Searching \ for '[OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/power.htm?key=power
Search entire site for: 'Hydrogen Powered Cars'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars'
2002\07\18@142027 by Epox

picon face
I was talking with a few guys when came to the ultimate conclusion that the
reason we don't use hydrogen internal combustion engines is that we have no
way to safely transport and sore such a dangerous fuel.How I understand it,
those fuel cell cars need hydrogen too, so what's the big problem? They are
pushing hydrogen fuel cells but don't want to develop a hydrogen
I.C.E.(internal combustion engine), I dunno thats why I wanted to know what
you guys think about a Hydrogen powered I.C.E.


Darvell aka Epox
spam_OUTspowell5TakeThisOuTspamneo.rr.com
UltraDev Studios Worldwide

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@143759 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> I was talking with a few guys when came to the ultimate conclusion
> that the reason we don't use hydrogen internal combustion engines
> is that we have no way to safely transport and sore such a
> dangerous fuel.How I understand it, those fuel cell cars need
> hydrogen too, so what's the big problem? They are pushing hydrogen
> fuel cells but don't want to develop a hydrogen
> I.C.E.(internal combustion engine), I dunno thats why I wanted to
> know what you guys think about a Hydrogen powered I.C.E.

- From the little I know of hydrogen combustion, my guess would be that
hydrogen I.C.E.s would be a fair bit harder to build.

It is my belief that the heat release would likely be too difficult
to handle, and I think I've heard of some kind of problem with the
combustion of hydrogen under compression beign considerable
different.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPTcKuQVk8xtQuK+BEQKfrACeIOQcXiVrwg7FssJQoF4/CS/KFu8AoNZB
pdFso9bqtrwbvBsp1uoQaBua
=WAin
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@144618 by Epox

picon face
i know ford made one but kept it beta.. or just an experiment.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brendan Moran" <.....bmoranKILLspamspam@spam@MILLENNIUM.CA>
To: <PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@145322 by A.J. Tufgar

flavicon
face
Fuel cells work off a chemical reaction to produce electricity and turn
an electric motor.

A combustion engine produces an explosion and turns it into mechanical
force.  This process is less efficient then that above.

Hydrogen is usually not stored as pure hydrogen but combined with a
molecule to save space (can't rememeber the composition).  So I beleive
it's relatively safe.

Aaron

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@150634 by Epox

picon face
ok, assuming that. I thought fuel cells turn hydrogen into electricity?
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.J. Tufgar" <.....tufgarajKILLspamspam.....MUSS.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@153828 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
Ah yes, my favorite hydrogen powered car...
http://www.clemson.edu/research/brooks/hydrogen/

And...
www.jacksonville.com/getjaxwheels/autonews/stories/110801/03172739.sh
tml

Cheers,
-Neil.




{Original Message removed}

2002\07\18@160120 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Epox wrote:

>I was talking with a few guys when came to the ultimate conclusion that the
>reason we don't use hydrogen internal combustion engines is that we have no
>way to safely transport and sore such a dangerous fuel.How I understand it,
>those fuel cell cars need hydrogen too, so what's the big problem? They are

The big problem is, hydrogen forms explosive mixtures with air in a very
very large range of mixtures. Unlike most other fuels (including methane
gas).

>pushing hydrogen fuel cells but don't want to develop a hydrogen
>I.C.E.(internal combustion engine), I dunno thats why I wanted to know what
>you guys think about a Hydrogen powered I.C.E.

Burning hydrogen produces very high temperatures and it is hard on metals
(they get brittle). This makes hydrogen-burning engines very expensive to
make.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@160130 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
part 1 1082 bytes content-type:TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, A.J. Tufgar wrote:

>Fuel cells work off a chemical reaction to produce electricity and turn
>an electric motor.
>
>A combustion engine produces an explosion and turns it into mechanical
>force.  This process is less efficient then that above.

Not really. Not when you account for ancillary costs power/weight etc.
Apollo missions used fuel cells afaik, and only one ever went bad afaik.

>Hydrogen is usually not stored as pure hydrogen but combined with a
>molecule to save space (can't rememeber the composition).  So I beleive
>it's relatively safe.

Nothing involving massive amounts of hydrogen is safe. Not even when
comapred with a topped up fuel tank. Hydrogen makes big big bangs even in
air at normal pressure. In an internal combustion engine it's bad news for
the materials.

I like to do a small trick to demonstrate this. See attached gif. Use with
12V 1A psu, the gas should foam at the needle and climb the straw in gobs
and drops, like in an aquarium pump. Makes loud pops when each bubble
reaches the flame.

Peter


part 2 6728 bytes content-type:IMAGE/GIF; name="electrolysys-can.gif" (decode)

part 3 131 bytes
--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@163558 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Pic Dude wrote:

>And...
>www.jacksonville.com/getjaxwheels/autonews/stories/110801/03172739.sh
>tml

Can't get on this one. What is it about ?

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@170723 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
The URL seems broken up, so you may need to type
it in manually.  It's another article on the same
hydrogen-powered Shelby Cobra.

Cheers,
-Neil.



{Original Message removed}

2002\07\18@171841 by Matthew Fries

flavicon
face
I have always wondered if it would be feasible to provide hydrogen to a
fuel cell from electrolysis. Would it take more (or at least as much)
power to produce the hydrogen than you would get from a fuel cell?

Also, I have heard 2 stories about fuel cells.

One is: you provide the cell with hydrogen and oxygen and get water and
electricity.

The other is: You provide the cell with water, and it separates it into
Hydrogen and oxygen, and you also get some electricity.

Now, I don't know how accurate the second cell story is, but it would make
sense to simply stick them back to back, and get all the electricity you
want from a puddle....

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@172709 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
Now, you've done it.  Olin is going to tell you to go back to freshman
Physics now, or at least make some comment about perpetual motion machines.

The second one down there only works in sci-fi.  It violates the second
postulate (I'm hesitant to call any physical theorems "laws" considering
that newton was wrong according to Einstein) of thermodynamics.

(;

--BJM

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@174751 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Matthew Fries wrote:

>I have always wondered if it would be feasible to provide hydrogen to a
>fuel cell from electrolysis. Would it take more (or at least as much)
>power to produce the hydrogen than you would get from a fuel cell?

It would take MORE.

>Also, I have heard 2 stories about fuel cells.
>
>One is: you provide the cell with hydrogen and oxygen and get water and
>electricity.

Yes

>The other is: You provide the cell with water, and it separates it into
>Hydrogen and oxygen, and you also get some electricity.

No. You supply some electricity to do that. Also, fuel cells built for
making electricity are built different than those built to separate water
into H2 and O2. So you can't just use one for both operations.

