Hydrogen Diesel?
Ol' Duffer
and from the sound of its idle, I'm pretty sure it was a diesel,
but I noticed on the side of it not a gas cap, but pressure fittings
like propane vehicles. It got me thinking, yeah you could do propane
in a diesel with proper injector/pump design, maybe wouldn't even
have to change the injectors as it might be liquid at injection
pressure. So then I thought why not hydrogen? I'm pretty sure it
would be a gas at the required injector pressure, so you would need
appropriate injectors and pump, but how hard could that be, and it
would eliminate the explosion danger inherent in mixer/carburetor
setups as well as spark timing/detonation issues. And should be
pretty easy to retrofit existing oil engines. And no problems with
wax/gelling fuel in cold weather, and probably easier to start.
Maybe this is not an original thought. Comments?
Don Lancaster
Diesel fuel stores about 10,000 watthours per liter.
STP Hydrogen stores about 2.7 watthours per liter.
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: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Bob Eldred
"Ol' Duffer" <Dont...@MeSpam.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e11c3037...@news.bright.net...
Hydrogen and other light gases; e.g., methane are not good fuels for
compression ignition. They can be made to work with a pilot injection of oil
but that scheme complicates the engine design and has not gained much favor.
Usually light gases are used in spark ignition engines. But, in the case of
hydrogen your still left with the pitifully low volumetric energy density
that keeps it from being a useful fuel no matter how it is burned. In short,
hydrogen sucks!
Raleigh Myers
"Ol' Duffer" <Dont...@MeSpam.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e11c3037...@news.bright.net...
We converted some of those 6.6 6.9 GM V8 diesels in the cars and pickups b
by changing out the heads and running them on propane and natural gas as
well as gasoline.
The larger diesels were a bit more complicated because we didnt have the
heads. A factory version of the comercial diesels are what is going on here.
As for the gas having less BTUs is real but we just use more of it. The
advantage is we are not destroying the commons. This land is our
land........
As for the Hydrogen sucks part: There are those on this list that who are
here to ridicule
the Hydrogen Economy rather than make it happen on a Hydrogen list. We know
the right wing petrol NAZIs pay to sponsor kibitzers and have studies drawn
up along with fake news by the Swifting For Hire Rovarian Kool Aid Kids
perhaps the shoe fits a few here
RAM
Ol' Duffer
> Diesel fuel stores about 10,000 watthours per liter.
> STP Hydrogen stores about 2.7 watthours per liter.
Seems to me that volume at STP would be a poor comparison measure,
since one is a relatively dense and incompressible liquid and the
other is a light and highly compressible gas. Converting to a
realistic pressure for injection, you might need ballpark of like
10 times as much H2 by volume as diesel for the same power(?)
Just thinking out loud, that sounds possible even if not easy.
Don Lancaster
What possible point could there be in doing so?
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that terrestral hydrogen is in any
manner nonpolluting.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Raleigh Myers
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40s1blF...@individual.net...
Solar Hydrogen is almost non polluting compared to the rest of the choices
perhaps by 90%.
The use of Nuclear or Carbon Based Fuels are killers not just a polluters.
Second hand smoke from fossil Fuel combustion and the emissions from Nuclear
are threat to the commons, our planet, and our collective progeny. Who are
we to take those chances just so we can be stupid.
The Solar Budget is what we need to adhere to.
RAM
PS There are those on this list that who are here to ridicule
Don Lancaster
>
> Solar Hydrogen is almost non polluting compared to the rest of the choices
> perhaps by 90%.
Not even wrong.
Mike McWilliams
> "Ol' Duffer" <Dont...@MeSpam.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e11c3037...@news.bright.net...
>
>>I happened to pull up beside this van at a stoplight the other day,
>>and from the sound of its idle, I'm pretty sure it was a diesel,
>>but I noticed on the side of it not a gas cap, but pressure fittings
>>like propane vehicles. It got me thinking, yeah you could do propane
>>in a diesel with proper injector/pump design, maybe wouldn't even
>>have to change the injectors as it might be liquid at injection
>>pressure. So then I thought why not hydrogen? I'm pretty sure it
>>would be a gas at the required injector pressure, so you would need
>>appropriate injectors and pump, but how hard could that be, and it
>>would eliminate the explosion danger inherent in mixer/carburetor
>>setups as well as spark timing/detonation issues. And should be
>>pretty easy to retrofit existing oil engines. And no problems with
>>wax/gelling fuel in cold weather, and probably easier to start.
