Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

World Oil

oil Persian Gulf Iran Israel Saudi Arabia oil consumers

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#35 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 10:11 AM

The Palestinian People, obviously, doesn't wont peace with the Jews. Palestinian people's overwhelming vote for HAMAS, proclaiming annihilation of Israel, is clear enough to expose what is going.


What "overwhelming vote for Hamas?" So you're buying in to Hamas' propaganda that their boycotts in 2011 and 2017 and the low turnout of those elections "proves" that "most" Palestinians support them?

Your thin argument here is also based on the same argument that because Americans "elected" Donald Trump that we all want to eliminate Obamacare. Of course Hamas hasn't "won" anything, and they're being forced to compromise with Fatah now that Qatar has stopped funding them.

All you're doing is insisting that "the beatings will continue until morale improves."

You completely and utterly discount that Palestinian anger has anything to do with the occupation, the severity of it, and that the Palestinians deserve nothing but punishment for that anger.

You're all stick and no carrot. It doesn't matter how it started, you're not going to get anywhere ever with that sort of attitude.

What you end up with of course is something that looks very much like the Warsaw Ghetto. Would the Jews in Warsaw have done better to be cooperative with the Nazi occupiers and agree not to try to kill SS officers unilaterally? You only get to claim you're not acting like the Nazi's if you hold out hope for them *now* despite whatever "bad acts" you accuse them of. That may not seem "fair" to you since those bad acts have been murderous, but those are the wages of being on the side of good.

 

There is obviously some risk in showing trust, but unless trust is offered it will likely never be returned. For *exactly* the same reasons that you're insisting upon.

 

 

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, :phones:

Buffy



#36 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 09:00 PM

Buffy: "What you end up with of course is something that looks very much like the Warsaw Ghetto. Would the Jews in Warsaw have done better to be cooperative with the Nazi occupiers and agree not to try to kill SS officers unilaterally? You only get to claim you're not acting like the Nazi's if you hold out hope for them *now* despite whatever "bad acts" you accuse them of. That may not seem "fair" to you since those bad acts have been murderous, but those are the wages of being on the side of good."

 

Contrary to You, the Palestinian people know perfectly, that whole their conflict with the Jews for at least last 1.000 years was and remains islamistic. The core of HAMAS' Charter is quote from islamic tradition, which states, that any territory captured by Muslims in the past, belongs to Muslims. HAMAS, like other islamist movements, seeks World Chaliphate. 

Regarding elections, HAMAS wins all elections, it participates. In addition, Islam contradicts democracy from its very beginning under Muhammad. Islamic conquest forced Muslim rule on Christian and Pagan majority, and this is the core of Jihad, no matter what is the method of the conquest.

At the bottom line, the Palestine-Israel conflict is both nationalist and religious. While nationalists may come to compromise, the islamic aggression must be confronted. And there is no sign, that Islam is dying.


Edited by houseknight, 25 October 2017 - 09:12 PM.


#37 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:45 PM

Contrary to You, the Palestinian people know perfectly, that whole their conflict with the Jews for at least last 1.000 years was and remains islamistic.


You've said a bunch of times here that Palestinians have no rights to land because they're from elsewhere. Decide what you want to actually believe.

Islam was not "anti-Jew" (hey, remember Palestinians--if you *do* grant they actually exist--are Semites too!) until the Grand Mufti if Jerusalem started getting uppity about Jews migrating back to Palestine in the 20s and 30s and decided allying with Hitler was a cool thing. The idea that it's a 1000 years of conflict bears no resemblance to reality.

But it's great for stirring up emotions.
 

The core of HAMAS' Charter is quote from islamic tradition, which states, that any territory captured by Muslims in the past, belongs to Muslims. HAMAS, like other islamist movements, seeks World Chaliphate.


So the Quran mentions a "Caliphate" a couple of times and thus it's embedded in Muslim doctrine. Nothing about "World Caliphate," just Caliphate, singular as in one.

