corn

froggie said:
Not stupid, young...

Did you learn anything?
Click to expand...

Naw, the schools pretty good, all in all, it just kind of insults my intelligence. I didn't say it was the only reason, did I? I live literally a mile away from it, and I didn't really feel like paying 8000 to go to one of Mississippi's universities (they had no scholarships for me) whenever I could just pay nothing at this one (I have two full-price scholarships here) and transfer to a real college in two years (and they would be required to accept me, anyway).

Now, that would be stalking, if I had only been trying to follow her, now wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
Battleborne said:
this hypothesis...it is just a matter of gearing...usage vs output...simple math/kinetics...we may not be there yet..or maybe we are...just not released as this would put a damper on the fuel industry!
Click to expand...
No, it's none of the above. It is exactly as I explained; it's physical law and unarguable. Disagree all you want, but it will simply prove your ignorance of the subject.

Sorry, try again?
 
Watermark said:
I just really think we should give up on the corn lobby and use imported sugar cane. But I guess for suggesting that I'm "unamerican".
Click to expand...

No, unamerican would be buying armaments for the american military made with chinese slave labor. Lead painted pistols that shoot out a little flag that says "Sucker".
 
Umm looks like to many MBA's on here and not enough engineers.
Umm it takes energy to make energy in an alternator and there are losses involved in the transfer....

And as Trog said solar will never power an auto. Just not enough solar energy per sw ft.
Well maybe if your car had a 2500 sq ft solar cell sail on it....
 
The biggest solar power plants don't use Photvailic cells... they use mirrors pointed at a tower, and in this tower there's a batch of water, and the heat from the sunlight the mirrors are reflecting boils the water. Needless to say, this is heavily inneficient, and a big reason there aren't many commercial solar power plants.

There's a solar power plant in the Mojave desert in America that works that way - it produces 90% of the worlds solar power energy. Most of the others use photovailic cells.

But Photovailic cells are becoming much more energy dense, and it's predicted that in a few years there will be more power plants operating like that.
 
I see............

Troglodyte27 said:
No, it's none of the above. It is exactly as I explained; it's physical law and unarguable. Disagree all you want, but it will simply prove your ignorance of the subject.

Sorry, try again?
Click to expand...



So anyone who disagrees with your hypothesis is ignorant...kinda like the world is flat vs round as in days of old...you explained nothing in your previous post...just your opinion!:rolleyes:
 
Fueling the Debate: Ethanol vs. Biodiesel

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2007/04/20/fueling-the-debate-ethanol-vs-biodiesel.aspx

...most leading experts now agree that both ethanol and biodiesel have a net positive impact on the environment. And they each have different strengths. However, that by no means suggests that they're equal.

According to a study published last summer in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the environmental benefits of biodiesel are substantially greater than those of ethanol. According to the report, biodiesel provides 93% more net energy per gallon than is required for its production, while ethanol generates only 25% more net energy. The study further suggested that biodiesel, when compared with gasoline, reduced greenhouse emissions by 41%, while ethanol yielded only a 12% reduction. From these viewpoints, it would appear that biodiesel is the clear winner.

If only it were that easy. From a land-use and agricultural-efficiency perspective, ethanol appears to be the better choice. That's because an estimated 420 gallons of ethanol can be produced per acre of corn versus only 60 gallons of biodiesel per acre of soybeans. In more practical terms, this means that if the production of biodiesel were ever to increase greatly, the cost of soybean oil would rise significantly.
Click to expand...

Yet another option is cellulosic ethanol. The U.S government has recently committed almost $400 million into the research and development of this type of ethanol, which is produced from a variety of biomass, including switchgrass, wood, and even waste.
Click to expand...
 
uscitizen said:
Umm looks like to many MBA's on here and not enough engineers.
Umm it takes energy to make energy in an alternator and there are losses involved in the transfer....

And as Trog said solar will never power an auto. Just not enough solar energy per sw ft.
Well maybe if your car had a 2500 sq ft solar cell sail on it....
Click to expand...

I know Solar can't power a car well enough to make it useful, which is why I suggested adding some other forms of creating energy to help replenish the energy needed to power a car. They may not be good ideas but at least they offer some discussion. I'm no engineer, not a MBA either, just a programmer that trys to find ways to automate things with as little effort as possible. Would be nice to see a car that we don't have to re-fuel and powers itself.
 
DigitalDave said:
I know Solar can't power a car well enough to make it useful, which is why I suggested adding some other forms of creating energy to help replenish the energy needed to power a car. They may not be good ideas but at least they offer some discussion. I'm no engineer, not a MBA either, just a programmer that trys to find ways to automate things with as little effort as possible. Would be nice to see a car that we don't have to re-fuel and powers itself.
Click to expand...


Yeah it would be nice, but it is a long time off. we will have to do with rechargeable electrics before we have viable MR. Fusion powered vehicles.
 
