>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.
if that is so, the so to is EVERYTHING ever said/claimed regarding sources of energy.
y'see, not only IS hydrogen a source of energy, but the MOST viable one ever in existence.
to say otherwise is akin to saying petroleum gas [14% hydrogen] is not a source of energy.
may i suggest you actually investigate the topic rather than taking oil & coal industry paid opinions for granted.
later ..
good night.
Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...> 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@... 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'. ------------------------------------------------
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Quite a while ago, I attended a Green energy forum and quietly listened to an "energy expert" who proceeded to 'burst my bubble' on Hydrogen. Greg and I have had a few "deep discussions" on hydrogen since that time. I had hoped that my 'bubble' had been refilled with that website. I'll be keenly watching this thread.
Thanks, both of you. I'll retain my hope of a sustainable alternative fuel.
if that is so, the so to is EVERYTHING ever said/claimed regarding sources of energy.
y'see, not only IS hydrogen a source of energy, but the MOST viable one ever in existence.
to say otherwise is akin to saying petroleum gas [14% hydrogen] is not a source of energy.
may i suggest you actually investigate the topic rather than taking oil & coal industry paid opinions for granted.
later ..
good night.
Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...> 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@... 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'. ------------------------------------------------
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
I have a book I am going to write a review on & will post it here called The
Hype about Hydrogen. In the next week or so (I hope!!)
Cheers
Mick...
> Anne Goddard <winter___@...> wrote:
>
> Hiya Greg, Bob...
>
> This is interesting....
>
> Thank you for your clear explanation Bob.
> Quite a while ago, I attended a Green energy forum and quietly listened
> to an "energy expert" who proceeded to 'burst my bubble' on Hydrogen.
> Greg and I have had a few "deep discussions" on hydrogen since that
> time. I had hoped that my 'bubble' had been refilled with that website.
> I'll be keenly watching this thread.
>
> Thanks, both of you. I'll retain my hope of a sustainable alternative
> fuel.
>
> cheers
> a
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: greg hopwood
> To: ClimateChangeAction@...
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: hydrogen
>
>
> if that is so, the so to is EVERYTHING ever said/claimed regarding
> sources of energy.
> y'see, not only IS hydrogen a source of energy, but the MOST viable one
> ever in existence.
> to say otherwise is akin to saying petroleum gas [14% hydrogen] is not a
> source of energy.
> may i suggest you actually investigate the topic rather than taking oil
> & coal industry paid opinions for granted.
>
> later ..
> good night.
>
> Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...> 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@...
> 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'.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateChangeAction/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ClimateChangeAction-unsubscribe@...
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mick Pope - Natural Philosopher
www.geocities.com/polymathematica/
Review Editor - Zadok Perspectives
www.zadok.org.au
Editor - ISCAST Bulletin
www.iscast.org.au/bulletin
Erstaunen bin ich da
-------------------------------------------------------
>may i suggest you actually investigate the topic rather than taking oil &
>coal industry paid opinions for granted.
Let's keep this mature, OK? If you look at my mudsmith site, you will see my
credentials for talking about conservation issues.
Emotion does not change physics. The abundance of hydrogen in nature is
not relevant concerning the issue of how you use it to generate motive power
within an engine.
I don't know of any means of concentrating free gaseous hydrogen within
earth's atmosphere. All the H2 elsewhere is of little use to us at the
moment.
So, H2 is generated by the electrolysis of water. This takes
electricity. As the article you forwarded yesterday stated, to replace a
certain amount of petrol with hydrogen will take approximately TWICE as much
primary energy.
QED.
:)
Bob
------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich bobrich@... 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'.
------------------------------------------------
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'.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
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" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
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" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Greg, no good shouting. That doesn't convince people.
the point you need to answer comes from one of the articles you yourself
posted. It stated that it takes twice as much primary energy to generate a
unit of hydrogen fuel as it takes to produce the same unit of energy from
petrol.
Bob
------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich bobrich@... 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'.
------------------------------------------------
well bob. sometimes when people plug their ears and just keep repeating that which has already repeatedly been disproven, shout is they only way to distract them from their current daydreams.
and the double unit measurement matters not when using sustainables.
but if you're using outdated hydrocarbon burning, it's energy inefficient. so matters alot.
gotta go .. do this later later OK (?)
Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...> wrote:
Greg, no good shouting. That doesn't convince people. the point you need to answer comes from one of the articles you yourself posted. It stated that it takes twice as much primary energy to generate a unit of hydrogen fuel as it takes to produce the same unit of energy from
petrol. Bob ------------------------------------------------ Dr Bob Rich bobrich@... 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'. ------------------------------------------------
I know the furstrations as well as anyone - try having a conversation with a 6 day creationist.
I'll try and precis the book as well as I can. The long and the short of it is that he is hopeful, but as well as overcoming the huge infrastructure (a chicken and egg argument - supply & demand), there needs to be more government support - something maybe in short supply at the moment?
Peace to all in the search for truth and saving our little home!
Mick... Expert on nothing, opinion on most things! ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
> and the double unit measurement matters not when using sustainables.
but if you're using outdated hydrocarbon burning, it's energy inefficient.
so matters alot.
Greg, this is going to be my last reply to you. You know you are right, I
know I am right, so there is simply no more point to debating it. When/if
events prove you right, I'll cheer.
However, the above is wishful thinking. How do you use sustainables? If
you do your sums you'll see that in order to supply the electricity
currently consumed by all users (not counting replacement of mobile power
for transport), this can not possibly be supplied by any combination of
solar, wind, tidal etc. Why? Because each of these has a large amount of
embodied energy. I don't have the reference, but Ted Trainer presented
figures at a workshop I went to, showing that if all Australia's then
current electric needs were to be supplied by solar panels, the embodied
energy in them could not be supplied by the available energy sources.
There is simply NO alternative to cutting down. Either we reduce our
addiction to energy in a controlled way, or it will be reduced
catastrophically.
You are proposing to replace electricity generation currently performed
by coal, oil, gas and nuclear with sustainable sources, plus in effect using
these sustainables to replace twice the primary energy use for transport
including planes, trucks, buses, cars?
Good luck!
:)
Bob
------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich bobrich@... 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'.
------------------------------------------------
> ghoppy9 wrote :and the double unit measurement matters not when using sustainables. but if you're using outdated hydrocarbon burning, it's energy inefficient. so matters alot.
Greg, this is going to be my last reply to you.
- that's your perogative. it matters not to me.
You know you are right, I know I am right, so there is simply no more point to debating it.
- agreed. i don't mind constructive criticism, but you have been basing your arguments on outdated and incorrect material. which is why i suggested you actually research the topic rather than parrot paid opinions of those
with corporate agendas or disproven rationales.
When/if events prove you right, I'll cheer.
- well i've already forwarded example after example illustrating that hydrogen as a fuel is already happening, but you'd prefer to technologically regress in your hot air ballooning daydream.
However, the above is wishful thinking.
- rather a moot point, considering your success in your field of expertise has been achieved by drugging your patients into submission.
How do you use sustainables? If you do your sums you'll see that in order to supply the electricity currently consumed by all users (not
counting replacement of mobile power for transport), this can not possibly be supplied by any combination of solar, wind, tidal etc.
- hey if you want to stay rusted onto outdated centralised power systems reliant on energy inefficency, that's your problem. and so to is closing your eyes to current inovations.
Why? Because each of these has a large amount of embodied energy. I don't have the reference, but Ted Trainer presented figures at a workshop I went to, showing that if all Australia's then current electric needs were to be supplied by solar panels, the embodied energy in them could not be supplied by the available energy sources.
- refusing to aknowledge decentralised power systems and improved technologies is just blinkered procrastination, and solves nothing.
There is simply NO alternative to cutting down.
Either we reduce our addiction to energy in a controlled way, or it will be reduced catastrophically.
- dinosaur syndrome is not the answer. i've already emphasized the need for energy efficiency, but you dismiss the very techlogy most capable of achieving it.
You are proposing to replace electricity generation currently performed by coal, oil, gas and nuclear with sustainable sources, plus in effect using these sustainables to replace twice the primary energy use for transport including planes, trucks, buses, cars?
- well like it or not the processes required are already being put in place by those forsighted enough to recognise the inevitable. sadly just not yet on the scale needed. but hey crisis is a wonerful motivator.
Good luck!
- such pessimism, how sad. just proves Jared Diamond
correct when he states why some societies and civilisations flourish while others fail.
------------------------------------------------ Dr Bob Rich bobrich@... 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'. ------------------------------------------------
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
As mentioned in an earlier post, I am not an engineer...
I do have a question which perplexes....
It is in the conversion process....
As far as I understand it the Hydrogen "energy" (when burnt or whatever) comes from the process of "separation" in some kind of reaction (the reaction process is what I don't understand)...
