Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:

The energy-per-weight of Hydrogen is 3 times that of gasoline.

Not even wrong in all known terrestral transportation uses.
The CONTAINED energy-per-weight of Hydrogen is MUCH LESS than that of gasoline.
Typically by a factor of 150 or so.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Arnold Walker wrote:

Of course ,your powerplant in one package idea does not account for the lack of solar powered airplanes.Due to lack of power density. If in fact solars lightwieght fuel savings were happening. We would see solar jumbo jets and cars and???? all around. The fact is we don't .

For 49,000/50,000ths of the history of anthropods there were zero planes or cars of any kind. Only 1/50000th of history has them in it. Why didn't the cavemen have cars and planes? For the same reason that there haven't been Solar cars and Solar planes -- the baseline of scientific understanding was not mature enough.
In 2001 a solar plane flew. Cars operated on fuel from Solar Power stored in an energy carrier can be on the road in 2006 or any time anybody wants to do it. The scientific knowledge has matured, at least for some members of the species.
For 5,000,000 years no human ever flew the English Channel on a human-powered aircraft.
For 5,000,000 years no private enterprise spacecraft ever attained sufficent altitude to qualify to win the X-Prize.
And then they did.
For 5,000,000 years nobody in your lineage has ever understood much about science or Solar Power or Energy. Mayby by 10,000,000???
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/helios_fact.shtml .... On August 13, 2001, remote-control pilots on the ground used a computer to fly the Helios Prototype to an altitude of 96,863 feet. That's over 18 miles straight up! Before the Helios Prototype, the highest recorded flight of any aircraft was about 85,000 feet. This was done in 1976 by the SR-71 spy plane, the fastest jet in the world. Only rockets and rocket-powered airplanes have gone higher.
The air we breathe on Earth's surface is almost 100 times thicker than the air up where the Helios Prototype flew. Earth's atmosphere at this altitude is about as thin as the atmosphere on Mars. This altitude above Earth is so close to space that the sky is almost black, stars shine in the daytime, and the horizon looks curved. ...
.... Instead of jet fuel, Helios has about 62,000 solar cells across the wing. The solar cells collect energy from the Sun and convert it to electricity, which runs the 14 small motors, which turn the 14 propellers. The propellers are specially designed to pull the aircraft aloft even in the very thin air that's 18 miles high. ...
.... The next project for the Helios engineers is to develop fuel cells (sort of like batteries). This way, Helios can store enough of the sun's energy during the day to continue flying through the night. When this happens, Helios will be able to stay up for weeks and months at a time. ...

http://www.pvresources.com/en/helios.php HELIOS project is a part of NASA's ERAST programme (Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology). It was developed by NASA and Californian company AeroVironment Inc. ERAST programme develops pilotless solar powered airplane technology. The HELIOS construction is based upon its predecessors like NASA's solar plane Pathfinder, which was successfully tested a few years prior to HELIOS. Due to its speed HELIOS can fly over the same spot for days or weeks, therefore, in the future it could substitute communication satellites. In the test flight on 13th August 2001, HELIOS reached the height of almost 30,000 meters.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0407_050407_solarairplanes.html Solar Plane Planned for Around-the-World Flight
.... "This type of flight would not have been possible 15 years ago," Piccard said, referring to the new technologies, especially new-generation batteries, that are now available.

"Sparky @zig-zag.net" included:

... http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/helios_fact.shtml ... On August 13, 2001, remote-control pilots on the ground used a computer to fly the Helios Prototype to an altitude of 96,863 feet. That's over 18 miles straight up! Before the Helios Prototype, the highest recorded flight of any aircraft was about 85,000 feet. This was done in 1976 by the SR-71 spy plane, the fastest jet in the world. Only rockets and rocket-powered airplanes have gone higher.
The air we breathe on Earth's surface is almost 100 times thicker than the air up where the Helios Prototype flew. Earth's atmosphere at this altitude is about as thin as the atmosphere on Mars. This altitude above Earth is so close to space that the sky is almost black, stars shine in the daytime, and the horizon looks curved. ...
... Instead of jet fuel, Helios has about 62,000 solar cells across the wing. The solar cells collect energy from the Sun and convert it to electricity, which runs the 14 small motors, which turn the 14 propellers. The propellers are specially designed to pull the aircraft aloft even in the very thin air that's 18 miles high. ...
... The next project for the Helios engineers is to develop fuel cells (sort of like batteries). This way, Helios can store enough of the sun's energy during the day to continue flying through the night. When this happens, Helios will be able to stay up for weeks and months at a time. ...

OK, fuel cells, but no way they're gonna be stupid enough to try *hydrogen* fuel cells. Hydrogen tanks are *heavy*.
I have a bad feeling about this ...
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan Boron fire good. http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g

G. R. L. Cowan wrote:

OK, fuel cells, but no way they're gonna be stupid enough to try *hydrogen* fuel cells. Hydrogen tanks are *heavy*.

Cryogenic fuel tanks aren't necessarily heavy.

I have a bad feeling about this ...

Try scientific methods.
They are more effective than emotions.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm
http://cosmic.lifeform.org

G. R. L. Cowan wrote:

"Sparky @zig-zag.net" included:
... http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/helios_fact.shtml ... On August 13, 2001, remote-control pilots on the ground used a computer to fly the Helios Prototype to an altitude of 96,863 feet. That's over 18 miles straight up! Before the Helios Prototype, the highest recorded flight of any aircraft was about 85,000 feet. This was done in 1976 by the SR-71 spy plane, the fastest jet in the world. Only rockets and rocket-powered airplanes have gone higher.
The air we breathe on Earth's surface is almost 100 times thicker than the air up where the Helios Prototype flew. Earth's atmosphere at this altitude is about as thin as the atmosphere on Mars. This altitude above Earth is so close to space that the sky is almost black, stars shine in the daytime, and the horizon looks curved. ...
... Instead of jet fuel, Helios has about 62,000 solar cells across the wing. The solar cells collect energy from the Sun and convert it to electricity, which runs the 14 small motors, which turn the 14 propellers. The propellers are specially designed to pull the aircraft aloft even in the very thin air that's 18 miles high. ...
... The next project for the Helios engineers is to develop fuel cells (sort of like batteries). This way, Helios can store enough of the sun's energy during the day to continue flying through the night. When this happens, Helios will be able to stay up for weeks and months at a time. ...
OK, fuel cells, but no way they're gonna be stupid enough to try *hydrogen* fuel cells. Hydrogen tanks are *heavy*.
I have a bad feeling about this ...
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan

Graham Cowen commited FELONY FRAUD accusing a scientist of misreprensnt data.
Here is one link where Cowen commits a criminal act: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/77a0c9509f0f28f6?dmode=source&hl=en
Here is a second link, provided by Cowen himself: http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=482&subcookie=1
Cowen is hiding in Canada, but committing crimes in the United States. If he were in California, his libel would not go unpunished.
In America, based on the SAME BRITISH COMMON LAW AS CANADA, there is no "freedom" to commit crimes through fraudulent speech or fraudulent writings. I only hope that some Canadian defender of science and truth tracks Cowen to his hidey-hole and applies the full measure of Canadian Justice to end Cowen's crime spree.

"Don Lancaster" wrote in message

Don Lancaster wrote: Dean Hoffman wrote:
Gasoline ... vapors are explosive at lower limits in the air than Hydrogen.
Correct. The lower the LEL, the better the fuel. Which is one of many reasons why gasoline is a much better fuel than hydrogen.
The explosive uel-lel RANGE of gasoline, of course, is ridiculously narrrower than hydrogen.
Phony Hollywood crashes and urban lore notwithstanding, gasoline is quite safe. I personally keep the fire incident records for part of the Gila valley. The number of gasoline caused fatalaties here has been zero over the past forty years. And probably zero forever.
There are around 50,000 highway fatalaties per year in the US. A reasonable best estimate derived from fire department stats is that as many as 39 or so of these might be gasoline related.
25,000, of course, are alcohol related.
See http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06/asp for a continuing discussion.