Caliphate translates as "Islamic State." Israel was established as, and it's citizens continue to endorse it as the "Jewish State."

In your mind, the latter is legitimate and the former is not. You have to add "World" to it to make it sound like they're out for world domination, which they are not.

It is true that Islam seeks converts and Judaism does not, but becoming a Muslim is actually rather difficult compared to the silly Christians where all you've got to do is say "Jesus is my savior" dunk your head in the water and you're in. None of this memorizing the Quran or learning Arabic as some sects insist. Really, about the same as Judaism, except you don't have to ask the Rabbi 3 times.

That's all a long way from some sort of world domination, and all the stuff about the Quran "advocating violence or killing Infidels," well, Crusaders didn't find much of a problem showing support in the scriptures for their fight against Islam, a fight they fought for you. And as for the Jews in ancient times, well, there's Deuteronomy 20:13-16. Whoo.

War is in man's past. We now have civilization-ending weapons, and everyone is thinking about conflict differently. And we'd better if we want to survive.

The thing the rest of us fear is you and Iran lobbing nukes at each other, both sides believing they can "win." Iran has done the right thing and said, "we're de-escalating, now you Israel, stop threatening to annihilate *us*.

Your only response here is to insist that they're bloodthirsty eliminationists bent on world domination. And you refuse to engage on the issue I raise of how this stance is interpreted by others. You simply insist it is unassailable because all Muslims are inherently, homicidally evil. That would be funny if the consequences weren't so dire.
 

Regarding elections, HAMAS wins all elections, it participates.


Just because your local football club wins all it's matches with teams down the road doesn't mean you're gonna win the World Cup.

Hamas keeps running away, and right now, they have never been politically weaker because their strategy of buying off people's support has run into a wall, as I mentioned above, because primary backer Qatar has pulled back support. The Iranians hate Hamas. The wars in Syria and Yemen have sucked up funds and intensified divisions in the Arab world. The Oil states are all incredibly squeezed because of low oil prices.

It's actually hard to see a time in the recent past where there has been *less* of a threat to Israel, not because of Netanyahu's hard line but simply because of the weakness and division in the Arab world.

What better time to start picking them off one by one with peace agreements? Play them off against each other!

But no, the only course for you is to be hostile to everyone, antagonize them all and insist that they're all homicidal maniacs.

That's not diplomacy, that's whipping up the masses for exterminating them.

Now even Netanyahu has been smart enough not to pull the trigger on attacking Iran, basically holding out for some US president who'd be willing to commit US forces to join in an invasion. Both Bushes laughed that one off, while not really making the situation better either, with W. Bush's disengagement resulting in Iran's last round of ramping up nuclear enrichment facilities, which Obama then succeeded in stopping.

I know, "no one should trust a Muslim," but if you're going to insist on that, how does this play out? Do you have a 1000 year "Mexican Standoff" with both sides staring each other down, constantly on the brink of all out war, with each side occasionally starting border skirmishes just daring the other side to escalate?

How do you know that you'll be able to keep that up forever without starting a major conflagration?

Why is it worth the ongoing risk of that conflagration just to be "right" about how the other side is "evil?"

And if they are really "evil," isn't the safest thing to simply kill them all, which I'm sure you could righteously justify?
 

In addition, Islam contradicts democracy from its very beginning under Muhammad. Islamic conquest forced Muslim rule on Christian and Pagan majority, and this is the core of Jihad, no matter what is the method of the conquest.


This is silly. None of the major religious scriptures mentions democracy.
 

At the bottom line, the Palestine-Israel conflict is both nationalist and religious. While nationalists may come to compromise, the islamic aggression must be confronted. And there is no sign, that Islam is dying.

 

The first half of this is one of the few things you've said that makes any sense, so kudos for that. But you just keep slipping into this "Islam is inherently evil" schtick that's both tiresome and wrong. 

 

What is correct is that *extremists* of all stripes must be confronted. There's absolutely no argument there, but the Palestinians can point to Jewish extremists and their atrocities too. I don't care who murders, but they're wrong, and I will fight them along with you.

