From: Rob on 13 Jul 2010 18:07 On 13/07/2010 7:33 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: > In article<4c3bac18$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, > Rob<mesamine(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 13/07/2010 8:58 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: > >>> >>> Sadly many such magazines don't enquire into the validity of the ads >>> they carry. Car Mechanics carried adverts for the tin pellet devices >>> long after others had banned them. >>> >>> Their claims are pure lies. To produce hydrogen by electrolysis takes >>> more energy than it produces. So only viable with a cheap source of >>> electricity. Not inefficiently produced by a car alternator driven off >>> the engine. >>> > >> Boeing Unveils Unmanned Phantom Eye Demonstrator > > [snip] > > No details on how it works, or the source of the hydrogen. And costs never > worry the military. > I'm not disputing hydrogen can be a good energy source - this has been > known for years. The problem is producing it economically. If you have > 'free' electricity that's one thing, but you don't onboard a car. > I thought its was an interesting news release from Boeing in that they have made it work somehow.
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 13 Jul 2010 19:07 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Rob <mesamine(a)gmail.com> saying something like: >I thought its was an interesting news release from Boeing in that they >have made it work somehow. Giant magnets, bought from Eco-Tech Magnetic Car Snakeoil Products, of course. If you make the magnets big enough, they create fuel. Seriously, I'd be interested in seeing how they do it.
From: Peter Hill on 14 Jul 2010 02:47 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:07:25 +1000, Rob <mesamine(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 13/07/2010 7:33 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: >> In article<4c3bac18$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, >> Rob<mesamine(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 13/07/2010 8:58 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Sadly many such magazines don't enquire into the validity of the ads >>>> they carry. Car Mechanics carried adverts for the tin pellet devices >>>> long after others had banned them. >>>> >>>> Their claims are pure lies. To produce hydrogen by electrolysis takes >>>> more energy than it produces. So only viable with a cheap source of >>>> electricity. Not inefficiently produced by a car alternator driven off >>>> the engine. >>>> >> >>> Boeing Unveils Unmanned Phantom Eye Demonstrator >> >> [snip] >> >> No details on how it works, or the source of the hydrogen. And costs never >> worry the military. >> I'm not disputing hydrogen can be a good energy source - this has been >> known for years. The problem is producing it economically. If you have >> 'free' electricity that's one thing, but you don't onboard a car. >> > >I thought its was an interesting news release from Boeing in that they >have made it work somehow. Made what work somehow? Making an engine run off a tank of liquid hydrogen isn't much different to making it run on petrol, ethanol, methanol, butane (LPG in warm areas), methane (CNG), propane (LPG in cooler areas) or any other combustible liquid/gas. Filling a cryogenic tank just before takeoff with the boil off being burnt immediately by the engine is a quite light and low cost route as the tank doesn't have to be a thick wall pressure bottle. Just very bulky with insulation as that controls the boil off rate, too little insulation fuel would have to be vented to stop the tank pressure rising. Utterly useless for cars/trucks as it would have to vent the boil off when not running or run the engine to drive a cooling system to reduce the boil off rate. You can't store liquid H2 for free. Making a HHO generator produce gas with more energy content than the electric power input is impossible. -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
From: Rob on 14 Jul 2010 03:47 On 14/07/2010 4:47 PM, Peter Hill wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:07:25 +1000, Rob<mesamine(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 13/07/2010 7:33 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: >>> In article<4c3bac18$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, >>> Rob<mesamine(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 13/07/2010 8:58 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Sadly many such magazines don't enquire into the validity of the ads >>>>> they carry. Car Mechanics carried adverts for the tin pellet devices >>>>> long after others had banned them. >>>>> >>>>> Their claims are pure lies. To produce hydrogen by electrolysis takes >>>>> more energy than it produces. So only viable with a cheap source of >>>>> electricity. Not inefficiently produced by a car alternator driven off >>>>> the engine. >>>>> >>> >>>> Boeing Unveils Unmanned Phantom Eye Demonstrator >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> No details on how it works, or the source of the hydrogen. And costs never >>> worry the military. >>> I'm not disputing hydrogen can be a good energy source - this has been >>> known for years. The problem is producing it economically. If you have >>> 'free' electricity that's one thing, but you don't onboard a car. >>> >> >> I thought its was an interesting news release from Boeing in that they >> have made it work somehow. > > Made what work somehow? > > Making an engine run off a tank of liquid hydrogen isn't much > different to making it run on petrol, ethanol, methanol, butane (LPG > in warm areas), methane (CNG), propane (LPG in cooler areas) or any > other combustible liquid/gas. Filling a cryogenic tank just before > takeoff with the boil off being burnt immediately by the engine is a > quite light and low cost route as the tank doesn't have to be a thick > wall pressure bottle. Just very bulky with insulation as that controls > the boil off rate, too little insulation fuel would have to be vented > to stop the tank pressure rising. Utterly useless for cars/trucks as > it would have to vent the boil off when not running or run the engine > to drive a cooling system to reduce the boil off rate. You can't store > liquid H2 for free. > > Making a HHO generator produce gas with more energy content than the > electric power input is impossible. This is the bit that got me. Phantom Eye is powered by two 2.3-liter, four-cylinder engines that provide 150 horsepower each. It has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots and can carry up to a 450-pound payload. The above figures show its not very efficient. Ford make a hybrid car now with a 4 cylinder motor and these are used for taxi cabs in New York. r
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Want to join a new forum for car lovers? Next: Special new rates from the U.S. to Europe |