Hydrogen Engine

[UFO]

Originally Posted by IamIan

...
I had hoped to at least to get some kind of elaborate 'techy'... come on ... wow us , with talk of energy band gaps, quantum spin, temporal flux, Dilithium crystals, Naquda , Tachyons, etc... I mean come on ... bad sci-fi has more 'techy'.

Hey! That's not bad scifi. Well, maybe it is, but I like it.

[tf4624]

Originally Posted by IamIan

I suggest you read more carefully ... it seems you are misunderstanding what people are posting , and completely missing some things people are posting.

We have not forget how to use the internet ... we already knew the information you posted in your links ... none of those are anything new ... we already know many things about each of those including the limits each has , and how they work... which some us of, me included have already tried to explain to you.
I never said IT WAS new.. again stop putting words in people mouths

4 of your examples were ICE hydrogen vehicles ... none of those examples you gave have ICEs operating at over ~40% efficiency.
These companies won't make it and have no intentions to cause of vested interest in the oil companies.. It is possible to do so.

I also already posted about the Honda Fuel Cell you linked to which maxes out at ~60% efficiency ... and the Ford fuel cell is not any better.
Again, they build it for less efficiency then they want as they have vested interest in the oil companies.

We already know the volumetric energy limits of hydrogen ... and we know the efficiency limits of these vehicles... and we know the energy used for aerodynamics, rolling resistance, etc.

Congrates, you can read a book.. since when is what you read ever 100 percent correct. Example the air to fuel ratio which is bs and bull crap by the way

Read what we are posting to you more carefully ... you seem to be missing allot.
I'm not missing to much since you seem not to read what I wrote

I already went through this as well... you seem to have forget my first post.

I already posted about the Electrolysis ... and alternative methods to allot split water to extract the hydrogen... go back and re-read more carefully.

Yeah congrates you can copy past
Oh i read what you pasted.. doesn't interest me.


We are all well aware of people running vehicles on hydrogen ... including getting over 12,000 MPG from hydrogen... as I posted.

However we know enough about these vehicles including the ones you posted links to ... to know how they work and what they can and can't do.

We do not just believe people without proof ... the opinions we have are based on proof and real data ... I have myself run experiments first hand ... as have several others on this forum ... If your opinion differs you need to provide at least equal quantity and quality of 'techy' , details, proof... so if you have 'techy' ... I still say ... bring it.

So far you have offered nothing to back up your claims ... back it up ... bring on the 'techy'. Claims of the possibilies are what you make them its your choice.


When he wrote about , 'positive energy balance' , he was referring to your claim of 300% efficiency.
Yes there is one and no it doesn't exist anymore for now.. Some have come close maybe.

Does this look familiar.
It does, there it is, WOW.. and your point is what?
oh wait, i know what your going to post.. bring it on.. LOL

This is you claiming a 300% efficient fuel cell ... when the best examples posted ... are 60% efficient.... and I was the one who posted that much ... because you wouldn't / couldn't even give us that tiny bit of 'techy'.

If you have 'techy' that supports your claims ... like 300% efficiency ... bring it ... bring us the 'techy' ... there are allot of well educated , experienced, and informed people on this site ... we can help you to understand what is really happening ... what is really going on ... you can learn more than you know now.

Oh yes we all need to help each other I agree. i dont disagree in not learning from others as knowledge is the best gift to a certain extent
I had hoped to at least to get some kind of elaborate 'techy'... come on ... wow us , with talk of energy band gaps, quantum spin, temporal flux, Dilithium crystals, Naquda , Tachyons, etc... I mean come on ... bad sci-fi has more 'techy'.

Sure thing but not yet.. seeing where you guys want to go with this one.

[IamIan]

tf4624,

Please learn to use the quote feature correctly ... to put your comments inside of a quote credited to me ... is the very definition of you putting words in someone elses mouth ... in this case mine ... I did not write those things... and it is deceptive , and disingenuous the way you did it.

Originally Posted by tf4624

I never said IT WAS new.. again stop putting words in people mouths

You have mis-read / mis-understood again.

I never put words in your mouth ... I never claimed you were claiming it was new ... read the post more carefully.

You on the other hand are directly putting words in my mouth when you credit your comments as a quote from me.

And here you are again putting words in my mouth ... when I never made any such claim about you.

Originally Posted by tf4624

These companies won't make it and have no intentions to cause of vested interest in the oil companies.. It is possible to do so.

I never said it wasn't possible to get over 40% efficient ... I wrote all of your examples are under 40% efficient.