>Now, I don't know how accurate the second cell story is, but it would make
>sense to simply stick them back to back, and get all the electricity you
>want from a puddle....

Yes, but I have plans for a device that generates free electricity and
will work forever. Please contact me privately.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@180518 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Peter L. Peres wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Meanwhile you could browse here:

http://www.fuelcellstore.com/products.html

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@181321 by Epox

picon face
hmm.. I already had that settled. i have a diagram of that free electricry
thingy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter L. Peres" <plpspamspam_OUTACTCOM.CO.IL>
To: <@spam@PICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


{Quote hidden}

make
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@185255 by Richard Mellina

picon face
Fuel cells designed to make their own hydrogen do not use electrolysis
because it is not practical for the quantities demanded. Instead they might
pass water vapor over carbon producing carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen may also be extracted from methane efficiently. Electrolysis is
rarely used to produce hydrogen these days. Electrolysis of water is only
used to produced heavy water also called Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen
used in fusion reactions and as a moderator in nuclear power plants. There
also has been some talk of using algae to produce hydrogen for use in
hydrogen powered cars and fuel cells. This method is the only one I know of
that does not produce  unwanted pollutants like carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide.

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\18@192140 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Pic Dude wrote:

>The URL seems broken up, so you may need to type
>it in manually.  It's another article on the same
>hydrogen-powered Shelby Cobra.

I used copy&paste, twice, and I searched for hydrogen on that website. No
go.

thanks,

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@195344 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
Bummer.  Just tried and it works for me.
Try this instead ... http://www.avn-tech.com/hpc.html

If no dice again, I'll just email the article to you.

Cheers,
-Neil.




{Original Message removed}

2002\07\18@204947 by Matthew Fries

flavicon
face
Good link.

On that page there is some fun stuff, and even some fuel cell powered toys.
There is even a radio controlled fuel cell car, but for $8,800 US, I would
rather have a gas guzzler!




At 01:04 AM 7/19/02 +0300, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Remove the BALONEY from my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fries       Minneapolis, MN    USA
KILLspamfreezeKILLspamspambaloneyvisi.com

"Quit eating all my *STUFF*!" - The Tick

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@221654 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
How much power is developed by a [overwieght middle aged and balding] human
on a bicycle?  I am thinking about 25 watts, but my memory is as bad as my
hair.

A fuel cell, hydrogen storage and hydrogen generator combo that could
deliver 30 watts on the fuelcellstore site looks like it might cost about
$2000 smackeroons.  While that might seem like a lot of $ for a moped
battery, it would double the power that I could put into my bike, perhaps
raising the speed by half or so.  Pretty interesting.

Now, if we were STORING the fuel cell output in a battery, say running the
fuel cell longer than the bike runtime, we could signifigantly reduce the
size of the fuel cell required.

Many bike motor systems also include regenerative braking in a simple way.
A 24 volt motor is run on two 12 volt batteries in series.  when the
batteris are switched in parrallel, the 24 volt motor will charge the (now
12V) motor.

Our fuel cell size can get smaller with this idea as well.  Including a
little duty cycle factor in the size of the fuel cell because of
regenerative braking.

How small a fuel cell could we get away with here, and how small a tank for
a 30 minute commute?  Could one carry an hour's worth of hydrogen on board
at reasonable cost?

(debaters on the safety of hydrogen storage should check the fuelcellstore
site for safety catalytic storage media before flaming.  I saw a demo of
these where an incindiary bullet was fired through one without setting it
off.  An adjacent gas tank didn't fare so well)


--Lawrence
Who still thinks a $10 battery charger is going to come out cheaper

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@223755 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 09:15 PM 7/18/02 -0500, you wrote:
>How much power is developed by a [overwieght middle aged and balding] human
>on a bicycle?  I am thinking about 25 watts, but my memory is as bad as my
>hair.

Using the Life cycles at the gym, 60W for sustained periods (20min) is not
unreasonable. 25W is probably about right for tooling around town on
bike paths without breaking a sweat, unless you happen to live in some place
like San Francisco.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
9/11 United we Stand

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@231229 by Epox

picon face
How about mass fuel cells to produce commercial quality electricity to like
take the place of coal powerplants? or atleast a large fuel cell.
{Original Message removed}

2002\07\18@231256 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> How much power is developed by a [overwieght middle aged and balding]
human
> on a bicycle?  I am thinking about 25 watts, but my memory is as bad as my
> hair.

Based on the exercise equipment that I have built, 25 watts is an extremely
modest load, 100 watts is getting stiffish and 200 watts plus is for serious
in anything  less than short bursts. I can burst to around 500 watts but
only very briefly (then I burst :-) ).

Depending on how zippy you want to be a 100 to 200 watt motor is probably
the reasonable minimum.

A good starting point for determining power needed to maintain a given speed
for a given vehicle is to run it (or a facsimile) at say 10% above this then
coast and see how long it takes to reduce speed to say 10% below target.
Some energy calculations (0.5 m V^2) will give you some clues as to how much
losses you are getting. This would be very easy with a bicycle.

Windage energy losses incrse with speed cubed and it takes about 30 HP to
get a motorbike to "ton" (onld style imperial ton = 100 mph).(Note where
this V^3 term comes from - Drag = F is proportional to V^2 as below and work
= FV )

Frontal drag forces are about 0.5 x Rho x V^2 x A x Cd.
Cd = coefficient of drag = 1 to start with (~=flat plate)
Rho = air density in consistent units (1.3 kg/m^3 etc)
A = frontal area.
V = Velocity



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\18@232540 by Brent Brown

picon face
>How much power is developed by a [overwieght middle aged and
balding]
>human on a bicycle?  I am thinking about 25 watts, but my memory is
>as bad as my hair.

I like to keep things in perspective by recalling that a horse
pulling coal carts in a mine is 746 watts (one horsepower).

--
Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, Hamilton, New Zealand
Ph/fax: +64 7 849 0069
Mobile/txt: 025 334 069
eMail:  spamBeGonebrent.brownspamBeGonespamclear.net.nz

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\19@035331 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Not really. Not when you account for ancillary costs power/weight etc.
>Apollo missions used fuel cells afaik, and only one ever went bad afaik.

And as I understood it that failed only because of damage that had occurred
when it was dropped at some stage during the assembly of the spacecraft.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@041914 by Justin Grimm

flavicon
face
I'd be interested in your device too, Peter

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter L. Peres [RemoveMEplpspamTakeThisOuTACTCOM.CO.IL]
Sent: Friday, 19 July 2002 7:48
To: PICLISTEraseMEspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Matthew Fries wrote:

>I have always wondered if it would be feasible to provide hydrogen to a
>fuel cell from electrolysis. Would it take more (or at least as much)
>power to produce the hydrogen than you would get from a fuel cell?

