Nancy Pelosi's Harvest Mouse

I'm talking about on-board hydrogen generation. There is no transport or storage. If those inefficiencies are removed, do you agree that hydrogen could be a viable fuel?

Robin Banks wrote:

I'm talking about on-board hydrogen generation. There is no transport or storage. If those inefficiencies are removed, do you agree that hydrogen could be a viable fuel?

It's becoming more and more apparent that you don't have a friggin clue about what you are talking about.
It takes energy to create hydrogen. A system like you are talking about is complex and expensive, which is why the major manufacturers have dismissed it as impractical. I'm starting to think that you aren't capable of posting a link, otherwise you would have done so and made your case.

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

Robin Banks wrote:

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

That's what Plasmatronics claimed before they scammed Crown Point out of half a million bucks. Popular Mechanics has been running ads for these "trade secrets" and "miraculous fuel saving inventions" for fifty years now. Every single one of them has been proved to be bogus when they are tested by impartial labs.However, it seems the supply of people willing to buy these "fraudulent products" is inexhaustible. As they say,if it seems to good to be true,it probably is. How much did they scam you for,Robin?

If you don't know about it, it must be fraud, huh? Do you think CARB and the USEPA are impartial? You have no idea how far off-base you are.....

BWG claims:

Quote :

Refineries in the U.S., gone.

No I don't think so...

World's Largest Refineries (Barrels/Day)
Name of Refinery Location Barrels per Day

Paraguana Refining Complex (CRP) - Amuay and Cardón Venezuela 940,000
SK Energy Co., Ltd. South Korea 840,000
Reliance Industries I1 Jamnagar, India 661,000
GS Caltex South Korea 650,000
ExxonMobil Singapore 605,000
Reliance Industries II1 Jamnagar, India 580,000
ExxonMobil Baytown, TX, USA 557,000
Ras Tanura Aramco, Eastern Province, KSA 525,000
S-Oil South Korea 520,000
ExxonMobil Baton Rouge, LA, USA 503,000 ]/B]
Hovensa LLC Virgin Islands 495,000
Mina Al-Ahmadi Refinery, KNPC Kuwait 470,000
[B]BP Texas City Texas City, TX, USA 460,000
Shell Eastern Singapore 458,000
Abadan Refinery Iran 450,000
Citgo Lake Charles Lake Charles, LA, USA 425,000
Shell Pernis Refinery Netherlands 416,000
BP Whiting Refinery Whiting IN, USA 410,000
Saudi Aramco Yanbu Refinery Yanbu, KSA 400,000
REPLAN (Petrobras) Paulínia, BR 365,000
Total Refinery Antwerp Belgium 360,000
ExxonMobil Beaumont TX, USA 348,500
Sunoco Philadelphia, PA, USA 335,000
Chevron Pascagoula, MS, USA 330,000
Valero Port Arthur TX, USA 325,000
Motiva Port Arthur TX, USA 325,000
ConocoPhillips Wood River IL, USA 306,000

Robin Banks wrote:

Quote :

You know, BWG, I wonder if anyone has considered what will happen if millions of wind turbines are built. If you remove energy from the wind on a large scale, will it affect the climate? Seems possible to me.

Could you please explain to us how a wind turbine "removes energy" on a large scale?
I'm curious as to WHERE that wind "goes" after it passes over the blades of that giant prop.

thanks

It's the law of conservation of energy. Energy is removed from the wind to turn the windmill. All the energy (except for transmission losses and friction) that is produced by a windmill is removed from the wind. The wind continues but has less energy. If you could build enough windmills of sufficient size you could remove all the energy, but that's a practical impossibility. However, it is not known how much reduction in energy will impact the climate.


Here is a link that describes conservation of energy

http://fi.edu/guide/hughes/energyconservation.html

This study suggests that total global wind energy is 5-7 times more than the total global human energy requirement.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html

But if the wind had 20% less power, the climate would surely be affected.

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

I'm talking about on-board hydrogen generation. There is no transport or storage. If those inefficiencies are removed, do you agree that hydrogen could be a viable fuel?

It's becoming more and more apparent that you don't have a friggin clue about what you are talking about.
It takes energy to create hydrogen. A system like you are talking about is complex and expensive, which is why the major manufacturers have dismissed it as impractical. I'm starting to think that you aren't capable of posting a link, otherwise you would have done so and made your case.

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

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1499183.htm

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-1784

Case made.

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

That's what Plasmatronics claimed before they scammed Crown Point out of half a million bucks. Popular Mechanics has been running ads for these "trade secrets" and "miraculous fuel saving inventions" for fifty years now. Every single one of them has been proved to be bogus when they are tested by impartial labs.However, it seems the supply of people willing to buy these "fraudulent products" is inexhaustible. As they say,if it seems to good to be true,it probably is. How much did they scam you for,Robin?

See the links above. I think Wired magazine, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and ABC News are fairly credible.

I expect an apology for your asinine post.

Robin Banks wrote:

Quote :

The wind continues but has less energy.

Sorry, but nowhere in those two links does it claim or say that.

Not even close.

