Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » New phone scams
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: New phone scams [message #340327 is a reply to message #340298] Sun, 26 March 2017 15:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <MPG.3341a5f6f1acdd3998ab1e@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <74jkqd-alo.ln1
> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
> says...
>>
>> In article <MPG.334108524613ae2298ab14@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <ie6iqd-5du.ln1
>>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> In article <MPG.33401abfee56258898ab09@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >In article <uonhqd-e8j.ln1
>>>> >@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> >says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In article <MPG.333f7ac37ed6e01498ab00@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >In article <4obgqd-spg.ln1
>>>> >> >@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> >> >says...
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> In article <MPG.333f22bfb52428598aafa@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> >> >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >In article <PM00054B797CAB3C34
>>>> >> >> >@aca40883.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>>>> >> >> >says...
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> > On 23/03/2017 15:04, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> > {snip}
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> People do not know how to handle hydrogen safely. There is
>>> a massive
>>>> >> >> >> >> scare around this, and it partially has merit. Hydrogen
> leaks into
>>>> >> >> >> >> closed spaces is an accident waiting to happen. And the
> filling of
>>>> >> >> >> >> tanks is not trivial; mostly in terms of capital
> requirements, but
>>>> >> >> >> >> also of distribution and training the populace to do it right.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > Escaped hydrogen needs venting/piping into the outside
> air. It hangs
>>>> >> >> >> > around the ceiling but can get caught by tables.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> Parking lots and garages which are part of the house is not safe.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >Why are parking lots not safe? A hydrogen leak
>>>> >> >> >just rises into the sky.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >As for garages that are part of the house, they
>>>> >> >> >are not safe with gasoline--the fire code calls
>>>> >> >> >for fire-rated walls between an attached garage
>>>> >> >> >and the residence. However if hydrogen manages
>>>> >> >> >to leak out of the fuel tank, why is it not
>>>> >> >> >going to also leak through the much less well
>>>> >> >> >sealed ceiling and roof?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >And most modern roofs have a vent near the apex
>>>> >> >> >anyway.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> It will.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The main problem with hydrogen is that it is different.
>>>> >> >> It rises, it does not sink. Which is generally a big advantage
>>>> >> >> for safety; until you get to installations that vent below to
>>>> >> >> vent out propane/gasoline fumes etc.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> It also has a flame front that is 4 to 30 times as fast
>>>> >> >> as the other ones (gasoline, propane, diesel etc). This means
>>>> >> >> that it mostly explodes, it does not burn. At least not in free
>>>> >> >> air.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> It also has a high energy release per unit of gas, and has
>>>> >> >> significantly wider combustible mixes when mixed with air.
>>>> >> >> It generally lights from 4 to 94 percent when mixed with air, and
>>>> >> >> with a lot lower ignition temperature than e.g. propane or
>>>> >> >> gasoline for the big part of this mixing range.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >What residential garages are build to "vent
>>>> >> >below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Almost all of the smaller ones without active ventilation
>>>> >> control. To vent the exhausts. Just like the small opening
>>>> >> below the door. There is no such opening in the roof.
>>>> >
>>>> >What is this, some kind of European thing? I
>>>> >know of no US residential garages that have
>>>> >"active ventilation control to vent the
>>>> >exhausts". If you want to vent the exhaust you
>>>> >open the door. If you run the car and don't
>>>> >open the door you become a Darwin Award
>>>> >candidate.
>>>> >
>>>> >There are also no "small openings below the
>>>> >door". But as I drive down the street, I see
>>>> >_every_ attached garage in this neighborhood has
>>>> >an apex roof vent, which is part of the moisture
>>>> >control for the house.
>>>> >
>>>> >Now maybe wherever YOU live it's an issue--
>>>> >that's something to take up with your
>>>> >government.
>>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> Terrorists only have to poke a hole in the tank after parking.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >As they do with gasoline.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> Tunnels are suceptible.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >They are more susceptible to propane, not to
>>>> >> >> >mention gasoline. Hydrogen in a tunnel will
>>>> >> >> >just flow out unless the tunnel has a high point
>>>> >> >> >in the middle for some reason.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Lots of structures are built to allow the heavier-than-air
>>>> >> >> gases opportunity to vent out. Which will come to bite once
>>>> >> >> you release hydrogen.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >What tunnels are built to allow heavier than air
>>>> >> >gases the opportunity to vent out?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Most long tunnels around here with low to middle traffic
>>>> >> are built that way to let the exhaust out by it's own
>>>> >> weight. The roof of those tunnels are often of the kind
>>>> >> that will trap lighter gases.
>>>> >
>>>> >What do they do, build locks on both sides of it
>>>> >and lift the boats over it? Might as well build
>>>> >a bridge then.
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> A tunnel through a mountain will normally have a natural
>>>> slope. They do take some bother to not have dumps in
>>>> the road that will trap gases, or they will install
>>>> active ventilation. Or both.
>>>>
>>>> They have NOT done the same thing with the roof. The
>>>> raw rock from the dynamiting can have quite large domes,
>>>> quite by accident. They are never filled in.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Thare was never a need. Until now. Could it be
>>>> done. SUre. Cheaply? Sort of.
>>>>
>>>> We have not just had precautions against LIGHTER gases
>>>> than air put into roadworks, building etc codes and
>>>> general paractices.
>>>>
>>>> Will it be a problem? Probably not, for the vast majority
>>>> of them. But say that to a building inspector.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> It is different. That is the main risk.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >You are afraid of new things, that is the main
>>>> >> >risk.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, I am fine with it. As a user.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I just comment on something which must be addressed
>>>> >> by the hydrogen pushers to get the "Hindenburg" images
>>>> >> out of people's heads.
>>>> >
>>>> >Nothing will get the "Hindenber" images out of
>>>> >people's heads. It is sufficient that hydrogen
>>>> >cars are becoming available in California, the
>>>> >state that is so afraid of everything that they
>>>> >have cancer warnings on their cancer warning
>>>> >labels. If they're OK with it the rest of the
>>>> >country will be.
>>>>
>>>> The first thing is to generate hydrogen economically
>>>> and sustainable, or both. According to the DOE the cost
>>>> of filling a tank good for 300-mile radius will cost
>>>> $50-$55. Even a SUV can get the same amount of range
>>>> for $332-$36.
>>>>
>>>> The refinery price is going to come down, but the
>>>> huge investments in the distribution network to bring
>>>> this outside of central California is pulling the
>>>> other way. For gasoline the distribution costs
>>>> are 11-16%, for diesel slightly more (12-17%).
>>>>
>>>> Here we will easily be at 40-60% At least while the
>>>> network is built.
>>>>
>>>> The thermic efficiency is sort of good. The generation
>>>> plant has a rating of ~70%, fed from thermal plants.
>>>>
>>>> The fuel cell loses another 15%, and we must calculate
>>>> in some losses in the distribution, say 10% initially.
>>>>
>>>> This is way better than a gas car, where the otto engine
>>>> has an avergae efficiency of ~18%, rising to ~38% if it
>>>> is run under optimal condtions, e.g. charging a battery bank.
>>>>
>>>> So even with the losses the ~53-56% thermal efficiency
>>>> is better. But still a bit away from the electrics at
>>>> 70%+.
>>>>
>>>> With the fuel around 2 times as expensive per distance
>>>> travelled, with many billions needed to upgrade the distribution
>>>> I will not hold my breath.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile ethanol is prices with a discount that more or
>>>> less equals the lower energy content; so diesel == gasoline ==
>>>> ethanol in terms of prices per mile.
>>>>
>>>> Ethanol can grow organically into the market. Hydrogen
>>>> can not. It is too different. This is an organisational and
>>>> economic argument, not a technical one.
>>>
>>> All t hat is nice but what is ethanol going to
>>> cost when enough is being produced to replace
>>> all use of fossil fuels?
>>>
>>> And what are we going to eat?
>>
>> I already covered that.
>>
>> If we are to run transportation without using hydrocarbons or
>> carbon (coal) then we can get by with having around 2/3rds of the
>> miles done by electric. From a solar/hydro/wind/nuclear grid.
>>
>> We can convert the cuttings etc from forest production and
>> some agriculture by fermenting it. It will yield less energy
>> than we put into it, it is mostly a carrier; for the long hauls
>> of transportation. That may cover around 12% of the miles, with
>> some luck.
>>
>> We can also use the oils etc that come from cooking, frying
>> etc and similar uses. Clean them and put them in the tank.
>> That may cover around 8%. (Scandinavia is already at 6% in
>> this respect). Which leaves a hole of ~15-20% for road travel.
>>
>> Container ships can be nuclear monsters. The Russians already
>> built a handful of these in the Soviet era, for military
>> purposes, but still. They will have to be around 10-12x the
>> size of todays container ships. The upside is that we
>> would worldwide only need ~100 of them, and they can use
>> that energy and long hull length to go much faster than
>> today's ships do.
>>
>> Planes will have a problem. And they consume more than half
>> as much hydrocarbons as the cars do. Here hydrogen is completely
>> useless. It will destroy a jet engine in hours. .. unless we
>> build pure rocket motors. But they will need enriched
>> oxygen. Fuels cells are way to timid in their energy output.
>>
>> But Hydrogen is not going to solve much. It is a carrier, not
>> a source, remember. Producing it is mostly done from natural gas
>> today, with an energy loss of about 1/3rd. A tiny fraction is
>> done by eletrolysis of water, but this process is only around 40%
>> effective if you cannot reclaim the waste heat or use the
>> oxygen for something similarly useful.
>>
>> Trains can be electrified for ~80% of the miles, and can use
>> biodiesel for the rest. Already the case in Europe, China and
>> the pacific rim. They don't use a lot of fuel in total, they
>> are the most energyefficient way of land transport already.
>>
>> So, we do have the technology to get by with around 20% as
>> much consumption of hydrocarbons as we do today without
>> affecting food production volumes.
>>
>> It is the planes and around half of the road transport that
>> we cannot do by electric that is the issue.
>>
>> We will have to build a lot of nuclear reactors to get
>> there within around 150 years. Solar, wind, hydro etc is
>> going to get there, but they take a long time to deploy.
>> Denmark, Spain and Germany have really tried hard for around
>> two decades, and have good success to show. They still can
>> only take twenty-something percent of the total grid consumption,
>> and Germany and Spain have significant problems with the
>> peak vs baseload of the grid. Demark uses Swedish and Norwegian
>> hydropower to take this balance.
>>
>> Yes, you can extend the hydro reservoir-based baseline by
>> around 250% by solar and wind. With the first at around 12%
>> in the US and Europe this means you can get to around
>> 40% without a replacement baseload.
>>
>> In around 100 years we will have the answers, because then
>> we will be a lot longer into the long tail of the oil/gas
>> production. Never mind the co2 and global warming.
>
> Geez, you're slippery as Bill Clinton.
>
> The discussion was of hydrogen vs battery
> electic. Now you're burying in bullshit your
> statement that your use of ethanol would be as a
> supplement to battery electric. Which is not a
> compelling argument that hydrogen electric is
> not preferable to battery electric.
>
> If you want to discuss battery vs hydrogen with
> ethanol as some kind of supplement to either
> then leave ethanol out of the discussion.
>
> If you want to discuss ethanol as an alternative
> to both hydrogen and battery electric then tell
> us where we're going to get the damned ethanol
> and support your case with numbers.

