On Oct 20, 10:46 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 20, 5:28 am, wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:21 am, wrote:
A $40 billion satellite networkthat provided 50 billion broadband
wireless channels to existing wireless hardware and has a $100 million
recurring cost, would provide basic services to existing providers at
such a cost that they would jump onto the systemd so fast. And you
could also steal some customers from those providers with slight
reduction in costs and improvements in service. And you could bring
more customers into service at today's prices or slightly below todays
prices. All this would gen up $35 billion a year and consume
something like 2 billion of your channels.
Now, you're in a position to win a price war and expand your income
to about $120 billion per year - and increase participation in the
market to about twice as many subscribers as you had in the market
before the system was created.
I agree, so when is William Mook, Warren Buffett and myself going to
accomplish this worthy task that's worth "$120 billion per year"?
- Brad Guth -
Well I'm working on some synfuel plants right now. Once that is
underway I will do some acquisitions in the US. I am not seeking
outside investors or participation.
But synfuels such as h2o2 have been a done deal for better than a
century (H2O2 was discovered in 1818), that is unless there's no
ongoing incentive or honest considerations for the new and improved
ICE that'll safely utilize such an energy rich fluid as h2o2, along
with a little conventional fossil fuel or whatever other synfuel.
There is so much wrong with this that its difficult to know where to
begin. First, H2O2 manufacture
Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured today almost exclusively by the
autoxidation of 2-ethyl-9,10-dihydroxyanthracene (C16H14O2) to 2-
ethylanthraquinone (C16H12O2) forming hydrogen peroxide using oxygen
from the air. In this reaction, the hydroxy groups on the middle ring
of anthracene are deprotonated and are turned into ketones, while two
double bonds are lost from the middle ring and are replaced as C=O
double bonds in the ketone groups.
The anthraquinone derivative is then extracted out and reduced back to
the dihydroxy compound using hydrogen gas in the presence of a metal
catalyst. The overall equation for the process is deceptively simple:
H2 + O2 H2O2
However the economics of the process depend on effective recycling of
the quinone and extraction solvents, and of the hydrogenation
catalyst.
Formerly inorganic processes were used, employing the electrolysis of
an aqueous solution of sulfuric acid or acidic ammonium bisulfate
(NH4HSO4), followed by hydrolysis of the peroxydisulfate ((SO4)2)2
which is formed.
So, you see H2O2 is not a PRIMARY SOURCE OF ENERGY. It, like storage
batteries, is a SECONDARY WAY TO STORE ENERGY. So, it cannot be used
to power industry. It can at most be used to store energy gotten from
somewhere else. (either electricity or ethyl dihydroanthracene - which
is a pretty damned expensive and rare fossil fuel.
World production of H2O2 is around 1.9 million tonnes most of which
was at a concentration of 70% or less. Bulk 30% H2O2 sold for around
US $0.54 per kg, equivalent to US $1.50 per kg (US $0.68 per lb) on a
"100% basis
Now lets look at the energy density of 30% hydrogen peroxide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Well pure 100% hydrogen peroxide is 2.7 MJ/kg. A liter contains 1.4
kg of material, so a liter of hydrogen peroxide at 100% concentration
(which is a deadly explosive by the way - not because it contains a
lot of energy, but because that energy can be released all at once
creating an explosion) a liter of hydrogen peroxide contains 3.78 MJ.
This is about 1/10th the energy density of gasoline. And a liter
costs about $2.10 to make using industrial processes. So, that's
equivalent to $21 per LITER gasoline - or about $100 per gallon.
..
Alright, so this wonder fuel costing the equivalent of $100 per gallon
is made in a quantity of 2 million tonnes a year. Lets say it was all
100% which it wasn't. But even at that each tonne contains 2.7 GJ and
so this is a total energy capacity of 5.4 million GJ. That's
equivalent to 885,250 barrels of oil per year. The world consumes
something like 30 billion barrels of oil per year. If everyone used
hydrogen peroxide, it would use MORE oil since it takes some sort of
primary energy to make a secondary fuel like hydrogen peroxide..
All other conventional ICEs that'll burn whatever fuel along with our
mostly N2 atmosphere are going to get relatively poor empg as well as
keep polluting at maximum levels of NOx, plus unavoidably contributing
many other nasty byproducts in their birth-to-grave (aka all
inclusive) cycle.
Hold on Brad, hold on. To make hydrogen peroxide you need a PRIMARY
source of energy. And what primary source are you talking about? If
you're using electricity with catalysts, you're talking coal or maybe
nuclear energy. If you're using ethyl dihydro anthracene then oil is
your primary energy source. In either case the lack of highly
specialized catalysts will limit production to something less than 1%
of todays' energy supply, even while we handle the same amount of
fluid volumes as oil (a hydrogen peroxide spill from a super tanker
would be a disaster of the first order given its bleaching properties,
its toxic effects, and its explosiveness) And the production process
produces its own bproducts that are tremendously more toxic than
anything produced by burning gasoline.which you've still gotta do to
power the damn hydrogen peroxide process.
Even utilizing H2+atmosphere is not going to
entirely save our badly failing environment
You're still alive Brad, so its not failing that badly, or some might
say,badly enough.
