Horace Heffner (The Grand Dragon Professor of Vortex-l) wrote: :-)
Like I said, if you feel that is true go for it. I have other things I would much rather discuss. I will soon return to ignoring highly speculative posts on this issue.
Good idea. That gives others a chance to mull over a
Frederick Sparber writes
Horace Heffner (The Grand Dragon Professor of Vortex-l)
wrote: :-)
Like I said, if you feel that is true go for it. I have
other things I would much rather discuss. I will soon
return to ignoring highly speculative posts on this issue.
Good idea. That gives
Shipping liquid air or LN2 via large tanker has the terrific advantage that
pollution would not be a risk. However, shipping LN2 is just not
economically feasible due to the low energy density of 570 kJ/kg. LNG has
an energy density of 5.15x10^4 Btu/kg, or 5.43x10^4 kJ/kg, about 95 times
that of
Michael Foster writes,
570 kJ/kg? That low, eh?
OK keep in mind the apples-to-apples comparisons.
I would seem that heating energy content becomes a
relatively unimportant crtierion, indeed misleading, for
comparison in a pure expansion situation (so long as you
cross over the barrier of
At 6:35 AM 2/16/5, Michael Foster wrote:
--- On Wed 02/16, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shipping liquid air or LN2 via large tanker has the terrific advantage that
pollution would not be a risk. However, shipping LN2 is just not
economically feasible due to the low energy density
At 10:06 AM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote:
It's so-called energy content alone can be very
misleading at the bottom line.
Jones
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom line. Assuming
conservation of energy, the high expansion ratio merely extracts the 370
kJ/kg energy available from
Horace,
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom line.
Assuming
conservation of energy, the high expansion ratio merely
extracts the 370
kJ/kg energy available from gas expansion.
I disagree, as do the the researchers of the report cited
yesterday and others who are actively
--- On Wed 02/16, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had gasoline prices been this high a decade ago, we would
probably already have liquid-air hybrids on the road today,
but not with the cryo-air produced aboard the vehicle
itself- that is very wasteful. A Dewar tank is sufficient
Horace
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom
line. Assuming conservation of energy,
I disagree, as do the researchers of the report cited
yesterday and others who are actively working on this. I
hope to get around to typing in some of their findings
later
today. You are
Michael
What I would like to know, if you can tell us, what is the
actual available energy in a kg of liquid air used in a
piston
engine?
I think what you would really want to know is what is the
maximum energy content form an engineered liquid, based on
air, including the strain energy of
At 2:32 PM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace
You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom
line. Assuming conservation of energy,
I disagree, as do the researchers of the report cited
yesterday and others who are actively working on this. I
hope to get around to typing in some of
Horace
If you say COE doesn't apply to liquified air systems then
the ball is
entirely in your court. You are off into a way different
discussion. It
is up to *you* to prove your assertion either
theoretically or
experimentally.
It is the same discussion, and COE can (or nor) apply IF all
I really did not want to get trolled into this red herring issue, but
here's a brief response anyway.
At 5:38 PM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote:
It is the same discussion, and COE can (or nor) apply IF all
the relevant variables are known in advance. What I am
saying is that a *full energy
13 matches
Mail list logo
