----- Original Message -----

From: greg hopwood

To: ClimateChangeAction@...

Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:39 PM

Subject: Re: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: hydrogen

sorry mick for my colourful language.

but it gets a bit frustrating when those who evidently know nothing and/or have no experience on a topic repeat already disproven rhetoric.

 

i'd be VERY happy to read whatever you have to say on the issue.

at least a dept of energy opinion, one way or the other should have at least some credibility.

 

my name is greg. although some call me hoppy. i'll answer to either.

 

in anticipation ....

polymath <polymath@...> wrote:

Greetings

 

a quick word.  I hope in a few days to write a summary of a book that takes a realistic look at the use of hydrogen, the promises, possibilities and problems from someone who has worked for the DOE in the states and as a consultant.

 

But looking at ghoppy9's post (sorry - no sig, no name) I'll just say this.  Words like waffle and parrot *might* be true, but they are not courteous.  Can we be nice in disagreeing?

 

Peace

 

Mick...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mick Pope - Natural Philosopher www.geocities.com/polymathematica/
Review Editor - Zadok Perspectives www.zadok.org.au
Editor - ISCAST Bulletin www.iscast.org.au/bulletin
"Zum Erstaunen bin ich da"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----

From: ghoppy9

To: ClimateChangeAction@...

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:26 PM

Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: hydrogen

I NOTE THAT DESPITE REPEATEDLY MENTIONING I AN TALKING ABOUT HYDROGEN
GAS AS A FUEL TO RUN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, YOU [Bob] STILL
WANT TO WAFFLE ABOUT INEFFECTIVE [DUE TO POOR POWER TO WEIGHT RATIOS]
FUEL CELLS.

as i've stated previously, i suggest you actually research the topic
rather than just parrot someone elses disinformation. or even better
conduct some experiments and prove me wrong.

all you are doing here, is demonstrating that you actually know less
than nothing about the topic.

for examplple - quote: "Later of your paragraphs imply the use of
gaseous hydrogen. This is NOT
> a good idea. Hydrogen has such a small molecular size that it is
almost
> impossible to contain. It escapes through almost any join, any
flexible
> pipe, etc." :end quote.


in my mold making for metal casting i've had a fair amount of
experience with both latex and silicone rubbers, which can be used to
line cylinders. thus allowing use of even more pourous metals like
aluminium, and so in turn increasing power to weight ratios again.
alternatively industial nylon [as strong as but lighter than steel]
or polypropelene can also be used.

no matter what excuses you or anybody elses comes up with i already
have an answer. if i didn't, i wouldn't bother planning to use it as
a fuel myself.

i'm beggining to wonder about your motives bob. why are you so
determined to avoid the obvious by knowingly changing the subject and
apparently knowingly repeatedly using fasle info?







--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Dr Bob Rich"
<bobrich@b...> wrote:
>
> >YES THERE IS. and it just happens to be the most plentiful atom in
> the universe. hydrogen.
>     Sorry, that's misinformation. Hydrogen, whether in the gaseous
form or
> in a
> fuel cell, is not a source of energy, but a storage mechanism. The
hydrogen
> is produced in the first instance by the input of energy (into the
fuel
> cell, or as an electric charge that separates the H from the O in
water).
> So, hydrogen can replace the battery in an electric car, but it
cannot
> replace whatever you used to charge up the battery in the first
place.
>
> >poo poohers claim you need huge amounts of electricity. incorrect.
it
> takes 1.23 volts [less than a AA battery] to seperate hydrogen and
> oxygen atoms from water via electrolysis. although 1.7 volts must be
> supplied. the lost 0.47 volts expended in the process.
>     Again, you need to understand the concepts. Voltage is not a
measure of
> the amount of power used. It can best be explained by analogy to
flowing
> water. Voltage is like the slope of the river: how fast it flows.
Amperage
> is the amount of power, equivalent to the number of litres of water
flowing
> past a point. Wattage is the product of volts and amps, or power.
With
> water, that is the total volume (number of litres flowing past at
any one
> time, multiplied by the rate of flow). So, volts are
not 'expended'. The
> process occurs irrespective of the voltage used. How much hydrogen
you
> generate is the function of the number of watts you put in. If you
want the
> amount of power output a car engine generates, then you need to
have that
> much power available from your hydrogen. To generate that will need
the same
> amount of electricity, plus the inevitable inefficiency of the
conversion
> process.
>
> >with such low voltage requirements, wind turbines or photovoltaic
> panels are quite adequate.
>     As I said, voltage is irrelevant. Anyway, you can set up wind
and
> photovoltaic to generate whatever voltage you want. It's a question
of how
> many watts you need, and that is incredibly large. It is of a
different
> scale. You need to revise some basic high school physics and
calculate
> actual amounts.
>
> >my own intended project is to cut 44 gallon/200 litre drums in half
> lengthways, and reweld on a shaft in an 'S' shape, so wind direction
> doesn't matter. then mount vertically and use a push bike hub as a
> ratchet so it only spins in one direction. rather than pulleys and
> belts to drive a generator, i'll use geared up sprokets with bike
> chains for cost effectiveness and durability.
>     This is called a Savonius rotor, and there are readily
available plans
> for it. Its problem for electricity is an inherently low rotational
speed.
> It is not a good device for driving an alternator or generator.
Something
> large enough to push a bike hub around will generate enough
electrity charge
> up a battery that will keep a couple of small lights burning
overnight. It
> might work a model car, but not even a real electrically assisted
moped.
> Sorry, you need to do your sums.
>
>     Later of your paragraphs imply the use of gaseous hydrogen.
This is NOT
> a good idea. Hydrogen has such a small molecular size that it is
almost
> impossible to contain. It escapes through almost any join, any
flexible
> pipe, etc. The fuel cell has been developed to get around this
problem.
> Also, what happens to a hydrogen-containing tank in a collision or
fire?
>     And I agree with you that fuel cells are too heavy and bulky at
this
> stage.
>
>     Finally, thank you for reproducing that interesting German
report. It
> bears out everything I have said above. Read it again.
>
> I am sorry to puncture your balloon, but hydrogen cannot replace
petroleum.
>
> All the best,
> Bob
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich bobrich@m...
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Order your autographed copy of the 'Earth Garden Building Book'.
> Just released: 'Cancer: A personal challenge'.
> ------------------------------------------------
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/227 - Release Date: 11/01/06

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateChangeAction/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  ClimateChangeAction-unsubscribe@...
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 12/01/06

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 12/01/06