Nonsense That is only explaining why I assumed tensile strength of 10% the max demonstrated. Not even speaking of any pressure.
Yes you should quit lying. Quit putting words in my mouth, etc.
Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Yes you should quit lying. Quit putting words in my mouth, etc.
Still LYING I see.
I included your quote that I claim supports that conclusion so NO Billy I didn't put any words in your mouth:
Billy T said:
Since we started out discussing why the Civic GX wasn't selling and it uses a 3,600 psi round tank, then CLEARLY that is the style tank you were referring to.
And then in this post you clearly were working out the strength to handle the 3,600 psi standard pressure of CNG:
Billy T said:
And of course when you figured out the capacity of the tank, and we discussed Gas Equiv you were using the SAME equations as for CNG in a 3,600 psi tank
So quit lying Billly.
It really is PATHETIC.
Arthur
Nope, those calculations were in direct response to this:
Originally Posted by billvon
... If you have a (relatively) flat surface that is 1.4 by 1.6 meters, and you pressurize it to a standard 3600 PSI, the flat surface will have to withstand a lateral force of 12 million pounds. This would require insanely thick walls, and would likely be so heavy that cars could not carry it.
So QUIT LYING Billy
Once the pressure is high enough to make the natural gas AN INCOMPRESSIBLE LIQUID on the ANG filler surface, more pressure will not store significantly more natural gas. So that idea is attractive only to those ill-informed about the compressibility of liquids.
I would guess 100,000 psi would not add even 2% more gas than the ANG filled tank at 500 psi, but tank walls would be 200 times thicker and weight 200 times more and cost at least 100 times more. (That does assume the ANG filler is MU's corn cobs. Other fillers may need higher (or lower) pressure to put most of the NG into the liquid state.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes that was a direct response to BILLVON who had said my 0.1cm webs 1 cm apart would not hold the pressure HE ASSUMED - My reply only showed him it would hold, even at that high pressure. AGAIN I HAVE NEVER ASSUMED ANY PRESSURE.
My analysis is general FOR ALL PRESSURES. It compares the flat tank to round tank (tacitly assumed to be made of the same materials) and shows less material needed with the same safety factor and SAME PRESSURE per unit of storage capacity.
Last edited by a moderator:
??? The graphs I've discovered reveal a 1-e^-x relationship i.e.:
500psi, 25C: 8 liters gas/100g carbon
3600psi, 25C: 17 liters gas/100g carbon
There's no compression of liquid going on. Adsorption has nothing to do with the compression of liquid; it has to do with gas molecules sticking to a surface under high pressures.
Well, given that 3600PSI gives you over twice the storage that 500PSI gives you, I'd be interested to see what your data is on 100,000PSI.
You absolutely did.
We discussed the capacity of the tank and then you stated RANGE you could get, which would only be true at the same pressure as a normal CNG tank.
So quit LYING Billy.
I said, even making it bold that I was guessing. I would like to look at your references graphs not that I doubt them. -just to undestand better. I said I was guessing as I was fully aware that doubling the absolute pressure would infact double the rate of molecules hitting the liquid surface, but initially thought their kinetic energy transfer to it would also double, making the liquid to gas transition rate double too, with little effect upon the thickness of the liquid film - my guess may well be wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
I said: My analysis is general - applies to all pressures and AGAIN I HAVE NEVER ASSUMED ANY PRESSURE.
Then tell what pressure I (not someone else) assumed and in what post it was assumed. With a general analysis, there is no reason to name any specific pressure. I m not lying - your are and also you are putting words in my mouth.
Billy, CNG in car use is normally stored at 3,600 psi in round tanks.
This was pointed out by me explicitly in post 2109:
You then made this claim in Post 2148 when I challenged you that you were not considering the high pressures involved in CNG tanks:
So you EXPLICITLY stated your flat tank operated at the same pressure as current round tanks, and that is 3,600 psi.
Trying to now claim you weren't is simply LYING.
Arthur
This was pointed out by me explicitly in post 2109:
adoucette said:
You then made this claim in Post 2148 when I challenged you that you were not considering the high pressures involved in CNG tanks:
Billy T said:
So you EXPLICITLY stated your flat tank operated at the same pressure as current round tanks, and that is 3,600 psi.
Trying to now claim you weren't is simply LYING.
Arthur
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Billy T (After being told he neglected pressure):
"...Of course I am considering pressure {in my model} when I speak of a pressure tank.{in my model} My assumption is that both the flat panel tank and the round tank operate at the same pressure. ..." {and same safety factor}
Yes my model does compare a circular tanks to the flat tank with no specific pressure assume for either. It calculates ONLY their tank storage VOLUMES vs their wall material volume ratios when both operate at the same pressure with the same safety factor and then compares these ratios.
