• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Doble Steam Car 62.5mpg!?!

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ok, I heard that there was a car that drove off of gas from New York to Calfornia on one 26 gallon tank. But I could find anything but if found this:

Doble built his first steam car while still in high school. He left the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for Detroit with the aim of building the finest steam car in the world. By 1918 he had built 80 steam cars in Detroit. In 1924, Doble and his brothers, all engineers, moved their steam car business to Emeryville, California, where they built 42 additional cars before being forced out of business.

The 1924 model Doble steam car could run for 1,500 miles on a 24-gallon tank (62.5 mpg for a 4300 lbs. automobile), had a flash boiler the could produce a working head of steam in one minute, and reach speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, all in eerie silence. It was a luxury car that film stars and royalty were proud to own.

///////Why were the people put out of business? What wont people start making these car again? And who and why were the force out of business? And dose???And dose anyone have any more infomation on any of this cars???
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,431
Reaction score
12,683
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Being a Stationary Engineer by trade....the thought of high pressure boilers travelling down the freeway at 70 MPH is a scary thought indeed.

Besides, the big oil lobby would never allow that to happen.

The big push for alternative fuels and lowering our oil dependance is just a bunch of Washington BS. Can you imagine Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney facing their big oil cronies when they return to the public secter AFTER they have eliminated our oil dependancy? Ain't gonna happen.:roll:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Loxd4 said:
The 1924 model Doble steam car could run for 1,500 miles on a 24-gallon tank (62.5 mpg for a 4300 lbs. automobile), had a flash boiler the could produce a working head of steam in one minute, and reach speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, all in eerie silence. It was a luxury car that film stars and royalty were proud to own.

///////Why were the people put out of business? What wont people start making these car again? And who and why were the force out of business? And dose???And dose anyone have any more infomation on any of this cars???
The 24 gallons was the amount of WATER used, not fuel to run the boiler. One of his technologies was the water recovery system he used. But saying it got 62.5 mpg is false, it didn't burn the water for fuel.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Captain America said:
Being a Stationary Engineer by trade....the thought of high pressure boilers travelling down the freeway at 70 MPH is a scary thought indeed.
Yes indeed.

Besides, the big oil lobby would never allow that to happen.
Actually if it was viable they would be some of the first to jump in, something has to fire those boilers. Also they are some of the most heavily invested in alternative fuels particularly hydrogen and they are simply businessmen always looking for the next great thing.

The big push for alternative fuels and lowering our oil dependance is just a bunch of Washington BS.
Actually not, look at hydrogen technology development.

Can you imagine Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney facing their big oil cronies when they return to the public secter AFTER they have eliminated our oil dependancy? Ain't gonna happen.
THEY aren't going to eliminate our oil dependecy, government can only delay the switch. THEY want to let the market dictate it, which it the best way to do it. One day we will have BP Hydrogen stations.

Your arguement is as silly as the old stories about GM having a carburator that could give you 80 mpg but were holding it back because the CEO played gold with the CEO of GM. Sheer folly.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
972
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
THEY aren't going to eliminate our oil dependecy, government can only delay the switch. THEY want to let the market dictate it, which it the best way to do it. One day we will have BP Hydrogen stations.
Why is the market best? Look at Europe with more govermental control. There almost 50 % of the cars are diesels that need 20/30 % less fuel? Also why is it in Europe that have the most fuelefficient cars even if you count in the diffrence from the diesel use?
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,431
Reaction score
12,683
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Stinger said:
Your arguement is as silly as the old stories about GM having a carburator that could give you 80 mpg but were holding it back because the CEO played gold with the CEO of GM. Sheer folly.
Perhaps. But we can put a man on the moon in '69 but here it is 2006 and we STILL don't have cars that can run on alternative fuels all over the freeway?

Kinda makes ya wanna say hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....:confused: don't it?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Actually not, look at hydrogen technology development.
H2 developement itself is a joke. You're now switching from high pressure steam running down the freeway (not flamable) to high pressure hydrogen (extreemly flammable). See the inevitability of a chain rxn on the 405 should a motorist get into an accident?

Stinger said:
Your arguement is as silly as the old stories about GM having a carburator that could give you 80 mpg but were holding it back because the CEO played gold with the CEO of GM. Sheer folly.
Hardly at all, what happened the very next day after this years state of the union address? White house goes to big oil to "reassure them". Mind you this is also the same administration that first denied global warming all together, then changed that argument now to "no human involvement"
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bergslagstroll said:
Why is the market best?
Did it require government to move from horse and buggy to automobiles? To airplanes? Nope.

Look at Europe with more govermental control. There almost 50 % of the cars are diesels that need 20/30 % less fuel?
Depends on thier horsepower.

