Battery based vehicles of today and tomorrow pt 2

[Fuddyduddy1952]

How about you build such a device, ignite it, and be sure to take videos.

But make sure your insurance is paid up.

To prove the point of course a gallon of gasoline isn't needed. "Experts" say 3:1 ratio, so an ounce of gasoline yields 3 ounces of CO2. Closed container, weigh it,...ignite gas...weigh it again and weight has increased. Actually over 3x heavier.
I'm not buying it.

 

[California]

With all respect...no I'm not. A closed container, atmospheric air and a running mower in it. As the gasoline is burned "experts" say the weight increases.
Tell me where I'm wrong.

The scale weight of the container doesn't increase, you made that up. The original weight of water and gasoline get converted to CO2 (and water, and some other stuff) with the measurable weight of the new CO2 as stated.

 

[/pine]

I didn't view the videos of the chemical changes etc...

Observations, questions etc...

There would have to be enough mass of air in the "container" to allow a gallon of gas to be burned..the mass would weight so much...

If the "container" was placed on a scale before burning the gas the overall weight would increase as the gas is burned because the mass of the exhaust gasses weigh more than the mass of the air (gasses) going in...??

 

[Fixastuff]

With all respect...no I'm not. A closed container, atmospheric air and a running mower in it. As the gasoline is burned "experts" say the weight increases.
Tell me where I'm wrong.

Way to change the argument when you're wrong.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

The scale weight of the container doesn't increase, you made that up. The original weight of water and gasoline get converted to CO2 (and water, and some other stuff) with the measurable weight of the new CO2 as stated.

Yes I made that up for a reason. To repeat for the 10th time, and THIS time I'll go slow, people are NOT getting it. Read each sentence s l o w l y. Remember...this is from "experts", not me. I'm NOT an expert.
1) Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide

Now...re-read again until it sinks in. To repeat: "Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide"

2) Now...moving forward...a container...hanging from a scale...(note: a scale WEIGHS things).
3) Inside container is a gallon of gasoline.
4) you ignite that gasoline...doesn't matter by match, engine, doesn't matter.
5) the container is large enough and has enough atmospheric air in it to completely burn ALL of that gallon gasoline.
6) BEFORE ignition, scale reads 100 pounds.
7) AFTER ALL THAT GALLON OF GASOLINE HAS BURNED it NOW weighs 113.7 pounds.
8) we started with a CLOSED CONTAINER on a scale. Inside is gasoline, air, ignition source. Experts said I'll repeat once again "Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide".
9) So 100 pounds, 6.3 of which is gasoline is now gone...turned into CO2 (and other gasses)...so 100-6.3=93.7 pounds + 20 pounds CO2=113.7 pounds.
10) Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, therefore AS IT BURNS we'll watch the scale increase.

PROVE ME WRONG.

 

[Fixastuff]

I repeat. Isaac Asimov. "'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

 

[airbiscuit]

OMG! How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I don't recall anyone disputing that if a gallon of gasoline is burned inside a sealed container, the overall weight would remain the same.
I don't recall that anyone disputes that CO2 is a byproduct the combustion of gasoline
The question is whether or not the concentrations of O2 and Co2 in the sealed container change after the combustion of gasoline.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

I repeat. Isaac Asimov. "'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

View attachment 780449

Fantastic putting all of your faith in experts: the Y2K end of world predictions, those saying The Beatles would flop, the demise of online shopping, Oscar winner Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth fallacies and oh...here's a good one:

"Robert Metcalfe is the founder of the 3Com digital electronics company and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. He has a Ph.D. from Harvard, is the co-inventor of Ethernet, and holds a Grace Murray Hopper Award for developing it. Today he is a general partner at Polaris Venture Partners, a firm specializing in early investments in technology companies.
Despite his impressive résumé, Metcalfe is known for at least one inaccurate prediction that he is unlikely to live down. In a 1995 issue of InfoWorld, he famously said that the Internet would “soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
He promised to eat his words if proved wrong. He was. So during his keynote speech at the WWW International Conference in 1997, he produced the magazine page containing the quote, put it in a blender and ingested it before a live audience."

 

[Fixastuff]

Fantastic putting all of your faith in experts: the Y2K end of world predictions, those saying The Beatles would flop, the demise of online shopping, Oscar winner Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth fallacies and oh...here's a good one:

"Robert Metcalfe is the founder of the 3Com digital electronics company and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. He has a Ph.D. from Harvard, is the co-inventor of Ethernet, and holds a Grace Murray Hopper Award for developing it. Today he is a general partner at Polaris Venture Partners, a firm specializing in early investments in technology companies.
Despite his impressive résumé, Metcalfe is known for at least one inaccurate prediction that he is unlikely to live down. In a 1995 issue of InfoWorld, he famously said that the Internet would “soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
He promised to eat his words if proved wrong. He was. So during his keynote speech at the WWW International Conference in 1997, he produced the magazine page containing the quote, put it in a blender and ingested it before a live audience."

If I need a surgery I'll call you up. Lol. Screw using who has dedicated their entire life to a subject. Lol.

Edit to add: Thank you for actually personifying my Asimov quote. Two thumbs up!

 

[cqaigy2]

Anywhere you research you see this:
"Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide."
That has to be pure bull *****.

for the gasoline to burn you have to combine it with O2, or it aint burnt.