06-02-2007, 02:52 PM | #151 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Hydrogen is not a fuel. Those claiming otherwise - and that would include Aliantha because she does not dispute it - have no idea why hydrogen as a fuel is a promotion by the naive - such as George Jr and Rick Wagoner of GM - to the naive. |
|
06-02-2007, 11:10 PM | #152 |
trying hard to be a better person
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,493
|
tw...you suggested that I was an advocate for hydrogen fuel. All I did was provide you with information. As I have previously mentioned, I'm not a scientist so can't argue the pros and cons.
The only thing I do acknowledge with regard to hydrogen as a fuel source is that human beings need to explore all options because we're running out of oil. That's it. The sum total of my point. If you're some kind of oracle and can tell that in the future there'll never be a feasible way to use hydrogen as a fuel source, then I bow to your superior knowledge.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber |
06-03-2007, 01:10 AM | #153 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
This time you posted what your point was; said something I can comprehend. Yes, alternatives must always be explored. But one does not go exploring by violating well proven concepts such as conservation of energy. We also cannot burn seawater no matter how many times fiction has claimed otherwise. There are no miracle solutions. But obvious problems could be solved. For example, how much of 10 gasoline liters actually perform useful work? Probably less than 2. Automobiles are that grossly inefficient. Do we know how to improve these numbers? Yes, and without magic solutions. One technology stifled for so long that the Japanese finally refined it is the hybrid. Hybrids were even in pre-WWII locomotives. Stifled so long because fear of innovation has been especially strong in the American auto industry. Solutions exist. So these same industry executives who stifled innovation suddenly proclaim a miracle solution in hydrogen? Not only is hydrogen not a viable fuel, but it is being used to protect executives who really need to be burned at the stake - with hydrogen. Chrysler studied hybrids in the 1980s. It was too complex. Why? Well Chrysler, et al suffered through development of other technologies such as fuel injection. A technology found even in 1937 German WWII planes. It was not that hybrids were too complex. It was that Chrysler, et al had so stifled innovation as to not have time for the more innovative stuff. Fuel injection that finally became standard in the mid 1980 (and not properly implemented in GM until after 1990) was originally standard in German ME-109 fighter planes. Numerous ideas exist that only require development. So instead we waste time on a technology that has near zero promise? Hydrogen? What might be the next major advance in automobiles? A future generation hybrid may not even use piston engines. We use pistons today only because we know them - for the same reasons that transistors were once made of germanium. Hybrids now make practical tiny turbines in conjunction with new tech batteries. Turbines could even utilize 4 or 5 of those 10 gasoline liters in useful work. Theoretically, it is possible - which we cannot say about hydrogen as a fuel. Nothing here from an oracle. It is a simple technical possiblity. Hydrogen as a fuel - not. Hydrogen as a battery - maybe. Notice how we solve global warming and energy problems. We get energy from 4 or 5 gasoline liters. Doing more with less. Yes we need to explore viable possibilities. But that means we need executives who know what reality is - who come from where the work gets done - and therefore don't hype mythical solutions. Hydrogen is promoted where innovation is again being subverted. Did it ever bother anyone that GM's chief engineer was a student of graphics art - not a mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineer? Could he see fallacies in something that violates thermodynamics? Of course not. He would have never taken a thermo course. Therefore he would be a perfect reason why innovation is stifled - why hydrogen is promoted at the expense of innovation. Bottom line: hydrogen is being promoted as a fuel by those who stifle innovation and have a history of doing so. |
|
06-03-2007, 09:07 AM | #154 |
Only looks like a disaster tourist
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: above 7,000 feet
Posts: 7,208
|
GM has many chief engineers. Dr. Mohsen Shabana is chief engineer for the GM Sequel (fuel cell car) project (General Motors chief engineer: hydrogen as transportation fuel will shape the rest of the century).
You can read more about GM's fuel cells and advanced technology vehicles here. Finally, AutoblogGreen has some interesting articles about technologies under development, including a 6-stroke cycle "steam" engine. There are a lot of innovative projects going on around the world in the areas of energy efficiency, alternative fuels and CO2 reduction. |
06-03-2007, 01:27 PM | #155 | |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
06-03-2007, 02:27 PM | #156 | |
Only looks like a disaster tourist
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: above 7,000 feet
Posts: 7,208
|
The AutoblogGreen site that I linked to above has an article about a process that makes hydrogen "by adding water to an alloy of the metals aluminum and gallium."