I did so in the last posting. I am straightforward
that we cannot get more than around 20% of the current
gas production with current biodiesel and forestry and
agricultural waste products fermented. I am also
straightforward that this fermentation is going to
require a lot of external energy, enough to make
this a mediocre carrier at best. But better than
all the available alternatives. It will have an
energy efficiency of around 65-70% of the added energy.

Now, tell me where you are going to get the hydrogen.
Is it 1) from electolysis of sea water 2) from natural gas
3) from some other source.

If 3) please describe the process, and how it is to
scale, and the sources of the materials and energy.

-- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340328 is a reply to message #340299] Sun, 26 March 2017 15:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <MPG.3341a7c487767f5598ab1f@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <PM00054B8EA4940DAA@aca41bb2.ipt.aol.com>,
> See.above@aol.com says...
>>
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> > On 23/03/2017 15:04, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> > {snip}
>>>> >
>>>> >> People do not know how to handle hydrogen safely. There is a massive
>>>> >> scare around this, and it partially has merit. Hydrogen leaks into
>>>> >> closed spaces is an accident waiting to happen. And the filling of
>>>> >> tanks is not trivial; mostly in terms of capital requirements, but
>>>> >> also of distribution and training the populace to do it right.
>>>> >
>>>> > Escaped hydrogen needs venting/piping into the outside air. It hangs
>>>> > around the ceiling but can get caught by tables.
>>>>
>>>> Parking lots and garages which are part of the house is not safe.
>>>> Terrorists only have to poke a hole in the tank after parking.
>>>> Tunnels are suceptible.
>>>
>>> Propane is _far_ more dangerous than H2, in all the situations
>>> you've enumerated above.
>>
>> You are thinking about messes which can happen within a short
>> time period. H_2 release makes the timing of the mess
>> unpredictable. In addition, the H_2 on the ceiling can
>> "leak" into the infrastructure and chew up all that lovely iron
>> which keeps the cement from falling into pieces. People's
>> thinking have been trained to subconsciously know what not to
>> do with gas or propane. None of the tenets of handing these
>> apply to H_2.
>
> "Chew up"? What exactly is the mechanism by
> which hydrogen "chews up" rebar encased in
> concrete?
>
>> The world is not ready to switch to an H_2 based energy.
>> It might be feasible for niches but not for general use.
>> My house might survive if a gasoline explosion in the garage
>> next door occurs. It won't with an H_2 explosion.
>
> It won't? Why not? And would it survive a
> natural gas explosion?
>
>> I suspect most of my windows would be blown out and the
>> matural gas mains would also be affected.
>
> So why aren't you worried about the natural gas
> exploding?

