Hydrogen power

Reply

  #41  
Old 08-04-08, 01:51 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
An article with another thought on this subject:

"Are hydrogen-fueled cars pie-in-the-sky?"
 
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old 08-16-08, 02:20 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Hydrogen Enhanced Combustion

Ok guys, here's my 2 cents on this.

It promises fuel gains as much as 100%, and I got interested. And in my research, the commonest 'complaint' that I saw was that 'the electricity from the battery current cannot generate enough hydrogen' . Well....those guys were right, damn right...and noway this system could give 40% mileage boost? Wrong, it does work..here's what I found .

Only a wee bit of hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water, from the battery current. This hydrogen is noway sufficient to produce energy by itself . What happens is this, hydrogen having a simple molecular structure burns inside the engine increasing the temperature and the pressure inside the engine. When the thermodynamics are improved by hydrogen, more gasoline burns. Apparently, only 25% of the gasoline is actually burnt and 75% is emitted as unburnt hydrocarbons When the thermodynamics improve, instead of 25%, say for example 50% gas burns. And there you have it, a 100% increase of gas mileage, or you mileage just doubled because you were making use of 25% more gasoline that would have otherwise been put out as unburnt hydrocarbons.
Hope this clears your minds.
 

Last edited by the_tow_guy; 08-22-08 at 05:56 AM. Reason: Edited to retain content; link removed.
  #43  
Old 08-16-08, 05:04 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
So wouldn't you think then that the first car manufacturer to put that in their cars, would have a path beaten to their door?

And if 75% gas goes unburned, then why don't it just run out the tailpipe raw, as opposed to it turning into this other form of gas they call hydrocarbons? (To a chemist/scientist, I bet they'll laugh at my ignorance. But I'm curious.)
 
  #44  
Old 08-17-08, 03:01 AM
parpending's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Victor Harbor Australia
Posts: 2
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Lightbulb Hydrocarbon Combsution Efficiency

That's probably about right (ie. 25% fully combusted). In most vehicles the engine efficiency (E) is about the 20-30% level.

This is a factor of the conversion of energy (produced) to effective work (say W) with the degree of engine combustion of the fuel (C). So that E = WxC (note the maximum of these is 1 or 100%). The factor W is determined by the engine design, and is reduced by energy waste in forms of heat loss, friction & noise.

The degree of combustion is the most limiting factor in engine efficiency, and is the one that is more easily improved. The basic chemistry for partial & full combustion are as follows;

Full Combustion
HC + O2 -> CO2 + H2O + ? + Energy

Partial Combustion:mask:
HC + O2 -> CO2 + H2O + ? + (CO+CH4) + [hc+C] + HC + energy
Where Energy(100%) > energy (25-50%), & partal combustion products () = gaseous emmissions & [] = engine deposit prone. There is also some completely unburnt hydrocarbon HC which most of which is burnt as waste in the catalytic converter, the rest would normally be exhausted mostly in gaseous form. The dripping from exhausts would be mostly H2O, with only the heavier HC (generally more volatile).

Therefore although perhaps only 25% of the fuel is fully combusted, there would be significant extra energy from partial combustion also, probably improving the C value to about the 40-60%.

The weakness of the engine combustion process is three fold (1) retardant impurities in the fuel, (2) Insufficient O2 for full combustion, & (3) the fuel spray is too coarse to combust well.
(1) can be improved with the installation of a PCV Enhancer (a type of filter), (2) can be improved by the use of a MAP Sensor Enhancer (calibrated to allow extra O2 before the CPU enriches the fuel) & (3) is improved as mentioned by the use of a fine molecular gas like H2.

In addition the engine can operate in a hybrid mode by the simple installation of an electrolyser, and although the amount of H2 & O2 added is small, it is somewhat significant (in the Brown's gas form), in that it produces 3xenergy per unit mass that HC does.

I think there was a water car museum over in USA that showed this forgotten technology to the public in its full form (rather than hybrid), that's what we need for the future, & should have had til now. Economically today we need simple (diy) & affordable upgrades to allow oxyhydrogen hybrid operation combined with better combustion (see link above).

Cheers .
 