So... to get hydrogen, you need to separate the one part of Hydrogen from the two parts of Oxygen from water...? (H2O) correct?
So the "input" is water and the output would then be one part pure hydrogen and two parts pure water....? correct?
Water into your energy guzzler, a reaction, and then hydrogen to run your energy guzzler. With a waste product of pure oxygen?
Is the "disagreement" in the conversion process?
Does the process of conversion consume non-renewable (or renewable) energy in a greater degree than the output of "hydrogen" energy that is produced? And if this is the case... then the "equation" would also not take into consideration the embedded energy necessary to "make" the storage receptacle of the produced hydrogen either...
like so...
Water --->
conversion process (reaction)
+ energy consumption of non-renewable (or renewable)
= Hydrogen (1) + Oxygen (2)
+ energy consumption on non-renewable (or renewable) to create the storage container for the hydrogen until use.
therefore:
water + (too much) energy consumption = hydrogen + oxygen
+ (too much) energy for storage container....
= a "minus" in energy produced in comparison to the energy "input"???
> and the double unit measurement matters not when using sustainables. but if you're using outdated hydrocarbon burning, it's energy inefficient. so matters alot.
Greg, this is going to be my last reply to you. You know you are right, I know I am right, so there is simply no more point to debating it. When/if events prove you right, I'll cheer. However, the above is wishful thinking. How do you use sustainables? If you do your sums you'll see that in order to supply the electricity currently consumed by all users (not counting replacement of mobile power for transport), this can not possibly be supplied by any combination of solar, wind, tidal etc. Why? Because each of these has a large amount of embodied energy. I don't have the reference, but Ted Trainer presented figures at a workshop I went to, showing that if all Australia's then current electric needs were to be supplied by solar panels, the embodied energy in them could not be supplied by the available energy sources. There is simply NO alternative to cutting down. Either we reduce our addiction to energy in a controlled way, or it will be reduced catastrophically. You are proposing to replace electricity generation currently performed by coal, oil, gas and nuclear with sustainable sources, plus in effect using these sustainables to replace twice the primary energy use for transport including planes, trucks, buses, cars? Good luck! :) Bob ------------------------------------------------ Dr Bob Rich bobrich@... 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'. ------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in an earlier post, I am not an engineer...
I do have a question which perplexes....
It is in the conversion process....
- "ELECTROLYSIS"
As far as I understand it the Hydrogen "energy" (when burnt or whatever) comes from the process of "separation" in some kind of reaction (the reaction process is what I don't understand)...
- using electrodes [sometimes refered to as anodes or cathodes] (eg like the lead plates in your car battery) typically with one submerged in the electrolyte/liquid [my preference salt rather than fresh water - faster] (in your car battery sulphiric acid mixed with water) and the other being the container the the electrolyte/liquid is held in. an electric charge of no less than 1.7 volts is conducted through the water.
So... to get hydrogen, you need to separate the one part of Hydrogen from the two parts of Oxygen from water...? (H2O) correct?
- no. two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen
So the "input" is water and the output would then be one part pure hydrogen and two parts pure water....? correct?
- no. the water seperates into 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.
the hydrogen is compressed and stored in rubber lined gas cyliners [i intend to use a pump canibalised from a refrigerator for this process].
the oxygen can be sold to hospitals, dive shops and welding
supplies stores.
when hydrogen is reintroduced to oxygen and a spark or flame is present, it combusts/explodes, thus producing power which can drive an internal combustion engine, just like you with petrol, LPG, or methal alcohol.
Water into your energy guzzler, a reaction, and then hydrogen to run your energy guzzler. With a waste product of pure oxygen?
- no. 1st seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen. then pump compressed hydrogen into gas cylinder to run vehicle. when burnt/combusted the waste product is water.
Is the "disagreement" in the conversion process?
- not as far as i'm aware. it's simple to do, and a well known process.
Does the process of conversion consume non-renewable (or renewable) energy in a greater degree than the output of "hydrogen" energy that is produced?
- depends entirely on what is used as the power source for the electrolysis to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen.
if you use hydrocarbon based fuel, it is enegy inifficient. if you use solar, wind, geothermal, or hydroelectric dams [ the last one not being my preference. 1st 3 are fine]. except for infrastructure/equipment set up and maitainence costs the power required for electrolysis is virtually free.