Because the flame front of the natural gas moves a LOT
slower than the one in hydrogen.

If you are close to the explosion this is of no major
consequence. But if you are some hundreds to thousands
meters away it is going to make all the difference.

-- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340329 is a reply to message #340327] Sun, 26 March 2017 15:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <nuglqd-fce.ln1
@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
says...
>
> In article <MPG.3341a5f6f1acdd3998ab1e@news.eternal-september.org>,
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <74jkqd-alo.ln1
>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> In article <MPG.334108524613ae2298ab14@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <ie6iqd-5du.ln1
>>>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> says...
>>>> >
>>>> > In article <MPG.33401abfee56258898ab09@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >In article <uonhqd-e8j.ln1
>>>> > >@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> > >says...
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> In article <MPG.333f7ac37ed6e01498ab00@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> > >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >> >In article <4obgqd-spg.ln1
>>>> > >> >@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> > >> >says...
>>>> > >> >>
>>>> > >> >> In article <MPG.333f22bfb52428598aafa@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> > >> >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >> >> >In article <PM00054B797CAB3C34
>>>> > >> >> >@aca40883.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>>>> > >> >> >says...
>>>> > >> >> >>
>>>> > >> >> >> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> > >> >> >> > On 23/03/2017 15:04, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> > >> >> >> > {snip}
>>>> > >> >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >> >> People do not know how to handle hydrogen safely. There is
>>>> a massive
>>>> > >> >> >> >> scare around this, and it partially has merit. Hydrogen
>> leaks into
>>>> > >> >> >> >> closed spaces is an accident waiting to happen. And the
>> filling of
>>>> > >> >> >> >> tanks is not trivial; mostly in terms of capital
>> requirements, but
>>>> > >> >> >> >> also of distribution and training the populace to do it right.
>>>> > >> >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >> > Escaped hydrogen needs venting/piping into the outside
>> air. It hangs
>>>> > >> >> >> > around the ceiling but can get caught by tables.
>>>> > >> >> >>
>>>> > >> >> >> Parking lots and garages which are part of the house is not safe.
>>>> > >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >Why are parking lots not safe? A hydrogen leak
>>>> > >> >> >just rises into the sky.
>>>> > >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >As for garages that are part of the house, they
>>>> > >> >> >are not safe with gasoline--the fire code calls
>>>> > >> >> >for fire-rated walls between an attached garage
>>>> > >> >> >and the residence. However if hydrogen manages
>>>> > >> >> >to leak out of the fuel tank, why is it not
>>>> > >> >> >going to also leak through the much less well
>>>> > >> >> >sealed ceiling and roof?
>>>> > >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >And most modern roofs have a vent near the apex
>>>> > >> >> >anyway.
>>>> > >> >>
>>>> > >> >> It will.
>>>> > >> >>
>>>> > >> >> The main problem with hydrogen is that it is different.
>>>> > >> >> It rises, it does not sink. Which is generally a big advantage
>>>> > >> >> for safety; until you get to installations that vent below to
>>>> > >> >> vent out propane/gasoline fumes etc.
>>>> > >> >>
>>>> > >> >> It also has a flame front that is 4 to 30 times as fast
>>>> > >> >> as the other ones (gasoline, propane, diesel etc). This means
>>>> > >> >> that it mostly explodes, it does not burn. At least not in free
>>>> > >> >> air.
>>>> > >> >>
>>>> > >> >> It also has a high energy release per unit of gas, and has
>>>> > >> >> significantly wider combustible mixes when mixed with air.
>>>> > >> >> It generally lights from 4 to 94 percent when mixed with air, and
>>>> > >> >> with a lot lower ignition temperature than e.g. propane or
>>>> > >> >> gasoline for the big part of this mixing range.
>>>> > >> >
>>>> > >> >What residential garages are build to "vent
>>>> > >> >below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Almost all of the smaller ones without active ventilation
>>>> > >> control. To vent the exhausts. Just like the small opening
>>>> > >> below the door. There is no such opening in the roof.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >What is this, some kind of European thing? I
>>>> > >know of no US residential garages that have
>>>> > >"active ventilation control to vent the
>>>> > >exhausts". If you want to vent the exhaust you
>>>> > >open the door. If you run the car and don't
>>>> > >open the door you become a Darwin Award
>>>> > >candidate.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >There are also no "small openings below the
>>>> > >door". But as I drive down the street, I see
>>>> > >_every_ attached garage in this neighborhood has
>>>> > >an apex roof vent, which is part of the moisture
>>>> > >control for the house.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Now maybe wherever YOU live it's an issue--
>>>> > >that's something to take up with your
>>>> > >government.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> >> >> Terrorists only have to poke a hole in the tank after parking.
>>>> > >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >As they do with gasoline.
>>>> > >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >> Tunnels are suceptible.
>>>> > >> >> >
>>>> > >> >> >They are more susceptible to propane, not to
>>>> > >> >> >mention gasoline. Hydrogen in a tunnel will
>>>> > >> >> >just flow out unless the tunnel has a high point
>>>> > >> >> >in the middle for some reason.
>>>> > >> >>
>>>> > >> >> Lots of structures are built to allow the heavier-than-air
>>>> > >> >> gases opportunity to vent out. Which will come to bite once
>>>> > >> >> you release hydrogen.
>>>> > >> >
>>>> > >> >What tunnels are built to allow heavier than air
>>>> > >> >gases the opportunity to vent out?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Most long tunnels around here with low to middle traffic
>>>> > >> are built that way to let the exhaust out by it's own
>>>> > >> weight. The roof of those tunnels are often of the kind
>>>> > >> that will trap lighter gases.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >What do they do, build locks on both sides of it
>>>> > >and lift the boats over it? Might as well build
>>>> > >a bridge then.
>>>> >
>>>> > ???
>>>> >
>>>> > A tunnel through a mountain will normally have a natural
>>>> > slope. They do take some bother to not have dumps in
>>>> > the road that will trap gases, or they will install
>>>> > active ventilation. Or both.
>>>> >
>>>> > They have NOT done the same thing with the roof. The
>>>> > raw rock from the dynamiting can have quite large domes,
>>>> > quite by accident. They are never filled in.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why? Thare was never a need. Until now. Could it be
>>>> > done. SUre. Cheaply? Sort of.
>>>> >
>>>> > We have not just had precautions against LIGHTER gases
>>>> > than air put into roadworks, building etc codes and
