Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[David Harper]

jedcheck@yahoo.com (Jed Checketts) wrote in message news:<e98177f2.0407182105.3de29d1e@posting.google.com>...

dave.harper@gmail.com (David Harper) wrote in message news:<364fd697.0407172343.7b5a87c1@posting.google.com>...
ZHEN <zhenf@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40F9E740.496A99C4@hotmail.com>...
Hi, everyone knows:
Can i use 50% H2O2 to get H2 at room tempeature?

H2O2 + H2O + Na -> H2 + NaOH + H2O2

Before you do that, get all your affairs in order.

Ignoring the H2O2 part, you know what happens when you put sodium in
water, right? It's extremely exothermic and can be dangerous.

Additionally, H2O2 throws off it's extra O relatively easy, so you
might end up having the Na + H2O reaction, PLUS extra O2 given off by
the H2O2. If you have any free H2 in the area near a hot reation with
O2 floating around also, you'll end up with an additional reaction
that fuels the space shuttle's main engines: (2H2 + O2) -> LOTSAHEAT +
2H2O

If you want H2, go to a local gas supplier and rent a full 200+ ft^3
tank for 50$.

The compressed hydrogen route is very expensive. 200 cubic feet of
hydrogen is just slightly over 1 pound of hydrogen. To spend $50.00
for this pound is silly when 11 pounds of sodium hydride (at around
$.75 per pound) would produce the same amount of hydrogen. A bottle
of compressed hydrogen is also quite bulky and has an initial cost of
more than $100.00 (not including the expensive pressure regulator) It
is also very hard to pick up. Most people just try rolling the heavy
metal bottles along the ground slowly.

(SNIP)

Yes, and when he creates 200 ft^3 of hydrogen, how do you think he'll
store it? In a big balloon? Unless he plans on only using small
portions at a time and using it immediately, a compressed cylinder
affords small volume and no potentially dangerous processing (and
hardware to capture the gas) needed. And if he doesn't need 200 ft^3,
he can just get a smaller cylinder for less.

On a side note, I don't know where you got that 100$ estimate from.
Sure, maybe if you buy it instead of rent it. 50$ is a very
conservative over-estimate. One place quoted me 27$ + 10$ for the
regulator, but I ended up opting for helium instead (60$ per 200 ft^3
cylinder) due to additional safety.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40FB0171.6A3995BC@tinaja.com...

ZHEN wrote:

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

Concentrated H2O2 is INSANELY DANGEROUS.

And compared to this danger, which I would call merely substantially
dangerous, keeping blocks of sodium lying about is also quite dangerous.
Chem. labs used to store stuff like this under oil. The H2O2 will give you a
nasty chemical burn, and decomposes producing steam and oxygen in contact
with a lot of different things, so it's a bit of a fire hazard. But safe
enough if handled by an expert. The sodium is about the same order by
itself, it will burn you, and it will burn by itself. Get it wet by
accident, or do it deliberately with an error in your process, and the
reaction products are extremely corrosive and will attack flesh strongly,
the reaction itself is very violent and can be explosive, and the hydrogen
released can be a fire hazard. Note that the violence of this reaction can
splatter flaming molten sodium all about the area. I used to like to play
with explosives, but this is one I would leave alone.

 

[Bob Eldred]

"ZHEN" <zhenf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40F9E740.496A99C4@hotmail.com...

Hi, everyone knows:
Can i use 50% H2O2 to get H2 at room tempeature?

H2O2 + H2O + Na -> H2 + NaOH + H2O2

What does the H2O2 do in this equation? The H2O2 will break down into water
(steam) and oxygen. 2H2O2 > 2H2O + O2. The water reacts with sodium and the
hydrogen reacts with oxygen and your left with sodium hydroxide and water,
but little or no free hydrogen and little or no free oxygen.

All pure nonsense when you consider that a pound of hydrogen contains about
the same energy as a half a gallon of gasoline worth about a buck with gas
taxes. Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more rediculous.
Bob

 

[Don Lancaster]

"Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:

"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40FB0171.6A3995BC@tinaja.com...
ZHEN wrote:

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

Concentrated H2O2 is INSANELY DANGEROUS.

