200+ MPG!

[pete]

I have heard about this stuff over the years, but haven't seen it stuffed all together like this. Just a little something to think about.

http://byronw.www1host.com/

Usually these stories come out when the gas prices rise or we are sitting in lines to get gas.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

hahahaha... RiK... I leave this to you...

[Rhode Island Red]

ahahahahhahahahhhaaaa

[Roger in Kensington]

Oh, lawdy, lawdy. Here we go again.

Mr. Wine reminds me of the sad cases I encounter in the parks and around the Metro stops here in Washington. You know, the ones with tin-foil hats and who hand-write finely spaced treatises on empty pizza boxes as "proof" that we are all being controlled by "silent radio."

Mr. Wine's "proof" sounds impressive . . . until you read his sources.

For example, go to the Collier's magazine article he cites and actually read it. The article is talking diesel engines or about burning coal, charcoal, twigs, grass and other combustibles to extend the range of the gasoline engine (by the way, the Germans actually did this during WWII when oil supplies ran low).

You could do it. But would you want to?

Mr. Wine writes: "On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motors, he, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939."

Oh, yeah. Well I predict Warp drive, replicators, transporters and a Ferengi in every pot by 2009. But that doesn't make it so, No. 1.

Note how Mr. Wine often relies upon articles written in the non-technical journals (like Argosy, Mother Earth News, Pioneer Press, and so forth) for his source material. And so many of the copies he cites had SUSPICIOUSLY disappeared from library shelves until HE endeavored to persevere in foiling the CONSPIRATORS and finding them! (Applause and appropriate kudos here).

Did you notice that all of his high-mileage claims involve carburetors? Why no high-mileage fuel injectors? (a-HA! PROOF OF YET ANOTHER CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!)

Look, he's got the technical specs, the patents and the designs. All's what he's gots ta do is to build one of the contraptions and actually demonstrate it.

Instead, he will go through life being dismissed as a harmless cuckoo. Sad. But it happens all the time. Just like LaRouche supporters.

There is no doubt in my mind that a 100-mpg+ internal combustion vehicle could be built. Problem is, it's not something that you would want to pack the wife, kids and luggage in and head to Aunt Minnie's. It would look more like a golf cart or an Isetta.

And it would not pass American safety standards!

Here endeth the lesson.

[Joe 1320]

I can tell you that using superheated fuel for use in one of these configurations is the secret and the liability at the same time. Noone wants to be anywhere in the vicinity if it doesn't work right.

The good: It permits really lean mixtures and fuel economy is outstanding.

The bad: One tiny fuel leak and it's a slightly smaller version of the Challenger explosion. That's the rub. Great power but damned dangerous.

[MN6WS6]

That's also one of the reasons why hydrogen fuel cell cars are so far off. Hindenberg. And considering that a blimp is 22 billion times less likely to run into another blimp at 60 MPH like a car would, that is always going to be a big limiting factor with hydrogen powered cars. Half the weight of the car would be the roll cage and firewall around the hydrogen tank. Can you imagine the lawsuit if a hydrogen car were to explode in a car accident? Now you're not just talking about a fire that burns one or two cars, you're talking about one or two BLOCKS

[pete]

Actually the Hindenberg burned (not exploded) from the aluminum oxide paint used over the covering of the blimp. This was analyised by German engineers a year after the catastrophe. And recently confirmed by investigators here in the US, and even the National Geographic did a piece on it.

Rocket fuel contains aluminum oxides.

Gasoline has as much if not more explosive force as hydrogen, but our automobiles haven't burned everytime they get hit, and they haven't encased the gas tanks in more than thin metal or plastic.

So maybe hydrogen has a chance when the public is educated about its possibilities.

[Rhode Island Red]

That's also one of the reasons why hydrogen fuel cell cars are so far off. Hindenberg. And considering that a blimp is 22 billion times less likely to run into another blimp at 60 MPH like a car would, that is always going to be a big limiting factor with hydrogen powered cars. Half the weight of the car would be the roll cage and firewall around the hydrogen tank. Can you imagine the lawsuit if a hydrogen car were to explode in a car accident? Now you're not just talking about a fire that burns one or two cars, you're talking about one or two BLOCKS

The problem with tank being ruptured and exploding during an accident has recently been solved. In addition to go 300 miles you would need the volume of 9 cars behind yours, to store the hydrogen.... ahh but now that is solved at the same time.

They chemically story Hydrogen, and ala the the Jetson's (catalyst pills) with a catalyst realease enough hydrogen to go 300 miles, in the same volume as conventional gas tanks. what is even better, that since the hydrogen is chemically bonded and not free, when the fuel tank is punctured when in an accident, it will not explode... Perfectly safe , safe enough for hydrogen to be the fuel of the future. Yet another alternative is that they store hydrogen in a solid form.

Here is an article to the latest research (sept 8th).

a picture is worth a 1000 words they say

[Roger in Kensington]

Okay, so . . .

The problem with tank being ruptured and exploding during an accident has recently been solved. In addition to go 300 miles you would need the volume of 9 cars behind yours, to store the hydrogen.... ahh but now that is solved at the same time.