It would take MORE.

>Also, I have heard 2 stories about fuel cells.
>
>One is: you provide the cell with hydrogen and oxygen and get water and
>electricity.

Yes

>The other is: You provide the cell with water, and it separates it into
>Hydrogen and oxygen, and you also get some electricity.

No. You supply some electricity to do that. Also, fuel cells built for
making electricity are built different than those built to separate water
into H2 and O2. So you can't just use one for both operations.

>Now, I don't know how accurate the second cell story is, but it would make
>sense to simply stick them back to back, and get all the electricity you
>want from a puddle....

Yes, but I have plans for a device that generates free electricity and
will work forever. Please contact me privately.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@043438 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Lawrence Lile wrote:

>How much power is developed by a [overwieght middle aged and balding] human
>on a bicycle?  I am thinking about 25 watts, but my memory is as bad as my
>hair.

About 300W at the beginning of the trip ;-) (roughly 1/2 hp). If you have
a very good bicycle (circuit tyres inflated to bursting pressure minus
0.0001 whatevers, perfectly aligned frame, bearings, etc), on flat hard
clean road (preferred: waxed parquette), you could probably coast at 1-3
km/h on 50W.

{Quote hidden}

Before you get into this consider that you need at least 0.1g acceleration
to be able to participate in traffic (otherwise than as a casualty) imho.
What is reasonable cost ? 2 x 30 minutes on the bike without motors or
anything may save you enough money on medical bills in 15 years, that you
could buy a proper fuel cell car ;-) ;-).

>(debaters on the safety of hydrogen storage should check the fuelcellstore
>site for safety catalytic storage media before flaming.  I saw a demo of
>these where an incindiary bullet was fired through one without setting it
>off.  An adjacent gas tank didn't fare so well)
>
>
>--Lawrence
>Who still thinks a $10 battery charger is going to come out cheaper

Do you HAVE to throw the sad truth at everyone like that ? ;-)

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@044711 by Bill & Pookie

picon face
I remember they had a car trying for a speed
record on the Salt Flats a long time ago.  The
hydrogen was infused with water and frozen.  As
the ice melted, the hydrogen was released.  The
car never set any speed records, but sure was a
good source of cool drinking water on the salt
flats.

Pookie

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\19@065800 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Epox wrote:

>How about mass fuel cells to produce commercial quality electricity to like
>take the place of coal powerplants? or atleast a large fuel cell.

Why do you have a fuel cell fixation ? If they would be so good they would
be in use not. They aren't. They are a lso very expensive for now.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@072329 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >How about mass fuel cells to produce commercial quality electricity to
like
> >take the place of coal powerplants? or atleast a large fuel cell.
>
> Why do you have a fuel cell fixation ? If they would be so good they would
> be in use not. They aren't. They are a lso very expensive for now.


Where performance per mass/volume is THE measure, fuel cells are indeed in
use. The most visible (pun intended) example is arguably the Space Shuttle
which derives much of its electrical power (and its drinking water,
incidentally) from Oxygen-Hydrogen fuel cells. Having Oxygen & Hydrogen
available close to hand as commonplace materials doesn't hurt.

Optimised Fuel Cells are largely the most efficient way of converting
chemical energy to electrical energy. If you are not an Aerospace or
Military user the cost is liable to put you off.

Proton exchange membrane fuel cells using Methanol as a direct reactant look
like the promise of the future for fuel cells. Fuel energy density (mass and
volume) is much more easily obtained with Methanol than with Hydrogen. Mass
for mass Hydrogen is the hands down winner over alternatives BUT not when
energy density is concerned. Hydrogen storage on metal hydrides is the
current best hope for Hydrogen but is still not without its dangers.



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@074451 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
       There was a PBS "Nova" special about this topic in the
early nineties and someone had a fleet of busses set up to be
able to accept either hydrogen or gasoline as fuel.  Believe it
or not, they sort of worked.  Actually, they worked fairly well
while the busses were moving but the two fuels behave so
differently that the timing which is best for gasoline is not
best for hydrogen.  In one example, they showed a bus idling at a
stop.  The engine backfired continuously, sounding like a string
of firecrackers.

       I don't remember if this was the gasoline-based timing
setting trying to burn hydrogen or vise versa but it was pretty
rough sounding.

       There were the usual logistical problems with the
hydrogen distribution system, but the busses ran and, when
burning hydrogen, didn't foul the air.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Network Operations Group

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspamspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@093733 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Martin McCormick wrote:
>
>         There was a PBS "Nova" special about this topic in the
> early nineties and someone had a fleet of busses set up to be
> able to accept either hydrogen or gasoline as fuel.  Believe it
> or not, they sort of worked.


I had a magazine from 1977 that showed photos of
Yul Brown and his lab, he was running a typical car
engine on the oxygen/hydrogen gas mix straight from an
electrolysis cell. From memory this just required
changing the ignition timing, replacing the carbie
with a valve and injecting a small amount of water
to keep things cool. I wish I hadn't lost the magazine.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@094404 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Justin Grimm wrote:

>I'd be interested in your device too, Peter

That's a pity because I was interested in inquiries. It was a joke.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@094421 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>>Not really. Not when you account for ancillary costs power/weight etc.
>>Apollo missions used fuel cells afaik, and only one ever went bad afaik.
>
>And as I understood it that failed only because of damage that had occurred
>when it was dropped at some stage during the assembly of the spacecraft.

I have no info on that, I was under the impression it was related to the
accident on the moon mission where they nearly got killed.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservSTOPspamspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@102105 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Yes,

This was Apollo 13...

The problem was that a thermostat switch got damaged during testing and then
stuck on while in flight.

It turns out the t-stat wasn't rated for the voltage/current it had to
switch.

Seems to me to be a pretty brainless error, but they were trying to get the
rockets off the ground pretty quickly back then. You know, to beat those
nasty communist Russians ;-)

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


{Original Message removed}

2002\07\19@102616 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
So say we could add 100 watts to my 100 watts, for 200 watts total.  If 200W
is the output that a real athlete could produce, then I'd be able to keep up
with them at least.

I can average about 12-14 MPH on my bike, a good rider can average 18MPH
given all flat terrain.  So my estimate of 150% speed for double the power
isn't too far off.  In town, I can only average 6MPH because of traffic,
stoplights and so on.  In heavy traffic I can still beat the cars!

In a lot of situations, I just want a boost up the hills, which would
seriously increase my average speed.  There was a fuel cell unit that would
produce 12 volts, 2 amps for $214, signifigantly less than my first estimate
of $2000 smackeroonnies. Maybe my estimate is going to be revised to nearer
$400 clams.   That's only 24 watts, but at 20% duty cycle it's approx 100
watts.  Still have to lug around a battery plus a hydrogen tank, and we are
still not doing any better than a battery charger.  OTOH it would be really
cool.

