http://www.knowledgepublications.com/announce/01252007.htm
who's gonna set up a Hydrogen bay?
Anybody done this?
Has any one else heard anything about hydrogen & the Hindenberg?
;D
My Mum does silversmithing for a hobby, and has a hydrogen-producing machine to provide fuel for her tiny blowtorch (apparently you cannot get really small flames with butane or the other fuels usually used in blowtorches). The machine uses electricity and water to produce hydrogen, and your generator uses hydrogen to produce electricity. So you could run your coach on water!
Jeremy
Quote from: kyle4501 on February 01, 2007, 05:01:54 AM
Has any one else heard anything about anout hydrogen & the Hindenberg?
;D
One of the downfalls (NPI) of the Hindenberg was that the bags were built to use helium, which only the United States made at the time. The United States refused to sell any helium to the Germans because it was considered a war material.
Hydrogen used knwledgably is no more dangrous than say, that stuff they run the new aircraft carriers and submarines with. ::)
As a matter of fact, the Germans have a submarine that uses hydrogen. ::)
I believe that it has been proved that the Hindenburg disaster was actually due to the extremely flamable reflective silver paint the airship was coated with; on 'grounding' with the mooring tower a spark of static electricity ignited the paint and the fabric skin of the airship, which in turn ignited hydrogen leaking from the gas bags. Then things really went wrong.
"Oh, the humanity"
Jeremy
The problem iss that it takes LOTS of both water and electricity to make enough hydrogen to be useful as a genset fuel. Both are usually in short supply on a bus. Even as an auto fuel, it is not a cost effective alternative, just a more enviromentally friendly alternative.
Ross
Quote from: Ross on February 01, 2007, 06:36:14 AM
The problem iss that it takes LOTS of both water and electricity to make enough hydrogen to be useful as a genset fuel. Both are usually in short supply on a bus. Even as an auto fuel, it is not a cost effective alternative, just a more enviromentally friendly alternative.
Ross
Not even 'environmentally friendly' strictly speaking (since more fuel is ultimately used), just 'lower emissions at point of use'. Same is true of electric cars, catalytic converters, and lots of other things we are told are 'envronmentally friendly'. If the electricity used was generated without the use of fossil fuels then there would be a net gain.
My Mum's hydrogen machine doesn't use much electrical power, but then it only needs to produce a relatively tiny amount of gas.
I heard a statistic once that said that more energy is typically used to build a car than that car will ever use during it's lifetime. I dont know if that is really true, but it sounds feasible when you consider everything involved in the mining, refining and transporting of the steel, aluminium, plastics etc involved as well as all the energy consumed by the car manufacturing plants and all their suppliers. If it
is true then the most 'environmentally friendly' thing we can all do is drive around in old, overbuilt, understressed, gas guzzling cars (and buses), and pass a law to force Ford, GM, Toyota and all the others to sack 95% of their staff and close down all their plants apart from their spare-parts divisions. Strange how I've never heard a politian propose that though.
Jeremy
Strange how things work sometimes. I read somewhere (can't remember where) that running hydrogen directly in an internal combustion engine is not friendly on the atmoshpere. It has to do with either creating or distroying ice crystals high up that opens up a hole in the ozone layer (maybe someone knows more). I have heard that using hydrogen in a fuel cell is good though. Good Luck, TomC