 

But by saying no Muslim can be trusted, you take the many that *might* work with you against those extremists and you make them *enemies*. 

 

That's really, really, really stupid.

 

And I will continue to argue against that and point out it's stupidity.

 

I'm in one of the closest groups to supporting you, and yet you seem to want to make me an enemy too for disagreeing on your hatred of Islam. That hatred is understandable, but if you want to succeed in creating a Jewish state that lives in peace, you're going to have to start dealing with that hatred.

 

Sorry. Reality does not allow for absolutism, in fact it will teach you nasty lessons at every turn if you pursue it.

 

 

It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war, :phones:

Buffy



#38 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 01:33 AM

You've said a bunch of times here that Palestinians have no rights to land because they're from elsewhere. Decide what you want to actually believe.

Islam was not "anti-Jew" (hey, remember Palestinians--if you *do* grant they actually exist--are Semites too!) until the Grand Mufti if Jerusalem started getting uppity about Jews migrating back to Palestine in the 20s and 30s and decided allying with Hitler was a cool thing. The idea that it's a 1000 years of conflict bears no resemblance to reality.

But it's great for stirring up emotions.
 


So the Quran mentions a "Caliphate" a couple of times and thus it's embedded in Muslim doctrine. Nothing about "World Caliphate," just Caliphate, singular as in one.

Caliphate translates as "Islamic State." Israel was established as, and it's citizens continue to endorse it as the "Jewish State."

In your mind, the latter is legitimate and the former is not. You have to add "World" to it to make it sound like they're out for world domination, which they are not.

It is true that Islam seeks converts and Judaism does not, but becoming a Muslim is actually rather difficult compared to the silly Christians where all you've got to do is say "Jesus is my savior" dunk your head in the water and you're in. None of this memorizing the Quran or learning Arabic as some sects insist. Really, about the same as Judaism, except you don't have to ask the Rabbi 3 times.

That's all a long way from some sort of world domination, and all the stuff about the Quran "advocating violence or killing Infidels," well, Crusaders didn't find much of a problem showing support in the scriptures for their fight against Islam, a fight they fought for you. And as for the Jews in ancient times, well, there's Deuteronomy 20:13-16. Whoo.

War is in man's past. We now have civilization-ending weapons, and everyone is thinking about conflict differently. And we'd better if we want to survive.

The thing the rest of us fear is you and Iran lobbing nukes at each other, both sides believing they can "win." Iran has done the right thing and said, "we're de-escalating, now you Israel, stop threatening to annihilate *us*.

Your only response here is to insist that they're bloodthirsty eliminationists bent on world domination. And you refuse to engage on the issue I raise of how this stance is interpreted by others. You simply insist it is unassailable because all Muslims are inherently, homicidally evil. That would be funny if the consequences weren't so dire.
 


Just because your local football club wins all it's matches with teams down the road doesn't mean you're gonna win the World Cup.

Hamas keeps running away, and right now, they have never been politically weaker because their strategy of buying off people's support has run into a wall, as I mentioned above, because primary backer Qatar has pulled back support. The Iranians hate Hamas. The wars in Syria and Yemen have sucked up funds and intensified divisions in the Arab world. The Oil states are all incredibly squeezed because of low oil prices.

It's actually hard to see a time in the recent past where there has been *less* of a threat to Israel, not because of Netanyahu's hard line but simply because of the weakness and division in the Arab world.

What better time to start picking them off one by one with peace agreements? Play them off against each other!

But no, the only course for you is to be hostile to everyone, antagonize them all and insist that they're all homicidal maniacs.

That's not diplomacy, that's whipping up the masses for exterminating them.

Now even Netanyahu has been smart enough not to pull the trigger on attacking Iran, basically holding out for some US president who'd be willing to commit US forces to join in an invasion. Both Bushes laughed that one off, while not really making the situation better either, with W. Bush's disengagement resulting in Iran's last round of ramping up nuclear enrichment facilities, which Obama then succeeded in stopping.