>>>> > general paractices.
>>>> >
>>>> > Will it be a problem? Probably not, for the vast majority
>>>> > of them. But say that to a building inspector.
>>>> >
>>>> > >> >> It is different. That is the main risk.
>>>> > >> >
>>>> > >> >You are afraid of new things, that is the main
>>>> > >> >risk.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> No, I am fine with it. As a user.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I just comment on something which must be addressed
>>>> > >> by the hydrogen pushers to get the "Hindenburg" images
>>>> > >> out of people's heads.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Nothing will get the "Hindenber" images out of
>>>> > >people's heads. It is sufficient that hydrogen
>>>> > >cars are becoming available in California, the
>>>> > >state that is so afraid of everything that they
>>>> > >have cancer warnings on their cancer warning
>>>> > >labels. If they're OK with it the rest of the
>>>> > >country will be.
>>>> >
>>>> > The first thing is to generate hydrogen economically
>>>> > and sustainable, or both. According to the DOE the cost
>>>> > of filling a tank good for 300-mile radius will cost
>>>> > $50-$55. Even a SUV can get the same amount of range
>>>> > for $332-$36.
>>>> >
>>>> > The refinery price is going to come down, but the
>>>> > huge investments in the distribution network to bring
>>>> > this outside of central California is pulling the
>>>> > other way. For gasoline the distribution costs
>>>> > are 11-16%, for diesel slightly more (12-17%).
>>>> >
>>>> > Here we will easily be at 40-60% At least while the
>>>> > network is built.
>>>> >
>>>> > The thermic efficiency is sort of good. The generation
>>>> > plant has a rating of ~70%, fed from thermal plants.
>>>> >
>>>> > The fuel cell loses another 15%, and we must calculate
>>>> > in some losses in the distribution, say 10% initially.
>>>> >
>>>> > This is way better than a gas car, where the otto engine
>>>> > has an avergae efficiency of ~18%, rising to ~38% if it
>>>> > is run under optimal condtions, e.g. charging a battery bank.
>>>> >
>>>> > So even with the losses the ~53-56% thermal efficiency
>>>> > is better. But still a bit away from the electrics at
>>>> > 70%+.
>>>> >
>>>> > With the fuel around 2 times as expensive per distance
>>>> > travelled, with many billions needed to upgrade the distribution
>>>> > I will not hold my breath.
>>>> >
>>>> > Meanwhile ethanol is prices with a discount that more or
>>>> > less equals the lower energy content; so diesel == gasoline ==
>>>> > ethanol in terms of prices per mile.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ethanol can grow organically into the market. Hydrogen
>>>> > can not. It is too different. This is an organisational and
>>>> > economic argument, not a technical one.
>>>>
>>>> All t hat is nice but what is ethanol going to
>>>> cost when enough is being produced to replace
>>>> all use of fossil fuels?
>>>>
>>>> And what are we going to eat?
>>>
>>> I already covered that.
>>>
>>> If we are to run transportation without using hydrocarbons or
>>> carbon (coal) then we can get by with having around 2/3rds of the
>>> miles done by electric. From a solar/hydro/wind/nuclear grid.
>>>
>>> We can convert the cuttings etc from forest production and
>>> some agriculture by fermenting it. It will yield less energy
>>> than we put into it, it is mostly a carrier; for the long hauls
>>> of transportation. That may cover around 12% of the miles, with
>>> some luck.
>>>
>>> We can also use the oils etc that come from cooking, frying
>>> etc and similar uses. Clean them and put them in the tank.
>>> That may cover around 8%. (Scandinavia is already at 6% in
>>> this respect). Which leaves a hole of ~15-20% for road travel.
>>>
>>> Container ships can be nuclear monsters. The Russians already
>>> built a handful of these in the Soviet era, for military
>>> purposes, but still. They will have to be around 10-12x the
>>> size of todays container ships. The upside is that we
>>> would worldwide only need ~100 of them, and they can use
>>> that energy and long hull length to go much faster than
>>> today's ships do.
>>>
>>> Planes will have a problem. And they consume more than half
>>> as much hydrocarbons as the cars do. Here hydrogen is completely
>>> useless. It will destroy a jet engine in hours. .. unless we
>>> build pure rocket motors. But they will need enriched
>>> oxygen. Fuels cells are way to timid in their energy output.
>>>
>>> But Hydrogen is not going to solve much. It is a carrier, not
>>> a source, remember. Producing it is mostly done from natural gas
>>> today, with an energy loss of about 1/3rd. A tiny fraction is
>>> done by eletrolysis of water, but this process is only around 40%
>>> effective if you cannot reclaim the waste heat or use the
>>> oxygen for something similarly useful.
>>>
>>> Trains can be electrified for ~80% of the miles, and can use
>>> biodiesel for the rest. Already the case in Europe, China and
>>> the pacific rim. They don't use a lot of fuel in total, they
>>> are the most energyefficient way of land transport already.
>>>
>>> So, we do have the technology to get by with around 20% as
>>> much consumption of hydrocarbons as we do today without
>>> affecting food production volumes.
>>>
>>> It is the planes and around half of the road transport that
>>> we cannot do by electric that is the issue.
>>>
>>> We will have to build a lot of nuclear reactors to get
>>> there within around 150 years. Solar, wind, hydro etc is
>>> going to get there, but they take a long time to deploy.
>>> Denmark, Spain and Germany have really tried hard for around
>>> two decades, and have good success to show. They still can
>>> only take twenty-something percent of the total grid consumption,
>>> and Germany and Spain have significant problems with the
>>> peak vs baseload of the grid. Demark uses Swedish and Norwegian
>>> hydropower to take this balance.
>>>
>>> Yes, you can extend the hydro reservoir-based baseline by
>>> around 250% by solar and wind. With the first at around 12%
>>> in the US and Europe this means you can get to around
>>> 40% without a replacement baseload.
>>>
>>> In around 100 years we will have the answers, because then
>>> we will be a lot longer into the long tail of the oil/gas
>>> production. Never mind the co2 and global warming.
>>
>> Geez, you're slippery as Bill Clinton.
>>
>> The discussion was of hydrogen vs battery
>> electic. Now you're burying in bullshit your
>> statement that your use of ethanol would be as a
>> supplement to battery electric. Which is not a
>> compelling argument that hydrogen electric is
>> not preferable to battery electric.
>>
>> If you want to discuss battery vs hydrogen with
>> ethanol as some kind of supplement to either
>> then leave ethanol out of the discussion.
>>
>> If you want to discuss ethanol as an alternative
>> to both hydrogen and battery electric then tell
>> us where we're going to get the damned ethanol
>> and support your case with numbers.
>
> I did so in the last posting. I am straightforward
> that we cannot get more than around 20% of the current
> gas production with current biodiesel and forestry and
> agricultural waste products fermented. I am also
> straightforward that this fermentation is going to
> require a lot of external energy, enough to make
> this a mediocre carrier at best. But better than
> all the available alternatives. It will have an
> energy efficiency of around 65-70% of the added energy.