They chemically story Hydrogen, and ala the the Jetson's (catalyst pills) with a catalyst realease enough hydrogen to go 300 miles, in the same volume as conventional gas tanks. what is even better, that since the hydrogen is chemically bonded and not free, when the fuel tank is punctured when in an accident, it will not explode... Perfectly safe , safe enough for hydrogen to be the fuel of the future. Yet another alternative is that they store hydrogen in a solid form.

Here is an article to the latest research (sept 8th).

a picture is worth a 1000 words they say

. . . we're back to the question posed in my original post from an earlier thread: Where do you get the hydrogen?

No one produces hydrogen commercially via the electrolysis of water; it is much too expensive and requires expensive energy inputs (especially if using solar energy) far in excess of what is obtained in the resulting hydrogen.

Hydrogen is manufactured commercially via a methane-steam process. The result is hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Again, this is an enormously expensive process and produces far less energy than it requires to manufacture.

There's no reason to use hydrogen-from-methane (for that matter, why use hydrogen at all?). If you're going to insist upon using a highly compressed gas to power your vehicle, then just use the methane directly, as is already being done in some commercial fleets, like buses.

But do be aware of the dangers of having a LARGE tank of high-pressure, flammable gas sitting in close proximity to you and your passengers in the event of a crash. I have seen the result of a high-pressure bottle rupture when (once-upon-a-time) I worked at a Union Carbide gas plant. Folks, I don't want to be anywhere near the area when that happens.

[Rhode Island Red]

Ammonia , ammonia can be currently created economically as it has been for over 100+ years. Ammonia chemically contains enough hydrgen, in a comact space the size of a car's fuel tank to go the 300 miles. Ammonia will be one source of the fuel, NO gaseous Hydrogen at high pressures to worry about. No explosions. What is even better they are also creating hydrogen to be stored in a solid form so the pressure+hydrogen=BOOM problem will not exist .

The current approach by researchers is to have a chemical source hydrogen (versus in pure molecular form) or to store it in a solid form and bypassing the problems storing it at high pressure as.

Ammonia is a cheap source of hydrogen, from current processes, nothing new to do. As for getting pure hydrogen, then storing in some solid form, well, they are looking at using renewable energy sources to generate the hydrogen. For example, Iceland is currently using eternally available geothermal power to split water molecules, and they plan to be the first hydrogen economy in the world. They even plan to export the Hydrogen in the future. (Scientific American feature on PBS hosted by Alan Alda)

The solutions are here, we the public, just have to implement them

[pete]

Iceland is currently using eternally available geothermal power to split water molecules, and they plan to be the first hydrogen economy in the world.

There ja go now! Another terroist nation from the North Atlantic, starting an Empire based on Icelandic Hydrogen Shieks, exporting their hate of the US all over the world...........

Still the environmentalists will get into the act and prevent the US from using its own reserves of hydrogen (might scare the panda bears in Kansas from their migration route), or the building of hydrogen refineing facilites (might stop tse-tse flies from breeding).

No wait! We already have a similar situation with petroleum.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

None of this changes the fact that there is not a grand conspiracy to keep 200 mpg engines from us. That's cooky

[Roger in Kensington]

Okay, chemistry students: How do you . . .

Ammonia , ammonia can be currently created economically as it has been for over 100+ years. Ammonia chemically contains enough hydrgen, in a comact space the size of a car's fuel tank to go the 300 miles. Ammonia will be one source of the fuel, NO gaseous Hydrogen at high pressures to worry about. No explosions. What is even better they are also creating hydrogen to be stored in a solid form so the pressure+hydrogen=BOOM problem will not exist .

The current approach by researchers is to have a chemical source hydrogen (versus in pure molecular form) or to store it in a solid form and bypassing the problems storing it at high pressure as.

Ammonia is a cheap source of hydrogen, from current processes, nothing new to do. As for getting pure hydrogen, then storing in some solid form, well, they are looking at using renewable energy sources to generate the hydrogen. For example, Iceland is currently using eternally available geothermal power to split water molecules, and they plan to be the first hydrogen economy in the world. They even plan to export the Hydrogen in the future. (Scientific American feature on PBS hosted by Alan Alda)

The solutions are here, we the public, just have to implement them

. . . create the ammonia (NH3)?

Why, of course! With the Haber Process by USING GREAT AMOUNTS OF EXPENSIVE ENERGY to combine atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen (PRODUCED BY USING GREAT AMOUNTS OF EXPENSIVE ENERGY)!!!

Then, of course, we have to reverse the process to separate the hydrogen from the nitrogen.

Brilliant!

We use a lot of expensive energy to create hydrogen in order to create ammonia then we use a lot of expensive energy to separate the hydrogen from the ammonia.

Simply brilliant!

Yeah, that's a GREAT idea. THAT will solve our energy problems.

I feel so much better now.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

A lot of chemical reactions produce NH4+ as their by-product...

[Roger in Kensington]

A lot of chemical reactions produce NH4+ as their by-product...

Yeah. And how much energy does it take to separate the hydrogen from the nitrogen? And what are the byproducts?