And compared to this danger, which I would call merely substantially
dangerous, keeping blocks of sodium lying about is also quite dangerous.
Chem. labs used to store stuff like this under oil. The H2O2 will give you a
nasty chemical burn, and decomposes producing steam and oxygen in contact
with a lot of different things, so it's a bit of a fire hazard. But safe
enough if handled by an expert. The sodium is about the same order by
itself, it will burn you, and it will burn by itself. Get it wet by
accident, or do it deliberately with an error in your process, and the
reaction products are extremely corrosive and will attack flesh strongly,
the reaction itself is very violent and can be explosive, and the hydrogen
released can be a fire hazard. Note that the violence of this reaction can
splatter flaming molten sodium all about the area. I used to like to play
with explosives, but this is one I would leave alone.

An individual can easily buy concentrated sodium.
An individual is prohibited from buying concentrated H2O2.
--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[David Harper]

"Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1090249186.216840@news-1.nethere.net>...

"ZHEN" <zhenf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40F9E740.496A99C4@hotmail.com...
Hi, everyone knows:
Can i use 50% H2O2 to get H2 at room tempeature?

H2O2 + H2O + Na -> H2 + NaOH + H2O2


What does the H2O2 do in this equation? The H2O2 will break down into water
(steam) and oxygen. 2H2O2 > 2H2O + O2. The water reacts with sodium and the
hydrogen reacts with oxygen and your left with sodium hydroxide and water,
but little or no free hydrogen and little or no free oxygen.

All pure nonsense when you consider that a pound of hydrogen contains about
the same energy as a half a gallon of gasoline worth about a buck with gas
taxes.

1. Making hydrogen NOW is more expensive than gasoline. Who said it
will continue to be expensive? Compare your statement to the
following:

"[T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial
capacity of private industry..."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

2. Gasoline is far from clean combustion. Forgetting the greenhouse
gas and smog issues, think of all the bad things that happen to
engines due to carbon deposits, corrosion, etc. that would be
eliminated with hydrogen.

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.

Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more rediculous.
Bob

First, what makes you think creating hydrogen will always be dangerous
and expensive?

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

Dave

 

[Don Lancaster]

David Harper wrote:

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.


Dave

Where did you get such a silly idea?

1 pound of CONTAINED terrestral hydrogen does not have remotely the
same energy density as 1 pound of contained gasoline.

And almost certainly never will.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

David Harper wrote:

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

You have shown examples where individuals lack an understanding of the
potential applications. Hydrogen doesn't fit here.

To speak of hydrogen as the wonder fuel of the future is like saying
nuclear fusion would be 'the' energy source of the next decade back in
the 50s.

Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation. One of the biggest
is that it is not an energy source. And to imply that this can be
overcome by 'vision' means you would have to defy nature, which is not
the case in the examples you have posted above.

Dave

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:40FC2260.9080707@lakeweb.com...
....

Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation. One of the biggest
is that it is not an energy source.

Dan. This is a polemic statement (a statement intended to argue a case), not
a statement of fact differentiating hydrogen from other fuels. It is also
true of a portion of gasoline (all the material that has been reformed in
the cracking towers), even fuel oils. None of our internal combustion fuels
are energy sources. All are "made from" the raw energy sources. The only raw
fuels consumed are used for external combustion engines, and you just don't
find those any more. (I am pretty sure crude oil will not run any of the
ships engines directly.) In this context Hydrogen differs from gasoline as a
fuel only in the relative efficiency of converting the raw fuels, crude oil
and natural gas, into the final product. If you are going to rail against
this particular fuel, you do have to get the objection right or there is
nothing to be gained.

 

[Bob Eldred]

"David Harper" <dave.harper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:364fd697.0407191051.45189d53@posting.google.com...

1. Making hydrogen NOW is more expensive than gasoline. Who said it
will continue to be expensive? Compare your statement to the
following:

"[T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial
capacity of private industry..."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

2. Gasoline is far from clean combustion. Forgetting the greenhouse
gas and smog issues, think of all the bad things that happen to
engines due to carbon deposits, corrosion, etc. that would be
eliminated with hydrogen.