Last edited by the_tow_guy; 08-22-08 at 05:25 AM. Reason: Removed link to external site.
  #45  
Old 08-18-08, 05:49 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
parpending,

Your scholarly reply led me to go view your profile. I thought maybe some engineer from one of the oil or car companies had to jump in here.

If this is true that only 40-60% is being burned - then even if we continue to use gas, we could perhaps greatly expand on what we can squeeze out of evey gallon, by actually a sizeable percentage. Or don't you believe this is even possible?
 
  #46  
Old 08-18-08, 07:00 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,119
Received 2 Votes on 2 Posts
If any of these claims were true, does anyone not think all the rich greenies in the world (Hollywood, Aspen, Germany, etc, etc) wouldn't be all over promoting it, buying it, financing it?

As was said before, if Gm, Toyota, Ford, Honda, etc, etc could do this, wouldn't they be able to rule the world of car sales?

I mean, come on!!!
 
  #47  
Old 08-21-08, 10:32 PM
parpending's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Victor Harbor Australia
Posts: 2
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I don't come from a car manufacturing background. Just a basic understanding of science & maths. However better ideas seem to be continuously forgotten throughout history, and never end up making it to production for whatever reason. I don't think its about the best science, or technological limitation, or ever has been for a long time, but rather about the technological ethics. What are these things designed to do and why. If you need a memory jolt just think about the 100 mpg econostar produced by Toyota, which all of a sudden went quiet & disapeared. What I have written may not be so far fetched after all.
 
  #48  
Old 08-22-08, 05:33 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,858
Received 38 Votes on 30 Posts
Moderator's note:

Parpending and 41btrlife have been banned for including links to commercial websites that have products related to this discussion. Although the links were removed, their posts are intact in case anyone wants to read their takes on the alleged science behind the theory.

And no, I do not work for an oil company.
 

Last edited by the_tow_guy; 08-22-08 at 05:59 AM. Reason: Additional info
  #49  
Old 09-06-08, 06:04 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 76
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Hybrids as they exist today are a rip off and hydrogen cars are just a scam.

"Ugh, great. A conspiracy theorist. Look, there's no mass governmental/industry cover-up of H2 creation or usage in the auto (or any other) industry."

Actually I am a little suspicious of this. I think the biggest thing limiting hydrogen car production is most likely. HOW do we make hydrogen to sell to customers but PREVENT them from making there own hydrogen using there own cheap electricity.

I did the math. $10,000 kia at 35mpg and a $24,000 prius at 50mpg (it does not always get 50mpg but lets be generous)

Typical american drives 15,000 miles a year. lets do some math.

Lets subtract the cost of the lowest price car from both. So the kia will cost you $0 over $10 while the Prius will cost you $14,000 over $10k

It gets worse. If your concerned over the price of gas your not paying for that car cash. So add finance charges.

Now that $14,000 is closer to $30,000 but lets make it $20,000 to be fair Lets assume you put a nice down payment and got the interest reduced.

SO we have a $20,000 premium to buy the Prius. Lets forget about SAVING MONEY. How long will I have to drive that prius JUST TO BREAK EVEN on that Extra $20,000 cost premium.

Lets use $4 a gallon the Kia will use 428 gallons costing me $1714.00 in fuel or $143 a month.

For the Prius if we assume you drive PERFECTLY and get 50mpg all the time (yeah right) 300 Gallons of Gas $1200 a year. Per month $100

SO each month the Prius will save me $43 in fuel costs.

This is not looking so good. How many YEARS or DECADES will it take to "break even" on buying the prius.

Hmm wow 38 YEARS. 38 FRELLING FRAKING YEARS just to break even !! are you nuts?

So if there is any reason to buy a Hybrid Saving Money on gasoline absolutely positively IS NOT IT. and its not all that environmentally great either.

I am not comparing apples to apples here or even apples to oranges here. I am comparing your typical struggling citizen who wants to save money on gas.

Hybrids = NOT saving money. Big time.

When we can buy an economy 50mpg hybrid brand new for under $10k THEN lets talk.

On top of that why is it that a Modern super high tech $24,000 car made today can not get even the SAME mpg as an early 80's economy car of which many exceeded 50mpg with NO hybrid drive train.

