Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 9:32:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA

It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more bulbous aircraft than the one we are used to.

For vehicles, electrolysing water to hydrogen then burning it in an engine delivers about 25% of the electrical energy you used up in creating it. Batteries and the like give you back about 85% of what you stored.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA

Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient quantities to filling stations like gasoline? I don't know much about it. Maybe it is practical to produce on a smaller scale. If a home size production capability from solar can be developed practically that would be a great energy storage medium. I seem to recall there are ways of producing H2 that are more efficient.

The gasoline infrastructure works as well as it does because we've had 100 years to adapt it to us and us to it. I don't know about hydrogen.

Then even if burning it does emit hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides are still an issue, no? I suppose it is OK to burn a rich mixture of H2 to minimize the NOx since a bit of unburned H2 is not a big deal... is it?

It just seems like EVs are such great cars in many ways! The market is still developing rapidly, but in just a few years there will be dozens of very practical EVs to choose from. So the window of opportunity of hydrogen cars will be closing quickly.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.

> Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient quantities to filling stations like gasoline?

The answer to hydrogen storage, and truck or rail transport, is NOT liquid, nor gas, it's solid. Intercalation
compounds store the most hydrogen per cubic meter, and have self-limiting characteristics
if a leak develops.

Hydrogen aircraft are known, but got a bad reputation due to a newsreel featuring the Hindenberg, of course...

As for pipeline possibilities, that might take some new technology.
Coal slurry, liquid petroleum, gaseous petroleum, town gas, all are pipe-portable,
how hard can it be to add hydrogen to the list?

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>
>> Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient quantities to filling stations like gasoline?
>
>The answer to hydrogen storage, and truck or rail transport, is NOT liquid, nor gas, it's solid. Intercalation
>compounds store the most hydrogen per cubic meter, and have self-limiting characteristics
>if a leak develops.
>
>Hydrogen aircraft are known, but got a bad reputation due to a newsreel featuring the Hindenberg, of course...
>
>As for pipeline possibilities, that might take some new technology.
>Coal slurry, liquid petroleum, gaseous petroleum, town gas, all are pipe-portable,
>how hard can it be to add hydrogen to the list?

Evidently hydrogen is very hard to pipe to places because it is very
hard to keep it from leaking.

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:43:22 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> >
> >> Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient quantities to filling stations like gasoline?
> >
> >The answer to hydrogen storage, and truck or rail transport, is NOT liquid, nor gas, it's solid. Intercalation
> >compounds store the most hydrogen per cubic meter, and have self-limiting characteristics
> >if a leak develops.
> >
> >Hydrogen aircraft are known, but got a bad reputation due to a newsreel featuring the Hindenberg, of course...
> >
> >As for pipeline possibilities, that might take some new technology.
> >Coal slurry, liquid petroleum, gaseous petroleum, town gas, all are pipe-portable,
> >how hard can it be to add hydrogen to the list?
> Evidently hydrogen is very hard to pipe to places because it is very
> hard to keep it from leaking.

I believe there is also a problem with hydrogen embrittlement of steel.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 11:07:10 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:43:22 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> > Evidently hydrogen is very hard to pipe to places because it is very
> > hard to keep it from leaking.
>
> I believe there is also a problem with hydrogen embrittlement of steel.

Not that that was problem when town gas was "water gas"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_gas

which is roughly half hydrogen and half carbon monoxide. It was widely used for about a century before natural gas took over.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:43:22 PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

> Evidently hydrogen is very hard to pipe to places because it is very
> hard to keep it from leaking.

There's techniques to do it. Helium under pressure is harder (the 'weld it' technique
works for helium).

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA

That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to
be catastrophic.

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 5:26:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to
> be catastrophic.

It is? Care to explain?

Do you mean like this?

https://www.mining.com/iron-ore-miners-take-advantage-high-prices-improve-credit-scores-fitch/

https://theconversation.com/the-boom-iron-ore-and-australia-1847

https://www.armsreliability.com/page/resources/case-studies/how-an-iron-ore-mine-reduces-costs-on-a-sustainable-basis

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 19/06/2021 7:43 pm, boB wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>>
>>> Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient quantities to filling stations like gasoline?
>>
>> The answer to hydrogen storage, and truck or rail transport, is NOT liquid, nor gas, it's solid. Intercalation
>> compounds store the most hydrogen per cubic meter, and have self-limiting characteristics
>> if a leak develops.
>>
>> Hydrogen aircraft are known, but got a bad reputation due to a newsreel featuring the Hindenberg, of course...
>>
>> As for pipeline possibilities, that might take some new technology.
>> Coal slurry, liquid petroleum, gaseous petroleum, town gas, all are pipe-portable,
>> how hard can it be to add hydrogen to the list?
>
> Evidently hydrogen is very hard to pipe to places because it is very
> hard to keep it from leaking.
>
>

Very hard. It'll leak where other gases won't.