I know, "no one should trust a Muslim," but if you're going to insist on that, how does this play out? Do you have a 1000 year "Mexican Standoff" with both sides staring each other down, constantly on the brink of all out war, with each side occasionally starting border skirmishes just daring the other side to escalate?

How do you know that you'll be able to keep that up forever without starting a major conflagration?

Why is it worth the ongoing risk of that conflagration just to be "right" about how the other side is "evil?"

And if they are really "evil," isn't the safest thing to simply kill them all, which I'm sure you could righteously justify?
 


This is silly. None of the major religious scriptures mentions democracy.
 

 

The first half of this is one of the few things you've said that makes any sense, so kudos for that. But you just keep slipping into this "Islam is inherently evil" schtick that's both tiresome and wrong. 

 

What is correct is that *extremists* of all stripes must be confronted. There's absolutely no argument there, but the Palestinians can point to Jewish extremists and their atrocities too. I don't care who murders, but they're wrong, and I will fight them along with you.

 

But by saying no Muslim can be trusted, you take the many that *might* work with you against those extremists and you make them *enemies*. 

 

That's really, really, really stupid.

 

And I will continue to argue against that and point out it's stupidity.

 

I'm in one of the closest groups to supporting you, and yet you seem to want to make me an enemy too for disagreeing on your hatred of Islam. That hatred is understandable, but if you want to succeed in creating a Jewish state that lives in peace, you're going to have to start dealing with that hatred.

 

Sorry. Reality does not allow for absolutism, in fact it will teach you nasty lessons at every turn if you pursue it.

 

 

It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war, :phones:

Buffy

Buffy, Your last post violates, at least, Facebook rules on the part of personal assault. I never use the words "silly, stupid" etc. My temporary stop from posting in Facebook groups comes as a result of complaint by Azerbaijan group. They accused Me of anti-Islamic stance. You may check this accusation, since my post "Islam with Human Face" is literally that very post in some Facebook groups. First, Azerbaijanis tried to critique Me, than issued personal warning, and then came 7-day ban from Facebook, without explanation. Later, I revealed, that such behavior fits the newly accepted German law:

 

https://www.gateston...cial-censorship

 

"A new German law introducing state censorship on social media platforms came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.

This state censorship makes free speech subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities that are likely to censor more than absolutely necessary, rather than risk a crushing fine.  more... 


Edited by houseknight, 26 October 2017 - 01:36 AM.


#39 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 01:41 AM

Buffy: "You've said a bunch of times here that Palestinians have no rights to land because they're from elsewhere. Decide what you want to actually believe".

 

Thus, I never claimed, that the Palestinians have no rights to our land. The very fact, that Ben Gurion accepted the UN Partition resolution, means recognition of Palestinians' rights to this land, along with Jewish rights. The only question is, where is placed  most legal border between Israel and Palestine.

According to the International law, the law courts must recognize that border, which was agreed by the sides in their LAST signed agreement. Well, the last agreement signed by Israel and Palestine was Wye Plantation agreement, 1998. According to that agreement, the West Bank was partitioned to "A", "B" and "C" zones, while the "C" zone remained under full Israeli jurisdiction. That is, most legal border between Israel and Palestine is the line of "C" zone, where ALL Jewish "settlements" are placed. It means, that all Jewish "settlements" of the West Bank are legal, under international law. Your demand to transfer the Jews from the West Bank violates International law, and may be described as anti-semitic incitement.


Edited by houseknight, 26 October 2017 - 01:56 AM.


#40 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 02:35 AM

Thus, I never claimed, that the Palestinians have no rights to our land.


Yes, you're quite correct on this point and I withdraw my statement. It was another user who is no longer with us that made this claim contemporaneously to your other posts. And I apologize to you on this point.
 

The very fact, that Ben Gurion accepted the UN Partition resolution, means recognition of Palestinians' rights to this land, along with Jewish rights. The only question is, where is placed  most legal border between Israel and Palestine.