You have been repeatedly told this, yet you continue to falsely report me as saying something entirely different from what I have said - that is repeated lying.
You keep (falsely) telling what I said. Don't do that. Quote my post instead of putting words I never said in my mouth.
For example quote the post where I " EXPLICITLY stated the flat tank operated at the same pressure as current round tanks, and that is 36,000 psi. " And give the post number so all can check.
You will not be able to do that as I never said that - that is another of your fabricated lies about me.
You almost never quote my post. Instead you fabricate some words to put in my mouth. - That is lying about what I said. Stop it.
When I get time to, I will collect together many examples of this dishonest policy of yours, many will be examples where you have done that to others in other threads, and ask James R if he agrees that for that and your many personnel attacks you don't need a cooling off holiday from posting activity.
You have insulted many others with these personnel attacks and false rewording of what they said (instead of quoting one of their posts) so I will find a few and them asked these other people you have offend to supply others for the list with links I will build.
I would not want you permanently banded, despite your repeated dishonesty and personnel attacks as you do often supply good links to valid and interesting data.
"...Of course I am considering pressure {in my model} when I speak of a pressure tank.{in my model} My assumption is that both the flat panel tank and the round tank operate at the same pressure. ..." {and same safety factor}
Again you are putting words in my mouth. I never assumed 36,000psi, if I have even mentioned 36,000psi, I am quoting someone else. I have never discussed current round tanks.
Yes my model does compare a circular tanks to the flat tank with no specific pressure assume for either. It calculates ONLY their tank storage VOLUMES vs their wall material volume ratios when both operate at the same pressure with the same safety factor and then compares these ratios.
You have been repeatedly told this, yet you continue to falsely report me as saying something entirely different from what I have said - that is repeated lying.
You keep (falsely) telling what I said. Don't do that. Quote my post instead of putting words I never said in my mouth.
For example quote the post where I " EXPLICITLY stated the flat tank operated at the same pressure as current round tanks, and that is 36,000 psi. " And give the post number so all can check.
You will not be able to do that as I never said that - that is another of your fabricated lies about me.
You almost never quote my post. Instead you fabricate some words to put in my mouth. - That is lying about what I said. Stop it.
When I get time to, I will collect together many examples of this dishonest policy of yours, many will be examples where you have done that to others in other threads, and ask James R if he agrees that for that and your many personnel attacks you don't need a cooling off holiday from posting activity.
You have insulted many others with these personnel attacks and false rewording of what they said (instead of quoting one of their posts) so I will find a few and them asked these other people you have offend to supply others for the list with links I will build.
I would not want you permanently banded, despite your repeated dishonesty and personnel attacks as you do often supply good links to valid and interesting data.
No Billy, the discussion was ALWAYS about storage of CNG for car use and CNG is stored at 3,600 psi.
Indeed in this post that is made explicitly clear, by what is written and the link:
adooucette post 2142 said:
To which you replied:
Billy T said:
Now in the post you were responding to I had used as my evidence a cylinder manufactured that made CNG tanks that operate at 3,600 psi (up to 10,000 psi) and you said your flat panel tanks could hold several times more high pressure gas per Kg of tank material that a round tank can.
And then of course you also did EXPLICITLY agree to be solving for 3,600 psi here:
Billvon said:
The 12E6 you used in your equation represents the lateral force of 12 million pounds when pressurized to the standard 3,600 psi referenced by Billvon
Arthur
Last edited:
Not “referenced by Brillvon” – Billvon told me 36,000psi would explode my specified tank, so that is more lies implying I has selected 36,000psi for my equations, which have already been refuted, so I will first re-post that earlier post 2247 refutation:
And now explain again to you that Billvon NOT ME suggested the 36,000 psi. He said 36,000 psi would blow apart the flat tank I had described (webs 0.1cm thick, 1cm spaced part. with flat sides surface of 1.4 by 1.6 meters) and said that to hold the sides together the webs would need to be much thicker making tank weigh so much that a car could not carry it!
I had never calculated the tension per unit of length of web for any pressure. My equations are general. Contrary to your repeated false assertions about me assuming 36,000psi, I had never assumed any specific pressure. In reply to Brillvon, I quickly searched for high tension strength materials and found that some binder/ carbon fiber extrusions had achieved tensile strength of 350,000 psi and I assumed I could get 10% of that with random orientation fibers. (See post 2188 for lots more details and link to the maker of the 350,000 psi material.)