If that alone does not tell you its a "feel good scam" well....

NOW

Lets Talk Hydrogen. Hydrogen is a SCAM on the american people. Lets start with the price. for the "equivalent" of a gallon of hydrogen the price is expected to be $7 to $8 a gallon.

The Expected efficiency will be the equivalent of 35mpg

SO let me get this straight. I am going to buy a rediculously expensive car and fill it with rediculously expensive fuel and get NO better fuel economy than a $10,000 kia gets today?

Thats a joke right?

NOW lets take it further? what POWERS a hydrogen car? IE what drives the wheels.

If you said hydrogen you have no clue how these things work.

a Hydrogen car believe it or not is an ELECTRIC CAR. the hydrogen is not powering the car (electricity is) in this case the hydrogen is just replacing the battery as the storage medium for the electricity. A very expensive medium.

$3424 PER YEAR in hydrogen. in 1.5 years of buying hydrogen you have already spent enough money to BUY the NIMH battery pack that GM made and claimed would cost $4500 to purchase and that battery would last for 250,000 miles.

You do the math.

You see they realize they have no choice but to go Electric so they are trying to figure out a way to COMPENSATE for the "after sale" losses in profit that come with electric cars simplicity and lack of maintenance and parts needs with an insanely expensive car and insanely expensive FUEL.

Off course I am betting it will be illegal for anyone to god forbid make there own hydrogen fuel (and then you have the problem is storing the damned stuff. Hydrogen is frisky its hard to store a quantity of it it "escapes" from almost any container)

Then you have the problem of basic science. With hydrogen we are taking electricity and using it to make hydrogen. We are then going to pump compress store transport and then pump it into your care (at an extreme premium off course) to put in your fuel cell to .... get this .... to produce electricity to power your car.

This is somehow better than just USING the electricity in your house to charge a battery. Well not better for you but certainly better for auto makers and anyone who will be making this "fuel"

Cute ehh. and you wonder why they are pushing SO HARD for hydrogen fuel cells over battery electrics.

Batteries = good for citizens bad for corporate america
Hydrogen = bad for citizens good for corporate america

Go figure.

Efficiency of a battery electric infrastructure? 84%
Efficiency of a Hydrogen Car infrastructure? 24%
(from Grid to wheels)

Its all about greed. Nothing else.

Lead Acid batteries suck. Lithium is too expensive
Other techs are too far away.

Nimh's are done and ready to go with sufficient capacity to allow the introduction of electric cars.

Alas a controlling patent is in place that prevents anyone from making these batteries without licensing it from the patent holder.

The patent holder refuses to license ie effectively burying the technology.

The patent holder is Chevron via GM.

Want to watch a good movie? It will make your blood hot with anger?

go rent "who killed the electric car" blockbuster carries it.

The patent I believe expires in 2015. and people wonder why Mercedes announced they will be petrol free by you guessed it 2015.

ITs because they will not have a choice. One way or another we are getting those batteries.

Screw the big auto makers I want every one of them to go out of business. I am not worried about the "workers" at these filthy companies. There will be a TON of well paying jobs for JUST there kind of expertise cropping up as small car makers start using these batteries to make insanely cheap long lasting cars.

The ONLY reason toyota started making the Prius was in response to GM's EV1 the only reason they CONTINUED to make the prius was because they were already too far along invested before they realized that that GM was killing the EV1 otherwise Toyota would ALSO have scrapped the Prius.

Want to see the effect it would have on "our" economy? I say "our" because there is not just ONE economy in this country. You have the Economy of the top 2-5% and you have the economy of the lower 90% of us.

more than 95% of the worlds wealth is OWNED by less than 2% of its population.

Battery Electrics would be the first tech since the creation of this country to transfer a massive amount (but still overall small) portion of that wealth BACK into the hands of the population IE the lower 90% of us.

UPS paid a million dollars to a software engineering firm to develope software to route there trucks avoiding left turns. They take longer are more dangerous and get this use more gasoline.

in the FIRST YEAR they saved over 3 million dollars in gasoline!!