>>Maybe this is not an original thought. Comments?
>
>
>
> here to ridicule
> the Hydrogen Economy rather than make it happen on a Hydrogen list. We know
> the right wing petrol NAZIs pay to sponsor kibitzers and have studies drawn
> up along with fake news by the Swifting For Hire Rovarian Kool Aid Kids
> perhaps the shoe fits a few here
>
>
or perhaps doing math is too hard for you... if the shoe fits.
the US did research showing that "waste land" could be used for algae
production of biodiesel on a magnitude large enough to support current
habits.
biodiesel is safe, carbon neutral, and can potentially be improved on by
genetic engineering.
Not to mention that the current vehicle infrastructure can essentially
remain exactly as it is.
Hydrogen on its own sucks ass
Hydrogen on a carbon backbone allows for high density energy storage and
safety.
since you're faith based, you won't be able to understand those ideas.
But one day maybe your pastor will have a change of heart.
Mike McWilliams
The only way H2 is good in terms of energy density is as a liquid,
liquid H2 requires energy input just to remain liquid.
Not to mention the safety issues.
I reccommend you go fill a baloon with 1/2 hydrogen and 1/2 oxygen and
attach 10 feet of fuse to it. light it and stand well back.
once you've done this, then come back here and tell me how using a
"fuel" that safe is going to be good for us.
People are morons, they will continue to drive drunk, to race each
other, and even occasionally have accidents, the destructive force of
which outweighs many natural causes of death.
Now lets use highly explosive compressed H2. Thats like saying all
teenagers should have unprotected sex on rocket powered skateboards
going full speed.
BRILLIANT
Mike McWilliams
where will you get the hydrogen from? Methane? you put out CO2. Water?
The energy can be put to better use.
>
> The use of Nuclear or Carbon Based Fuels are killers not just a polluters.
> Second hand smoke from fossil Fuel combustion and the emissions from Nuclear
> are threat to the commons, our planet, and our collective progeny. Who are
> we to take those chances just so we can be stupid.
Emissions from nuclear?
You can use carbon neutral carbon based fuels.
requiring high density energy is the killer. If we all moved very
slowly, and had super efficient insulation systems, the deaths due to
dense energy would go way down... and another selective pressure would
also plummet, and there are so few of those anyway.
> The Solar Budget is what we need to adhere to.
>
sure, just not using hydrogen.
> PS There are those on this list that who are here to ridicule
> the Hydrogen Economy rather than make it happen on a Hydrogen list. We know
> the right wing petrol NAZIs pay to sponsor kibitzers and have studies drawn
> up along with fake news by the Swifting For Hire Rovarian Kool Aid Kids
> perhaps the shoe fits a few here
it suits your misguided politics to endorse hydrogen. An unsafe and
energetically expensive "fuel"
and there are carbon neutral methods of liquid fuel production, which
can be far safer.
Steve Spence
> Solar Hydrogen is almost non polluting compared to the rest of the choices
> perhaps by 90%.
>
> The use of Nuclear or Carbon Based Fuels are killers not just a polluters.
> Second hand smoke from fossil Fuel combustion and the emissions from Nuclear
> are threat to the commons, our planet, and our collective progeny. Who are
> we to take those chances just so we can be stupid.
>
> The Solar Budget is what we need to adhere to.
>
> RAM
>
> PS There are those on this list that who are here to ridicule
> the Hydrogen Economy rather than make it happen on a Hydrogen list. We know
> the right wing petrol NAZIs pay to sponsor kibitzers and have studies drawn
> up along with fake news by the Swifting For Hire Rovarian Kool Aid Kids
> perhaps the shoe fits a few here
>
>
There is no solar hydrogen. All commercial hydrogen is made from Natural
Gas. The economy can't support $10 / gallon GGE PV Hydrogen.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
fkasner
What your fail to realize is that the people you so lovingly refer to as
petrol NAZIs are those who have been on this NG for many years. Almost
all of us came here with our minds open but our critical faculties not
suspended. We listened to suggestions for H2 use for a long time and
found all of them essentially lacking in practicality more than one
feature. But of course the primary limiting fault is that it costs more
energy to make the hydrogen than you get from burning the hydrogen in an
ICE or fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics trump all the suggested
schemes. Until there is a some method of producing hydrogen that costs
considerably less energy input than the output from using the hydrogen
those who suggest otherwise are either misinformed, crazy, or part of
some vast conspiracy to hasten the consumption of energy by the planet.
FK