I ground thru the relatively simple calculation with Billvon’s suggested pressure and was pleased to find Billvon’s guess was wildly wrong about flat tank being too heavy for car to carry.– My 0.1cm thick webs would hold the plates together, even at HIS ASSUMED 36,000 psi gas pressure.
Unlike you, he promptly agreed in the very next post (2189) that his guess was wrong - that the webs would hold. Inserting Bilvon’s 36,000 psi in my general equations is NOT me suggesting a pressure of 36,000 psi be should be used. Again for what is at least the fourth time: I HAVE NOT ASSUMED ANY PRESSURE.
My doing an analysis / calculation with Billvon’s suggested pressure was ONLY to test Billvon’s assertion in post 2186 that the webs “would require insanely thick walls, and would likely be so heavy that cars could not carry it.” THAT IS NOT ME RECOMENDIGN USE OF 36,000 psi. I am simply showing his guess about the web thickness and especially the weight and with his 36.000 psi was wildly wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL, No, he did not agree with you Billy.
Indeed he said just the opposite:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2846576&postcount=2189
The FACT is Billy, you did claim in that reply to billvon that your tank design worked at 3,600 psi.
You can't lie your way out of it no matter how hard you try.
Arthur
Indeed he said just the opposite:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2846576&postcount=2189
The FACT is Billy, you did claim in that reply to billvon that your tank design worked at 3,600 psi.
You can't lie your way out of it no matter how hard you try.
Arthur
You've both spent the past 40 posts or so calling each other names. Is insulting someone else really that important to both of you?
Last edited:
After mathematically showing the particular tank Brillvon had suggested would need “insanely thick” webs (not my 0.1cm webs) and be “too heavy for the car to carry” was false – i.e. it would not fail even with his suggested 36,000 PSI gas fill, I asked directly: “Would not call 1.2mm thick webs, with a 20% safety factor and half the weight of Aluminum, “insanely thick” would you?”
He replied: “Nope” I.e. agreeing that it would not fail, would not be “insanely thick” & “would not be too heavy for the cars to carry.” – I.e. AGREEING 100% WITH WHAT I HAD DEMONSTRATED by math.
And then he slightly falsely noted the part you cherry picked (Trying to show he did not agree with me.):
On (2) Yes. I certainly did because that was proven by math in post 2188.
On (3) I am not lying. Despite your cheery picking quote, Billvon agreed 100% with what I said. By cherry pick that one sentence about “current technology” to then say I am lying, when I am not, it is you who are lying. That sentence you quote is even false, but Billvon did not know that when he wrote it. –Did not know about the most modern current technology, which is making and selling compound flat tanks. Thus, unlike you, he was not lying, only not fully informed.
Perhaps a picture will help you understand as you will not follow the math:
C . . [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ . . D - a cross section thru the central part of a compound tank showing all cells except one, which is “D-shaped” have only 3 sides. Note 100 cells have only 99 “tension webs” dividing them - why only one edge requires a “D-shaped” cell. The other edge cell is half of a cylindrical tank so is just as efficient as the isolated cylindrical tank is. All of the “3-sided”cells are MORE efficient especially since the webs are flat with the same pressure on both side and do not need to resist horizontal expansion (only vertical expansion caused by the relatively small force acting on the small top and bottom ends of each cell) but the walls of a cylindrical tank must resist expansion in ALL directions.
SUMMARY: Please stop falsely asserting that the flat tank, with compound-cells, is less efficient than the isolated circular tank such as here:
Based on his false beliefs, adouccette has asserted many false “facts” about the compound cell flat tank and stooped to personally attacks on me (not my idea) such as:
I always try to answer direct questions & you asked, at end of post 2180: “What's keeping you from making a mint on this Billy?” I gave you two answers immediately in post 2181, but now add an even more important one:
Others have patented my independently invented idea about three years ago and are now selling multi-cellular, compound flat tanks.
--------------
*I refuted this claim about my engineering skills immediately in post 2177, but it is very false and so annoys me, coming from one who does not understand that isolated tank characteristic are not the same, or always superior to, compound tanks, that I do so again:
“ … “I happen to have very good qualifications.- I'm a graduate of a special 5-year experimental program called "Engineering Physic" at Cornell University. Compared to the regular 120 or less credit hours, we had 175 credit hours when we graduated, but less than half of my entering class did - most transferred out to less demanding, 4-year, disciplines, like electrical or chemical engineering. Because of this high "mortality rate" Cornell discontinued the 5 year Engineering Physic program experiment. - It was too tough for most to make it thru but I did and kept my GPA > 85 as that was required for my "full needs" scholarship. The after that, I got my Ph.D. in Physics at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, MD.