Consider for a moment. if they saved $3,000,000 reducing the number of left turns they make JUST HOW MUCH MONEY do they spend a year in gasoline?

HOW MUCH do we actually send to oil companies? Exxon made $39.5 billion last year. What did they take in TO GET that number?

$327,000,000,000 BILLION dollars !! and thats JUST EXXON !

Going battery electric would infuse a TRILLION dollars back into OUR (the lower 90%'s) economy just by us no longer having to spend it.

The effect this would have would be truly profound. Its MULTIPLE trillions once you add all the other side effect expenses from a gasoline economy.

It would literally be a new golden age in america for the lower 90% of us. Business expansion would explode unemployment would wither and possible even VANISH all together the expansion would be so big.

IT MIGHT just be whats needed to "wake people" up.

Imagine being able to go anywhere you want without having to worry about how much it will cost you to power you car. With electric its effectively free.

The average person could put a $1600 grid tie in within there garage and once they start selling to consumer a $1000 nano solar panel on there roof. For $2600 you would never have to pay a cent for your daily driving every again in fuel.

you see that panel would produce and sell back to the utility MORE WATTS each month than you would use charging your electric car. IE zero cost for fuel once you have it set up.

This scares the crap out of a LOT of people both government and corporate. its a massive EMPOWERMENT of the population.

THATS why your not driving an electric car and why they WANT you to drive a hydrogen car.

Talk about salt in the wound. I think OIL and AUTO are talking. the new volt. I find it interesting that it only has a range of 40miles on pure battery power.

Why is that? that number NAGGED at me for a long time and then it hit me like a sack of lead acid batteries.

THATS the rough max range of almost all homebuilt electric cars! they all tend to max out at 35-45 miles range.

What a coincidence that a ground up electric car from GM would have the SAME approximate range and also a range ONE THIRD its "first" electric car attempt.

I find that very interesting and I do not believe in coincidences. Why have that 12gallon tank and expensive generator on board. How about tossing all that expensive stuff out and put in a second battery? now suddenly you have 80 miles range NOW suddenly you have a usable electric car.

But no. My conspiracy alarms go off and I think they sat down and said OK we have to give them something so lets give them a partial electric car but lets make the range no better than what they are getting now. Lets propagate the "image" that they just can not hack it full electric until we can get those profitable hydrogen cars going.

Probably not. Its probably simple greed and ineptness on there part but again I do not believe in coincidences and that 40 mile range is WAY to coincidental.
 

Last edited by nerys; 09-06-08 at 06:29 PM.
  #50  
Old 09-06-08, 09:19 PM
Speedwrench's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,698
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
hey nerys lay off of the coffee
i can guarantee you if the auto makers could double the economy of their cars they would because that would double their sales. they are in business to sale cars. until solar is greatly improved you are not going to produce more power than you need to charge your battery daily. to many cloudy days in most parts of the country. why would a patent holder refuse to license a patent? they are in business to make money also. if those battery's are so great they would be working hard to get them on the market so as to corner the market, the value would be enormous. hydrogen will not be able to be economically produced at home for years due to the cost of splitting and storing it. in order to store the equivalent btu's of hydrogen vs gasoline you would need to store it at high pressure and that costs money for compressors and storage cylinders.

life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies
 
  #51  
Old 09-06-08, 11:05 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 76
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Well then go answer you own questions.

Why did GM literally CRUSH every EV1 (and disable destroy key parts of the few in museums)

We offered to BUY the last 12 for MORE than they claimed it cost to build them with NO strings attached. They refused and CRUSHED every one of them.

Why did they censure the inventor when he did a magazine article stating how wonderful they were (the batteries)

Why did they sell the patent to texaco (later bought by chevron 1 week later)

WHY does Chevron (via ebasys and ECD) refuse to license the battery tech. They state they are only interested in licensing the tech to a major auto maker. Very convenient since the one set of corporations with the LEAST interest in making an EV is major auto makers. Cute.