And also, of course, conclusively proving that a can of gasoline is much safer than a can of beer.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

The combination of the two is even more dangerous.
Tim Ward

On 21 Jan 2006 16:28:27 -0800, "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/helios_fact.shtml ... On August 13, 2001, remote-control pilots on the ground used a computer to fly the Helios Prototype to an altitude of 96,863 feet. That's over 18 miles straight up! Before the Helios Prototype, the highest recorded flight of any aircraft was about 85,000 feet. This was done in 1976 by the SR-71 spy plane, the fastest jet in the world. Only rockets and rocket-powered airplanes have gone higher.

Not so, Sparky. The F-104 was way higher, way earlier.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-104.htm

Bill Ward wrote:

On 21 Jan 2006 16:28:27 -0800, "Sparky @zig-zag.net" Sparky@zig-zag.net> wrote:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/helios_fact.shtml ... On August 13, 2001, remote-control pilots on the ground used a computer to fly the Helios Prototype to an altitude of 96,863 feet. That's over 18 miles straight up! Before the Helios Prototype, the highest recorded flight of any aircraft was about 85,000 feet. This was done in 1976 by the SR-71 spy plane, the fastest jet in the world. Only rockets and rocket-powered airplanes have gone higher.
Not so, Sparky. The F-104 was way higher, way earlier.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-104.htm

Informing ME does not change the facts on the NASA link. You ought to inform THEM to correct their boast. I didn't cite the link for the purposes of proving that Solar planes hold the world's altitude record, but to refute the claim that Solar planes can't fly AT ALL. To go 18 miles high impresses me enough sufficiently, and the fact that such planes can fly for two days on Solar power also impresses me.
The 19.5 miles record of the F-104 is also impressive, but let's see them fly on PV and stay up for 48 hours.
I'm actually more interested in Hydrogen Planes that will take off from airports and land at the Space Station, and vice versa. I never even thought about putting PV on the wings, but that's probably the last little bit of extra boost they would require.The cost per passenger would be more like a seven day Carnival Cruise ticket than $9,000 dollars per pound of payload via shuttle. SpaceShipOne only got 1/3rd of the up way there, and less than four times as high as a plastic plane powered by PV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station The space station is located in orbit around the Earth at an altitude of approximately 360 km (220 miles), a type of orbit usually termed low Earth orbit (The actual height varies over time by several kilometres due to atmospheric drag and reboosts [1]).
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/04/spaceshipone.attempt.cnn/ (CNN) -- SpaceShipOne achieved its most spectacular flight yet, climbing to an altitude of 377,591 feet (71 1/2 miles) to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize on Monday. ... SpaceShipOne's thrust was provided by two innocuous substances that, when mixed together, are explosive: nitrous oxide and rubber. ... A fuel tank about six feet in diameter at the center of the craft holds liquid nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas. A hollow tube leading from the tank to the engine nozzle is filled with solid rubber. The combustive combination produces thousands of pounds of thrust, although exact amount remains secret. ,,,
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle? A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle # Maximum theoretical launch payload: 63,500 lb (28,800 kg) # Maximum payload ever launched: approx. 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) # Gross liftoff: 4.5 million lb (2,040,000 kg) * ET: 1.7 million lb (751,000 kg) * SRBs: 1.3 million lb (590,000 kg) each (x 2) * Orbiter: 240,000 lb (109,000 kg) The orbiter contains both astronauts and cargo. The SSMEs are attached to the orbiter. The external tank contains the 2 million liters (526,000 gallons) of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellant that feeds the SSMEs. The ET is discarded and burns up on reentry. The ET is made of aluminum-lithium alloy. The orbiter structure is made primarily from aluminum alloy, although the engine thrust structure is made from titanium. The SRBs contain the solid fuel that provides about 71% of the vehicle's liftoff thrust. The SRBs burn until 150,000 feet (45.7 km), and are then jettisoned to parachute back for reuse. The SRB cases are made of steel.
So that's the target to beat, not some F-104 or Solar protype.
ANYBODY can fly 18 miles high -- why pick just the easiest stuff?