BTW, after that education, I worked 30 years at the Applied Physic Laboratory of JHU, always on some aspect of engineering and /or physics. Spacecraft, bio-medical implants, nuclear physic, high power lasers, fusion research, the HARM anti-radar air defense missile, ship defense against "sea skimming" cruse missile attack (especially the French Exocet, which was widely sold), etc. - you name it and I did it! (not to mention several energy systems, including installing and evaluating a wind generator for the US Coast Guard at their facility near Norfolk VA, 40+ years ago!)
What are your qualifications and why do you keep citing irrelevant articles? …”
I’ll close by noting that adouccette STILL has not answered the last sentence’s two questions.
He often ignores direct questions. –I rarely do.
He replied: “Nope” I.e. agreeing that it would not fail, would not be “insanely thick” & “would not be too heavy for the cars to carry.” – I.e. AGREEING 100% WITH WHAT I HAD DEMONSTRATED by math.
And then he slightly falsely noted the part you cherry picked (Trying to show he did not agree with me.):
Billvon is nearly correct in this statement, (if tank held gas at 36000 psi) but the flat tank need not be (in fact could not be) made with the best common current high pressure technology, which is a gas tight core wrapped by fiber reinforcing tape. The flat tank has many adjoining cells which cannot be externally wrapped. However the flat tank is CURRENTLY available for purchase (so Billvon is not fully correct). To buy one contact: http://www.ppidts.com/propanep/construction.html as they (and others making flat tanks) use more modern technology such as assemble the flat tank from extruded parts. Billvon then continues in post 2189 to wisely admit (what is already fact, but was unknown to him):
On (1)As shown above, he did 100% agree with me. Only by cheery picking his post to quote his one sentence about “current technology” are you even able to imply he disagreed with my math demonstration in post 2188 that the particular tank design we were discussing “would not fail,” (even at his suggested pressure), would not have “insanely thick” webs, would not be “too heavy for the car to carry.” With his first word (“Nope”) in post 2189 he retracted all three of those prior assertion he had made.
On (2) Yes. I certainly did because that was proven by math in post 2188.
On (3) I am not lying. Despite your cheery picking quote, Billvon agreed 100% with what I said. By cherry pick that one sentence about “current technology” to then say I am lying, when I am not, it is you who are lying. That sentence you quote is even false, but Billvon did not know that when he wrote it. –Did not know about the most modern current technology, which is making and selling compound flat tanks. Thus, unlike you, he was not lying, only not fully informed.
BTW you should do as suggested in the last sentence too, but you have steadfastly ignored my math and tried to refute it by many irrelevant posts about isolated circular containers, even showing a picture of an airplane’s cross section as if math could be refuted by pictures! Nothing you have posted refutes anything about a “compound tank” consisting of many adjoined cells, which can be more efficient (because many walls are shared, making each cell only “three sided”) than the isolated circular tank you falsely keep suggesting refutes the greater efficiency of the compound tank.
Perhaps a picture will help you understand as you will not follow the math:
C . . [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ . . D - a cross section thru the central part of a compound tank showing all cells except one, which is “D-shaped” have only 3 sides. Note 100 cells have only 99 “tension webs” dividing them - why only one edge requires a “D-shaped” cell. The other edge cell is half of a cylindrical tank so is just as efficient as the isolated cylindrical tank is. All of the “3-sided”cells are MORE efficient especially since the webs are flat with the same pressure on both side and do not need to resist horizontal expansion (only vertical expansion caused by the relatively small force acting on the small top and bottom ends of each cell) but the walls of a cylindrical tank must resist expansion in ALL directions.
SUMMARY: Please stop falsely asserting that the flat tank, with compound-cells, is less efficient than the isolated circular tank such as here:
The rest of post 2176, like dozens of adouccette’s other posts, goes on to show that for isolated single-cell tanks a circular cross section is best, and I of course agree, but I post about a multi-cellular compound tanks, so almost all of adouccette’s posts are totally irrelevant and false when extended to the compound tank, as I have repeatedly pointed out to him.
Based on his false beliefs, adouccette has asserted many false “facts” about the compound cell flat tank and stooped to personally attacks on me (not my idea) such as:
Ironic is it not? When all of adouccette’s attacks are based on his lack of understanding that what is true of the isolated, single cell tank is NOT true of the compound, multi-cell flat tank and certainly not superior to the compound tank.