Supposed it has an energy efficiency of .1
percent, what of it?

The problem is not ENERGY, it's CO2.

And the bottom line on this is that your
precious ethanol is of little relevance in the
grander scheme of things.

> Now, tell me where you are going to get the hydrogen.
> Is it 1) from electolysis of sea water 2) from natural gas
> 3) from some other source.

1 of course. What would lead you to even ask
the question?
Re: New phone scams [message #340332 is a reply to message #340328] Sun, 26 March 2017 16:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <i2hlqd-fce.ln1
@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
says...
>
> In article <MPG.3341a7c487767f5598ab1f@news.eternal-september.org>,
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <PM00054B8EA4940DAA@aca41bb2.ipt.aol.com>,
>> See.above@aol.com says...
>>>
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> >> On 23/03/2017 15:04, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> >> {snip}
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> People do not know how to handle hydrogen safely. There is a massive
>>>> >>> scare around this, and it partially has merit. Hydrogen leaks into
>>>> >>> closed spaces is an accident waiting to happen. And the filling of
>>>> >>> tanks is not trivial; mostly in terms of capital requirements, but
>>>> >>> also of distribution and training the populace to do it right.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Escaped hydrogen needs venting/piping into the outside air. It hangs
>>>> >> around the ceiling but can get caught by tables.
>>>> >
>>>> >Parking lots and garages which are part of the house is not safe.
>>>> >Terrorists only have to poke a hole in the tank after parking.
>>>> >Tunnels are suceptible.
>>>>
>>>> Propane is _far_ more dangerous than H2, in all the situations
>>>> you've enumerated above.
>>>
>>> You are thinking about messes which can happen within a short
>>> time period. H_2 release makes the timing of the mess
>>> unpredictable. In addition, the H_2 on the ceiling can
>>> "leak" into the infrastructure and chew up all that lovely iron
>>> which keeps the cement from falling into pieces. People's
>>> thinking have been trained to subconsciously know what not to
>>> do with gas or propane. None of the tenets of handing these
>>> apply to H_2.
>>
>> "Chew up"? What exactly is the mechanism by
>> which hydrogen "chews up" rebar encased in
>> concrete?
>>
>>> The world is not ready to switch to an H_2 based energy.
>>> It might be feasible for niches but not for general use.
>>> My house might survive if a gasoline explosion in the garage
>>> next door occurs. It won't with an H_2 explosion.
>>
>> It won't? Why not? And would it survive a
>> natural gas explosion?
>>
>>> I suspect most of my windows would be blown out and the
>>> matural gas mains would also be affected.
>>
>> So why aren't you worried about the natural gas
>> exploding?
>
> Because the flame front of the natural gas moves a LOT
> slower than the one in hydrogen.
>
> If you are close to the explosion this is of no major
> consequence. But if you are some hundreds to thousands
> meters away it is going to make all the difference.

If the problme is your car leaking and blowing
up your garage, what's the relevance of
"hundreds to thousands of meters"?

And what leads you to believe that 3 meters per
second vs .3 meters per second is going to make
some immense difference in the context of
"blowing things up"?


>
> -- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340334 is a reply to message #340320] Sun, 26 March 2017 16:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 26 Mar 2017 19:29:15 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Still, it's nothing like those YouTube videos where people lit
> a barbecue with liquid oxygen...

Wimps! They should use FOOF.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: New phone scams [message #340354 is a reply to message #340290] Sun, 26 March 2017 18:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Swallow is currently offline  Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 26/03/2017 14:38, jmfbahciv wrote:
{snip}
>
> You are thinking about messes which can happen within a short
> time period. H_2 release makes the timing of the mess
> unpredictable. In addition, the H_2 on the ceiling can
> "leak" into the infrastructure and chew up all that lovely iron
> which keeps the cement from falling into pieces. People's
> thinking have been trained to subconsciously know what not to
> do with gas or propane. None of the tenets of handing these
> apply to H_2.
>
> The world is not ready to switch to an H_2 based energy.
> It might be feasible for niches but not for general use.
> My house might survive if a gasoline explosion in the garage
> next door occurs. It won't with an H_2 explosion.
> I suspect most of my windows would be blown out and the
> matural gas mains would also be affected.
>
> /BAH
>

For the next couple of decades Hydrogen as a fuel is more suitable for
trains and planes than cars.
Re: New phone scams [message #340355 is a reply to message #340334] Sun, 26 March 2017 18:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <20170326211356.1c84004bb9991476c476ee0f@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2017 19:29:15 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Still, it's nothing like those YouTube videos where people lit
>> a barbecue with liquid oxygen...
>
> Wimps! They should use FOOF.

Or go all the way, and use chlorine trifluoride. It is hypergolic
with asbestos, cement, water and sand. No measurable ignition delay
is ever recorded. It is the strongest oxidizer ever observed. It
even oxidises oxygen.

The Germans ran a 5-tons-per-day plant for a few months during
WW2.

-- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340367 is a reply to message #340267] Sun, 26 March 2017 23:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Pfeiffer is currently offline  Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
mausg@mail.com writes:

> On 2017-03-26, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Although I have seen some fairly significant gasoline explosions (on the
>>> news), it seems to me that it is a lot less explosive than it used to be in
>>> the good old days. We used to burn trash in a barrel, and start the fire by
>>> pouring in some gas followed by a burning twisted newspaper or something.
>>> We got a big satisfying woosh. No you van barely get the stuff to burn,
>>> much less exlplode.
>>
>> No, it's as explosive as ever. You just haven't lit off your burn
>> barrel recently enough.
>>
>
> Another tip, make sure that spray cans are not in the pile.

But it's so much more fun when they are.
Re: New phone scams [message #340377 is a reply to message #340367] Mon, 27 March 2017 06:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-27, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> mausg@mail.com writes:
>
>> On 2017-03-26, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Although I have seen some fairly significant gasoline explosions (on the
>>>> news), it seems to me that it is a lot less explosive than it used to be in
>>>> the good old days. We used to burn trash in a barrel, and start the fire by
>>>> pouring in some gas followed by a burning twisted newspaper or something.
>>>> We got a big satisfying woosh. No you van barely get the stuff to burn,
>>>> much less exlplode.
>>>
>>> No, it's as explosive as ever. You just haven't lit off your burn
>>> barrel recently enough.
>>>
>>
>> Another tip, make sure that spray cans are not in the pile.
>
> But it's so much more fun when they are.