--Lawrence



{Original Message removed}

2002\07\19@102811 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Peter, send me the plans, too!  In fact, since you can get more energy out
than you put in, you would eventually have enough energy to exceed the speed
of light, and so you could send me the plans tomorrow and they will arrive
yesterday! ;-)

Lawrence

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\19@103434 by A.J. Tufgar

flavicon
face
Whoever's planning a trip back in time, by accelerating past the speed
of light, better stop by Einstein's place and tell him to rethink his
theory.

I'm sure he'd appreciate it. :)

Aaron

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@105306 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I have no info on that, I was under the impression it was related to the
>accident on the moon mission where they nearly got killed.

Well I assume you are referring to Apollo 13, because it is my understanding
that it was a fuel cell that blew the side out of the bit that gave them
trouble. This is what I was referring to.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@105546 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Peter, send me the plans, too!  In fact, since you can get more
>energy out than you put in, you would eventually have enough
>energy to exceed the speed of light, and so you could send me the
>plans tomorrow and they will arrive yesterday! ;-)

Actually I thought Peter was going to sell the plans at $99.99 each to
recover his development expenses. That way at least he would be making
something out of this thing :)))))))))))))

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listserv@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@110133 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Actually not a fuel cell, but an O2 tank.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan B. Pearce" <spamBeGoneA.B.PearcespamKILLspamRL.AC.UK>
To: <.....PICLISTspam_OUTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


> >I have no info on that, I was under the impression it was related to the
> >accident on the moon mission where they nearly got killed.
>
> Well I assume you are referring to Apollo 13, because it is my
understanding
> that it was a fuel cell that blew the side out of the bit that gave them
> trouble. This is what I was referring to.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email TakeThisOuTlistserv.....spamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservKILLspamspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@110757 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Actually not a fuel cell, but an O2 tank.

Ah, well that's another thing learnt today. thanks for the correction.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@113223 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
And if I could get you to stop by my place in about '76 or '77...  I have
a rather long list of stuff I'd like to advise myself against.  8-P

Dale
--
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
         - Arnold Edinborough


On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, A.J. Tufgar wrote:

> Whoever's planning a trip back in time, by accelerating past the speed
> of light, better stop by Einstein's place and tell him to rethink his
> theory.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@131155 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
Yep, and the problem actually stemmed from a "empty tank" live test
they ran months earlier. Seems they went overcurrent and melted the
thermostat harness insulation, leaving some exposed wiring inside the
tank. I also believe they may have fused the protective thermostat
"closed" as well. They never had a problem with the system until the
damaged wiring was exposed after the liquid O2 level came down with
use. Then they ran a tank stir, exposed wiring arcs -- boom! I've heard
the live audio recording from the crew compartment and it made one hell
of a bang.

Of course all their tests passed, but they didn't realize they had
damaged the system in the process. A classic case of not testing all
possibilities (including the fact your TEST may have messed up the
equipment!).

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:55:39 -0400, Bob Ammerman wrote:
>Actually not a fuel cell, but an O2 tank.
>
>Bob Ammerman RAm Systems

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistserv@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@135652 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Whoever's planning a trip back in time, by accelerating past the
> speed of light, better stop by Einstein's place and tell him to
> rethink his theory.
>
> I'm sure he'd appreciate it. :)
>
> Aaron

I'll stop past and tell him on my way back to the 13th century as
part of a plan to stop Genghis Khan.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPThShAVk8xtQuK+BEQK99gCff54nNyiTkokNbdSt17piaE5hvIIAnRS5
ca7+OCE6SYjIXEaSD1qmgcOG
=9bYE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@150944 by Matthew Fries

flavicon
face
It sounds like fuel cells will help save the environment, but will it?
Fuel cell waste is water and maybe heat, but what does it take to make
Hydrogen? (well, maybe not make, but separate it from other stuff).

Some of the small lab kits that just demonstrate how fuel cells work
claimed to work using some chemical combinations that I am frankly not
familiar with (I'm no alchemist).

Would waste products from the refining of hydrogen be worse for the
environment than petroleum based internal combustion?




On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Justin Grimm wrote:

> I'd be interested in your device too, Peter
>
> Justin
>
> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\19@152154 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> It sounds like fuel cells will help save the environment, but will
> it? Fuel cell waste is water and maybe heat, but what does it take
> to make Hydrogen? (well, maybe not make, but separate it from other
> stuff).
>
> Some of the small lab kits that just demonstrate how fuel cells
> work claimed to work using some chemical combinations that I am
> frankly not familiar with (I'm no alchemist).
>
> Would waste products from the refining of hydrogen be worse for the
> environment than petroleum based internal combustion?

I've heard this argument tons of times.  And, what I come back to is
2 possibilities.
1. Use electrical power to electrolize water with H2SO4 as a catalyst
or,
2. I've been told that there is a large, naturally replenishible
supply of hydrogen pockets in the earth's crust.

I don't know which is better, but it might not be long before people
are drilling for H2 instead of oil.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPThmyAVk8xtQuK+BEQIWXwCgmSwvJjZ+9qMWTZVjkfXOBB7giIcAn0HD
bvxO5djMWDlSvpH0dZ1j0W5Q
=GkbH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@160748 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Brendan Moran wrote:

>>
>> Would waste products from the refining of hydrogen be worse for the
>> environment than petroleum based internal combustion?
>
>I've heard this argument tons of times.  And, what I come back to is
>2 possibilities.
>1. Use electrical power to electrolize water with H2SO4 as a catalyst
>or,
>2. I've been told that there is a large, naturally replenishible
>supply of hydrogen pockets in the earth's crust.

Not. Hydrogen diffuses through anything. If there are any pockets they
have to be well hidden to have stayed there for millions of years. What
really happens is that some oil contains dissolved hydrogen. This turns
out to be a major problem when it is pumped out and the pressure is
removed. There is a good reason for all them eternal flames burning near
extraction wells and other oil and gas industry related equipment.

>I don't know which is better, but it might not be long before people
>are drilling for H2 instead of oil.

God forbid you strike a H2 pocket with any of todays drilling tools,
even a small pocket.

You really have to do the tin can experiment to understand what you are
delaing with. The hydrogen bubbles coming out of the straw and popping in
the flame are almost loud enough to give you ringing ears, and they are
tiny.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@162256 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Not. Hydrogen diffuses through anything. If there are any pockets
> they have to be well hidden to have stayed there for millions of
> years. What really happens is that some oil contains dissolved
> hydrogen. This turns out to be a major problem when it is pumped
> out and the pressure is removed. There is a good reason for all
> them eternal flames burning near extraction wells and other oil and
> gas industry related equipment.