Quite true, and where the border goes is quite clearly something that requires concessions on both sides, unfortunately, precisely because of the ever-expanding Jewish settlements.
 

According to the International law, the law courts must recognize that border, which was agreed by the sides in their LAST signed agreement. Well, the last agreement signed by Israel and Palestine was Wye Plantation agreement, 1998. According to that agreement, the West Bank was partitioned to "A", "B" and "C" zones, while the "C" zone remained under full Israeli jurisdiction. That is, most legal border between Israel and Palestine is the line of "C" zone, where ALL Jewish "settlements" are placed. It means, that all Jewish "settlements" of the West Bank are legal, under international law. Your demand to transfer the Jews from the West Bank violates International law, and may be described as anti-semitic incitement.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization of both the International Law--which you simplify in this statement beyond all reasonable interpretation--as well as the Wye Memorandum--which in no way can be interpreted as a final agreement by both sides. The Zones were intended to identify an initial agreement of the parties for *current* jurisdiction until a full agreement on the border could be defined. 

 

The C Zone solely defines jurisdiction. It most certainly does NOT define an area within which the Palestinians were just fine with Israel expanding settlements. All of the parties at the time agreed that expansion of settlements was "unhelpful" and that they should not be pursued. That course was taken unilaterally by Likud, and it continues to be one of the primary sources of the Palestinians ability to say that Israel is acting in bad faith.

 

Trying to tie this exclusively to some narrow and biased interpretation of the law is, well, invalid, and would indeed be laughed at were it not for the fact that so many people--including children--have died over this issue.

 

If you're going to complain about me calling your opinions silly, you'd better look in that mirror for calling *any* suggestion of "transfer of Jews from the West Bank" even close to being "anti-Semitic."

 

If you need a mirror, I am providing one. You may not like what you see in it. That's obvious from your continuing refusal to directly address my arguments and just picking off the ones you have a flimsy excuse for.

 

This forum is private, and you have no "freedom of speech" here. We are not governed by any of Europe's more restrictive laws, and we make no claims to try to follow what any other site does.

 

Our rules are posted and are quite simple, and require you to defend your arguments, but we get many charlatans primarily because of our relative tolerance of alternative views.

 

But something you should keep in mind not just here but everywhere: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from ridicule.

 

If you make arguments and do not support them, you will be ridiculed for it. 

 

Now what you've shown is that you're more interested in pontificating than actually discussing this topic, and to the extent I, and others have tried to engage you, you have mostly simply thrown up a wall of excuses as to why your view is the only acceptable one. 

 

That's annoying, and we have a rule about that too.

 

You should be aware though that probably the primary reason our members get annoyed is when someone responds to criticism by claiming persecution for unpopular ideas. We're a graveyard for those types of arguments.

 

Decide if you want to discuss or pontificate. We're not really a debate club, and if that's what you want to do, you may want to go elsewhere. We're primarily about science, and if you don't have any scientific interests, this might not be the place for you either.

 

We're happy to have you join in on both political and scientific topics, but you're going to have to try to fit in here. You don't get to tell us how you think we ought to think.

 

 

Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving, :phones:

Buffy



#41 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 05:47 AM

Yes, you're quite correct on this point and I withdraw my statement. It was another user who is no longer with us that made this claim contemporaneously to your other posts. And I apologize to you on this point.
 


Quite true, and where the border goes is quite clearly something that requires concessions on both sides, unfortunately, precisely because of the ever-expanding Jewish settlements.
 

 

This is a gross mischaracterization of both the International Law--which you simplify in this statement beyond all reasonable interpretation--as well as the Wye Memorandum--which in no way can be interpreted as a final agreement by both sides. The Zones were intended to identify an initial agreement of the parties for *current* jurisdiction until a full agreement on the border could be defined. 