And I wrote I have seen ICEs slightly above 50% efficient.

However there are real world limits ... to move a ~20 MPG ~30% efficient ICE all the way up to 100% efficiency will still not get you past 67 MPG , from the same vehicle driven the same context that got it 20 MPG.

And you will never get 100% efficiency ... the real world has things like friction... etc.

You can suggest all the conspiracies you like ... at the end of the day ... I will still say ... what is the proof? ... give me the 'techy'... bring it.

If you have no proof ... if you have no 'techy' ... if you don't understand how it works ... than your claims have no support.

Originally Posted by tf4624

Again, they build it for less efficiency then they want as they have vested interest in the oil companies.

Your conspiracy theories do not count as proof ... or even remotely as 'techy' ... if you have either ... bring it.

Originally Posted by tf4624

Congrates, you can read a book.. since when is what you read ever 100 percent correct.

Despite your tone ... you have again mis-read / mis-understood ... It is not about what a book or a person claims ... it is the 'techy', it is the data, it is the complete description of how they determined what they determined.

When they provide this ... anyone can go out and re-create the experiment ... and there have been times when people have done this and got different answers ... and different results.

The results are not scientifically accepted until they are confirmed to be repeatable by 3rd parties.

I can and I have confirmed some things on my own.

They give and offer the 'techy' ... and the data ... and complete descriptions on how they got the data they did.

You still have not offered any of these ... so I still say ... if you got the 'techy' ... bring it.

Originally Posted by tf4624

I'm not missing to much since you seem not to read what I wrote

I did read what you wrote ... so that is incorrect.
You are missing several things over and over again ... I have only pointed out a few of the mistakes you have been making in your mis-reading, or mis-understanding.

If you think I have mis-understood some part of your 300% efficiency fuel cell claims ... please clarify.

Originally Posted by tf4624

Yeah congrates you can copy past
Oh i read what you pasted.. doesn't interest me.

Do you mean paste? ... or are you referring to the past?

You are incorrect ... it was not a copy and paste post.

Ok so you are not interested.... and? , doesn't matter ... it is what the original poster asked about ... and it is on topic for this thread... the thread is not about you or what interests you.

Originally Posted by tf4624

Claims of the possibilies are what you make them its your choice.

I agree... and right now you only got claims and your opinion with nothing to back it up... if you got the 'techy' ... bring it.

Originally Posted by tf4624

Yes there is one and no it doesn't exist anymore for now.. Some have come close maybe.

Notice how I separated my quote of what I actually wrote from what you wrote... try it yourself.

Which is exactly what was posted ... no one was putting words in your mouth ... you were incorrect and mis-understood when you incorrectly thought someone was putting words in your mouth ... you on the other hand are putting words in my mouth.

Friendly tip ... I think your mis-use of the tense confuses your point.
If it does not currently exist right now in the present ... than is it incorrect to say 'there is one' ... if there was one in the past... but it no longer exists today ... it would be clearer for you to write this as ... there was one.

Ok so you are making another claim ... what 'techy' do you have or proof do you have to support that there was one?... what can I independently verify?... just like I can and have gone out and tested energy densities , and some fuel cells... describe it in detail.

Originally Posted by tf4624

You will get it soon enough.. but not yet.. seeing where you guy go with this one.

bring it.

[tf4624]

HEY GUESS WHAT SMART one.. I did it that way so i dont have to retype each quote I BOLD MY ANSWERS below EACH One.. so YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS refering to SO NO I DIDNT PUT THOSE INTO YOUR mouth.. but since your so smart maybe you can figure that out and why i did it that way..

SO in other words they are not your WORDS..there mine

PS I know how to use them normaly if its 1 question or comment vs typeing each one ou.

Originally Posted by IamIan

tf4624,

Please learn to use the quote feature correctly ... to put your comments inside of a quote credited to me ... is the very definition of you putting words in someone elses mouth ... in this case mine ... I did not write those things... and it is deceptive , and disingenuous the way you did it.



You have mis-read / mis-understood again.

I never put words in your mouth ... I never claimed you were claiming it was new ... read the post more carefully.

You on the other hand are directly putting words in my mouth when you credit your comments as a quote from me.

And here you are again putting words in my mouth ... when I never made any such claim about you.



I never said it wasn't possible to get over 40% efficient ... I wrote all of your examples are under 40% efficient.

And I wrote I have seen ICEs slightly above 50% efficient.