So, rather than burning that hydrogen, just collect it, and off you
go.  Thus validating that there are tapable pockets of hydrogen in
the earths crust.

{Quote hidden}

Uh... We did something akin to that experiment Waaaayyyyy back in
grade 9.  Upended test tube full o' hydrogen.  Test tube was fine
afterwards, btw.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPTh0xAVk8xtQuK+BEQJR4ACeLIJI7d+IlllIcWMJOPw5gT8hF0oAn1RV
jm2+0oHEzvO2JCw8gKKfYLxi
=zxUl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservRemoveMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@170400 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > Whoever's planning a trip back in time, by accelerating past the
> > speed of light, better stop by Einstein's place and tell him to
> > rethink his theory.
> >
> > I'm sure he'd appreciate it. :)

THROUGH the speed of light is not allowed
PAST is perhaps possible using tunnelling - but that's another story :-)

It is also, incidentally, apparently possible to time travel without
violating Einsteinian requirements by using "special equipment". One such
equipment is a cylinder with a mass about that of our solar system rotating
along its long axis such that the surface velocity approaches an appreciable
fraction of the speed of light. Space-Time is "dragged" by the rotating mass
such that it is skewed and the time axis becomes a space axis and some of
the space vectors become the time axis. You then travel along the "time"
axis as desired and then turn the machine off. I am NOT, despite what it may
appear, making this up ! :-)

Due to the specialist nature of the equipment nobody has made one yet :-)

I prefer tunnelling but nobody has seriously proposed it yet. They will.



       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@174056 by Eben Olson

flavicon
face
see the short story "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global
Causality Violation" by Larry Niven.

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\19@181350 by Larry Williams

flavicon
face
Anyway to find more information on this theory?

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservspam_OUTspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@195837 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Lawrence Lile wrote:

>Peter, send me the plans, too!  In fact, since you can get more energy out
>than you put in, you would eventually have enough energy to exceed the speed
>of light, and so you could send me the plans tomorrow and they will arrive
>yesterday! ;-)

Ah, you are the second public responder ;-)

Apparently the *plans* haven't *arrived* at your place yet, judging from
your response ;-) ;-)

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@195841 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Bob Ammerman wrote:

>Yes,
>
>This was Apollo 13...
>
>The problem was that a thermostat switch got damaged during testing and then
>stuck on while in flight.
>
>It turns out the t-stat wasn't rated for the voltage/current it had to
>switch.
>
>Seems to me to be a pretty brainless error, but they were trying to get the
>rockets off the ground pretty quickly back then. You know, to beat those
>nasty communist Russians ;-)

This may be the official line but ever since I started to know the ropes a
little bit here in the *east* I believe that they did it to save $17.99.
It must have looked good on the accounting sheets and some beancounter
probably had an orgasm over it.

I do not want to know what the Soviet equivalent of saving $17.99 is.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@195844 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>>I have no info on that, I was under the impression it was related to the
>>accident on the moon mission where they nearly got killed.
>
>Well I assume you are referring to Apollo 13, because it is my understanding
>that it was a fuel cell that blew the side out of the bit that gave them
>trouble. This is what I was referring to.

I am not sure but I think that what happened on Apollo13 was, that an
oxygen tank's internal mixer (?) malfunctioned and that something or other
iced up and blew (maybe the tank proper or the plumbing). I do not think
that it was the fuel cell. Afaik their problem was that part of the oxygen
supply was gone so they couldn't run the fuel cells (did they have more
than one ?) and had to shutdown everything for as long as possible.

I don't really buy the story about things being dropped and malfunctioning
when the items in cause are built to withstand 30+g's for 15 minutes or
so.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistserv@spam@spamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@195848 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Dale Botkin wrote:

>And if I could get you to stop by my place in about '76 or '77...  I have
>a rather long list of stuff I'd like to advise myself against.  8-P

Let's keep this orderly and civilized. Get a number and stand in the queue
to await your turn please. ;-)

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listserv@spam@spamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@195853 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Roman Black wrote:

>Martin McCormick wrote:
>>
>>         There was a PBS "Nova" special about this topic in the
>> early nineties and someone had a fleet of busses set up to be
>> able to accept either hydrogen or gasoline as fuel.  Believe it
>> or not, they sort of worked.
>
>
>I had a magazine from 1977 that showed photos of
>Yul Brown and his lab, he was running a typical car
>engine on the oxygen/hydrogen gas mix straight from an
>electrolysis cell. From memory this just required
>changing the ignition timing, replacing the carbie
>with a valve and injecting a small amount of water
>to keep things cool. I wish I hadn't lost the magazine.
>-Roman

I believe that you saw this but did the pictures show the direct busbar
connections to the nuclear power plant behind his garage ? Because if you
run some numbers you will have some very interesting conclusions wrt. what
you saw. A gas flow sufficient to run an auto engine requires a serious
serious electrolysis cell system, which by the way works best at about 180
degrees C under pressure and has alimited continuous operation life. Of
course the film showed this, no ? The power level required to run this is
about on par with the one required to run a small industrial manufacturing
unit (couple tens kW or hundreds of kW, roughly the power output of the
engine divided by the efficiency of the engine, of the electrolysis cell
etc etc. Hint: 1HP = 745.69987 (?!) W).

If he ran the motor on load then it was likely nearer 200kW, not
accounting for losses in either electrolyzer or engine, which would put
the figure beyond 500kW without trying hard. That's 500kW electrical power
input, not accounting for any cooling or other unimportant inexpensive
small quiet unobtrusive things (like small unobtrusive radiators that cope
with 100+kW to keep the electrolyzer from melting down and small
unobtrusive inexpensive uncooled busbars that feed the e.  cell(s) with
hundreds of amperes etc).

Or to put it in shorter words: If you run an engine off an electrolysis
cell then the electrolysis cell input is about P1 = Pmotor / (Nmotor *
Ncell) which for a small car engine would be Pmotor = 40hp, Nmotor = 0.2,
Ncell = 0.7 -> 218kW. Out of which a third (about 70kW) is heat dispensed
by the electrolysis cells alone. I suppose that your scientist had a
special meter installed. Or maybe they showed just the running engine as
it looked cooler like this.

I hope that I did not bust your dream(s). Of course in aerospace and
military apps the fuel is generated elsewhere in a factory sprawling over
miles of land, with hundreds of employees and astronomical power utilities
bills, funded by taxpayer's money and the users have a small button on a
panel that says something like 'push here to start fuel cell', and this
looks really cool in movies and in presentations. Of course it is
extremely useful.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservRemoveMEspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\19@221134 by Jim

flavicon
face
 "little bit here in the *east* I believe that
  they did it to save $17.99."

