Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:


"Amp-hours per day" is a measure of current, just the same as Amps.


Specifying "hours per day" is meaningful? You're just compounding the
absurdity.

No, you're simply showing that you actually have no real training or
experience in engineering. If you did, you would understand that
"amp-hours per day" is a measure of current.

"Hours per day" is simply a non-dimensional constant, normally given
as 24. Thus, what remains is a measure of current.

Why don't you go down to your community college and enroll in Physics
101, you might learn something.

Anyone curious about "dimensional analysis" could google it or look at:
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/


PFD inflation cartridges between 33 and 37 grams may be used.

Which as containers are inferior (cost, weight, capacity) to a $7 can of
R-134a, because CO2 is inherently harder to contain.


Whatever you say Richard, I'm sure that the difficulty in making CO2
PFD cartridges will be the ultimate downfall of CO2 refrigeration.

And while it might be fairly simple to charge up a leaky auto A/C
circuit with a can of r134a, properly recovering and recharging a
system requires about $500 of gear and a license. Fixing a simple
leak in a marine system costs at least a few hundred dollars, and
can't be done by the average cruiser.

And some of us don't want to vent a gas ...

You may be of that political view,

So are you claiming that global warming and losing the ozone layer are
just a "political view"? Are you claiming that we should feel free to
vent r134a because the restrictions are just "political"? Or are you
confessing that you flaunt the law in spite of the rather stiff fines?

but it doesn't change the dismal
physics and economics of CO2 as a refrigerant. You may force CO2
refrigeration to replace R-134a, but don't pretend that it works better
or doesn't cost more.

On average perhaps it doesn't, although even the pro-R134a association
only claimed CO2 was slightly less efficient. However, small
systems are very inefficient, so there's no reason why this system
might not equal or better the competition. Further, having only 2
moving parts and user serviceability are a major advantage. Being
skeptical about a product doesn't give you the right to label it as a
"hoax" or "fraud."


Using terms like "hoax" "fraud" and "perpetual motion" is tantamount
to claiming its impossible.


I said the efficiency claims were not credible and foolishly misstated.
Don't twist that into anything more.

Your first post included "Idiotic nonsense" and "either a fraud, or a
nutcase"

You said "My point is, the spec sheet uses gibberish" when in fact the
spec sheet uses the proper terminology, properly labeled. You are
simple not sufficiently well-versed in engineering to understand it.

Perpetual motion machines are
impossible, not all machines that produce motion.

You referred to this as "It is a mad inventor's perpetual motion machine"

Why are you trying to deny what you said just yesterday?



[hybrid cars] seemed a bit silly when first proposed, now they make
a bit more sense. (I'm sure you'll now claim they're a hoax ...)


They're a hoax in claiming or implying a better lifetime cost per mile.

These "claims" are only in your imagination. I believe the economy
and cost of the vehicles are public information. As with much new
technology, early adopters pay a premium for the privilege. However,
the price is declining steadily, and the fuel cost is rising, so its
possible that hybrids will actually have a better lifetime cost per
mile in a few years. Actually, just going by the MSRP and EPA mileage
its getting close to break even now.

I am curious to see how it works out.

Sure, I am too. And having experienced the 1970s as an engineer, I am
confident I know how it will work out. About as well as synthetic
fuels.

Syn fuels are predicted to be roughly 10% of domestic oil production
in 25 years; perhaps even double that if the high price stays with us.
In this "high price" model, a quarter of the coal mined would go to
syn fuel. That would fund my retirement.

This is from recent DOE testimony before a Senate committee. I
believe (though I'm not sure) that this assumes there is no subsidy
for syn fuel, because the price of oil is above the cutoff.


... your close minded approach ...

Be closed-minded about errors in technology. These are not unscientific
opinions or tastes. Those of us who do genuine engineering research and
devlopment for a living ...

You really have a problem convincing anyone that you ever did any
engineering, given that you don't know what dimensional analysis is.
If you had, you would understand that "amp-hours per day" is a measure
of current.