:)


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: New phone scams [message #340378 is a reply to message #340312] Mon, 27 March 2017 06:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:54:48 +0200
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>
>> O r you have tried to light diesel fuel. It is pretty hard
>> to light, and it will burn quietly with a small wick.
>>
>> But once you get the mass lighted you will have one heck of
>> a fire, one that is VERY hard to put out.
>>
>> Gasoline lights easily, and is comparatively easier to put out too.
>
> How to tell if the can contains petrol or diesel ... open the can
> on a warm day, wait a few minutes then hold a lighted match over the
> opening. If you survive it's diesel.
>

Been there, done that, attended emergency :)


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: New phone scams [message #340379 is a reply to message #340355] Mon, 27 March 2017 06:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-26, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20170326211356.1c84004bb9991476c476ee0f@eircom.net>,
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2017 19:29:15 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Still, it's nothing like those YouTube videos where people lit
>>> a barbecue with liquid oxygen...
>>
>> Wimps! They should use FOOF.
>
> Or go all the way, and use chlorine trifluoride. It is hypergolic
> with asbestos, cement, water and sand. No measurable ignition delay
> is ever recorded. It is the strongest oxidizer ever observed. It
> even oxidises oxygen.
>
> The Germans ran a 5-tons-per-day plant for a few months during
> WW2.
>
> -- mrr

There are many WWII era German pictures, the ground crew look
into the distance at a column of smoke. The Schwalbe(sp) was
, I read, a particularly lunatic idea.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: New phone scams [message #340389 is a reply to message #338877] Mon, 27 March 2017 07:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ejs6r1F6e88U1@mid.individual.net>,
Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2017-03-26, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <20170326211356.1c84004bb9991476c476ee0f@eircom.net>,
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On 26 Mar 2017 19:29:15 GMT
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still, it's nothing like those YouTube videos where people lit
>>>> a barbecue with liquid oxygen...
>>>
>>> Wimps! They should use FOOF.
>>
>> Or go all the way, and use chlorine trifluoride. It is hypergolic
>> with asbestos, cement, water and sand. No measurable ignition delay
>> is ever recorded. It is the strongest oxidizer ever observed. It
>> even oxidises oxygen.
>>
>> The Germans ran a 5-tons-per-day plant for a few months during
>> WW2.
>
> Still manufactured in multi-tonne quantities; used for cleaning in the
> semiconductor industry.

I saw that while reading about it yesterday.

And they transport 18ton cargoes of it on freeways/autobahns.

Just getting a 1/1000th of a square inch contact with the
steel of those vessels will make the whole thing conflagrate
in a poisenous puff of flames and smoke.

I am imagining the collision scene.

Hollywood, reality has gotten you done over.

-- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340392 is a reply to message #340377] Mon, 27 March 2017 07:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnodhm31.1ad.mausg@smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-27, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-26, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> > Although I have seen some fairly significant gasoline explosions (on the
>>>> > news), it seems to me that it is a lot less explosive than it used to be in
>>>> > the good old days. We used to burn trash in a barrel, and start the fire by
>>>> > pouring in some gas followed by a burning twisted newspaper or something.
>>>> > We got a big satisfying woosh. No you van barely get the stuff to burn,
>>>> > much less exlplode.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's as explosive as ever. You just haven't lit off your burn
>>>> barrel recently enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another tip, make sure that spray cans are not in the pile.
>>
>> But it's so much more fun when they are.

If it is to be "fun" then I would like to be at least 100m away,
or well shielded behind some thick plexiglass. Then I can spell
"scary" "fun".

-- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340395 is a reply to message #340161] Mon, 27 March 2017 09:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> In article <4obgqd-spg.ln1
> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
> says...

>>
>> It also has a high energy release per unit of gas, and has
>> significantly wider combustible mixes when mixed with air.
>> It generally lights from 4 to 94 percent when mixed with air, and
>> with a lot lower ignition temperature than e.g. propane or
>> gasoline for the big part of this mixing range.
>
> What residential garages are build to "vent
> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?

Mine is. And it's required by code.
Re: New phone scams [message #340396 is a reply to message #340195] Mon, 27 March 2017 09:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> In article <uonhqd-e8j.ln1
> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
> says...

>>> What residential garages are build to "vent
>>> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>
>> Almost all of the smaller ones without active ventilation
>> control. To vent the exhausts. Just like the small opening
>> below the door. There is no such opening in the roof.
>
> What is this, some kind of European thing? I
> know of no US residential garages that have

Then you haven't seen enough US residential garages.
Re: New phone scams [message #340398 is a reply to message #340396] Mon, 27 March 2017 09:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> In article <uonhqd-e8j.ln1
>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>> says...
>
>>>> What residential garages are build to "vent
>>>> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>>
>>> Almost all of the smaller ones without active ventilation
>>> control. To vent the exhausts. Just like the small opening
>>> below the door. There is no such opening in the roof.
>>
>> What is this, some kind of European thing? I
>> know of no US residential garages that have
>
> Then you haven't seen enough US residential garages.
>
>

I've seen plenty, and I've never seen it or heard of it. Maybe it's a
California thing. Most garages are leaky enough to vent fumes on their own.

--
Pete
Re: New phone scams [message #340401 is a reply to message #340395] Mon, 27 March 2017 10:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <F18CA.187782$qD6.8238@fx34.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> In article <4obgqd-spg.ln1
>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>> says...
>
>>>
>>> It also has a high energy release per unit of gas, and has
>>> significantly wider combustible mixes when mixed with air.
>>> It generally lights from 4 to 94 percent when mixed with air, and
>>> with a lot lower ignition temperature than e.g. propane or
>>> gasoline for the big part of this mixing range.
>>
>> What residential garages are build to "vent
>> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>
> Mine is. And it's required by code.

Care to cite the code?
Re: New phone scams [message #340414 is a reply to message #340401] Mon, 27 March 2017 11:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> In article <F18CA.187782$qD6.8238@fx34.iad>,
> scott@slp53.sl.home says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>> In article <4obgqd-spg.ln1
>>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>> says...
>>
>>>>
>>>> It also has a high energy release per unit of gas, and has
>>>> significantly wider combustible mixes when mixed with air.
>>>> It generally lights from 4 to 94 percent when mixed with air, and
>>>> with a lot lower ignition temperature than e.g. propane or
>>>> gasoline for the big part of this mixing range.
>>>
>>> What residential garages are build to "vent
>>> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>
>> Mine is. And it's required by code.
>
> Care to cite the code?