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.

Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more
rediculous.
Bob

First, what makes you think creating hydrogen will always be dangerous
and expensive?

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

Dave

You forgot the old saw that if man was meant to fly, God would have given
him wings. That facts are than many things deemed impossible or impractical
still are, your examples not with standing. Carnot efficiency in a
thermodynamic engine comes to mind as does the various perpetual motion
ideas that come up from time to time. Just because some bozo thought the
telephone was impractical does not mean that hydrogen is practical. Hydrogen
has many negatives that have been discussed here and elswhere ad nausium. Do
yourself a favor and find out what the negatives are then propose what has
to happen to get around them. If you can find solutions, you could become a
very rich man, indeed.
Bob

 

[Don Lancaster]

Bob Eldred wrote:

"David Harper" <dave.harper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:364fd697.0407191051.45189d53@posting.google.com...

1. Making hydrogen NOW is more expensive than gasoline. Who said it
will continue to be expensive? Compare your statement to the
following:

"[T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial
capacity of private industry..."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

2. Gasoline is far from clean combustion. Forgetting the greenhouse
gas and smog issues, think of all the bad things that happen to
engines due to carbon deposits, corrosion, etc. that would be
eliminated with hydrogen.

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.

Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more
rediculous.
Bob

First, what makes you think creating hydrogen will always be dangerous
and expensive?

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

Dave

You forgot the old saw that if man was meant to fly, God would have given
him wings. That facts are than many things deemed impossible or impractical
still are, your examples not with standing. Carnot efficiency in a
thermodynamic engine comes to mind as does the various perpetual motion
ideas that come up from time to time. Just because some bozo thought the
telephone was impractical does not mean that hydrogen is practical. Hydrogen
has many negatives that have been discussed here and elswhere ad nausium. Do
yourself a favor and find out what the negatives are then propose what has
to happen to get around them. If you can find solutions, you could become a
very rich man, indeed.
Bob

They laughed at Bozo the clown, too.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:40FC2260.9080707@lakeweb.com...
...

Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation. One of the biggest
is that it is not an energy source.


Dan. This is a polemic statement (a statement intended to argue a case), not
a statement of fact differentiating hydrogen from other fuels. It is also
true of a portion of gasoline (all the material that has been reformed in
the cracking towers), even fuel oils. None of our internal combustion fuels
are energy sources. All are "made from" the raw energy sources. The only raw
fuels consumed are used for external combustion engines, and you just don't
find those any more. (I am pretty sure crude oil will not run any of the
ships engines directly.) In this context Hydrogen differs from gasoline as a
fuel only in the relative efficiency of converting the raw fuels, crude oil
and natural gas, into the final product. If you are going to rail against
this particular fuel, you do have to get the objection right or there is
nothing to be gained.

Hi Fred,
And your conclusion should be the point exactly. Where gasoline and
diesel are 'direct' derivatives of oil, the hydrogen vector only adds an
unnecessary loss. Oil presently burdens the world economy at some $2 to
$3 a barrel at the well head.

So, hydrogen would have to come from some non fossil source to be a fuel
of the future, and that source is non existent. At our present rate of
evolving the way we deal with energy, it will likely take 5 to 10
decades before hydrogen can be considered much less seriously implemented.

You know as well as I do that the first non fossil source of hydrogen
would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical processes. At
that point it will become feedstock to sweeten tar and sand oils.

I hope that makes my earlier statement clearer.

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[Richard Haimann]

At an rate, gasoline, etc. is just stored solar energy. It was
accumulated in biomass and deposited into geological formations over many
millions of years. Eventually, it will be gone. At some point, we humans
will need to find a way to harvest solar (or nuclear?) energy at the rate
we expend energy. This savings account of stored energy we have in the
form of fossil fuels should be counted as our investment fund that we
invest in the development of technologies appropriate to meet our energy
needs when these fossil fuels are gone. Is hydrogen the right energy
carrier? It is certainly is less efficient than reduced carbon species.
Yet, it oxidizes cleaner. What is the appropriate balance? I see nothing
wrong with experimentation as long as the experimenters don't blow their
fingers off.