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 7:26:27 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
>
> That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to be catastrophic.

Saying something absurd will get you noticed, but you do it much too often. If you went to trouble of telling us where you'd got your silly idea from - preferably not from Zero Hedge, who are just as potty as you are - it would be more useful, which isn't saying all that useful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 05:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 5:26:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
>> That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to
>> be catastrophic.
>
>It is? Care to explain?
>
>Do you mean like this?
>
>https://www.mining.com/iron-ore-miners-take-advantage-high-prices-improve-credit-scores-fitch/
>
>https://theconversation.com/the-boom-iron-ore-and-australia-1847
>
>https://www.armsreliability.com/page/resources/case-studies/how-an-iron-ore-mine-reduces-costs-on-a-sustainable-basis

Well, Bill Sloman's got involved now and all he wants is a long,
protracted, drawn-out argument intended to exhibit his non-existent
superior intelligence. So I'll decline to expand for that reason. Just
you mark my words, though.

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 12:51:36 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 05:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 5:26:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> >> That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to
> >> be catastrophic.
> >
> >It is? Care to explain?
> >
> >Do you mean like this?
> >
> >https://www.mining.com/iron-ore-miners-take-advantage-high-prices-improve-credit-scores-fitch/
> >
> >https://theconversation.com/the-boom-iron-ore-and-australia-1847
> >
> >https://www.armsreliability.com/page/resources/case-studies/how-an-iron-ore-mine-reduces-costs-on-a-sustainable-basis
> Well, Bill Sloman's got involved now and all he wants is a long,
> protracted, drawn-out argument intended to exhibit his non-existent
> superior intelligence. So I'll decline to expand for that reason. Just
> you mark my words, though.

That is quite the oblique dodge. You can always ignore noise.

Your words have not been marked, rather they have been the opposite of marked, forgotten.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:51:36 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 05:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 5:26:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> >> ... the environmental damage from EVs is going to
> >> be catastrophic.

> >It is? Care to explain?

> Well, Bill Sloman's got involved now and all he wants is ...

Jackass; you mean NO, just say so.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 13:25:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:51:36 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 05:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 5:26:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> >> ... the environmental damage from EVs is going to
>> >> be catastrophic.
>
>> >It is? Care to explain?
>
>> Well, Bill Sloman's got involved now and all he wants is ...
>
>Jackass; you mean NO, just say so.

"W"

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:51:36 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 05:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 5:26:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> >> That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to
> >> be catastrophic.
> >
> >It is? Care to explain?
> >
> >Do you mean like this?
> >
> >https://www.mining.com/iron-ore-miners-take-advantage-high-prices-improve-credit-scores-fitch/
> >
> >https://theconversation.com/the-boom-iron-ore-and-australia-1847
> >
> >https://www.armsreliability.com/page/resources/case-studies/how-an-iron-ore-mine-reduces-costs-on-a-sustainable-basis
>
> Well, Bill Sloman's got involved now and all he wants is a long, protracted, drawn-out argument intended to exhibit his non-existent superior intelligence.

Cursitor Doom lacks the intelligence to realise that I wanted a one line cite - like one the three above - which would let me briefly dismember Cursitor Doom's claim to have any intelligence at all. Nobody argues with Cursitor Doom - he couldn't construct or recognise a coherent argument to save his soul (if he had one, which is unlikely).

> So I'll decline to expand for that reason.

A transparent lie. Cursitor Doom doesn't like coping with reality and prefers to pretend to have access to gratifyingly esoteric knowledge - which the rest of us know is fatuous nonsense designed to appeal to idiots like him.

> Just you mark my words, though.

All your words carry an implicit marker labeling them as fatuous nonsense.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2021-06-20, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 05:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 5:26:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
>>> That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to
>>> be catastrophic.
>>
>>It is? Care to explain?
>>
>>Do you mean like this?
>>
>>https://www.mining.com/iron-ore-miners-take-advantage-high-prices-improve-credit-scores-fitch/
>>
>>https://theconversation.com/the-boom-iron-ore-and-australia-1847
>>
>>https://www.armsreliability.com/page/resources/case-studies/how-an-iron-ore-mine-reduces-costs-on-a-sustainable-basis
>
> Well, Bill Sloman's got involved now and all he wants is a long,
> protracted, drawn-out argument intended to exhibit his non-existent
> superior intelligence. So I'll decline to expand for that reason. Just
> you mark my words, though.

Same mark as amways 0/10

--
Jasen.