 

The C Zone solely defines jurisdiction. It most certainly does NOT define an area within which the Palestinians were just fine with Israel expanding settlements. All of the parties at the time agreed that expansion of settlements was "unhelpful" and that they should not be pursued. That course was taken unilaterally by Likud, and it continues to be one of the primary sources of the Palestinians ability to say that Israel is acting in bad faith.

 

Trying to tie this exclusively to some narrow and biased interpretation of the law is, well, invalid, and would indeed be laughed at were it not for the fact that so many people--including children--have died over this issue.

 

If you're going to complain about me calling your opinions silly, you'd better look in that mirror for calling *any* suggestion of "transfer of Jews from the West Bank" even close to being "anti-Semitic."

 

If you need a mirror, I am providing one. You may not like what you see in it. That's obvious from your continuing refusal to directly address my arguments and just picking off the ones you have a flimsy excuse for.

 

This forum is private, and you have no "freedom of speech" here. We are not governed by any of Europe's more restrictive laws, and we make no claims to try to follow what any other site does.

 

Our rules are posted and are quite simple, and require you to defend your arguments, but we get many charlatans primarily because of our relative tolerance of alternative views.

 

But something you should keep in mind not just here but everywhere: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from ridicule.

 

If you make arguments and do not support them, you will be ridiculed for it. 

 

Now what you've shown is that you're more interested in pontificating than actually discussing this topic, and to the extent I, and others have tried to engage you, you have mostly simply thrown up a wall of excuses as to why your view is the only acceptable one. 

 

That's annoying, and we have a rule about that too.

 

You should be aware though that probably the primary reason our members get annoyed is when someone responds to criticism by claiming persecution for unpopular ideas. We're a graveyard for those types of arguments.

 

Decide if you want to discuss or pontificate. We're not really a debate club, and if that's what you want to do, you may want to go elsewhere. We're primarily about science, and if you don't have any scientific interests, this might not be the place for you either.

 

We're happy to have you join in on both political and scientific topics, but you're going to have to try to fit in here. You don't get to tell us how you think we ought to think.

 

 

Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving, :phones:

Buffy

Politic science must be discussed, there's no other way to understand and "forgive". To get together, any side of dispute must clarify its position and propose possible ways for solution. For example, My proposal is that oil importers may impose control over delivery routes, making the delivery reliable. No one has right to blackmail entire World by closing main World's "actuator". Let's discuss this World Oil issue, instead of controversial Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

It appears, that improvement of the car engine may bring 10-fold economy of gas consumption. This way, the developing nations may change their way of life, namely to turn to "automotive" way of life.


Edited by houseknight, 26 October 2017 - 05:48 AM.


#42 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 06:05 AM

 

It appears, that improvement of the car engine may bring 10-fold economy of gas consumption. This way, the developing nations may change their way of life, namely to turn to "automotive" way of life.

This must be a misunderstanding. To use 10% of current fuel consumption for the same output, the engine would need to be over 100% efficient.  Given that they currently have an efficiency of  25% or more the most one could ever expect is a doubling of efficiency to about 50% and thus a halving of fuel consumption. Some industrial big diesels with a heat recovery turbine can get to 50% today, but not automotive engines.

 

Where did you hear of this number?  


Edited by exchemist, 26 October 2017 - 06:07 AM.


#43 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 01:49 PM

This must be a misunderstanding. To use 10% of current fuel consumption for the same output, the engine would need to be over 100% efficient.  Given that they currently have an efficiency of  25% or more the most one could ever expect is a doubling of efficiency to about 50% and thus a halving of fuel consumption. Some industrial big diesels with a heat recovery turbine can get to 50% today, but not automotive engines.

 

Where did you hear of this number?  

Well, the idea is "detonation" engine



#44 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 02:21 PM

Well, the idea is "detonation" engine

I have not heard of this. But whatever it is, it will be subject to Carnot cycle efficiency, like any heat engine, so the maximum efficiency in practice will be not much better than 50%, i.e. of the order of double what automotive engines achieve today.