Good luck,
Richard Haimann, P.E.


On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:50:06 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:40FC2260.9080707@lakeweb.com...
...

Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation. One of the
biggest
is that it is not an energy source.
Dan. This is a polemic statement (a statement intended to argue a
case), not
a statement of fact differentiating hydrogen from other fuels. It is
also
true of a portion of gasoline (all the material that has been reformed
in
the cracking towers), even fuel oils. None of our internal combustion
fuels
are energy sources. All are "made from" the raw energy sources. The
only raw
fuels consumed are used for external combustion engines, and you just
don't
find those any more. (I am pretty sure crude oil will not run any of the
ships engines directly.) In this context Hydrogen differs from gasoline
as a
fuel only in the relative efficiency of converting the raw fuels, crude
oil
and natural gas, into the final product. If you are going to rail
against
this particular fuel, you do have to get the objection right or there is
nothing to be gained.

Hi Fred,
And your conclusion should be the point exactly. Where gasoline and
diesel are 'direct' derivatives of oil, the hydrogen vector only adds an
unnecessary loss. Oil presently burdens the world economy at some $2 to
$3 a barrel at the well head.

So, hydrogen would have to come from some non fossil source to be a fuel
of the future, and that source is non existent. At our present rate of
evolving the way we deal with energy, it will likely take 5 to 10
decades before hydrogen can be considered much less seriously
implemented.

You know as well as I do that the first non fossil source of hydrogen
would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical processes. At
that point it will become feedstock to sweeten tar and sand oils.

I hope that makes my earlier statement clearer.

Best, Dan.

--
______________________
Richard Haimann, P.E.
http://www.haimann.com

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

Richard Haimann wrote:

At an rate, gasoline, etc. is just stored solar energy. It was
accumulated in biomass and deposited into geological formations over
many millions of years. Eventually, it will be gone. At some point,
we humans will need to find a way to harvest solar (or nuclear?) energy
at the rate we expend energy.

I know, you are preaching to the choir.

This savings account of stored energy we
have in the form of fossil fuels should be counted as our investment
fund that we invest in the development of technologies appropriate to
meet our energy needs when these fossil fuels are gone. Is hydrogen
the right energy carrier? It is certainly is less efficient than
reduced carbon species. Yet, it oxidizes cleaner. What is the
appropriate balance?

As long as coal and oil are our primary sources of energy, it does not
make sense to add the burden of the hydrogen vector. It most certainly
oxidizes dirtier when the complete vector is considered. As world
policies by those that lead us have made little provisions for a future
without cheap oil, I think it a rouge to talk about hydrogen as if it
were some kind of solution.

I see nothing wrong with experimentation as long
as the experimenters don't blow their fingers off.

I was following a post about the future of hydrogen. As for the guy with
the h202, he could just throw some pot metal into some swimming pool
acid if he wants hydrogen. But then, he does take the chance of getting
blown fingers and an acid burn to boot!

Good luck,
Richard Haimann, P.E.

<Try not to top post>
Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[charliew2]

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40FB0171.6A3995BC@tinaja.com...

ZHEN wrote:

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

Don, apparently ZHEN doesn't yet realize that with pure water and sodium,
you get hydrogen. You DON'T want excess oxygen when this happens.
Translation - dumping sodium into hydrogen peroxide is indeed INSANELY
DANGEROUS.

Concentrated H2O2 is INSANELY DANGEROUS.
Do not even THINK of experimenting with it.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that it can become part of an energy economy.

Even the X Prize folks weren't allowed to buy any.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Don Lancaster]

charliew2 wrote:

Don, apparently ZHEN doesn't yet realize that with pure water and sodium,
you get hydrogen. You DON'T want excess oxygen when this happens.
Translation - dumping sodium into hydrogen peroxide is indeed INSANELY
DANGEROUS.

The trick is to use a flask made of lithium borohydride when you do
this.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[The Phantom]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:05:19 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com>
wrote:

"Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:

"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40FB0171.6A3995BC@tinaja.com...
ZHEN wrote:

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

Concentrated H2O2 is INSANELY DANGEROUS.

And compared to this danger, which I would call merely substantially
dangerous, keeping blocks of sodium lying about is also quite dangerous.
Chem. labs used to store stuff like this under oil. The H2O2 will give you a
nasty chemical burn, and decomposes producing steam and oxygen in contact
with a lot of different things, so it's a bit of a fire hazard. But safe
enough if handled by an expert. The sodium is about the same order by
itself, it will burn you, and it will burn by itself. Get it wet by
accident, or do it deliberately with an error in your process, and the
reaction products are extremely corrosive and will attack flesh strongly,
the reaction itself is very violent and can be explosive, and the hydrogen
released can be a fire hazard. Note that the violence of this reaction can
splatter flaming molten sodium all about the area. I used to like to play
with explosives, but this is one I would leave alone.

An individual can easily buy concentrated sodium.
An individual is prohibited from buying concentrated H2O2.

Here in the Seattle area some health food stores sell so called "food
grade" 35% H2O2. The 35% stuff is plenty strong enough to severely
damage skin and eyes, and if it comes into contact with an appropriate
catalyst such as fine divided metals, it can decompose fast enough to
cause thermal burns.

They sell it as a food additive, to "oxygenate" your blood, a function
that I find is fulfilled adequately by breathing.

 

[John]

Try cleaning the record tab detector switch first..
Good luck John.

 

[David Harper]

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<40FC2038.18303F91@tinaja.com>...

David Harper wrote:

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.


Dave

Where did you get such a silly idea?

1 pound of CONTAINED terrestral hydrogen does not have remotely the
same energy density as 1 pound of contained gasoline.

I was basing it off the statement made by Bob. I assumed his statement was correct.

 

[David Harper]

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<40FC2260.9080707@lakeweb.com>...

You have shown examples where individuals lack an understanding of the
potential applications. Hydrogen doesn't fit here.

To speak of hydrogen as the wonder fuel of the future is like saying
nuclear fusion would be 'the' energy source of the next decade back in
the 50s.

When did I ever say hydrogen was a "wonder fuel" and will be the fuel
of the 2010's? I only made the statement that saying 'hydrogen will
never be viable energy source due to cost' was short sighted.

Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation. One of the biggest
is that it is not an energy source.

What?! What about fuel cells? The shuttle main engines? Sure, you
need oxygen too, but saying it's not a source of energy...???

And what physical limitations are you talking about? The only one I
can think of is volume when it's not cryogenic.

And to imply that this can be
overcome by 'vision' means you would have to defy nature, which is not
the case in the examples you have posted above.

Best, Dan.

How would using hydrogen as a fuel "defy" nature? Afterwards, you
might want to inform NASA that their shuttle doesn't work.

Dave

 

[David Harper]

"Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1090271228.96758@news-1.nethere.net>...

You forgot the old saw that if man was meant to fly, God would have given
him wings. That facts are than many things deemed impossible or impractical
still are, your examples not with standing. Carnot efficiency in a
thermodynamic engine comes to mind as does the various perpetual motion
ideas that come up from time to time.

Sure, but we're not discussing engine efficiencies or compression
ratios (which you could improve with hydrogen, BTW). We were only
discussing the fuel source for those engines.

Just because some bozo thought the
telephone was impractical does not mean that hydrogen is practical.

Today, that statement is correct. My contention is that in the future
that statement may proove false. When? I don't know.

Hydrogen
has many negatives that have been discussed here and elswhere ad nausium.

Correction: Hydrogen CURRENTLY has many negatives that have been
discussed here and elswhere ad nausium.

Do
yourself a favor and find out what the negatives are then propose what has
to happen to get around them. If you can find solutions, you could become a
very rich man, indeed.
Bob

Exactly. Figure out what has to be done to get around them... again,
my point wasn't that hydrogen is a viable option today. It was that
it is possible in the future. How this will happen? I don't know.
When? I don't know.

But saying hydrogen will always be the "fuel of the future" implies it
will never be practical.