In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:

Steve Spence wrote: How about comparing the BTU of gasoline to hydrogen by volume?
A gasoline tank is about the size volume of one large suitcase. A high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is about 4 large suitcases.

So you've got to carry 4 times as much fuel. Yeah, cars can really handle that!

Even the decades old VW bug had space to fit in four large suitcases without redesigning the car, and future cars will be reconceptualized to accomodate four large suitcases of fuel.
The transitionary period, converting existing fleet to use Hydrogen has a variety of solutions, which includes tanks in the trunk. Some people may prefer a tank carried on the roof-rack like the aerodynamic cargo boxes, to get more luggage space.
As the old fleet is retired, the new hydrogen tankage will be part of the overall structural components of the vehicle.
Since the type of fuel cells considered for light automotive use are all adaptable as electrolyser cells operated in reverse, and the powerplants of 60 kWs-on-up easily make a kilogram of H2 per hour, they can refuel the car overnight from grid electricity when renewable windpower is at its peak production but grid load is at its minimum demand. While you sleep for eight hours you are fueling your tank good for 400 miles travel the next day. (How long can you drive before fatigue stops you in one day?)
60 kWh of electricity at nightime rates from wind should be expected to cost 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, or $1.80 per gasoline-gallon-equivilent energy. Fuel cell efficiency is targetted for minimum 40 mpg, and average 50 mpg, so that's 400 miles range per day without stopping at a filling station EVER. Only when you go on long trips do you need to concern yourself with filling stations, and motels may have plug-in stations that bill your credit card to fill you up overnight.
Energy density is nt a problem. Go to any self serve gas station today and ask the first 100 drivers you see "How much does one gallon of gasoline weigh". Not one in 100 will give you an answer closer than 10% to the correct figure, and EVEN YOU don't know the answer without looking it up. That shows you how supremely unimportant the energry density numbers are to people.
The only fuel facts that matter to the public are these three things: (1) How much does a fillup cost me? (2) How far can I go on a fillup? (3) How often do I have to fillup?
Nobody (except auto engineers employed to build cars and fuel tanks) cares about the BTU contents per teaspoon or bladder full. You are making a big issue out of a total non-issue, and you are doing it for sinister and malevolent purposes, to delay change-over from pollution to clean fuels. You are throwing irrelevent "kitchen sinks" into the discussion to create an appearance of there being a problem when there are no difficult problems left about the Hydrogen Economy apart from people-like-you stubborn determination to keep polluting as long as you can, as much as you can.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:
Steve Spence wrote: How about comparing the BTU of gasoline to hydrogen by volume?
A gasoline tank is about the size volume of one large suitcase. A high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is about 4 large suitcases.
So you've got to carry 4 times as much fuel. Yeah, cars can really handle that!

Four times the volume, only one third the weight. Modern Hydrogen Tanks are so lightweight that full or empty they float.
It takes one suitcase of gasoline to go 200 miles and 4 suitcases of hydrogen to go the same distance. No big deal. Even the old VW bugs had room for 4 suitcases in the trunk.

In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote: In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:
Steve Spence wrote: How about comparing the BTU of gasoline to hydrogen by volume?
A gasoline tank is about the size volume of one large suitcase. A high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is about 4 large suitcases.
So you've got to carry 4 times as much fuel. Yeah, cars can really handle that!
Four times the volume, only one third the weight.

Volume adds weight to a car. Make the car bigger, you need more steel, more glass, more plastic, etc. It's also harder to push through the air.