Having worked with Mil-spec qualified parts (only
a step or two below space-qualified parts) it's
more likely those parts were *damaged* during
assmbly or some phase of 'testing' rather than
being delivered from the vendor faulty.

I have yet to ever have seen a Mil-spec part pulled
from stock (either general stock or bonded 'project'
stock) that was defective - contrary to conclusions
that the UT (the Unit Test technicians) usually
arrived at when it took replacing the same part two
(or three times) when 'shotgunning' a new board or
LRU during product test ... usually it was a matter
of device tolerances - and one of my projects was
to re-engineer the electronics in the 3-bay
Panavia LRU 1 test set via an RKT (Retrofit KiT)
to eliminate these 'component sensitivities'.

More likely some of the "unit test" types or
other QC personnel damaged the part (as referenced
earlier) during testing and didn't realize it ...

That's my 'feel' having worked in and around that
particular biz for in excess of a decade ...

Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\20@005450 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
[Re time travel using ultra massive rotating cylinders]

> Anyway to find more information on this theory?

First proposed in ?1918 as a solution to Einsteins equations that allows
"real world" time travel".

Google searching on

       "time travel" "rotating cylinder"

produces 100+ hits, some relevant.


Good glosssary of time travel related matters
Worth a look

       http://www.math.siu.edu/kocik/tm/tm-dic.htm

eg

Lense-Thiring effect
Discovered in 1918 by Joseph Lense and Hans Thiring. Rotation of matter may
lead to closed time-like curves. Such time machines as Goedel universe, Kerr
black hole, Tipler's rotating cylinder are examples of Lense-Thiring effect
in action. Actually, one may add Gott's time machine, for a couple of cosmic
strings passing each other has a rather enormous angular momentum as a
system.

AND

Niven's law
If a universe permits time travel, then no time machine will be invented in
that universe. Introduced by a hard S-F writer Larry Niven. It is a strong
version of Sophoclean principle. It became in Stephen Hawking's writing a
chronology protection conjecture after a specification.

NOTE WELL

Quantum time machine
As suggested by Aharomov, quantum mechanics admits in the microscale a rapid
jumps to the future or the past. Unpredictability makes this principle
rather useless as a controlled machine for time travel.

_______________

I say.
1.- warning - the following may damage your brain if taken too seriously BUT
don't disregard it totally.
This is in fact part of a SciFi concept of mine BUT the basic maths appear
correct (and probably aren't).

2.    The above by Aharomov is (probably) a necessary part of quantum
tunneling light speed passing.
I call this the "Esaki Drive"
You accelerate to a respectable part of light speed. (there is a minimum
which I can't remember offhand but it's about 0.666 LS AFAIR). Now tunnel
(deyails left to the student to a speed above LS with equivalent energy.
Solution of the energy equations reveal that there are THREE points with
equal energy - one on the rising energy curve as you approach light speed
and two on a "bathtub" above lightspeed. Dealing wit the term in i may prove
troublesome (square root of minus 1).
Try it - take a random speed at around 0.9C. Now so;lve the energy equations
for the same body above C. Find there aretwo solutions. Note that the faster
you go the LESS energy you need above LS. To slow down you need to incrase
energy!. If you haven't got enough energy you are stranded ABOVE C.

3.    Less "fact" based: Having a Tachyon comms link is very desirable to
phone home. Ideally you tunnel as close to C as possible to reduce the
tunnel velocity "width". Tunneling is acieved in a short but finite epriod
so that parts of the tunellee are travelling at above and below C. Keeping
the jump time very short is 'desirable".

Back to work.





________________________________

Less wotrthwhile:


Mention
       http://www.rexresearch.com/time/time.htm

Brief comment
       http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5763/time.html


and many more


       RM


>
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > THROUGH the speed of light is not allowed
> > PAST is perhaps possible using tunnelling - but that's another story :-)
> >
> > It is also, incidentally, apparently possible to time travel without
> > violating Einsteinian requirements by using "special equipment". One
such
> > equipment is a cylinder with a mass about that of our solar system
rotating
> > along its long axis such that the surface velocity approaches an
appreciable
> > fraction of the speed of light. Space-Time is "dragged" by the rotating
mass
> > such that it is skewed and the time axis becomes a space axis and some
of
> > the space vectors become the time axis. You then travel along the "time"
> > axis as desired and then turn the machine off. I am NOT, despite what it
may
> > appear, making this up ! :-)
> >
> > Due to the specialist nature of the equipment nobody has made one yet
:-)
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\20@095734 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Pic Dude wrote:

>Bummer.  Just tried and it works for me.
>Try this instead ... http://www.avn-tech.com/hpc.html

Okay, I got it now I think ;-).

thanks,

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\20@100258 by Bill & Pookie

picon face
Hummmm.....
Haven't heard from the guy with the hydroflux
rotating whirly giggmoes thingies.  Maybe I should
go back into the list archives and look for him?

Pookie

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\20@100557 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Isn't that cylinder of yours a cheap substitute for a wormhole ? You're
already proposing cheap replacements for the real things. Tsk tsk.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\20@114821 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Gee you can rave on sometimes! Do you really think
I have no idea of how many watts in a horsepower or
the energy needs of a car engine? The original post
was asking whether a car engine could be run from
hydrogen. Yes it can. My comment "oxygen/hydrogen mix
straight from an electrolysis cell" meant just that,
that the MIX of gasses was what you get straight out
of an electrolysis cell.

The engine in question was running from the compressed
mixture in a bottle, something that was covered in the
article as being controversial at the time, that oxygen
and hydrogen can be safely compressed and stored together
in a gas bottle. Scientists still argue now whether this
is safe, but Dr. Brown (to his credit) had the balls to do
this where many "smarter" scientists would not dare.

So maybe if you were not so quick to jump at the thought
that everybody apart from yourself is stupid, you may have
commented on the (heresay) fact that yes, you can run a
gasoline engine on oxygen/hydrogen mix AS COMES straight
from an electrolysis cell.

I personally think that his simple idea of injecting some
water into the intake is brilliant, using most of the heat
energy to cause a massive volume increase of the water
vapour. No you didn't "bust my dreams" but I am having this
new dream that you might actually start reading for
comprehension. :o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\20@114943 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Isn't that cylinder of yours a cheap substitute for a wormhole ? You're
> already proposing cheap replacements for the real things. Tsk tsk.

No !
Wormholes you find lying around.
Large cylinders have to be made by mashing up while solar (star) systems.
Keeping it all together with a circumferential velocity > 0.5C takes some
doing. The energy bill to get it up to speed is a real pain. Certainly not
the cheap alternative.