Fact is, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You get a
bottle of 2.5% hydrogen-peroxide and see it bubble up and imagine some
sort of steam engine is possible - without any appreciation of what it
takes to make hydrogen peroxide or how much chemical energy a real
engine really needs - and you make your pronouncements 'from the gut'
as Colbert might say. haha.. Relax, its okay to be wrong. Its not
the end of the world. Laugh a little, love a little and it'll be
alright.
that's going to be
continually getting hotter because of what the basic laws of physics
The sun has been getting brighter over the past 4.5 billion years yet
the average temperature on Earth remains more or less constant within
a narrow range. Why? Life has the capacity to alter its environment
to maintain life. One of the ways life did this was to pump down the
CO2 levels in the atmosphere - until there was so much oxygen that
fires erupted raising CO2 levels again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...on_Dioxide.png
Throughout most of the history of life on Earth carbon dioxide levels
were far higher than they are today. In 900 million years - the sun
will be too bright for life to be sustained on Earth without some sort
of intervention by intelligent action.
So, your hand-wringing is foolish at best and counter-productive at
worst.
has to do with any planet having recently obtained such a horrific
mascon of a nearby moon that's orbiting its mostly fluid planet, and
just fast enough as to keeping our inner planetology vary much alive
and geothermally kicking.
Well here you are going off the rails. You heard thw word mascon-
which just means mass concentration - with respect to the moon - and
you are for no goddamned reason at all predicting doom and gloom
because something that has existed in the moon for billions of years
has recently been discovered. haha..
Fact is, there does appear to be an anthropogenic source of global
warming in the modern era. Fact is, we've got to drop our CO2
emissions. That's not because all life on Earth is threatened. Its
because modern industrial life, and human beings in particular, won't
live as well on a warmer Earth. Life will continue. Its just what is
in the best interest of humanity? And it is in the best interest of
humanity to with all due speed end its reliance of fossil fuels. This
will come about by tapping into the sun or to nuclear reactors at a
cost that is competitive with fossil fuels. These systems will likely
produce hydrogen. Hydrogen will be used to scrub carbondioxide out of
the air (Sabatier reaction - already used on ISS) and produce methane,
which will be polymerized into higher alkanes like propane, butane,
octane, nonane, dodecane.
It seems the usenet gauntlet of naysayism
People posting on usenet have absolutely no power over you day to day
Brad, unless you give it to them. Blaming them for not accepting your
errors as fact is a form of madness on your part.
is well enough polished to
see your self, and this faith-based cultism that's in charge of
keeping those mostly fossil fuels and yellowcake as spendy as
possible,
I just bought gasoline for $2.98 per gallon. At 120 MJ per gallong,
that's 40.2 megajoules per dollar. If I were to top off with hydrogen
peroxide at $1.50 per kilogram, at 2.7 MJ per kg, i'd be getting only
1.8 megajoules per dollar. So your proposed use of hydrogen-peroxide
is 20.3 times as costly as gasoline at $2.98 per galon. So, how
spendy is that?
Brad, you don't know the basics, so your conclusions based on
fundamental misunderstandings are flawed. Everyone is not against
you, they just recognize that you are wrong on so many levels - and
you are too proud to accept that reality and so you attack those you
imagine are making you wrong - forgetting that reality doesn't need
any defense. The truth is, with or without your help. The only thing
that needs constant restatement are lies because the truth tends to
erode them..
is thereby keeping our environment as polluted and every bit
as lethal as possible,
If our environment were lethal Brad, we'd be dead. Like the 2500 in
Bhopal. THAT was lethal in that moment. The environment is not
lethal in fact the environment is supportive otherwise we wouldn't be
here.
especially as we emerge into WWIII on behalf of
surviving their global energy domination quest.
The goal of US policy is to avoid nuclear conflict. Part of that
policy is to maintain huge disparities of income between the US and
other nations. That's because poor nations before 9/11 never
successfully attacked rich nations. This whole thought process, which
has kept the peace since the end of world war 2 -failed on 9/11 - and
those responsible for our national security have not properly analyzed
what the new policies should be to secure the United States and its
people in the indefinite future. So, ruddderless and clueless we
drift from bad to worse. As a citizen I am concerned with our lack of
capacity to identify and do the right thing. Bush 1 invaded Somalia
instead of stabilizing the former Soviet Republics and getting a
handle on loose nukes. Bush 2 focused on SDI instead of global terror
until the success of 9/11. After 9/11 Bush 2 invaded Iraq instead of
doing those things to weaken and undermine terrorist power - he
inflamed them. Meanwhile, the number of loose nukes grows and we are
waiting for the shoe to drop - and a city to be destroyed before
sufficient political will is generated by that act to take the next
step. We will look back on the days between 9/11 and the first
terrorist destruction of a city with nuclear weapons with fondness and
laugh at ourselves that we complained about the restrictions to our
liberties in the face of the iconoclastic response to the destruction
of Paris or Rome or Tokyo by a loose nuke from the Ukrainian arsenal.
We will not be able at that time to criticize our leaders for their
obvious failings. We argue about idiotic theories of what happened on
9/11 while avoiding the very clear and present danger loose nukes
represent along with our total lack of appropriate response.
Of one fairly recent contribution on behalf of the makings and
utilizing of h2o2: "Hydrogen Peroxide and Sugar"http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/peroxide.html
Sugar s even more costly (though more energy dense) than hydrogen
peroxide. Since its a biological compound it takes food out of the
mouths of starving people to fuel things. You must've had a brain
wave while working in the kitchen one day Brad. Hydrogen peroxide and
sugar. haha.. Just because you can buy them at your local store
doesn't mean they are scalable to the kind of job - or even
appropriate to the kinds of jobs they would have to do in order to be
our mainstay of power.
[snip]