Quoting from March/April 2007 Technology Review

and from The Wall Street Journal March 5, 2008

kc0iv

 

As I've been saying... The technology is older than I am, and I do not understand why it has never been used in all this time. There's nothing complicated about it, you don't need a "fairy godmother" to THUMP it with a magic wand to make it work. I can not believe it's been overlooked all these years. Are these FOOLS actually getting paid for this??? Hydrogen can be produced for fuel at a fraction of the cost of gasoline. Or are they being paid by the petroleum industry????????

 

You are right -- Someone is not thinking logically here. What is air composed of? Or are now going to use pure oxygen in your engine?

Here is info on the BMW'S HYDROGEN 7 http://www.spiegel.de/international/...448648,00.html

Another comment about the BMW'S HYDROGEN 7 can be found at http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2006/11/72100


and
and another point

Looks like Hydrogen powered car have along way to go before it will become viable.

kc0iv

 

Air does contain carbon dioxide. At night, vegetation does not use up the carbon without sunlight. At night, plants use oxygen as well. But, not nearly as much as the oxygen they free up when the sun is shining. So, there is some CO2 in the air that we breathe. But, that same amount of CO2 is currently going through the engines we are using today. We are adding carbon to it in the form of hydro-carbons, and producing more. If you are not introducing more carbon into the combustion process by burning hydrogen instead, where is it possible to end up with more CO2 than you started with? Are the CO2 molecules having "babies" during the combustion process? Somebody is BLOWING SMOKE. You can not have more carbon molecules coming out the exhaust than you have going into the comustion process. If you are getting more molecules of carbon in the exhaust, you are "CREATING MATTER", and that is not possible.

***I D I O T S ! ! ! ! ! ! !***

And, I could use a few terms that are a bit stronger than just "IDIOTS". This is the direction to go. More volume than liquid? And, it does not require the extreme pressure of liquid. Lower pressure tanks could be configured to fit ANYWHERE in the vehicle.



Currently, THIS!!! is the "drawback". But, now, use a system that produces hydrogen with an efficiency factor of 1000%, and you produce 10 times more energy than you put into the production. Drop the cost by a factor of 10 and the cost is down to $1.03 per kilogram. Apply that efficiency to the rest of the complex, and I'm expecting the cost to go down to as low as $0.10 to $0.15 per kilogram.

This would be up to the engine manufacturers to address. But, from what I've seen so far, this is also more smoke being blown up our butts. Or, it may be one of the adjustments we have to make. Think about it... Bank robbers would not be able to make a "FAST GETAWAY" anymore. :wink:
But, it does not mean that hydrogen isn't a viable source of energy.

 

Windwalker, If you have the answer(s) I'm sure BMW (as well as any other auto company) would love to put you on the payroll at a nice fat paycheck. Every company I have ever worked for was alway on the look-out for new ideas and I am sure the auto industry is no exception.

Just like your claim of producing hydrogen with an efficiency factor of 1000%. If it can be done then contact a hydrogen producer with your idea. I'm sure they would love to increase their production at a lower cost. However, I suspect they have seen it and rejected the idea.

Everything I have read about hydrogen vehicles I don't think it is the answer. At best it might be a stop gap approach but not the best concept. In my mind I see the electric vehicle as a better approach. Possibly with fuel cell to directly power the motor(s). None of the problems like hydrogen powered vehicles.

One last point about hydrogen vehicles would be the restriction of their use in tunnels. Anyway you look at it hydrogen is a explosive element and in the event of an accident it could explode.

kc0iv

 

I doubt it seriously. If they had, they would have already put it into wide-spread use. The equipment IS in popular use, but the configuration is not. It's because electricians and electronics have two different approaches to the same thing. Electronics uses the configuration in millions, and even billions of places every day. Electricians don't even recognize it. In electronics, current flow is from Negative to Positive. And electricians see current flow from Positive to Negative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kc0iv

Everything I have read about hydrogen vehicles I don't think it is the answer. At best it might be a stop gap approach but not the best concept. In my mind I see the electric vehicle as a better approach. Possibly with fuel cell to directly power the motor(s). None of the problems like hydrogen powered vehicles.