However there are real world limits ... to move a ~20 MPG ~30% efficient ICE all the way up to 100% efficiency will still not get you past 67 MPG , from the same vehicle driven the same context that got it 20 MPG.

And you will never get 100% efficiency ... the real world has things like friction... etc.

You can suggest all the conspiracies you like ... at the end of the day ... I will still say ... what is the proof? ... give me the 'techy'... bring it.

If you have no proof ... if you have no 'techy' ... if you don't understand how it works ... than your claims have no support.



Your conspiracy theories do not count as proof ... or even remotely as 'techy' ... if you have either ... bring it.



Despite your tone ... you have again mis-read / mis-understood ... It is not about what a book or a person claims ... it is the 'techy', it is the data, it is the complete description of how they determined what they determined.

When they provide this ... anyone can go out and re-create the experiment ... and there have been times when people have done this and got different answers ... and different results.

The results are not scientifically accepted until they are confirmed to be repeatable by 3rd parties.

I can and I have confirmed some things on my own.

They give and offer the 'techy' ... and the data ... and complete descriptions on how they got the data they did.

You still have not offered any of these ... so I still say ... if you got the 'techy' ... bring it.



I did read what you wrote ... so that is incorrect.
You are missing several things over and over again ... I have only pointed out a few of the mistakes you have been making in your mis-reading, or mis-understanding.

If you think I have mis-understood some part of your 300% efficiency fuel cell claims ... please clarify.



Do you mean paste? ... or are you referring to the past?

You are incorrect ... it was not a copy and paste post.

Ok so you are not interested.... and? , doesn't matter ... it is what the original poster asked about ... and it is on topic for this thread... the thread is not about you or what interests you.



I agree... and right now you only got claims and your opinion with nothing to back it up... if you got the 'techy' ... bring it.



Notice how I separated my quote of what I actually wrote from what you wrote... try it yourself.

Which is exactly what was posted ... no one was putting words in your mouth ... you were incorrect and mis-understood when you incorrectly thought someone was putting words in your mouth ... you on the other hand are putting words in my mouth.

Friendly tip ... I think your mis-use of the tense confuses your point.
If it does not currently exist right now in the present ... than is it incorrect to say 'there is one' ... if there was one in the past... but it no longer exists today ... it would be clearer for you to write this as ... there was one.

Ok so you are making another claim ... what 'techy' do you have or proof do you have to support that there was one?... what can I independently verify?... just like I can and have gone out and tested energy densities , and some fuel cells... describe it in detail.




bring it.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by tf4624

HEY GUESS WHAT SMART one..

thank you for the compliment
But flattery will get you no where.

Originally Posted by tf4624

I did it that way so i dont have to retype each quote

No need to retype each quote.

Option #1: copy and paste

Option #2: read more carefully when you click on the quote button. it inserts into the entry screen the commands for the quote feature. the command that starts it at the beginning of a string of text. and a command that ends the quote feature for that string of text. you can use those beginning and end commands to break up the quote. Which as you can see from reading the forum... is the way everyone does it.

Originally Posted by tf4624

I BOLD MY ANSWERS below EACH One.. so YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS refering to SO NO I DIDNT PUT THOSE INTO YOUR mouth..

I figured out what you did with the bold ... self evident by my pulling your quotes out of mine... not complicated.

I think you have mis-understood what is means to quote someone... the quotation marks example ... "I say this" ... or by using the forum quote feature ... anything inside the quote , is the word for word what the person referenced said, or wrote... by the very definition of a quote ... what you did is falsely putting words in someone elses mouth... in that case mine.

If you have missed it ... everyone else that quotes you does not insert their comments into the quote itself ... the comments are always separated from the body of the quote.

Adding bold to the text inside a quote the the accepted method of drawling attention to a specific part of the quote... which you still used incorrectly.

Originally Posted by tf4624

SO in other words they are not your WORDS..there mine

exactly ... your words inside of a quote that you credited the entire context of ( including your words ) to be coming from me.

go back and re-read your post again more carefully ... notice at the top of the quote where it indicates who is being credited for the bellow text? ... and there you are crediting me with saying , or writing everything in the quoted area ... which as you just wrote here ... was not my words ... they where your words ... you were putting into my mouth.

As I already said previously ... you should learn to use the quotes correctly... the way you did it is the definition of putting words in someone elses mouth ... in this case mine.

Originally Posted by tf4624

PS I know how to use them normaly if its 1 question or comment vs typeing each one ou.

as covered above ... no need to retype the quotes.

I hope you learned something useful for writing on forums.