Not particularly, and local code here will be different in places which have basements
in which water heater and furnaces can be installed (they're commonly
in garages here, and the garages must have foundation vents, and
natural gas appliances must be off the floor by 14-18").
Re: New phone scams [message #340415 is a reply to message #340398] Mon, 27 March 2017 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>> In article <uonhqd-e8j.ln1
>>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>> says...
>>
>>>> > What residential garages are build to "vent
>>>> > below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>>>
>>>> Almost all of the smaller ones without active ventilation
>>>> control. To vent the exhausts. Just like the small opening
>>>> below the door. There is no such opening in the roof.
>>>
>>> What is this, some kind of European thing? I
>>> know of no US residential garages that have
>>
>> Then you haven't seen enough US residential garages.
>>
>>
>
> I've seen plenty, and I've never seen it or heard of it. Maybe it's a
> California thing. Most garages are leaky enough to vent fumes on their own.

I suspect it's a thing anywhere where it is common to find
natural gas appliances such as water heaters and furnaces in
the garage; which is true in many warmer climates. The
northeast is not the center of the universe.
Re: New phone scams [message #340429 is a reply to message #338877] Mon, 27 March 2017 14:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Pfeiffer is currently offline  Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> On 2017-03-27, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnodhm31.1ad.mausg@smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-27, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2017-03-26, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Although I have seen some fairly significant gasoline explosions (on the
>>>> >>> news), it seems to me that it is a lot less explosive than it used to be in
>>>> >>> the good old days. We used to burn trash in a barrel, and start the fire by
>>>> >>> pouring in some gas followed by a burning twisted newspaper or something.
>>>> >>> We got a big satisfying woosh. No you van barely get the stuff to burn,
>>>> >>> much less exlplode.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, it's as explosive as ever. You just haven't lit off your burn
>>>> >> barrel recently enough.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Another tip, make sure that spray cans are not in the pile.
>>>>
>>>> But it's so much more fun when they are.
>>
>> If it is to be "fun" then I would like to be at least 100m away,
>> or well shielded behind some thick plexiglass. Then I can spell
>> "scary" "fun".
>
> IME, they go "Phhft" and a tiny flame comes out of the top. Very
> disappointing.

I'm sure it depends on both the contents and the propellant. Hair
spray, in particular, makes a really nice big flare.

But no, there's no need to be particularly distant.
Re: New phone scams [message #340430 is a reply to message #340415] Mon, 27 March 2017 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Pfeiffer is currently offline  Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> In article <uonhqd-e8j.ln1
>>>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> says...
>>>
>>>> >> What residential garages are build to "vent
>>>> >> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>>> >
>>>> > Almost all of the smaller ones without active ventilation
>>>> > control. To vent the exhausts. Just like the small opening
>>>> > below the door. There is no such opening in the roof.
>>>>
>>>> What is this, some kind of European thing? I
>>>> know of no US residential garages that have
>>>
>>> Then you haven't seen enough US residential garages.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've seen plenty, and I've never seen it or heard of it. Maybe it's a
>> California thing. Most garages are leaky enough to vent fumes on their own.
>
> I suspect it's a thing anywhere where it is common to find
> natural gas appliances such as water heaters and furnaces in
> the garage; which is true in many warmer climates. The
> northeast is not the center of the universe.

Why would a house with natural gas need to vent below?
Re: New phone scams [message #340436 is a reply to message #340430] Mon, 27 March 2017 14:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> > In article <uonhqd-e8j.ln1
>>>> > @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> > says...
>>>>
>>>> >>> What residential garages are build to "vent
>>>> >>> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Almost all of the smaller ones without active ventilation
>>>> >> control. To vent the exhausts. Just like the small opening
>>>> >> below the door. There is no such opening in the roof.
>>>> >
>>>> > What is this, some kind of European thing? I
>>>> > know of no US residential garages that have
>>>>
>>>> Then you haven't seen enough US residential garages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've seen plenty, and I've never seen it or heard of it. Maybe it's a
>>> California thing. Most garages are leaky enough to vent fumes on their own.
>>
>> I suspect it's a thing anywhere where it is common to find
>> natural gas appliances such as water heaters and furnaces in
>> the garage; which is true in many warmer climates. The
>> northeast is not the center of the universe.
>
> Why would a house with natural gas need to vent below?

If you have an ignition source in the garage, the ignition
source (e.g. a water heater pilot) needs to be 18" off the
ground to prevent it from igniting _gasoline_ vapors that
would pool. The foundation vents give the gasoline vapors a way
out.
Re: New phone scams [message #340440 is a reply to message #338877] Mon, 27 March 2017 10:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ejsj1fF8u61U3@mid.individual.net>,
Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2017-03-27, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <ejs6r1F6e88U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-26, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <20170326211356.1c84004bb9991476c476ee0f@eircom.net>,
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >On 26 Mar 2017 19:29:15 GMT
>>>> >Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Still, it's nothing like those YouTube videos where people lit
>>>> >> a barbecue with liquid oxygen...
>>>> >
>>>> > Wimps! They should use FOOF.
>>>>
>>>> Or go all the way, and use chlorine trifluoride. It is hypergolic
>>>> with asbestos, cement, water and sand. No measurable ignition delay
>>>> is ever recorded. It is the strongest oxidizer ever observed. It
>>>> even oxidises oxygen.
>>>>
>>>> The Germans ran a 5-tons-per-day plant for a few months during
>>>> WW2.
>>>
>>> Still manufactured in multi-tonne quantities; used for cleaning in the
>>> semiconductor industry.
>>
>> I saw that while reading about it yesterday.
>
> BTW, I strongly recommend this blog;
>
> http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/thing s-i-wont-work-with
>
> Which is where I first read about CFl3

Me too. Several years go. But I had to re-read to get that they
are still making this stuff in large quantities.

-- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340441 is a reply to message #338877] Mon, 27 March 2017 10:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ejsj2jF8u61U4@mid.individual.net>,
Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2017-03-27, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnodhm31.1ad.mausg@smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-27, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2017-03-26, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Although I have seen some fairly significant gasoline explosions (on the
>>>> >>> news), it seems to me that it is a lot less explosive than it used
> to be in
>>>> >>> the good old days. We used to burn trash in a barrel, and start
> the fire by
>>>> >>> pouring in some gas followed by a burning twisted newspaper or something.
>>>> >>> We got a big satisfying woosh. No you van barely get the stuff to burn,
>>>> >>> much less exlplode.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, it's as explosive as ever. You just haven't lit off your burn
>>>> >> barrel recently enough.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Another tip, make sure that spray cans are not in the pile.
>>>>
>>>> But it's so much more fun when they are.
>>
>> If it is to be "fun" then I would like to be at least 100m away,
>> or well shielded behind some thick plexiglass. Then I can spell
>> "scary" "fun".
>
> IME, they go "Phhft" and a tiny flame comes out of the top. Very
> disappointing.