In article <2b064ff5-3e9d-453a-a5f6-1275eedff1b9n@googlegroups.com>,
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and
>performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen
>combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>
>> Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not
>that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not
>realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline
>to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient
>quantities to filling stations like gasoline?
>
>The answer to hydrogen storage, and truck or rail transport, is NOT
>liquid, nor gas, it's solid. Intercalation
>compounds store the most hydrogen per cubic meter, and have
>self-limiting characteristics
>if a leak develops.
>
>Hydrogen aircraft are known, but got a bad reputation due to a newsreel
>featuring the Hindenberg, of course...
>
>As for pipeline possibilities, that might take some new technology.
>Coal slurry, liquid petroleum, gaseous petroleum, town gas, all are
>pipe-portable,
>how hard can it be to add hydrogen to the list?

Hydrogen has routinely been transported by pipeline.
Each time you read about a suicide that happened with cooking
gas, that was CO. That was always accompagnied with H2.

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On 6/20/2021 5:26 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
>
> That's a pity, because the environmental damage from EVs is going to
> be catastrophic.
>

Bro have you seen what the communists are up to:

<https://imgur.com/a/p8Ei36z>

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 08:12:57 -0500, gray_wolf
<gray_wolf@howling_mad.com> wrote:

>On 19/06/2021 7:43 pm, boB wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>>> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>>>
>>>> Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient quantities to filling stations like gasoline?
>>>
>>> The answer to hydrogen storage, and truck or rail transport, is NOT liquid, nor gas, it's solid. Intercalation
>>> compounds store the most hydrogen per cubic meter, and have self-limiting characteristics
>>> if a leak develops.
>>>
>>> Hydrogen aircraft are known, but got a bad reputation due to a newsreel featuring the Hindenberg, of course...
>>>
>>> As for pipeline possibilities, that might take some new technology.
>>> Coal slurry, liquid petroleum, gaseous petroleum, town gas, all are pipe-portable,
>>> how hard can it be to add hydrogen to the list?
>>
>> Evidently hydrogen is very hard to pipe to places because it is very
>> hard to keep it from leaking.
>>
>>
>
>Very hard. It'll leak where other gases won't.
>

Leakage of H2 isn't as much of an issue as leakage of greenhouse gases
though.

Maybe newer pipelines such as Russia's NordStream II will be used to
transport clean H2 from Russia to consumers in Europe.

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 3:43:47 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 08:12:57 -0500, gray_wolf
> <gray_wolf@howling_mad.com> wrote:
>
> >On 19/06/2021 7:43 pm, boB wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:48:25 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>>>> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> >>>
> >>>> Hydrogen just seems like it needs an impractical infrastructure. Not that it couldn't have been done 100 years ago, but that it's not realistic to start from scratch today. Can hydrogen be moved by pipeline to distribution centers? Can hydrogen be moved by truck in sufficient quantities to filling stations like gasoline?
> >>>
> >>> The answer to hydrogen storage, and truck or rail transport, is NOT liquid, nor gas, it's solid. Intercalation
> >>> compounds store the most hydrogen per cubic meter, and have self-limiting characteristics
> >>> if a leak develops.
> >>>
> >>> Hydrogen aircraft are known, but got a bad reputation due to a newsreel featuring the Hindenberg, of course...
> >>>
> >>> As for pipeline possibilities, that might take some new technology.
> >>> Coal slurry, liquid petroleum, gaseous petroleum, town gas, all are pipe-portable,
> >>> how hard can it be to add hydrogen to the list?
> >>
> >> Evidently hydrogen is very hard to pipe to places because it is very
> >> hard to keep it from leaking.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Very hard. It'll leak where other gases won't.
> >
> Leakage of H2 isn't as much of an issue as leakage of greenhouse gases
> though.
>
> Maybe newer pipelines such as Russia's NordStream II will be used to
> transport clean H2 from Russia to consumers in Europe.

How will they make the H2? From CH4?

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 19/06/2021 12:32, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
>
ISTM that Toyota want to sell EVs and are doing some expensive marketing
to show that at least one alternative is ineffective.

If you dispense with the crankshaft in a four stroke
suck-squeeze-bang-whoosh engine and use a linear motor/generator to
extract electrical energy you may stand a better chance.

With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer
constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On
ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more or
less at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason why
this should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary mechanism and
inertia.

It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
different force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the
piston and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised
for exhaust. The induction and compression phases likewise, and these
of course don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust
strokes. It /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly -
I don't know, but it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is
necessarily optimal.

The piston comes to a halt four times during this cycle when it changes
direction with no inertia from connected mechanics. At the end of the
exhaust stroke, for example, it may be advantageous to keep the piston
stopped if the energy demand is low.