If you have further questions about how to use the quote feature on the forum... please feel free to read help sections about it ... or ask ... now that would be off topic for this thread ... but I would be happy to help explain it to you further in PM if you would like.

[tf4624]

[QUOTE=IamIan;209787]thank you for the compliment
But flattery will get you no where.
Smart ass won't get you anywhere either. do I detect an EGO in the way here?

No need to retype each quote.
Don't need to, if you can't figure out what my answer are.. then go back to school.

Option #1: copy and paste

Option #2: read more carefully when you click on the quote button. it inserts into the entry screen the commands for the quote feature. the command that starts it at the beginning of a string of text. and a command that ends the quote feature for that string of text. you can use those beginning and end commands to break up the quote. Which as you can see from reading the forum... is the way everyone does it.

well isn't that just awesome? "everyone" well there's a first for everything


I figured out what you did with the bold ... self evident by my pulling your quotes out of mine... not complicated.

Wow, you got a brain, see if you had used it we wouldnt have this crap about quotes and me bolding, you would have obviously understood I did that, not to missquote you but to answer what I wanted, and doing it my way.
I think you have mis-understood what is means to quote someone... the quotation marks example ... "I say this" ... or by using the forum quote feature ... anything inside the quote , is the word for word what the person referenced said, or wrote... by the very definition of a quote ... what you did is falsely putting words in someone elses mouth... in that case mine.

You must really want it done a certain way, but i choose to still answer your questions reguardless to some way you want me to answer quotes. Well I will answer the way i fine fit for me, and not you.. as you dont own me and nor do i tell you how to live and do what you want.. I might suggest something but not tell you to be who you are.

If you have missed it ... everyone else that quotes you does not insert their comments into the quote itself ... the comments are always separated from the body of the quote.

Thanks for your concern, as I didn't forget or miss it.. Thanks

Adding bold to the text inside a quote the the accepted method of drawling attention to a specific part of the quote... which you still used incorrectly.

No explaination needed, as your not the controling party of others, so get off whatever your smoking and control your life not mine or anybody elses.
I'm not going for the "CORRECT" Way of doing things.. thats the great thing about life, you can do what you want if you chose to.


Credit is given when credit is dew.. and i guess you want your star on the walk of fame.. well congrates captain .... take whatever credit you want, I could care less and no I won't take credit for whatever crap bable you decide to write from here on or from before, cause its not worth my time with you. I know you and me have better things to do then argue about stupid quoting systems and other grammer issues. now if you want to carry on with the topic.. I'd be glad to forget all this b_LL __H_T and get on with the show here

[euromodder]

I'm out of this.
tf4624 won't add any sensible thought to the discussion, evades all questions and thinks he's the newest Einstein.

He's here just to stir things up.
Exit stage left.

[MetroMPG]

The user in question has been banned.

IamIan was being quite reasonable in trying to clear up communication problems, and the user's response was to fling personal insults.

(Not to mention the earlier issue of failing to contribute acceptable evidence to the thread.)

[IamIan]

well ... I guess now that , that is behind us.



I would also like to add at least a few more thoughts to the concept of a Hydrogen fueled ICE.

While the ICE is less efficient than a fuel cell ... it is also much less expensive than a fuel cell ... and a ICE running on hydrogen is about as clean for emissions as a ICE will ever get.

Also the same ICE can be converted to run Hydrogen or gasoline or any mixture of the two.

There is also anther advantage to hydrogen fueled vehicles , ICE or fuel cell... and that is ... energy density per unit weight ... Hydrogen is the lightest element ... the weight of the hydrogen is very light compared to an equal energy wh amount of batteries or any hydrocarbon like gasoline.

~39 kwh/ kg for liquid hydrogen compared to ~13 kwh / kg for gasoline

3 to 1 Hydrogen advantage.

Unfortunately ... the energy density per unit volume ... is the killer for hydrogen storage ...

~2.6 kwh / L for Liquid Hydrogen compared to ~9.7 kwh / L for gasoline

~3.7 to 1 advantage gasoline.

plus of course anything being fueled by hydrogen has to get the hydrogen produced in the first place ... and transported ... and stored... and it is each of these three areas that hydrogen becomes a dead end ... unfortunately for those who have invested in the hydrogen economy.

That might change in the future ... but there are some serious technical problems with each of those three areas ... which all will need serious improvement if a hydrogen economy would even come close to being competitive.

[UFO]

^^^

It's good to see others who see this hydrogen thing as it is, and not through rose-colored glasses or tin-foil hats.