Mikado14 wrote:
There are inherrent problems with Hydrogen that involve people and regulations. If gasoline had to clear UL and other regulatory bodies as a fuel, it wouldn't. However, I do agree that there are ways to create the Hydrogen on demand thus the total amount on board is reduced. People remember the Hindenburg but what about the Pinto? Any fuel that requires combustion will be volatile otherwise it would not be fuel. Someone should expand upon what Puharich did in the 70's with a Winnebago no less.
Yes, regulations that are designed to discourage innovation by the average user. Shell Oil is installing hydrogen on demand stations in New York and California to support the new Honda hydrogen powered vehicles. It's always okay when big oil does it, but not little ol' me.
Drag is drag, Fred. If you are going to extract energy from the flow of the air, the air must be made do to some work and there will be a trade off, but then I will go out on a limb here and assume that you knew so.
The object here is to create more electric power and decrease drag by "tuning" the air porting through the turbines. If that wasn't at all possible, then why would Mitsubishi install twin turbos on their iMEVi to be introduced in 2009?
That is too idealistic for my blood. I work with individuals that have had the same pay/hour for the past two years with no increase in sight. With the cost of fuel and heating oil, where are they to get the disposable income to perform the improvements that you mention? With that in mind, I believe that is part of the Energy Consortium's battle plan.
The money can come from repealing the tax incentives and breaks given to the oil industry, and that will subsidize homeowners financial burden for installation of solar/wind/battery systems. The additional taxes on fuels can be reduced to further reduce the costs to the taxpayers.
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement but if it is the vapor that is actually being used in the combustion wouldn't a means of vaporizing the fuel also be an improvement along with better ignition? Just a thought.
Yes it would, but the Fed claims that vaporizing the fuel can lead to safety issues, mainly the possibility of explosion. So the "trick" is to get the fuel vaporized as it passes into the combustion chamber and not when entering the intake manifold or fuel injection ports. The injector ports can be retooled to incorporate either heat or a vortex inlet that will vaporize the fuel as it enters the cylinder instead of before. By increasing the spark voltage and decreasing the compression ratio, you can eliminate the possibility of explosion.
Diesel fuel lubricates the injectors and the injection pump. Cummins has a big problem with lifter pump failures causing the injection pumps to sieze without the lubricity of the fuel. Just did one two weeks ago. As to the cylinder, very little lubrication. As to a "mister", essentially, that is what the injector is doing, ever see what one looks like when attached to a popper? You can't see the fuel when it opens.
My point is, that pure hydrogen does not provide the lubrication necessary to prevent those types of problems. But using an oil injection system (wherever that is relevant to allow hydrogen fuel to be used in place of diesel) can solve the lubricity issue and allow water to be hydrolyzed as fuel. In addition to the fuel savings it will reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants from diesel exhaust. It also will require exhaust system that are stainless steel to avoid rusting out.
Fred, I see you addressed this aspect at the end of your post. Yes, I agree but then what about just simple things like consolidating trips to town? Or turning off the light switch when you are not in the room? I see so many Yuppie homes with all the lights on, it's their money but then I, as you, believe that those types of individuals help to sustain what the Energy Consortium is doing.
If energy was free or next to free, there would be no need to blame the Yuppies for contributing to excessive costs and energy waste. I have consolidated my trips since gas cost 43.9 per gallon and always turn off lights when not in use. It wasn't always about saving money/energy, it just seemed common sense and practical. Why though is always incumbent upon the consumer to make sacrifices? Because of the refusal of the Energy Consortium to be accountable and responsible, that is the reality. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US for over 30-35 years, yet we are told that refining shortages are to blame for the higher gas prices. Diesel always has cost less to refine than gasoline, so why is diesel fuel costing more than a gallon of regular unleaded?
I do not enjoy getting on a soapbox and having to produce these diatribes, but I do it because it is necessary to create a new energy paradigm, one that is not dependent on the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) propaganda of the Energy Consortium. See, we don't need Zero Point Energy, nor do we need any new scientific breakthroughs to get ourselves free of the energy slavery. We have technology that can do that now, only we have an elected representative body that does nothing to support the cause. They enjoy the rewards of the Energy Consortium more than they care about those that put them in office. We settle for the choices they offer us as candidates instead of demanding representation for the public.
I choose to look at ways to make a positive difference instead of all the negative reasons why it doesn't or cannot work. Those that don't know that something is impossible make it possible, because thye cannot see impossibility within their reality.