Robin Banks wrote:

I'm talking about on-board hydrogen generation. There is no transport or storage. If those inefficiencies are removed, do you agree that hydrogen could be a viable fuel?

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

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1499183.htm

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-1784

Case made.

Those links prove nothing more than the fact that it takes energy to produce hydrogen, in this case, an internal cumbustion deisel engine.

Quote :

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, and not an energy source, because it is usually produced from other energy sources via petroleum combustion, wind power, or solar photovoltaic cells. Hydrogen may be produced from subsurface reservoirs of methane and natural gas by a combination of steam reforming with the water gas shift reaction, from coal by coal gasification, or from oil shale by oil shale gasification, low pressure electrolysis of water or high pressure electrolysis, which requires electricity, and high-temperature electrolysis/thermochemical production, which requires low temperatures (ideal the for expected Generation IV reactors), are two primary methods for the extraction of hydrogen from water.

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

"Case made"?...no I'm afraid not.

If hydrogen was a viable fuel for cars & trucks, we would be using it.

So far we're not...well, except for this one

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

That's what Plasmatronics claimed before they scammed Crown Point out of half a million bucks. Popular Mechanics has been running ads for these "trade secrets" and "miraculous fuel saving inventions" for fifty years now. Every single one of them has been proved to be bogus when they are tested by impartial labs.However, it seems the supply of people willing to buy these "fraudulent products" is inexhaustible. As they say,if it seems to good to be true,it probably is. How much did they scam you for,Robin?

See the links above. I think Wired magazine, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and ABC News are fairly credible.

I expect an apology for your asinine post.

I am really amazed at fast things changed. Yesterday afternoon you wrote this post.

Robin Banks wrote:

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

Now, there are suddenly four links which can reveal these trade secrets? I looked at the links and every single one of them contains devices which mix hydrogen with either diesel fuel or CNG. Since both diesel fuel and CNG are fossil fuels, supplementing them with hydrogen is not a solution to either Global Warming or the diminishing supply of fossil fuel. BTW, the EPA doesn't certify any after market devices
for internal combustion engines which indicates to me you have some false information. As far as your demand for an apology, if you can prove your point, I will admit I am wrong. This is a discussion forum and apologies aren't required or expected.

The trade secrets are improvements on the technology posted. Also, if you read my posts, I clearly stated that it is hybrid technology. Do you know what hybrid means?


Edge, the law of conservation of energy means you can't get energy for free. You can only convert it from one form to another. You can convert wind energy to electrical energy but that means the wind energy has to be diminished by the amount of electrical energy generated.

Here is a report describing hydrogen technology from the US DOT:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/Guidelines-H2-Fuel-in-CMVs-Nov2007.pdf

It states that hydrogen injection is indeed viable technology.

edge540 wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

I'm talking about on-board hydrogen generation. There is no transport or storage. If those inefficiencies are removed, do you agree that hydrogen could be a viable fuel?

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

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1499183.htm

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-1784

Case made.

Those links prove nothing more than the fact that it takes energy to produce hydrogen, in this case, an internal cumbustion deisel engine.

Quote :

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, and not an energy source, because it is usually produced from other energy sources via petroleum combustion, wind power, or solar photovoltaic cells. Hydrogen may be produced from subsurface reservoirs of methane and natural gas by a combination of steam reforming with the water gas shift reaction, from coal by coal gasification, or from oil shale by oil shale gasification, low pressure electrolysis of water or high pressure electrolysis, which requires electricity, and high-temperature electrolysis/thermochemical production, which requires low temperatures (ideal the for expected Generation IV reactors), are two primary methods for the extraction of hydrogen from water.

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

"Case made"?...no I'm afraid not.

If hydrogen was a viable fuel for cars & trucks, we would be using it.

So far we're not...well, except for this one

As I've posted before, I am not talking about fuel cells. And you are absolutely correct, it does take energy to create hydrogen. So, why not take some energy from a vehicle and use it to produce hydrogen to use as a supplementary fuel; thereby reducing emissions and fuel consumption?


The Canadian government verified the technology:

http://www.etvcanada.ca/F/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf

And Ford is using it:

https://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=45786

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

That's what Plasmatronics claimed before they scammed Crown Point out of half a million bucks. Popular Mechanics has been running ads for these "trade secrets" and "miraculous fuel saving inventions" for fifty years now. Every single one of them has been proved to be bogus when they are tested by impartial labs.However, it seems the supply of people willing to buy these "fraudulent products" is inexhaustible. As they say,if it seems to good to be true,it probably is. How much did they scam you for,Robin?

See the links above. I think Wired magazine, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and ABC News are fairly credible.

I expect an apology for your asinine post.

I am really amazed at fast things changed. Yesterday afternoon you wrote this post.

Robin Banks wrote:

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

Now, there are suddenly four links which can reveal these trade secrets? I looked at the links and every single one of them contains devices which mix hydrogen with either diesel fuel or CNG. Since both diesel fuel and CNG are fossil fuels, supplementing them with hydrogen is not a solution to either Global Warming or the diminishing supply of fossil fuel. BTW, the EPA doesn't certify any after market devices
for internal combustion engines which indicates to me you have some false information. As far as your demand for an apology, if you can prove your point, I will admit I am wrong. This is a discussion forum and apologies aren't required or expected.