I will tell you why. If CHEAP usable affordable batteries (capable of 100+ mile range and good for 250,000 miles and cost only $4500 TO the consumer over 10 years ago) Came onto the market inside of a decade $100-$200 a barrel oil would be nearly worthless overnight. Thats why. I would say thats a pretty damned vested interest in making sure they "go away"

Why did the automakers SUE California to ELIMINATE the ZEV mandate so they could kill the EV1

There were over 100 citizens there to speak against this quashing most were not allowed to speak of given a fraction of the promised time while the automakers were given as much time as they wanted.

54% of GM's profit comes from AFTER they sold you the car (as of 10 years ago)

That profit comes from AFTER sale parts and labor. Warranties Finance charges.

Electric cars are simple and largely maintenance free
Electric cars by design are virtually every lasting (compared to what we drive now that is)

Electric cars are so simple and largely solid state that just like any other solid state component they will be VERY CHEAP once mass produced. Consider kia can make a gasoline powered car for under $10,000. Consider that the most expensive parts of that car are the complicated engine and transmission and all associated hardware ALL of which is NOT NEEDED in an electric car and the replacement parts mass produced are a lot cheaper than what they are replacing.

That means that 54% of GM's profit goes POOF.

People would overnight STOP buying gas cars and start buying electric JUST as soon as they realized what it really meant.

Consider that an electric car at under $12,000 is absolutely FREE for many americans. IE the monthly payment on a $12,000 car loan is significantly smaller than the amount many of us CURRENTLY spend per month in gasoline. IE it costs me absolutely not ONE CENT out of my pocket that I am not already spending right now.

YES the solar will work. Nano Solar is making solar panels for 90cents a watt. do the math. Thats over 1100watts of solar power.

Each day that is potentially 8000 watts of power (adding in a buffer for cloudy days)

a NIMH powered electric car uses about 7400 watts to drive 100 miles.

I drive 110miles ROUND TRIP every time I goto work 4 times a week. thats 118,400 watts per month to goto work (very few people drive as much as I do)

That $1,000 panel will generate 240,000 watts a month (again this is accounting for some cloudy weather. On a perfect day it would generate over 10,000 watts per day.

You do not use this to charge the car thats not practical. you use this to SELL those watts to the utility (currently buyback is available in 42 states) to OFFSET the watts you use to charge the car.

in the end you will average MORE watts produced than you will use IE the car is free to drive.

for the average american you could probably get away with a $600-$700 panel. I added buffer space to account for longer drivers like me and to account for drivers up north with less sunlight or in areas with less than perfect weather.

I spent a long time crunching these numbers they are solid.

There is NO downside to an electric car for the average american as a WORK car.

Once these things are being cranked out your going to see more serious R&D going into batteries and you will see that problem solved rather quickly. I am betting if the gov FORCED them to produce electric cars the problem would be solved in less than 5 years. Many Blue Sky techs are already on the way to solving it. All they need is some SERIOUS money to back them and get things going.

Look what GM did. We went from NO practical EV to a fully mass produced full practical affordable EV and most importantly BATTERY pack in less than 2 years time once serious GM dollars got into the mix.

Battery tech is not about getting "lucky" and finding some magic pill (though that would be nice) its a simply DOLLARS issue. Put enough money and talent into it and the problem WILL be solved. GM has already proven that.

You say why would they bury something if they can profit from it?

Well thats easy. What they are profiting from now is MORE profitable than the batteries (by a massively huge margin) and to make it worse this battery tech will not SUPPLIMENT oil sales. It will REPLACE oil sales.

THATS a problem for them. A big one.

NOW do you understand?

Imagine if you were selling hot dogs. You came across an invention to make a hot dog replacement that is nearly FREE compared to what your making. It also came with built in flavoring (ketchup etc..) that YOU were charging money for.

Imagine if this tech was so amazing that eventually everyone would be selling it for almost no profit margin compared to what your getting now and people would literally STOP BUYING hot dogs once they got ahold of these new things.

You however have a pretty monopolistic control over hotdogs so you can control the price and profit.

Now thing. if you had the oppurtunity to take this tech and give it to your hot dog maker (who has a decidely invested interest in killing it)

Would you do it? or would you start selling it and watch your profits go POOF.