I always try to answer direct questions & you asked, at end of post 2180: “What's keeping you from making a mint on this Billy?” I gave you two answers immediately in post 2181, but now add an even more important one:
Others have patented my independently invented idea about three years ago and are now selling multi-cellular, compound flat tanks.
--------------
*I refuted this claim about my engineering skills immediately in post 2177, but it is very false and so annoys me, coming from one who does not understand that isolated tank characteristic are not the same, or always superior to, compound tanks, that I do so again:
“ … “I happen to have very good qualifications.- I'm a graduate of a special 5-year experimental program called "Engineering Physic" at Cornell University. Compared to the regular 120 or less credit hours, we had 175 credit hours when we graduated, but less than half of my entering class did - most transferred out to less demanding, 4-year, disciplines, like electrical or chemical engineering. Because of this high "mortality rate" Cornell discontinued the 5 year Engineering Physic program experiment. - It was too tough for most to make it thru but I did and kept my GPA > 85 as that was required for my "full needs" scholarship. The after that, I got my Ph.D. in Physics at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, MD.
BTW, after that education, I worked 30 years at the Applied Physic Laboratory of JHU, always on some aspect of engineering and /or physics. Spacecraft, bio-medical implants, nuclear physic, high power lasers, fusion research, the HARM anti-radar air defense missile, ship defense against "sea skimming" cruse missile attack (especially the French Exocet, which was widely sold), etc. - you name it and I did it! (not to mention several energy systems, including installing and evaluating a wind generator for the US Coast Guard at their facility near Norfolk VA, 40+ years ago!)
What are your qualifications and why do you keep citing irrelevant articles? …”
I’ll close by noting that adouccette STILL has not answered the last sentence’s two questions.
He often ignores direct questions. –I rarely do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again Billy misses the entire point of his reply.
So, like everyone else in this discussion (Trippy and I) Billvon was also talking specifically about CNG tanks.
Tanks that operate at 3,600 psi
Not the low pressure PROPANE tank you linked to.
When you get a 3,600 psi CNG tank that can be made in this fashion get back to us.
Billy, you can continue lying and trying to claim you weren't claiming your design was for CNG if you must.
Arthur
billvon said:
So, like everyone else in this discussion (Trippy and I) Billvon was also talking specifically about CNG tanks.
Tanks that operate at 3,600 psi
Not the low pressure PROPANE tank you linked to.
When you get a 3,600 psi CNG tank that can be made in this fashion get back to us.
Billy, you can continue lying and trying to claim you weren't claiming your design was for CNG if you must.
Arthur
Last edited:
If you tell me what I have said to adoucette which is insulting and the post it is in, I will retract it and apologize. I don't think such a post of mine exists; however,
Adoucette has insulted me in post 2176 falsely telling I am not qualified to be posting about these things, but he could not know my truly exceptional* engineering qualifications or 30 years as a well paid physicist/ engineer for only one employer, who gave me their highest staff rating, called "professional staff" that less than 5% of the staff enjoyed. (~95% of APL/JHU's physicist/ engineers have the rank called "senior staff.")
* See end of my last post, 2259.
PS, replying to part of post 2260:
Yes I linked to a photo of a multi-cellular flat tank to show that contrary to statement it could not be build, it was for sale. It is true than most current buyers would use propane in it, but a few are already using flat tanks operating at only 500psi to fuel their cars and trucks with good travel range as the Natural Gas fuel (not propane) in their tanks is adsorbed as a liquid on the surface of baked corn cobs pressed into "hockey puck." (One of MU's hockey pucks sized processed corn cops has surface area equal to that of 60 foot ball fields and hold as a liquid under 500 psi 180 times more NG than NG in the gaseous state at that pressure. I.e. it acts like a gaseous filled NG tank at 180x 500 = 90,000 psi or almost three times more NG at 500psi than the current 36,000 psi NG tanks do. AND of course a tank built for only 500 psi is much lighter and cheaper than the current technology NG tanks!
I have been careful, as I am speaking about the future, not current technology, to NEVER SPECIFY AT WHAT PRESSURE THE TANK WILL USE.
All of my posts only compute the efficiency of the multi-cellurlar flat tank vs that of the isolated (singular cell) circular tank most current technology uses.
Last edited by a moderator:
Update: clearly Billy has no expertise in engineering of high pressure CNG tanks or materials and the proceeding is not based on anything but wishful thinking and ignoring the actual engineering evidence provided.