Battleborne said:
So anyone who disagrees with your hypothesis is ignorant...kinda like the world is flat vs round as in days of old...you explained nothing in your previous post...just your opinion!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, anyone who disagees with well established physics is ignorant. If you truly believe that the previous posts by me do not correctly explain the situation, then you are simply incapable of understanding the concepts.

Feel free to combat entropy and the laws of Thermodynamics with some factual backing, not mere rhetoric. I can do the math, so bring it. I'd love to see what you come up with. The only engineers I know who send as much time blowing hot air as you do are the aerothermodynamicists.
 
Right Mr.Engineer/aka physicist

Troglodyte27 said:
No, anyone who disagees with well established physics is ignorant. If you truly believe that the previous posts by me do not correctly explain the situation, then you are simply incapable of understanding the concepts.

Feel free to combat entropy and the laws of Thermodynamics with some factual backing, not mere rhetoric. I can do the math, so bring it. I'd love to see what you come up with. The only engineers I know who send as much time blowing hot air as you do are the aerothermodynamicists.
Click to expand...


we do not know all the answers to physics/aka black holes.etc...it is mere speculation that all the great minds of the world have narrowed all the answers to our/your hypothesis...(just a educated guess) does not end the debate...if you believe this you are 'returning to the future' or is that the past? A great movie concept but by know means the end result..carry on though your professors did a great job limiting your thought process!
 
DigitalDave said:
I know Solar can't power a car well enough to make it useful, which is why I suggested adding some other forms of creating energy to help replenish the energy needed to power a car. They may not be good ideas but at least they offer some discussion. I'm no engineer, not a MBA either, just a programmer that trys to find ways to automate things with as little effort as possible. Would be nice to see a car that we don't have to re-fuel and powers itself.
Click to expand...
Right. That's why I didn't call the idea useless or bad. You're thinking that using a renewable source of energy to diminish or eliminate the need for a nonrenewable form might be a good idea. It probably is. While the idea of a solar panel will not work in real time (i.e., there is not enough power per unit time to propel a vehicle at a reasonable speed), the idea of storing the available power when not in travel to be expended later might have value.

What you mean is P1*t1 = W = P2*t2. (Power = work per unit time, Power by time = work). Store smaller power (P1) for longer time (t1) and capture work potential, then release larger power needed to propel vehicle (P2) for a smaller time duration (drive time t2).

This is the basic principle behind a fly-wheel forging hammer, so there is precedent. In your case, you're looking for an electrical analogy.
 
Battleborne said:
we do not know all the answers to physics/aka black holes.etc...it is mere speculation that all the great minds of the world have narrowed all the answers to our/your hypothesis...(just a educated guess) does not end the debate...if you believe this you are 'returning to the future' or is that the past? A great movie concept but by know means the end result..carry on though your professors did a great job limiting your thought process!
Click to expand...
Blacks holes? Yeah, that's a factual refutation of my previous posts rearding a well established field of physics. "We can't explain some of the areas of physics, so none of what we know is valid." Not quite.

Considering that I do original research, your last line is a complete non-sequitor(sp). But hey, rhetoric is all you have left. You should consider a second career as a wind tunnel.
 
Nope.............

Troglodyte27 said:
Blacks holes? Yeah, that's a factual refutation of my previous posts rearding a well established field of physics. "We can't explain some of the areas of physics, so none of what we know is valid." Not quite.

Considering that I do original research, your last line is a complete non-sequitor(sp). But hey, rhetoric is all I have left. You should consider a second career as a wind tunnel because I am just a blow hard!.
Click to expand...

I already had my career..I am just having fun with know it all kids who claim to have the world by the proverbial balls...ain't gonna happen kido...your professors snowed ya from day one...carry on though ya are amusing me with all your self proclaimed knowledge of the world/universe and such!
 
Battleborne said:
I already had my career..I am just having fun with know it all kids who claim to have the world by the proverbial balls...ain't gonna happen kido...your professors snowed ya from day one...carry on though ya are amusing me with all your self proclaimed knowledge of the world/universe and such!
Click to expand...

I'm not Watermark, I'm Trog. There is a huge difference.

Self-proclaimed knowledge that I stole from Newton, LaVoisier, Sadi-Carnot, Boyle and other greats, haha. So when you argue these points, you aren't arguing with me at all, but rather with Isaac, Antoine, Nicolas, Robert and the boys. Feel free to take a crack at refuting their work.

BB, you're an idiot, and I'm not going to waste further time on you.
 
Whatever............

Troglodyte27 said:
I'm not Watermark, I'm Trog. There is a huge difference.

Self-proclaimed knowledge that I stole from Newton, LaVoisier, Sadi-Carnot, Boyle and other greats, haha. So when you argue these points, you aren't arguing with me at all, but rather with Isaac, Antoine, Nicolas, Robert and the boys. Feel free to take a crack at refuting their work.

BB, you're an idiot, and I'm not going to waste further time on you.
Click to expand...


The truth is in your own words I called you no names...just disagreed...carry on though...food for thought...how so very sad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top