Modern Hydrogen Tanks are so lightweight that full or empty they float.
It takes one suitcase of gasoline to go 200 miles and 4 suitcases of hydrogen to go the same distance. No big deal. Even the old VW bugs had room for 4 suitcases in the trunk.
With no trunk space. And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the

size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space.

In article , "BobG" wrote:

And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space. ================================= I looked under the back seat of grandma's buick and found about 4 suitcases worth of empty space filled with air. Could you use that?
Under the back seat? On most cars, that space is filled now by the one and

only gas tank. Or the spare tire. Or the catalytic converters. Or the rear axle. Which of those do you propose to leave at home?

And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space. ================================= I looked under the back seat of grandma's buick and found about 4 suitcases worth of empty space filled with air. Could you use that?

"BobG" wrote in message

And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space. ================================= I looked under the back seat of grandma's buick and found about 4 suitcases worth of empty space filled with air. Could you use that? No the springs don't work without a space to flex into.

Of course , I guess you are used to a rug or pad on the floorboard....instead. So you can load that tank under the seat without any discomfort,instead of dragging a tank trailer. Hell save yourself some trips. And get a 1000 or 2000 gallon tank trailer,since the car will pull it with a fifth wheel. And you can talk about trans continental fuel range. Maybe add GE JT8D on the trailer behuind the tank. So you can boast about the acceleration hydrogen gives compared to gasoline cars.(May need a warning siren to alert the public to jet firings....since it will melt the plastic car behind you. Much less the traffic and ??? might get in the way.As you roll up to mach .8 to prove the super advantages of hydrogen.) Range and acceleration.....what more could you ask for?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Steve Spence wrote: How about comparing the BTU of gasoline to hydrogen by volume?
A gasoline tank is about the size volume of one large suitcase. A high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is about 4 large suitcases.
So you've got to carry 4 times as much fuel. Yeah, cars can really handle that!
Four times the volume, only one third the weight.
Volume adds weight to a car. Make the car bigger, you need more steel, more glass, more plastic, etc. It's also harder to push through the air.
Modern Hydrogen Tanks are so lightweight that full or empty they float.
It takes one suitcase of gasoline to go 200 miles and 4 suitcases of hydrogen to go the same distance. No big deal. Even the old VW bugs had room for 4 suitcases in the trunk.
With no trunk space. And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space.

Well, for one thing, a TRUELY modern car would have a fuel cell power plant and electric motors on each of fiur wheels. You junk the transmission and driveshaft completely. That makes space and saves weight. The the fuel cell might go where the transmission used to go, and then there is no power plant in the luggage space up front. That's where the people can store their suitcases with cloths while the suitcases with hydrogen goes in the other trunkspace in the rear-end, or even in tanks on the rooftop.
That's what a modern car might do, but there haven't been anything but copies of 1950s era technology since the 1950s, has there? Steel and aluminum are not used for the stealth fighter-bomber xpected to operate under forces far more severe than highway traffic, but automakers don't use that stuff to save weight and give strength using MODERN materials, do they -- they still use 1950s materials, don't they?
The reality is that most cars carry 1.58 passengers per trip and could get away without any backseat. They also drive less than 60 miles per trip and don't need a big fuel tank, do they? You could buy a smaller car and haul less empty metal around every trip, and on the fuel savings you could rent a big cadillac or mercedes on the FEW TIMES PER YEAR that you need a back seat, couldn't you, like any rational thinking human being would do.?
Show me where on your birth certificate is says that you are guaranteed to carry an empty back seat everywhere you go for life? And if it doesn't say it, than what makes you think I care whether you even have a backseat or not? Why do I OWE YOU my air to pollute with you hauling an extra ton of steel around unnecessarily? Why don't you grows some frigging brains you big crybaby bawling your girlie-man eyes out about if you don't get an back seat that you never use then you will hold your breath until you turn blue.