On Sep 22, 12:01*am, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:



It may seem a scam at this very moment, but I believe it will get
lined out in the future and become very cost effective, and the
technology grows.

take a look at where the computer has gone from the ABC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanaso...Berry_Computer

then the ENIAC , not only in costs but capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC

I'pods and memory sticks have more capabilities than the top computers
10 years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think that the hydro-cell has a place in the
near future.

Anything "new" is cost prohibitive .

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.

Who said anything about upholding or defying physics?????


good lord. I'm saying that eventually hydrogen power will become a
viable (economically as well as ecologically) option in power...

....

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.

Who said anything about upholding or defying physics?????


good lord. I'm saying that eventually hydrogen power will become a
viable (economically as well as ecologically) option in power...

It might become a suitable "portable" fuel like gasoline if production
costs and safety issues could be resolved. One possible production
solution would be to create hydrogen from sea water using nuclear
power. Of course if battery technology were better that would be the
way to go instead of creating hydrogen.

On Sep 22, 6:21*am, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:



On Sep 22, 12:01*am, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

It may seem a scam at this very moment, but I believe it will get
lined out in the future and become very cost effective, and the
technology grows.

take a look at where the computer has gone from the ABC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanaso...Berry_Computer

then the ENIAC , not only in costs but capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC

I'pods and memory sticks have more capabilities than the top computers
10 years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think that the hydro-cell has a place in the
near future.

Anything "new" is cost prohibitive .

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.

Who said anything about upholding or *defying physics?????

good lord. *I'm saying that eventually hydrogen power will become a
viable (economically as well as ecologically) option in power...

...

The physics part comes in when you try to conjure up that hydrogen.
Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe but virtually
all of it we can get at is already burnt (locked up in compounds).
There is no net energy gain in breaking it out of these compounds and
then recombining it..

They have lots of exciting ways to use hydrogen but you don't hear
about *any exciting ways to get it. The classic scam is anything that
hydrolyses water with electricity. You would be a lot better off just
using the electricity to drive your machine.
If these alternator scams really worked you would just need an
alternator and a motor.
They call it a perpetual motion machine.

I can see what you're saying man, but that doesn't necessarily mean
that the potential isn't there. and eventually wont' be conquered.

Who knows . There might even be a simple "Mr. Hydrogen" maker sold as
an appliance. Of course that will possibly come about at the same time
somebody figures out how to get rid of the reciprocating engine.

On Sep 22, 7:39*am, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:45:43 -0400, Wayne.B



wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.

Who said anything about upholding or *defying physics?????

good lord. *I'm saying that eventually hydrogen power will become a
viable (economically as well as ecologically) option in power...

It might become a suitable "portable" fuel like gasoline if production
costs and safety issues could be resolved. * One possible production
solution would be to create hydrogen from sea water using nuclear
power. *Of course if battery technology were better that would be the
way to go instead of creating hydrogen.

The only viable plan I have seen was to use the waste energy from nuke
plants to crack hydrogen out of the cooling water. They were still
working on the exact process but that still assumes we have new nuke
plants set up for that.
If we could actually build nuke plants that made economic sense , a
lot of these problems would be moot anyway.

agreed.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:39:41 -0400, wrote:

If we could actually build nuke plants that made economic sense , a
lot of these problems would be moot anyway.

I have not studied the economics of nuclear power but my sense of it
is that the main issues are perceived safety (political) and waste
disposal. If the price of fossil fuels goes high enough, any economic
issues with nuclear will become irrelevant. The French are way ahead
of us on nuclear power, have a perfect safety record, and have
developed a centralized facility for reprocessing spent fuel.
Necessity is the mother of invention and nuclear is still our best bet
for stationary power production using existing technology.

What is most needed now is a substitute for diesel and gasoline with
mobile power production. Hydrogen is one of the possibilities but
there are a lot of issues with safety, storage, distribution and
production.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:30:23 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:


I have not studied the economics of nuclear power but my sense of it is
that the main issues are perceived safety (political) and waste
disposal. If the price of fossil fuels goes high enough, any economic
issues with nuclear will become irrelevant.

Many of the proposed Generation IV reactors will burn the nuclear waste,
and are by nature, much safer than the pressurized systems we have now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:08:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If it costs as exactly much energy to get hydrogen as you get when you
use it (perfect efficiency) it still isn't a fuel, it is just a good
battery. Unfortunately the losses are pretty big.
This is great for the space program where cost is no object but not
very practical competing with Li ON batteries, or even lead.

I suppose you could start with elemental hydrogen but most commercial
hydrogen comes from natural gas wells The problem is it is a lot more
expensive.
Why not just use the natural gas? The CLNE solution.


Why not use batteries that can be recharged by a small amount of a known
commodity that's already fairly inexpensive... diesel or natural gas or
whatever. Diesel is ubiquitous, which decreases the hassle factor. Someone
said you still have to get the hydrogen right?

If you are burning diesel, why do you need a battery?
I thought we were trying to get away from fossil fuels.



Because you don't have to burn so much or so often. That's what happens with
hybrids. They burn a lot less fuel. They're not perfect, but nothing is
perfect.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:15:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:08:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If it costs as exactly much energy to get hydrogen as you get when you
use it (perfect efficiency) it still isn't a fuel, it is just a good
battery. Unfortunately the losses are pretty big.
This is great for the space program where cost is no object but not
very practical competing with Li ON batteries, or even lead.

I suppose you could start with elemental hydrogen but most commercial
hydrogen comes from natural gas wells The problem is it is a lot more
expensive.
Why not just use the natural gas? The CLNE solution.


Why not use batteries that can be recharged by a small amount of a known
commodity that's already fairly inexpensive... diesel or natural gas or
whatever. Diesel is ubiquitous, which decreases the hassle factor.
Someone
said you still have to get the hydrogen right?

If you are burning diesel, why do you need a battery?
I thought we were trying to get away from fossil fuels.



Because you don't have to burn so much or so often. That's what happens
with
hybrids. They burn a lot less fuel. They're not perfect, but nothing is
perfect.

A lot of that depends on your driving patterns If you are in stop and
go traffic, the hybrid will save fuel. On the interstate I don't see
it saving much over any car with a small engine. As soon as you
deplete the battery, it is just running on the engine. I was always
curious how a Prius performs on the highway after 50 miles (or however
long the battery can help it).
I know Bill Maher changed his opinion of his Prius after he owned it a
while. He ended up saying it was just a car with a small motor that
gets pretty good mileage. I assume he based that on freeway driving.
When I saw some independent tests comparing the Civic with a
comparable Civic hybrid the highway ratings were virtually the same,
actually giving the edge to the regular Civic at higher speeds.


I have a friend who claims over 40 mpg on the highway. I believe the Civic
does do almost as well on the highway. Most of our driving though is under
40 miles I believe... it should be all electric and rechargeable overnight.
The diesel should only be used if absolutely necessary. I heard the new
Prius comes with a solar panel roof. That sounds good.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:52:23 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:15:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:08:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If it costs as exactly much energy to get hydrogen as you get when you
use it (perfect efficiency) it still isn't a fuel, it is just a good
battery. Unfortunately the losses are pretty big.
This is great for the space program where cost is no object but not
very practical competing with Li ON batteries, or even lead.

I suppose you could start with elemental hydrogen but most commercial
hydrogen comes from natural gas wells The problem is it is a lot more
expensive.
Why not just use the natural gas? The CLNE solution.


Why not use batteries that can be recharged by a small amount of a known
commodity that's already fairly inexpensive... diesel or natural gas or
whatever. Diesel is ubiquitous, which decreases the hassle factor. Someone
said you still have to get the hydrogen right?

If you are burning diesel, why do you need a battery?
I thought we were trying to get away from fossil fuels.



Because you don't have to burn so much or so often. That's what happens with
hybrids. They burn a lot less fuel. They're not perfect, but nothing is
perfect.

A lot of that depends on your driving patterns If you are in stop and
go traffic, the hybrid will save fuel. On the interstate I don't see
it saving much over any car with a small engine. As soon as you
deplete the battery, it is just running on the engine. I was always
curious how a Prius performs on the highway after 50 miles (or however
long the battery can help it).
I know Bill Maher changed his opinion of his Prius after he owned it a
while. He ended up saying it was just a car with a small motor that
gets pretty good mileage. I assume he based that on freeway driving.
When I saw some independent tests comparing the Civic with a
comparable Civic hybrid the highway ratings were virtually the same,
actually giving the edge to the regular Civic at higher speeds.

Most of the Prius I see around here have an Obama sticker on the back.
I think that sticker alone will add five or ten miles per gallon.
--

John H

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
Most of the Prius I see around here have an Obama sticker on the back.
I think that sticker alone will add five or ten miles per gallon.
--

John H

Funny... reminds me of the new Survivor series on TV. Have you heard? It's
going to be in Texas. They have two groups as usual, and one of the
eliminations is to drive across Texas in a Volvo with a bumpersticker that
says, "I'm gay, I'm a Democrat, and I'm here to take your guns."

--
Nom=de=Plume