Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
AweMan
Jedi Knight
Offline
Here is one that the Fossil fuel boys don`t want happening.
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750
-
Hi Guest!
If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Interesting Article on Hydrogen
- Thread starter AweMan
- Start date
Share this page
OP
AweMan
Jedi Knight
Offline
My feeling is Hydrogen is a viable fuel source.
Their excuse {Whom ever "They" are} is that in order to produce Hydrogen you consume more energy than you can extract from Hydrogen, making it cost prohibitive. That is why I found this article interesting! Although it did not specify the cost of producing Hydrogen using this process. It certainly is a different aproach to the production methods of "them".
When I was in school we did an expierament with Hydrogen, we filled a small baloon with a 50/50 mix Hydrogen and oxygen then made a fuse with masking tape. Took it outside and placed it on the ground using a small weight to hold it there {tied on the fuse near the baloon.} Ignited the fuse and ran like the dickens. KAPOW!!! What an explosion from such a small amount of this mixture!!! Every sence then. I have always figured what a great fuel source Hydrogen might be! My only concern would be riding in an automobile with such a powerful explosive on board and having a volitle accident.
Their excuse {Whom ever "They" are} is that in order to produce Hydrogen you consume more energy than you can extract from Hydrogen, making it cost prohibitive. That is why I found this article interesting! Although it did not specify the cost of producing Hydrogen using this process. It certainly is a different aproach to the production methods of "them".
When I was in school we did an expierament with Hydrogen, we filled a small baloon with a 50/50 mix Hydrogen and oxygen then made a fuse with masking tape. Took it outside and placed it on the ground using a small weight to hold it there {tied on the fuse near the baloon.} Ignited the fuse and ran like the dickens. KAPOW!!! What an explosion from such a small amount of this mixture!!! Every sence then. I have always figured what a great fuel source Hydrogen might be! My only concern would be riding in an automobile with such a powerful explosive on board and having a volitle accident.
martx-5
Yoda
Offline
That whole scenario is filled with holes. The 350 lbs. of pellets has to be recycled, and they admit that electricity is the only way to do it. So, they say that we'll use solar and wind to get the electricity. Whoopee. That'll produce about as much material as some small town in Arkansas needs. So, we're back to fossil fuels.
The other thing that always bothers me, is that they say we want to be cost effective to compete with $3.00/gal gasoline. Well, gasoline ISN'T "$3.00"/gal. Nobody figures in how much taxes there are on that $3.00/gal. Depending on what state you live in, it could run as much as about sixty cents/gal. Now what you really have to compete with is $2.40/gal. Let's face it, somehow the gubmint will tax this thing.
Oh, and by the way, adding 350 lbs to a car ain't chump change. Is has a real effect on MPG.
The other thing that always bothers me, is that they say we want to be cost effective to compete with $3.00/gal gasoline. Well, gasoline ISN'T "$3.00"/gal. Nobody figures in how much taxes there are on that $3.00/gal. Depending on what state you live in, it could run as much as about sixty cents/gal. Now what you really have to compete with is $2.40/gal. Let's face it, somehow the gubmint will tax this thing.
Oh, and by the way, adding 350 lbs to a car ain't chump change. Is has a real effect on MPG.
OP
AweMan
Jedi Knight
Offline
The article didn`t mention anything about the recycleability of the pellets or if they were environtmentlay hazardous or not after they have been processed for thier Hydrogen content.
The only real mention of any substance created by the chemical reaction that needed to be dealt with was Aluminum oxide, Weather there were others was not mentioned in the article. {Aluminum oxide is currently used in many manufacturing processes}
What I found interesting about the article was that there IS a way to extract Hydrogen from water other than using high amounts of electricity as stated by the "NON hydrogen" advocates. {admittitedly not knowing what processes are required to make the metal gallium that is mentioned. It could require the same or more energy to produce, as hydrogen produced by current methods}.
As for taxes, we can rest assured that the tax rate would be comprable to the current fossil fuel tax rate or possibly a bit higher. That is a GIVEN!
By NO means do I want this topic to turn political, god forbid!
I for one would like to see viable fuel alternatives.
The more alternative fuels the better.
fossil fuels are killing us {more ways than one}
The only real mention of any substance created by the chemical reaction that needed to be dealt with was Aluminum oxide, Weather there were others was not mentioned in the article. {Aluminum oxide is currently used in many manufacturing processes}
What I found interesting about the article was that there IS a way to extract Hydrogen from water other than using high amounts of electricity as stated by the "NON hydrogen" advocates. {admittitedly not knowing what processes are required to make the metal gallium that is mentioned. It could require the same or more energy to produce, as hydrogen produced by current methods}.
As for taxes, we can rest assured that the tax rate would be comprable to the current fossil fuel tax rate or possibly a bit higher. That is a GIVEN!
By NO means do I want this topic to turn political, god forbid!
I for one would like to see viable fuel alternatives.
The more alternative fuels the better.
fossil fuels are killing us {more ways than one}
Isn't Al oxide the substance that was on the Hindenberg and when lit up it is very flamiable and can't be put out? Enlighten me on this. We did a study to convert our 18 wheelers to hydrogen and found the tanks had to be extremely heavy and the time it took to refuel was excessively long. Just adding my 2 cents.
OP
AweMan
Jedi Knight
Offline
LLAngus:
The Hindenburg was actually filled with Hydrogen. And YES Hydrogen is a very voliatle gas.
Aluminum Oxided will not burn, BUT magnesium in fine particles will. I dont know if the main structure of the Hindenburg was made of mag, or not.