That is the depleted ones, with just a tiny amount of propane/butane
left. Try some not-so-depleted ones, and point them down. Then they
may go as spinning rockets when they go.

Do not try this at home etc.

-- mrr
Re: New phone scams [message #340446 is a reply to message #340414] Mon, 27 March 2017 17:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <wFaCA.225720$ff2.112377@fx41.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> In article <F18CA.187782$qD6.8238@fx34.iad>,
>> scott@slp53.sl.home says...
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> In article <4obgqd-spg.ln1
>>>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>>>> says...
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > It also has a high energy release per unit of gas, and has
>>>> > significantly wider combustible mixes when mixed with air.
>>>> > It generally lights from 4 to 94 percent when mixed with air, and
>>>> > with a lot lower ignition temperature than e.g. propane or
>>>> > gasoline for the big part of this mixing range.
>>>>
>>>> What residential garages are build to "vent
>>>> below to let out propane/gasoline fumes"?
>>>
>>> Mine is. And it's required by code.
>>
>> Care to cite the code?
>
> Not particularly, and local code here will be different in places which have basements
> in which water heater and furnaces can be installed (they're commonly
> in garages here, and the garages must have foundation vents, and
> natural gas appliances must be off the floor by 14-18").

If you can't cite the code then all we have is
your opinion that the vent in question is
required by code.
Re: New phone scams [message #340451 is a reply to message #340320] Mon, 27 March 2017 20:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Banks is currently offline  Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-26 3:29 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-03-26, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:54:48 +0200 Morten Reistad
>>> <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> O r you have tried to light diesel fuel. It is pretty hard to
>>>> light, and it will burn quietly with a small wick.
>>>>
>>>> But once you get the mass lighted you will have one heck of a
>>>> fire, one that is VERY hard to put out.
>>>>
>>>> Gasoline lights easily, and is comparatively easier to put out
>>>> too.
>>>
>>> How to tell if the can contains petrol or diesel ... open the
>>> can on a warm day, wait a few minutes then hold a lighted match
>>> over the opening. If you survive it's diesel.
>>
>> *big* *grin*
>
> Shouldn't that be *Huge* *grin*? :-)
>
> We used to light our barbecue by dousing the coals with gasoline and
> throwing a match at it from a safe distance. None of that wimpy
> starter fluid for us, no sir.
>
> Still, it's nothing like those YouTube videos where people lit a
> barbecue with liquid oxygen...
>
Spiders for some reason like the smell of propane and play havoc with a
barbecue when the spin webs in burner plumbing. Solution turn on
barbecue and wait 10 seconds hit the igniter. Flash of flame lid comes
up 3 or 4 inches no spider webs and almost instant heat. 15 seconds to
keep the lid up, 20 seconds to close with emphasis varies with model. My
wife always predicted my demise over this.

w..
Re: New phone scams [message #340454 is a reply to message #338877] Mon, 27 March 2017 21:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On 27 Mar 2017 13:40:35 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2017-03-27, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnodhm31.1ad.mausg@smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-27, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2017-03-26, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Although I have seen some fairly significant gasoline explosions (on the
>>>> >>> news), it seems to me that it is a lot less explosive than it used to be in
>>>> >>> the good old days. We used to burn trash in a barrel, and start the fire by
>>>> >>> pouring in some gas followed by a burning twisted newspaper or something.
>>>> >>> We got a big satisfying woosh. No you van barely get the stuff to burn,
>>>> >>> much less exlplode.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, it's as explosive as ever. You just haven't lit off your burn
>>>> >> barrel recently enough.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Another tip, make sure that spray cans are not in the pile.
>>>>
>>>> But it's so much more fun when they are.
>>
>> If it is to be "fun" then I would like to be at least 100m away,
>> or well shielded behind some thick plexiglass. Then I can spell
>> "scary" "fun".
>
> IME, they go "Phhft" and a tiny flame comes out of the top. Very
> disappointing.

Then you don't watch enough MythBusters, but a new team is filming
now.
--
Jim
Re: New phone scams [message #353546 is a reply to message #339756] Wed, 27 September 2017 14:41 Go to previous message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John

Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in
news:bb02qd-dal.ln1@sambook.reistad.name:

> In article
> <2084440955.511581939.263897.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb
> er.org>, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>
>> The solution is to get batteries that you can ram a full charge into
>> in less than 15min - time to hit the head, stretch your legs, grab a
>> burger, and get back on the road. Also get something good for 400
>> miles of driving - 5+ hours at 70mph.
>>
>> I expect we'll get there sometime.
>
> The batteries for that is the next generation; the 1000 km ones when
> installed in a configuration like the Tesla. They will take charge at
> this rate from around 15% to around 85% of their capacity, or for
> around 700-1000 km worth of travel. From completely full to empty they
> will go around 1200-1300 km.
>
> They will have around 200 kWh in them in total. To charge them in 15
> minutes will take 800 kW, or almost a megawatt. This is the sort of
> power usually reserved for electrical locomotives and process
> industry. We are really at 10-25 kilovolt deliveries, which have
> totally different operating procedures.
>
> You will need to feed 2 kiloamperes into the DC if they stay at 400V,
> if you put them in series for 800 volts you will need 1 kiloamp. This
> is the practical limit of low(ish) voltages, at 1000 you are at high
> voltage regulations.
>
> This is doable, but I seriously doubt that there will be many charging
> stations capacble of such capacites. It would be a challenge just to
> lift the cable to attach it to the car.
>
> The ChaDeMo and CCS chargers are limited to 160A, and at 400 volts you
> will get 64kW charging. 200kWh will take two hours and a quarter from
> 15% up to 85%, more almost 4 from 5% to 95%. On a normal 13A household
> circuit it will take 3 and a half days. The "standard" roadside
> charging station will charge at ~43kW, and that will take 4 hours for
> a 1000km trip.
>
> 400 volts is way more than adequate for the operation of the car, at
> 400 kilowatts, almost 600 hp, it will take 100 kilowatts, or around
> 250A, to each of 4 wheel motors. This will be in racing car class
> accelration.
>
> The limit here is not the batteries, it is burning out the motors.
>
> So, for the really long hauls, above 1000 kilometers per day, we are
> limited by the charging; and the electrical infrastructure.
>
> -- mrr
>

It's a great pity Morten isn't with us to give updates such as these.
Pages (12): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL
Next Topic: Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 11:50:10 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03129 seconds