You demanded links so I provided some old ones from the public domain. Now you are critical because I provided links. Another asinine post.

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

See the links above. I think Wired magazine, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and ABC News are fairly credible.
I expect an apology for your asinine post.

I am really amazed at fast things changed. Yesterday afternoon you wrote this post.

Robin Banks wrote:

The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed. I do have a clue what I am talking about, to a much greater extent than you know. You really don't know as much as you think you do.

Now, there are suddenly four links which can reveal these trade secrets? I looked at the links and every single one of them contains devices which mix hydrogen with either diesel fuel or CNG. Since both diesel fuel and CNG are fossil fuels, supplementing them with hydrogen is not a solution to either Global Warming or the diminishing supply of fossil fuel. BTW, the EPA doesn't certify any after market devices
for internal combustion engines which indicates to me you have some false information. As far as your demand for an apology, if you can prove your point, I will admit I am wrong. This is a discussion forum and apologies aren't required or expected.

You demanded links so I provided some old ones from the public domain. Now you are critical because I provided links. Another asinine post.

There is nothing asinine about my post. The only thing that is really asinine here is your refusal to concede that you are wrong and move one to another thread where you know what you are talking about.Let's review what has transpired.You made this claim.

Robin Banks wrote:

A hydrogen hybrid internal combustion engine has been demonstrated that is extremely efficient and will be rolled out next year. It will be available as a retrofit for existing vehicles.The technology is new and is a trade secret for now. It is being tested in California for CARB and USEPA certification. Until the certification process is complete, details can not be revealed.

I proved that your statement is totally untrue.The EPA does not certify aftermarket devices like you claim,period.Here is the link to their website. From their website.
." EPA evaluates aftermarket retrofit devices which are claimed to improve fuel economy and/or reduce exhaust emissions. The purpose of the program is to generate, analyze, and disseminate technical data; EPA does not approve or certify retrofit devices for light duty vehicles. If you take the time to look at the 20 or so studies they published about aftermarket fuel saving products, you will see that these devices did not produce the results that their makers advertised. They were fraudulent products that cheated the consumer by not producing the mileage improvements or reductions in emissions that were claimed.
You also posted a study about Ford building buses that ran on hydrogen. If you were conversant on the difficulties of actually powering an internal combustion on hydrogen, you would know that one of the major obstacles is the huge size of the storage tanks needed to carry hydrogen on a vehicle.You might fit those tanks on a bus but you can't do that on a car in a cost effective manner. Combine that with the fact that hydrogen costs three to four times as much as the equivalent amount of gas and it confirms my original statement,which is hydrogen sucks as an option for replacing gasoline and diesel fuels

I don't know why I bother but I'll try one more time: The EPA has a program called ETV: http://www.epa.gov/etv/ that tests and verifies new environmental technology, and this program through OTAQ http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hwy.htm that is specific to over-the-road vehicles.

Second, as you seem to be unable to grasp, the new technology involves onboard generation of hydrogen. No storage is required. It is generated from water, so the cost is not three to four times the cost of gas.

Your original statement confirms that you don't know what you're talking about. If you spent less time arguing for the sake of being contrary and actually reading posts you may learn something new and interesting.

:bangwall:

Thanks for the support....we are on the brink of many technological breakthroughs, many including hydrogen. There is quite a lot of development happening right here in NWI but it is done very quietly because the stakes are very high and intellectual property has to be protected carefully. Most of the work is done by entrepreneurs and start-up companies without government support.

Robin Banks wrote:

I don't know why I bother but I'll try one more time: The EPA has a program called ETV: http://www.epa.gov/etv/ that tests and verifies new environmental technology, and this program through OTAQ http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hwy.htm that is specific to over-the-road vehicles.

Second, as you seem to be unable to grasp, the new technology involves onboard generation of hydrogen. No storage is required. It is generated from water, so the cost is not three to four times the cost of gas.

Your original statement confirms that you don't know what you're talking about. If you spent less time arguing for the sake of being contrary and actually reading posts you may learn something new and interesting.

Robin, you should spend less time insulting me and more time actually reading the links you post.Here is what you wrote in this thread.

Robin Banks wrote:

The Canadian government verified the technology:

http://www.etvcanada.ca/F/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf

And Ford is using it:

[/url]https://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=45786[/url]

The second link, that you posted, is about Ford testing three busses being run by internal combustion engines fueled with hydrogen. I pointed out several of the stumbling blocks of running vehicles with hydrogen. Since you posted these links and I commented on them, I think your namecalling in this thread is totally unjustified.
These are the improvements that the Canadian government attributed to on-board hydrogen generation.(1) reduced fuel consumption by 4.44% ;
(2) reduced THC emissions by 6.17%;
(3) reduced CO emissions by 0.39%;
(4) reduced NOx emissions by 4.34%; and
(5) reduced PM emissions by 7.0%.
An increase in fuel efficiency of less than 5% is hardly groundbreaking. You can achieve that by simply keeping tires properly inflated and changing air filters.

The demonstration project proved the technology worked, and now it is being improved, which is the way technical development works.