Hydrogen, when used as a combustable fuel is very environmentaly friendly. However present processes used to produce hydrogen are not cost effective. That is why I found the article interesting.
Hydrogen fuel cells are NOT environmentaly friendly or cost effective at all! Irregardless of what the Hydrogen fuel cell advocates say! However the {H.F.C.} May be safer than gas or liquid hydrogen tanks required for use with a combustion engine. I can not see how tho Hydrogen is Hydrogen no matter what the shape of the container.
As for the weight of the tanks for your truck, completely understandable. As you know, any gas cylinder has to be structurly sound enough to contain the great pressure of these gasses.
Going back to the article, I found it interesting that using this process Hydrogen could be extracted from the water on demand as needed eliminating the need for the added weight of pressurised tanks to contain the gas {So claimed the article} although an added 350 Lbs of "Pellets" was required. Admittedly Hydrogen has a ways to go in TechKnowledge developement. Hopefully SOMEONE will be willing to spend the money to develope Hydrogen as a COMBUSTIBLE fuel. It is obvious that fossil fuel advocates wont.
A great deal of money has been invested in Hydrogen fuel cell tech. However as of yet this tech is NOT cost effective.
Hydrogen fuel cells convert Hydrogen into electricity for use in motors.
One thing holding the combustion engine hydrogen developement back is the safety factor im sure!
"On demand" Hydrogen production as stated in the article seems promising.
Kerry
The Hindenburg was actually filled with Hydrogen. And YES Hydrogen is a very voliatle gas.
Aluminum Oxided will not burn, BUT magnesium in fine particles will. I dont know if the main structure of the Hindenburg was made of mag, or not.
Hydrogen, when used as a combustable fuel is very environmentaly friendly. However present processes used to produce hydrogen are not cost effective. That is why I found the article interesting.
Hydrogen fuel cells are NOT environmentaly friendly or cost effective at all! Irregardless of what the Hydrogen fuel cell advocates say! However the {H.F.C.} May be safer than gas or liquid hydrogen tanks required for use with a combustion engine. I can not see how tho Hydrogen is Hydrogen no matter what the shape of the container.
As for the weight of the tanks for your truck, completely understandable. As you know, any gas cylinder has to be structurly sound enough to contain the great pressure of these gasses.
Going back to the article, I found it interesting that using this process Hydrogen could be extracted from the water on demand as needed eliminating the need for the added weight of pressurised tanks to contain the gas {So claimed the article} although an added 350 Lbs of "Pellets" was required. Admittedly Hydrogen has a ways to go in TechKnowledge developement. Hopefully SOMEONE will be willing to spend the money to develope Hydrogen as a COMBUSTIBLE fuel. It is obvious that fossil fuel advocates wont.
A great deal of money has been invested in Hydrogen fuel cell tech. However as of yet this tech is NOT cost effective.
Hydrogen fuel cells convert Hydrogen into electricity for use in motors.
One thing holding the combustion engine hydrogen developement back is the safety factor im sure!
"On demand" Hydrogen production as stated in the article seems promising.
Kerry
The skin of the fabric of the Hindenberg was covered with AL oxide and has been proven to be the real burning matter not the gas. It was ignited by lightening. This is from a recent History Channel special.
Yes there is a need for alternate fuel. By the way read the book -- Black Gold Strangle Hold for an interesting view on oil. Love the dialog, though. Keep it up.
Yes there is a need for alternate fuel. By the way read the book -- Black Gold Strangle Hold for an interesting view on oil. Love the dialog, though. Keep it up.
OP
AweMan
Jedi Knight
Offline
Al Oxide by its self will not ignite. In fact the melting point of Al Oxide is around 3,600 degrese. Yes I was aware that the Skin of the hindenburg was what was claimed to have burnt. Although Al Oxide was mixed with the paint/fabric covering I suspect that it was actually this combination that allowed combustion. Moreso the Paint and Fabric that actually ignited.
Hydrogen actually burns with an invisible flame,
in order for it to explode it actually needs to be compressed before ignition. Otherwise it just burns off much like natural gas would, only without the teltale flame signature. Much like alcohol would burn, only with alcohol there is a slight teltale flame signature also. Where as Hydrogen does not have a flame per say that you can see. Hydrogen gas is light, lighter than even helium. It is very difficult to contain in a vessle for long periods because it can and will find even the slightest leak and escape.
So I suspect as soon as the flames breached the hindenburgs coverings into the hydrogen chamber/s the gas pretty much escaped in a very short order. As for the Al Oxide igniting,
even bieng struck by lightening, I have doubts. IF it were Mag. Oxide I would totaly agree that it could and would ingnite if struck by lightening. Not only that it would go up in a flash of very bright light. Magnesium burns fairly slowly but with great intensity.
Hydrogen actually burns with an invisible flame,
in order for it to explode it actually needs to be compressed before ignition. Otherwise it just burns off much like natural gas would, only without the teltale flame signature. Much like alcohol would burn, only with alcohol there is a slight teltale flame signature also. Where as Hydrogen does not have a flame per say that you can see. Hydrogen gas is light, lighter than even helium. It is very difficult to contain in a vessle for long periods because it can and will find even the slightest leak and escape.
So I suspect as soon as the flames breached the hindenburgs coverings into the hydrogen chamber/s the gas pretty much escaped in a very short order. As for the Al Oxide igniting,
even bieng struck by lightening, I have doubts. IF it were Mag. Oxide I would totaly agree that it could and would ingnite if struck by lightening. Not only that it would go up in a flash of very bright light. Magnesium burns fairly slowly but with great intensity.