So rather than varying the speed of the engine to vary the power output,
a cycle may take a fixed optimised time but with pauses, only running
continuously when needed.

I hereby donate this idea (which has probably been thought of many times
before) to humanity.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 6/24/2021 2:04 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:
> With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the motor/generator
> can dynamically alter the force on the piston without wasting energy, other
> than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer constrained by the
> mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On ignition, for example, in a
> conventional engine the bang starts more or less at TDC where the piston is
> hardest to move - there's no reason why this should be optimal, it is a
> consequence of the rotary mechanism and inertia.

You also have to take into consideration the fact that combustion doesn't
happen coincident with spark. And, doesn't *finish* in zero time.

Typically, ignition is advanced "BTDC" to give the air-fuel mixture and
spark time to BEGIN combustion while the piston is still coasting up to
(and past) TDC. The combustion event must then complete before the
piston starts back on the up-stroke (else it is working against the engine)

"Tuning" an engine on a dyno you advance the timing until you get
maximum torque (retarding in case of knock). If you can do this
dynamically and get the most from the engine while asking it for
the LEAST you need...

> It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a different
> force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the piston and drives it
> back using battery power with a profile optimised for exhaust. The induction
> and compression phases likewise, and these of course don't need to be the same
> length as the ignition and exhaust strokes. It /may/ be advantageous to suck
> slowly and squeeze quickly - I don't know, but it seems unlikely that an
> enforced sinusoid is necessarily optimal.

I think the bigger "bang" (no pun intended) is finding more efficient
ways of getting air into the mixture. This could let you get by with
less fuel per effort-of-mechanical-work. This is the most common
efficiency hack seen after-market (e.g., blowers); but, usually, that
additional power is "squandered" in enhanced acceleration instead of
improved fuel economy.

Existing ICE designs do all sorts of wacky things to save on fuel
(like running on fewer cylinders when demand is low), managing accessory
loads on the engine in periods of high demand, etc.

But, the ICE is likely not long-lived in this application. It may
see some prolonged "niche" use (e.g., REALLY high power demands)
but as a normal means of transport, other options will prevail.
(as will the design of cities and living areas)

On 24/06/2021 10:32, Don Y wrote:
> On 6/24/2021 2:04 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
>> motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
>> wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies.  You're no longer
>> constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion.  On
>> ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more
>> or less at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason
>> why this should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary
>> mechanism and inertia.
>
> You also have to take into consideration the fact that combustion doesn't
> happen coincident with spark.  And, doesn't *finish* in zero time.
>
> Typically, ignition is advanced "BTDC" to give the air-fuel mixture and
> spark time to BEGIN combustion while the piston is still coasting up to
> (and past) TDC.  The combustion event must then complete before the
> piston starts back on the up-stroke (else it is working against the engine)
>
> "Tuning" an engine on a dyno you advance the timing until you get
> maximum torque (retarding in case of knock).  If you can do this
> dynamically and get the most from the engine while asking it for
> the LEAST you need...

Well yes, in a /normal/ engine, timing (and everything) has to be
optimised within the constraints of the mechanical motion enforced by
the geometry and inertia. Without those constraints there are probably
ways to improve efficiency.

>> It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
>> different force profile.  At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the
>> piston and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised
>> for exhaust.  The induction and compression phases likewise, and these
>> of course don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust
>> strokes.  It /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly
>> - I don't know, but it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is
>> necessarily optimal.
>
> I think the bigger "bang" (no pun intended) is finding more efficient
> ways of getting air into the mixture.  This could let you get by with
> less fuel per effort-of-mechanical-work.

Again, conventionally you're limited by geometry etc. It /may/ be
advantageous to suck more slowly than you squeeze, or more quickly, or
the whole cycle profile could depend on the exact nature of the fuel.
The point is, you'd have options. You don't even have to use the full
stroke for example. Maybe the exhaust stroke is improved by a wiggle in
the middle or a series of short pulses, unlikely, but who knows.

> This is the most common
> efficiency hack seen after-market (e.g., blowers); but, usually, that
> additional power is "squandered" in enhanced acceleration instead of
> improved fuel economy.
>
> Existing ICE designs do all sorts of wacky things to save on fuel
> (like running on fewer cylinders when demand is low), managing accessory
> loads on the engine in periods of high demand, etc.
>
> But, the ICE is likely not long-lived in this application.  It may
> see some prolonged "niche" use (e.g., REALLY high power demands)
> but as a normal means of transport, other options will prevail.
> (as will the design of cities and living areas)

Yes. I still want the megabucks funding to investigate this, though.

--
Cheers
Clive