Quote:
|
|
06-03-2007, 03:21 PM | #157 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
What is the source of energy when water is added to alunimum and gallium alloys? We also do this with carbon rods in water. But that also does not make hydrogen energy. Hydrogen could be manufactured and stored in large low pressure tanks. Energy stored for short term use that is useless for transportation - in essence a battery. Hydrogen is not a fuel. No viable technology exists even in theory to make it useful. So what technology with promise is GM working on? Notice how its top management - business school graduates - have thrown most all their eggs into one hydrogen basket. How many other technologies are therefore sitting stifled? But again, its about doing more with less. Where are the programs to increase thermodynamic efficiencies in their piston engines. Or where are their programs to replace piston engines with something that is even more thermodynamically efficient? Government gives them millions of dollars in 1994 to build a hybrid? Eleven years later they still don't have a hybrid? What genius did that R&D? |
|
06-03-2007, 10:45 PM | #159 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
I don't see anything there after 2004.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
06-03-2007, 10:54 PM | #160 |
trying hard to be a better person
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,493
|
Yeah, they couldn't get it to work. They're still working on it though.
I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think the theory of changing the mechanics is probably a good one. Conventional engines need something to 'fire' to make them work (in general). Maybe that's the problem. There's more info about it online if you care to do a search.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber |
06-04-2007, 07:09 PM | #161 | ||
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Why Original SCT Failed
Quote:
I have to believe that, at the beginning, Rick Maynes believed in his idea, his invention. I also must believe that, at some point early on, he realized that he was good at raising money. And I truly believe that, at some point very early on, Mr. Maynes decided to spend a fraction of the $100,000,000 plus raised to keep up the window dressing, and keep the balance for himself and his associates. I believe that at some point, he made the decision that raising the capital and taking it was a hell of alot easier than taking the money, developing an engine, and throwing the dice. [/quote] That is also how hydrogen has been promoted as a fuel. As stated before, one most drive right in with belligerence at the irrefutable fact - IOW why everyone needs a science education to grasp reality: Quote:
Nothing posted here is nay saying. The devil is in the details. Those details were immediately evident. Therefore the patent holder’s claims must address those obvious flaws. It does not. These realities are why innovation is so hard. These realities are why GM could be so innovative when separate divisions did the innovating rather than now - all innovation from two 'central bureaucracy' design centers. The split cycle engine was an admirable attempt to accomplish what the Sterling engine was also supposed to do. But to see what can and cannot work, one must first have a basic grasp of reality - such as Conservation of Energy. Burning seawater also will not work as a fuel. And yet some have also proposed that 'solution'. Again, it is why the world needs all students with basic science courses every year while in school. Otherwise people will even believe George Jr. |
||
06-07-2007, 02:25 AM | #162 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,674
|
__________________
Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. |
06-07-2007, 05:32 AM | #163 |
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
|
Darn cosmic rays!
They don't have clouds though do they? The martians that is... Still the sun is more active. Good article in Discovery this month on the Dane doing the ray research. Whether or not he's on to something, it shows that politics are not real good for science.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis Last edited by Griff; 06-07-2007 at 05:37 AM. |
06-07-2007, 06:12 AM | #164 | ||||
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
Here is one Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. Last edited by xoxoxoBruce; 06-07-2007 at 06:30 AM. |
||||
07-23-2007, 10:10 AM | #165 |
Banned - Self Imposed
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,847
|
Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate
One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air. "There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The influence of these plumes on climate is complex because they can have both a cooling and a warming effect, the scientists said. Scientists are convinced these plumes contain so many cooling sulfate particles that they may be masking half of the effect of global warming. The plumes may block more than 10% of the sunlight over the Pacific. Asia is the world's largest source of aerosols, man-made and natural. Every spring and summer, storms whip up silt from the Gobi desert of Mongolia and the hardpan of the Taklamakan desert of western China, where, for centuries, dust has shaped a way of life. From the dunes of Dunhuang, where vendors hawk gauze face masks alongside braided leather camel whips, to the oasis of Kashgar at the feet of the Tian Shan Mountains 1,500 miles to the west, there is no escaping it. Only the dust escapes. The team detected a new high-altitude plume every three or four days. Each one was up to 300 miles wide and six miles deep, a vaporous layer cake of pollutants. The higher the plumes, the longer they lasted, the faster they traveled the more pronounced their effect. Until now, the pollution choking so many communities in Asia may have tempered the pace of global warming. As China and other countries eliminate their sulfate emissions, however, world temperatures may heat up even faster than predicted. Last edited by yesman065; 07-23-2007 at 10:18 AM. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|