beach calculates that an average car could travel
> three times as far as the equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle.
>
*We used horses for hundreds of years for transportation, Free energy,
very bio-degradable too, renewable resource, horse shit can be used for
any thing,in the garden grow plants or heat the house!
What happened?
Switched to fossil fuel driven automobiles, now we fighting wars for
oil, polluting the planet to death!
How stupid mankind is!
JS
>
> > It's not burned in pure oxygen, it's burned in air.
>
> It is burned in pure oxygen.
>
> > The nano textured Li-ION will (per the press release)
> > charge quickly ... making it equal in many ways
> > to the boron for quick refueling. While heavier,
> > it is much smaller,
>
> Seven times heavier, much more than seven times denser?
> Bin packing densities for B2O3 are on the order of 1.2 kg/L.
> How does he figure Li-ion batteries are over -- "much" over
> -- 8.4 kg/L? They aren't. Two, maybe three kg/L, tops.
>
>
> In
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.toyota.prius/msg/b5e46fada008b892
> "Michael Pardee" included:
>
> > Oxidized boron and discharged batteries are not waste;
> > they are storage waiting to be re-energized.
>
> Right.