#45 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 09:52 PM

I have not heard of this. But whatever it is, it will be subject to Carnot cycle efficiency, like any heat engine, so the maximum efficiency in practice will be not much better than 50%, i.e. of the order of double what automotive engines achieve today.

A explosion engine isn't simple heat engine, since it has kinetic constituent.


Edited by houseknight, 27 October 2017 - 09:55 PM.


#46 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 28 October 2017 - 03:33 AM

A explosion engine isn't simple heat engine, since it has kinetic constituent.

An interesting claim, certainly. Can you direct me to a source where I can read more about this? Or do you know the names of people or institutions working in this field that I can search for on the internet? (If I search "explosion engine" I don't seen to get anything relevant. There is mention of the Huygens' gunpowder engine - which has never worked - but no discussion)

 

Offhand, I can imagine that an explosive reaction that chemically converts a solid to a gas will produce pressure independently of any production of heat. So I can imagine that simple Carnot efficiency might not apply.

 

However there is a considerable entropy increase when reactions convert solids to gases, so that will itself impose constraints on the achievable efficiency.


  • Buffy and Farming guy like this

#47 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 28 October 2017 - 08:27 AM

Thinking further about this, even if there is no heat release from the explosion and you just have a phase transformation from solid to gas, the work done by the engine comes from expansion of the gas after its formation. So it is still "PV" work. I think the Carnot cycle still applies to it. 


  • Buffy and Farming guy like this

#48 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts

Posted 28 October 2017 - 11:13 AM

 

It appears, that improvement of the car engine may bring 10-fold economy of gas consumption. This way, the developing nations may change their way of life, namely to turn to "automotive" way of life.

Like exchemest, I find that figure hard to believe, but even if it were close to being possible, there is no guarantee that improving efficiency will lead to reduced fuel consumption.  I cite for example the relatively recent improvements in diesel engine technology.  In college, I drove a vw diesel car that averaged around 48 miles per gallon.  It had a 45 horsepower engine, and I used to joke that I could do 0 to 60 in 4.5.... minutes... downhill... with a tailwind.  Then in 2001 bought a vw that averaged around 50mpg, but it had 90 hp.  So, instead of making the most efficient vehicle possible, vw increased the power , I assume to help sell more cars.  Other than the fact that horsepower helps sell cars, there is no reason why today's cars couldn't be averaging 75 miles per gallon or better.  I have to admit, the 2001 vw is a lot more fun to drive than the old one built in 1980.  Human nature  is the greater force keeping our efficiency below par.


  • Buffy likes this

#49 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 28 October 2017 - 12:03 PM

An interesting claim, certainly. Can you direct me to a source where I can read more about this? Or do you know the names of people or institutions working in this field that I can search for on the internet? (If I search "explosion engine" I don't seen to get anything relevant. There is mention of the Huygens' gunpowder engine - which has never worked - but no discussion)

 

Offhand, I can imagine that an explosive reaction that chemically converts a solid to a gas will produce pressure independently of any production of heat. So I can imagine that simple Carnot efficiency might not apply.

 

However there is a considerable entropy increase when reactions convert solids to gases, so that will itself impose constraints on the achievable efficiency.

The aim is just the saving of gas.


Edited by houseknight, 28 October 2017 - 12:13 PM.


#50 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 28 October 2017 - 02:01 PM

The aim is just the saving of gas.

The aim is not what I was commenting on. It was your implausible efficiency claim.

 

I repeat: do you have any references for this engine?  Because so far as I can establish, it does not yet exist, except perhaps as somebody's idea on paper. 


Edited by exchemist, 28 October 2017 - 02:02 PM.

  • Buffy likes this

#51 houseknight

houseknight

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 28 October 2017 - 03:24 PM

The aim is not what I was commenting on. It was your implausible efficiency claim.

 

I repeat: do you have any references for this engine?  Because so far as I can establish, it does not yet exist, except perhaps as somebody's idea on paper. 

Yes, it's the hypothesis in my mind. I'm just trying to prove it.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: oil, Persian Gulf, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, oil consumers