🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 15, 2:22 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> >>>>> The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!
>
> LOOK ABOVE!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> >> >> >>>>> An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
> > >>> >> >> >>>>> of nitrgoen.
>
> > >>> >> >> >>>>> Sylvia.
>
> > >>> >> >> >>>> And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.
>
> > >>> >> >> >>> not mentioned in Wikipedia.
>
> > >>> >> >> >> So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
> > >>> >> >> >> source.
>
> > >>> >> >> > What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.  It's a secondary
> > >>> >> >> > reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.
>
> > >>> >> >> Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
> > >>> >> >> reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.
> > >>> >> >Ohhh sorrrrry chops..   here pull my finger!
>
> > >>> >> Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
> > >>> >> tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.
> > >>> >What claim?  exactly.
>
> > >>> ADD getting you down? It's right there at the top: "The H2
> > >>> engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!"
> > >>> Although the first sentence is correct (but would also be
> > >>> correct for any existing IC engine, since one of the exhaust
> > >>> components resulting from burning hydrocarbons is water,
> > >>> making it irrelevant), the second is not, since NOx isn't
> > >>> "clean" by anyone's definition.
>
> > >>> >Your claim is not even listed in Wikipedia as a hurdle.
>
> > >>> Missed that part about Wiki not being a comprehensive
> > >>> source, did you? ADD again? Or did you actually mean
> > >>> "relatively clean" and just got carried away by the wonder
> > >>> of it all?
>
> > >>How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?
>
> > >Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
> > >top of this post:
>
> > >"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
> > >gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
> > >get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)
>
> > >Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
> > >associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
> > >form.
>
> > >Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
> > >engines are *not* clean?
>
> > [Crickets...]
>
> > Run away! Run away!
> > --
>
> > Bob C.
>
> you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.
>
> ****
>
> H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!  It's FREE!
>
> Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
> in perspex)
>
> was $5/square meter?
>
> The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
> fuel.
>
> The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
> Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!
>
> You don't need H2 production at night!  That's the point!  It's stored
> SOLAR ENERGY.
>
> O2 (if it's even needed) comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
> produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.
>
> Herc

It has actually been better put across by William Mook (aka
Mokenergy), and the mainstream status-quo of forever hydrocarbons
hasn't bought into any of it.

Yes, H2 can become relatively cheap, though perhaps not ever as cheap
as offered by William Mook, and otherwise it's ideally suited for fuel-
cell applications, as well as for dozens of applications in
commercial, industrial and retail/end-use.

Supposedly the Boeing solar panel division (Spectrolab) has actually
broken the 100% PV efficiency by converting IR through UV, although
that's with a rather spendy advanced product that most of us can't
possibly afford.  Commercially and otherwise for space or military
applications they currently offer a spendy 43% efficiency factor.
 http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/msce.pdf

 http://groups.google.com/groups/search
 http://translate.google.com/#
 Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”