NOTE: israel produces electricty via pools of water with seperate layers of salt and fresh water. this power is virtually cost free, but requires large areas compared to other electricty production methods.
And if this is the case... then the "equation" would also not take into consideration the embedded energy necessary to "make" the storage receptacle of the produced hydrogen either...
- the argument is based mainly on the equation because poo poohers like to forget the existence of solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power production methods in their oil, coal, and nuke power obsessions.
- i haven't checked the info contained in this
site, but suspect it gives the basics and/or possibilities.
personally i think it's sad that the cleanest and most viable motor fuel is ignored by the public, debunked with fabrications from the oil, coal, and nuke industries, and parroted by those detrmined to become irrelevent dinosaurs.
HYDROGEN IS THE FUTURE OF MOTORISED TRANSPORT.
anybody disputing this is nothing more than a flat earth society member.
> and the double unit measurement matters not when using sustainables. but if you're using outdated hydrocarbon burning, it's energy inefficient. so matters alot.
Greg, this is going to be my last reply to you. You know you are right, I know I am right, so there is simply no more point to debating it. When/if events prove you right, I'll cheer.
However, the above is wishful thinking. How do you use sustainables? If you do your sums you'll see that in order to supply the electricity currently consumed by all users (not counting replacement of mobile power for transport), this can not possibly be supplied by any combination of solar, wind, tidal etc. Why? Because each of these has a large amount of embodied energy. I don't have the reference, but Ted Trainer presented figures at a workshop I went to, showing that if all Australia's then current electric needs were to be supplied by solar panels, the embodied energy in them could not be supplied by the available energy sources. There is simply NO alternative to cutting down. Either we reduce our addiction to energy in a controlled way, or it will be reduced catastrophically. You are proposing to replace electricity generation currently performed by coal, oil, gas and nuclear with
sustainable sources, plus in effect using these sustainables to replace twice the primary energy use for transport including planes, trucks, buses, cars? Good luck! :) Bob ------------------------------------------------ Dr Bob Rich bobrich@... 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'. ------------------------------------------------
Anne, you have the basic idea correctly, but the details somewhat jumbled.
'H2O' means two hydrogens to one oxygen.
Water + electricity (a process called electrolysis) results in H2 gas at one
electrode and O2 gas at the other.
From memory, it's the second law of thermodynamics (there are three) that
implies that no conversion process is 100% efficient. That is, when you
input electricity to make hydrogen gas, and then use the hydrogen gas to
provide power in any way at all, you will end up with less available energy
than you put in. This is true for every energy transformation. The rest of
the input energy is lost as heat.
The article that Greg circulated at one stage claimed that you need two
units of the primary energy (e.g. burnt petrol, or kinetic energy of wind
pushing a turbine) for one unit of energy recovered from burning the
hydrogen. That is actually quite good. When you put petrol into your car
engine, only about 10% of it results in rotary force. About half of this is
again lost in moving the bulk of the car, so about 5% is available for
moving the passengers. A Diesel engine is very much better, about 60%
efficient, but even then 40% becomes heat.
So, if we were to use petrol to generate electricity, then use the
electricity to make hydrogen, and burn the hydrogen to drive a car, we would
be using twice as much petrol than burning it directly in the car engine.
That is, the efficiency would now be 2.5%.
If we instead use petrol, coal etc. to make various materials and
assemble them into, say, wind turbines, then we need to use those machines
long enough to 'recover' this 'embodied energy'. This may be of the order of
2 to 10 years of optimal use, depending on the specifics.
So, that part is OK. The problem is that at current usage rates, you
would need to make an awful lot of wind turbines, solar panels, hydro
installations, wave and tidal power generators etc. in order to produce
sufficient power. As I wrote previously, according to Ted Trainer, if you
wanted to make enough solar panels to supply all the electricity Australians
currently use, the embodied energy would be more than the current total
electric output within Australia. Even if this was 'paid off' in time, you
just can't do it.
Greg's suggestion is to do this, plus replace in effect twice the
current primary energy use for transport as well.
Snip>
What's a rectangle of dirt today may turn into an entirely energy
self-sustainable house of the future by December.
"We are building a house that's not connected to the grid, completely run by
solar during the day, and the house during the night will be running on
hydrogen," Anjaneyulu Krothapalli, Mechanical Engineer Professor at Florida
State University, said.
The house will incorporate a way to make hydrogen using solar energy and an
innovative fuel cell that both currently have patent applications pending.
Offline 
Send Email