       R

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\20@142515 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Would it not be mind blowing if we DETECTED such a large, massive, rapidly
rotating cylinder somewhere out in the universe as we lens around with our
giant telescopes?  No alien radio transmissions, no laser communications
beams pointed in our direction, just a big amazing thing that we think could
be a time machine, mutely saying "yes, we are here"?

Just a thought as I work on an oven controller on a Saturday morning.

--Lawrence

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\20@142625 by Bill & Pookie

picon face
I did try to resist, but the mind is weak.

Seen TV show where Einstein was going through
space near the speed of light while his friend was
coming towards him, also near the speed of light.
They went into detail of what would happen if each
threw out a billiard ball at right moment and they
bounced off each other.

But my thoughts were "if they are approaching each
other at near the speed of light, wouldn't their
closing speed exceed the speed of light?".

Pookie

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\20@164309 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
> Seen TV show where Einstein was going through
> space near the speed of light while his friend was
> coming towards him, also near the speed of light.
> They went into detail of what would happen if each
> threw out a billiard ball at right moment and they
> bounced off each other.
>
> But my thoughts were "if they are approaching each
> other at near the speed of light, wouldn't their
> closing speed exceed the speed of light?".
>
> Pookie

Ah, but that is the strangness of relativity. You can't just add two
velocity vectors together like that in an Einsteinian world.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


>
> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\20@164729 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Roman Black wrote:

>I personally think that his simple idea of injecting some
>water into the intake is brilliant, using most of the heat
>energy to cause a massive volume increase of the water
>vapour. No you didn't "bust my dreams" but I am having this
>new dream that you might actually start reading for
>comprehension. :o)

Always assuming that the the intake valves on the engine are perfectly
closing and there will be no (zero) flame leakage back through the intake
manifold towards the bomb (I mean, tank with compressed H2 O2 in
stochastic mixture).

Of course you can compress H2 O2 stochastic mixture. It will work just
fine, as long as there is no catalyst around. By catalist, I mean, any
organic substance, such as oil, grease, a fingerprint, most plastics, most
rubbers, most paints (in the context of exposure to oxygen). Notice that
by grace I did not mention any real catalysts, such as manganese or
vanadium left over from the tools that machined the tanks and the
fixtures. I am quite sure that it will work under perfect conditions, but
real life isn't like that. I have seen the aftermath of a few (two) oxygen
and acetylene explosions and I know that I don't want any of that under
me, in a car or motorcycle.

Peter

PS: I am not at all againts these innovations, but some of them have the
potential to kill, provenly. The least I can do is to talk about this.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\20@175120 by Amaury Jacquot

flavicon
face
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 02:19:22PM -0400, Epox wrote:
> I was talking with a few guys when came to the ultimate conclusion that the
> reason we don't use hydrogen internal combustion engines is that we have no
> way to safely transport and sore such a dangerous fuel.How I understand it,
> those fuel cell cars need hydrogen too, so what's the big problem? They are
> pushing hydrogen fuel cells but don't want to develop a hydrogen
> I.C.E.(internal combustion engine), I dunno thats why I wanted to know what
> you guys think about a Hydrogen powered I.C.E.

The real reason it political.
What would the middle-east people in the gulf (that only have oil to sell)
do if we start using hydrogen that can be extracted from the water of the
ocean ?

Also (this is worse in europe than in the states) the government would
have a lot more troubles taxing the hydrogen that you put in your car...

Amaury

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\20@193421 by Jim

flavicon
face
Amaury, were you serious?

That was an especially good 'jive' answer in any case ...

Jim


----- Original Message -----
From: "Amaury Jacquot" <sxpertspam@spam@ESITCOM.ORG>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTRemoveMEspamSTOPspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 02:19:22PM -0400, Epox wrote:
> > I was talking with a few guys when came to the ultimate conclusion that
the
> > reason we don't use hydrogen internal combustion engines is that we have
no
> > way to safely transport and sore such a dangerous fuel.How I understand
it,
> > those fuel cell cars need hydrogen too, so what's the big problem? They
are
> > pushing hydrogen fuel cells but don't want to develop a hydrogen
> > I.C.E.(internal combustion engine), I dunno thats why I wanted to know
what
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\21@030534 by Amaury Jacquot

flavicon
face
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 06:32:35PM -0500, Jim wrote:
> Amaury, were you serious?
>
> That was an especially good 'jive' answer in any case ...

I AM serious...

Stopping the use of oil-derived fuel would destroy the economies of the
emirates, saudi arabia, kuwait and others...


Amaury
>
> Jim
>
>
> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\21@094730 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
{Quote hidden}

That's a good point, and one I respect. I'm quite
capable of handling hydrogen safely, as obviously
you are, but many others may not be. :o) I do remember
blowing up a number of apparati(!) in the late '70s
when I was experimenting with electrolysis cells
as a teenager. :o)

Compressing the oxy/hyd mixture is something I have
stayed away from, the thoughts of diesel effects etc
are very worrying. Dr. Brown's assertion was that the
gas mixture was extremely safe, providing temperature
was considered, and some of his more "reckless"
demonstrations were regarding the compression and
handling of the mixture using crude pumps, obviously
full of oils etc. Better him than us.

I'm surprised they aren't a heap of *really good*
oxy/hyd welders on the market, which is sad, but no
I don't expect to see many hydrogen powered vehicles
on the roads, at least not for some time.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\21@101115 by Joe Farr

flavicon
face
A few years back, the aviation industry played around with an idea of 'contaminating' their aviation fuel with a chemical that prevented it for burning. The chemical was removed just before it entered the actual engine. Now that must be one hell of a process when you think about the amount of fuel a jumbo's engine needs. Perhaps it would be possible to alter the chemical properties of the H2/O2 mix or add a 'dampening agent' to make it more stable (less likely to blow up in your face) but reverse the affects in the actual engine compartment on demand.
It's just a thought.



{Original Message removed}

2002\07\21@124451 by Epox

picon face
No that u do think about it, that was a good ideal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Farr" <spamBeGonejoe.farrspam@spam@KCSL.UK.COM>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


A few years back, the aviation industry played around with an idea of
'contaminating' their aviation fuel with a chemical that prevented it for
burning. The chemical was removed just before it entered the actual engine.
Now that must be one hell of a process when you think about the amount of
fuel a jumbo's engine needs. Perhaps it would be possible to alter the
chemical properties of the H2/O2 mix or add a 'dampening agent' to make it
more stable (less likely to blow up in your face) but reverse the affects in
the actual engine compartment on demand.
It's just a thought.



{Original Message removed}

2002\07\21@130413 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 12:43 PM 7/21/02 -0400, you wrote:
>No that u do think about it, that was a good ideal.