Remember you could initially charge an extreme premium for these but EVENTUALLY the free market will kick in and SOMEONE will realize you know I can sacrifice profit and sell a LOT more of these and take everyone else out.

IE your going to LOSE any control you had to price this stuff and control it.

I think you know the answer to this. you would kill it and kill it with prejudice.

THATS why GM killed it and thats why Chevron is burying it.

Its just simple math. They make MORE MONEY selling gasoline and gasoline cars than they will selling electric cars no matter how many they sell and its not a SMALL difference.

Think about it. Its not a conspiracy. Its not a Black Ops scheme. Its just Greedy Business. Nothing more fanciful than that.
 
  #52  
Old 09-18-08, 08:33 AM
geoimpala's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 120
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
The 2003 budget cut the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) program by 100%. CSP is currently the most efficient method of producing electricity from the sun, with efficiency yields for a Solar Dish Stirling Engine at 29.4%. According to the Department of Energy, “enough electric power for the entire country could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada---a plot of land 100 miles on a side---with parabolic trough systems”. This possibility was eliminated by the Bush Administration, along with thousands of jobs it could create.


http://www.hydrogennow.org/HNews/Pre...ateofUnion.htm


So "free" hahah hydrogen is possible Peeping On U2
 
  #53  
Old 09-18-08, 08:53 AM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,119
Received 2 Votes on 2 Posts
Hydrogen Now! reminds me of Jerry Stiller on the Sienfeld shows "Serenity Now! Serenity Now!" lol
 
  #54  
Old 09-18-08, 04:14 PM
Speedwrench's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,698
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
neyrs, you forget the the biggest user of oil is the plastics industry right now. more oil goes into plastic than in our gas tanks. oil is not going away until plastic goes away. the auto maker that corners the market on alternative fuel will rule the market and that is fact. the reason why those vehicles were not sold probably has to do with tarifs on importation, when chrysler built a turbine engined concept car in the 60's the tarifs were so steep that all of them but one were crushed before the year was out to keep from having to pay. the market will decide what vehicles are here to stay and not wishfull thinking.

life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies.
 
  #55  
Old 09-23-08, 05:01 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
Then you have the problem of basic science. With hydrogen we are taking electricity and using it to make hydrogen. We are then going to pump compress store transport and then pump it into your care (at an extreme premium off course) to put in your fuel cell to .... get this .... to produce electricity to power your car.
You might be wrong on your science. As silly as you make it sound, it is not that silly when figuring where the frictional losses are the greatest, and perhaps where even pollution is the greatest.

By having one power plant use some fuel source to generate `1m units lets say, is likely way more efficient than to have 1m vehicles use some fuel source to generate 1 unit of power. They both = 1m units of power, except one does it all by one or just a few devices at a plant, where the other way requires it being done individually in 1m devices.

Do you think engineers who figure out all this stuff are stupid, and/or are simply trying to pull one over on gullible people?

Just suppose coal, which the US is rich in, is used to produce the electricity, which in turn produces the hydrogen. They must have it figured that the cost to make it is worthy of all the transporting (heck, they transport GAS, so that part of the argument becomes a wash) and compressing, so that then they can power some car, so we do not have to jeopardize our national security by using foreign oil. *I* can see the science here.
 
  #56  
Old 09-23-08, 08:39 PM
Speedwrench's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,698
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
unfortunatly hydrogen is alot harder to transport safely than natural gas. smaller molecules if i remember correctly. much more explosive than ng.

Murphy was an optimist
 
  #57  
Old 09-24-08, 08:21 AM
geoimpala's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 120
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
hhhm I read that chrysler wanted to make the turbine car in 1980 except the governement bailout boys would not let them

so instead they put that advanced multifuel technology into the ( compact size car for chrysler ) Abrhams tank ( all 55 tons of it)

which is turbine powered and was a subsiduary of chrysler at that time .....
 
  #58  
Old 09-26-08, 05:21 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Speedwrench View Post
unfortunatly hydrogen is alot harder to transport safely than natural gas. smaller molecules if i remember correctly. much more explosive than ng.

Murphy was an optimist
They had the nerve with the blimp. Think Hindenberg.
 