Unfortunately, the electric powered vehicles have all but been eliminated because of the limitations in recharge, and the fact that they would increase greenhouse gases indirectly. They must be recharged from some source, and solar would not be viable at all times. It would put additional load onto many of the coal-fired power plants and mean burning more coal. Also, the amount of time it takes to recharge would take them out of the running when going on a trip instead of being home every night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kc0iv

One last point about hydrogen vehicles would be the restriction of their use in tunnels. Anyway you look at it hydrogen is a explosive element and in the event of an accident it could explode.

And, did you know that if you are pulling a camper with a 20-LB propane bottle on it, you are not allowed to go through the Chessapeak Bay Bridge-tunnel. But with a propane powered vehicle, you have no problem. And, if you believe that Hydrogen is the only fuel that is explosive... There have been many incidents where in an accident, the gas tank on a 4-wheeler exploded, and there have been incidents where the fuel tanks on an 18-wheeler have also exploded on impact. One that I know of happened in Kansas around '00. The truck was stuck on the railroad track, and the train could not stop. The tank on the impact side exploded on impact. I know about that one because one of the firemen taking the fire engine back to the station was driving directly in front of us on the hiway, and hit a deer with the firetruck. Then, used our cell phone to report it.

So, hydrogen is not the only fuel that is explosive. Seems to me that Ford Pinto had a bunch of lawsuits because when they were rear-ended, they had a tendancy for the gas tank to explode. And, which pick-up was it that was made with the tank outside the frame for a few years. They woud also explode on side impact. I think it was a GM model. Your argument is invalid.

 

With our current class-8 engines in the trucks, it would be possible to have a means of storing hydrogen on-board, and only using diesel fuel to idle. By injecting hydrogen to provide power (like they do with compressed natural gas in the Los Angeles City Busses), we could have a very serious reduction in the demand on oil and producing greenhouse gases. The driver should not have to "GET IT IN THE SHORTS".

 

There are systems on the market for both cars and trucks to inject propane into the engine to assist combustion.

Same idea as the CNG assisted engines.

There are also claims that using a simple system to make Browns Gas (HHO, also known as HydrOxy) and inject it will help with more complete combustion and increase fuel mileage.

There are shade tree inventors all over the place working on different systems to help reduce oil dependency. Some of them are nut-jobs, others seem to have good ideas that are viable.

It'll be interesting to watch the various ideas for which one works and if any of them truly get accepted in a large market.

 

The propane injection has been around for some time now. I can't say much about it, though, because I have not talked to anyone that has actually used it.

But, do a search on "hydrogen powered truck" and you'll come up with a company in Canada that adds units on a truck, and I believe the price tag starts at about $14,000. They claim to give a truck about 5% better fuel economy, but reduce the solid particle emission by 30%. My best guess is that this would be something like a "Joe Cell" and produces the HHO you mentioned. With the additional oxygen, I can see reducing the solid particles by burning them inside the cylinders, but I also wonder about the cooling system with the additional oxygen in combustion. I would expect it to cause a bit warmer operation.

 

Well Windwalker I've been involved in electronic for over 50 years and understand the difference between hole flow vs electron flow. Both are valid and it makes no difference which one a person uses the end results will be the same. You will also find most engineers use hole flow not electron flow.

As someone that has worked as an electrician, a electronic tech, and as an engineer I think I have a good grasp on the world of electricity and I'd be interest in what circuit could be used to improve a circuit's power requirement by 1000%. Maybe you could share this concept with me. Or at least show me some of these millions that use this configuration.

I agree there isn't a easy answer for the transportation industry. And I don't see a major break through happening in the near future. As a guy and I was talking about solar a few weeks ago. He was pushing solar as the way to go. Since he lived in southern CA where the sun shines most of the time it works great for him. However, in the Midwest we have to many cloudy days for them to be effective. I see the same thing in the transportation industry one size won't fit all needs.


I'm not naive enough to believe that hydrogen is the only explosive element. However, you will find many areas in the country with propane powered vehicle are not allowed in tunnels. Your example of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-tunnel is interesting. Reading from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel regulations So reading from the regulation you can legally carry that 20lb propane bottle you speak of.

A discussion on the Ford Pinto is an interesting one. I found on at: http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Val...ett-pinto.html written by a law professor. I wonder what the lawyers would do if they had a lawsuit involving a hydrogen powered vehicles.

kc0iv