So if the equipment fails, the engines flame out? I guess they would
have to do an analysis to see if the number of lives that would be lost
due to crashes from the additional equipment complexity and so on
would be more or less than the lives that would be saved in the rare
event of a survivable airliner crash. And if it is less, they would
probably also calculate the cost per life saved (design cost, capital
cost, and additional operation and maintenance cost), but that is more
controversial. Classic example, a level (railway) crossing in a small
town results in 1 fatality every 3 years. At what maximum cost should the
town have a grade separation built? eg. $2,000,000 would value a life
at $667K.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffspamspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
9/11 United we Stand

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\21@132952 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
I've looked up the flammability limits of Hydrogen in air, at normal
conditions, and the flame speed. Flammability limits are 4 to 75% by
volume and flame speed peaks at a respectable 8fps. It is followed closely
(haha) by acetylene with 8 to 80% by volume and 4fps flame speed. Propane,
butane etc all have narrow flammability limits and slow flame speed. When
you compress the mixture the flame speed and the flammability limits both
go up (wider, faster). If you heat the mixture or increase the density for
example by compressing it even more so. Beginning to get why piston
engines don't like H2 ?  H2 is about the worst knocking-fuel you can get.
Maybe it would be useful in a pulse jet or something like that where big
bangs are an advantage. OTOH in a rocket it is perfect, guaranteeing total
(?) burn inside a relatively small combustion chamber at respectable mass
flow.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\21@134615 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

>At 12:43 PM 7/21/02 -0400, you wrote:
>>No that u do think about it, that was a good ideal.
>
>So if the equipment fails, the engines flame out? I guess they would
>have to do an analysis to see if the number of lives that would be lost
>due to crashes from the additional equipment complexity and so on
...

The idea was that the equipment would be the heat in the engine. Something
that is hard to burn by itself in air is a good idea anyway. I read
somewhere that the SR-70 (Blackbird) uses some very special fuel and the
engines need to be started by squirting some sort of liquid 'accelerator'
into the engines.

How would you like for airfare tickets to treble (at least) in price
overnight for the introduction of exotic fuel ?

>would be more or less than the lives that would be saved in the rare
>event of a survivable airliner crash. And if it is less, they would
>probably also calculate the cost per life saved (design cost, capital
>cost, and additional operation and maintenance cost), but that is more
>controversial. Classic example, a level (railway) crossing in a small
>town results in 1 fatality every 3 years. At what maximum cost should the
>town have a grade separation built? eg. $2,000,000 would value a life
>at $667K.

In the context of airplanes flying into places full of people, I think
that some sort of un-overridable autopilot would make sense. It would not
allow flying below a certain level or force a slow turn and not allow
descent below a certain level when a coded beacon on the ground would be
received. This would automatically sort most airports built inside cities
and in other places where you are not supposed to build airports (such as
those that require overflight of a large city in the landing path - like
the one I live in).

Of course ground stations with lock radar and hot missiles would be an
interim solution. Until someone or something makes a mistake.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\21@145347 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
I remember seeing a program about another solution to the problem, but I
don't remember it very clearly.

The idea was to prevent jet fuel spills from burning - IIRC the fuel
actually foamed up automatically and acted as its own fire retardant,
and it kept tanks under pressure form exploding (the test was a plane
crashing into a barrier - with the additive there was no plane-engulfing
fireball)

It was ditched because it caused other problems and didn't prevent fuel
spill fires as well as originally hoped.

-Adam

Joe Farr wrote:

>A few years back, the aviation industry played around with an idea of 'contaminating' their aviation fuel with a chemical that prevented it for burning. The chemical was removed just before it entered the actual engine. Now that must be one hell of a process when you think about the amount of fuel a jumbo's engine needs. Perhaps it would be possible to alter the chemical properties of the H2/O2 mix or add a 'dampening agent' to make it more stable (less likely to blow up in your face) but reverse the affects in the actual engine compartment on demand.
>It's just a thought.
>
>
>
>{Original Message removed}

2002\07\21@153015 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
The closest to a hydrogen tank rupture I have seen was a methane tank
rupture.  There was this experimenter I knew who made a big methane
digester, and stored the product on an admittedly homemade and funky setup.
He ran his house cooking stove off the stuff, and also a little generator.
(Ooops) Now the generator was just around the corner of his barn from the
methane tank (actually sort of a bag affair).  I saw the setup before it
blew, and it was pretty impressive.    Pretty much the whole hayloft was
methane storage, with the digesters on the ground floor.  I also saw it
after it blew.  One day he came home, and the barn was GONE.  A few rebars
were sticking out of the ground, and some tin roofing was laying around
everywhere but near the barn.. I am not sure they even found all of the
digester tanks.

I would like that to not be me on my hydrogen powered bike.

--Lawrence


{Original Message removed}

2002\07\21@171431 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Peter L. Peres wrote:

> Of course ground stations with lock radar and hot missiles would be an
> interim solution. Until someone or something makes a mistake.

If that were part of the "solution" I'd never fly again.  I'm sure the
crew of the USS Vincennes were dedicated professionals with no desire to
inflict civilian casualties, and they still managed to shoot down an
airliner.  I fond looking down the barrel of a loaded gun to be something
I'd rather avoid.

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\21@215602 by Bill & Pookie

picon face
Boy,
Doom and Gloom.
I'm going to lay off the Post Toasties for a
while.

Pookie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Spehro Pefhany" <spam_OUTspeffspam_OUTspamspam_OUTINTERLOG.COM>
To: <PICLISTspam_OUTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Hydrogen Powered Cars


> At 12:43 PM 7/21/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >No that u do think about it, that was a good
ideal.
>
> So if the equipment fails, the engines flame
out? I guess they would
> have to do an analysis to see if the number of
lives that would be lost
> due to crashes from the additional equipment
complexity and so on
> would be more or less than the lives that would
be saved in the rare
> event of a survivable airliner crash. And if it
is less, they would
> probably also calculate the cost per life saved
(design cost, capital
> cost, and additional operation and maintenance
cost), but that is more
> controversial. Classic example, a level
(railway) crossing in a small
> town results in 1 fatality every 3 years. At
what maximum cost should the
> town have a grade separation built? eg.
$2,000,000 would value a life
> at $667K.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."
"The Journey is the reward"
> RemoveMEspeffKILLspamspam@spam@interlog.com             Info for
manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
> Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for
designers:  http://www.speff.com
> 9/11 United we Stand
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must
start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY!
[EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\22@145126 by Joe Farr
flavicon
face
As with all great ideas there was just one tiny problem.

For a test, they converted a 747 for remote control and loaded with their new fuel, got the plane to fly just above the ground and into some towers that were designed to rip into the engine housings. Everything worked beautifully right up till the point when the plane exploded. The teeth on the towers ripped into the fuel lines just after the point where the 'contaminant' was removed and the engines caught fire.


{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...