  #59  
Old 09-26-08, 07:09 PM
Speedwrench's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,698
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
the guys on mythbusters did a show on the blimp fire and concluded that part of what made it go up so fast was the paint that was used to make the gas bag seal. very interesting show.

Murphy was an optimist.
 
  #60  
Old 09-26-08, 08:52 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 6,130
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Hydrogen power

It makes little difference if you are basing the cost savings on todays energy costs for hydrogen or electric cars or solar powered cars that really are effective on sunny days and not at night. the cost you use today will not be realistic if the system becomes viable.

The bottom line is that there MUST be a road tax on the energy in some way to pay for the cost of the roads and the continuing maintenence. When it gets to be common, the road tax must be collected. The loop-hole regarding the old use of LP has been closed for the most part and could be closed totally if it really became a big deal.

Collecting a tax is really quite simple when it comes to buying electricty or gas since a permit for the car tied to the licensing and buying the "fuel". That is a paper trail that can easily be controlled since the suppliers are audited/permitted or controlled.

We have a gas tax that is too low for proper maintenance. Unfortunately, it is based on gallons and not hedged by inflation like a sales tax. This is compounded by the decrease in driving and the high mileage cars that cut the available funds to keep the roads repaired and the cars going. the money has to come from somewhere unless everyone wants to go out and repair their own section of road. There is no free lunch!

Dick
 
  #61  
Old 09-27-08, 12:19 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
concrete,

You make a good point. But the real bottom line to EVERYthing is the gov't is going to get their money for whatever, no matter what, somehow or another. If it is not from income tax, or road tax, - it will be from more fees or other forms of taxation.

But what is better? - spending say 20˘ per mile and then some set tax amount ($X) for roads?, or spending 10˘ per mile with exotic fuel/fuelless and the same $X in road tax?
 
  #62  
Old 09-27-08, 01:13 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 6,130
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Hydrogen power

My point is that it makes sense to get the funds for roads based on the use of the roads. That way, the congress cannot play the games they have been playing for many years and mask their individual personal identity. There is not much faith in congress since their rating is much lower than the President's.

Collect the money based on the use and match it to inflation because the inflation increases the cost of repairs and new construction. Then do not let it get sidetracked by congress for pork barrel projects with different purposes.

Ideally, the states should be the real administrators, but interstate roads providing established standards for freeway construction and maintenance do require some federal responsibility. It should not be difficult to come up with a tax system that would evenly collect taxes based on the use of the roads. irregardless of the fuel source.

Fortunately, the states can inspect and license the cars and can more efficiently have a handle on the collection and needs instead of senators. They also are involved in the administration and taxing of diesel, gasoline and utilities. Some political candidtates miss 1/3 of the votes in order the expose any position by voting unless necessary.
 
  #63  
Old 09-27-08, 02:33 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Concretemasonry View Post
. Some political candidtates miss 1/3 of the votes in order the expose any position by voting unless necessary.
You mean like those who only vote "present"? Where have I been hearing that lately, regarding whom?
 
  #64  
Old 02-27-09, 07:54 PM
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
hydrogen power

I see a couple of problems with hydrogen guys. all of which are fixable. at least as far as vehicles are concerned.(1) trying to convert an inefficient liquid burner into a gaseous burner.(2)People expecting big corporations to make it happen. They dont give a damn about the environment and until they can make a fortune off of it, they wont do it.(3) people not getting behind it. Have you ever gotten behind something 100% that you didnt know if it would work or not?
I believe i have a design that would be adaptable for anything up to a medium sized motorcycle. Im talking about a system that produces and burns its own hydrogen. I am having problems finding places to talk about it for fear of it being stolen. Any ideas? Joe L.
 
  #65  
Old 02-27-09, 08:34 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 76
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
So your saying your part of #2

(2)People expecting big corporations to make it happen. They dont give a damn about the environment and until they can make a fortune off of it, they wont do it.

How about releasing it to the public domain so NO ONE can patent it and EVERYONE can use it.

Hydrogen is a dead end anyway. Its only slightly more efficient than Gasoline.

The one thing I am intrigued by hydrogen for is its CHEAP to make :-)

Ultimately though the objective is pure battery electric.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: