🚀 go-pugleaf

Brad Guth wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:45 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 6:50 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 12/07/2012 6:04 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! It's clean!"
>>
>>>>> True statement!
>>
>>>>> As I said.. even it was an issue, it just raises the question
>>>>> whether it is necessary to supply O2 Tanks on top of H2.
>>
>>>>> Herc
>>
>>>> I think Rotary Engines are more suitable for H2, I heard the fuel
>>>> intake is separate to the combustion section so it can handle
>>>> higher temperatures.
>>
>>>> but H2 is the Hard Problem! It's not TOO HARD - 2H. It's H2! :o|
>>
>>>> *****
>>
>>>> The Easy Problem is 80% of car usage is <50km at 60km/hour with one
>>>> person load.
>>
>>>> If people had short range city cars (ELECTRIC) and H2 for the
>>>> highway and towing, then Electric is ideal for a city environment!
>>
>>>> The problem is "competition", the govt. has to level the field.
>>>> When Volvo brought out cars 30% heavier than the norm they fared
>>>> better in front on crashes! 10G impact if it slows you down, the
>>>> smaller car suffers 30G impact going from forward to backward in
>>>> the same time frame.
>>
>>>> With specialised cars for short range in cities, and H2 for
>>>> highways, you could abandon the 1 tonne 4WD style for Electrics,
>>>> go for a Dune Buggy style with a compact perspex shell. Keeps
>>>> pollution out of the city too!
>>
>>> Yes, keeps it firmly where it belongs - either around the coal-fired
>>> power stations used to generate the electricity for electrolysis, or
>>> around the steam reformation plants.
>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> electricity for electrolysis is not a 24 hour application.
>>
>> You need to get some sun.
>>
>> Herc
>
> William Mook had that one nicely covered as of a decade ago, and not
> hardly a soul in Usenet/newsgroups ever cared, other than to topic/
> author stalk and bash his ideas into the ground.  Perhaps it was the
> all-knowing mindset of Mook that made his proposed use of his solar
> derived hydrogen sound a bit too good to be true, although his
> creating of relatively cheap hydrogen and oxygen from water and solar
> energy (even at twice his proposed cost) wasn't any ruse or spoof, and
> that hydrogen as used in a fuel-cell can produce 60% efficiency with
> as near to zero environmental impact as energy gets.
>
> Relatively low cost hydrogen is certainly not a problem.
>
> The problem is with the closed mindset of most individuals and that of
> government and Big Energy that wants absolutely nothing to do with any
> of it unless it's only provided by their Oligarch Rothschild cartel.
> Steven Chu wasn't of any help either.
>
> I happen to prefer the mobile use or application of HTP along with the
> high quality of liquid synfuel hydrocarbons derived from Mokenergy
> coal, as a dual-fuel method of providing terrific energy density from
> a very small internal combustion engine that could power any full
> sized hybrid car, truck or bus of any size without those energy or
> operational range limitations of conventional hybrids.  A hydrogen
> peroxide battery is also a terrific application of solar energy
> derived HP, and Mook's clean synfuel from coal via his hydrogen from
> solar energy, was yet another terrific win-win for all of us.
>

Uhuh...