Also why is it in Europe that have the most fuelefficient cars even if you count in the diffrence from the diesel use?
They are no more fuel efficient than cars you can buy from American manufacturers and you can buy foreign cars right here. The market will make that decission when it wants more fuel efficiency. It will move in the most effieicent manner on it's own.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Captain America said:
Perhaps. But we can put a man on the moon in '69 but here it is 2006 and we STILL don't have cars that can run on alternative fuels all over the freeway?
One has nothing to do with the other. And we actually do have cars that can run on alternative fuels, they are just expensive to run right now. Gasoline is STILL the most cost effective means of transportation. Until it is no longer in that position it makes no sense to use something else. The automobile manufacturers could care less what the fuel is, they will make whatever the market wants. But until other fuels become more attractive let's make gasoline engines. When gasoline gets too expensive and other fuels less expensive we will move to them.

For instance, we will never run out of gasoline. Can you figure out why?

Kinda makes ya wanna say hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....:confused: don't it?
No
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
H2 developement itself is a joke.
Wouldn't go that far, but until we decide to go nuclear for electricity it is pretty much out of the question.

You're now switching from high pressure steam running down the freeway
I was never onto steam because it ain't gonna happen, to inefficient.

to high pressure hydrogen (extreemly flammable). See the inevitability of a chain rxn on the 405 should a motorist get into an accident?
Yep that is one of the issues that will have to be dealt with, that tanks for holding hydrogen under pressure will have to be quite substantial to stand up to any accidents. Else we move to all electric cars which themselves have huge hurdles to overcome, first and foremost where does the electricity come from.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
Wouldn't go that far, but until we decide to go nuclear for electricity it is pretty much out of the question.

Yep that is one of the issues that will have to be dealt with, that tanks for holding hydrogen under pressure will have to be quite substantial to stand up to any accidents. Else we move to all electric cars which themselves have huge hurdles to overcome, first and foremost where does the electricity come from.
Assuming we solve all the issues that battery operated cars present, and we converted just 20% of cars in metropolitan areas to battery, we would need a lot more power plants to do the recharging. Even if recharging was done only at night when electricity use is down, we will still be using more fossil fuels to make the electricity unless we, like you said, go nuclear, in a big way.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
UtahBill said:
Assuming we solve all the issues that battery operated cars present, and we converted just 20% of cars in metropolitan areas to battery, we would need a lot more power plants to do the recharging. Even if recharging was done only at night when electricity use is down, we will still be using more fossil fuels to make the electricity unless we, like you said, go nuclear, in a big way.
The bottom line is we need nuclear for whatever way we end up going. Say they come up with a battery pack that weighs the same as a tank of gas, actually 1/2 a tank so the weight penalty averages out, and a motor that will use that at the same rate, miles per "tank/charge" with the same performance and at the same cost. OK I got you now, that sounds pretty attractive. But where does the electricity come from? Or say we solve the problem of driving around with a pressurized tank of hydrogen, either we get the hydrogen from natural gas and electricity, or from oil and electricity, or from water and electricity. Getting all that electricity from solar or wind is a pipe dream. Too bad the environmentalist put a halt to nuclear power development here a long time ago, we are really behind the eight-ball on it. And of course they are preventing any further natural gas or oil exploration/drilling. So I don't know what they expect to happen.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
972
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
Did it require government to move from horse and buggy to automobiles? To airplanes? Nope.

Depends on thier horsepower.

They are no more fuel efficient than cars you can buy from American manufacturers and you can buy foreign cars right here. The market will make that decission when it wants more fuel efficiency. It will move in the most effieicent manner on it's own.
Well capitalism doesn't invented the wheel, so that is your point?

No it doesn't diesel have the same or even more horsepower and at the same time needs less fuel.
http://www.volvocars.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D97AE528-A833-49F7-9AF5-0CA46153C6B8/0/UKMY06DecS40.pdf

Why is it then american car manufactures have really tough time economically? European have it a bit better. And the japanese that also promote fueleffice is going excellente? It just seem that car companies from countries that don't rely on the market is going better... Also that is so efficient with big american cars?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Wouldn't go that far, but until we decide to go nuclear for electricity it is pretty much out of the question.
What are you talking about here?

Stinger said:
Yep that is one of the issues that will have to be dealt with, that tanks for holding hydrogen under pressure will have to be quite substantial to stand up to any accidents. Else we move to all electric cars which themselves have huge hurdles to overcome, first and foremost where does the electricity come from.
The physical instability of Hydrogen itself as well as the incredible volume to energy ratio required for Hydrogen just makes it completely impractical. Even if you stored hydrogen in its liquid form it still will not have enough mass to power your vehicle. There just isn't enough energy in small volumes for a compact, midsize sedan or truck.
The only high energy stored fuel still remains liquid carbon based fuels - hence alternatives such as alcohols which are completely renewable are the only way to go. Everything else is just lip service.
The other incredible problem with hydrogen is infrastructure. The entire transportation and production infrastructure that exists today would have to be completely rebuilt to accomidate a hydrogen run economy.
Then finally how do you generate hydrogen in the first place?
THe only alternative to gasoline is alcohols.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Oh wow, I just got another rank, sweet.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bergslagstroll said:
Well capitalism doesn't invented the wheel, so that is your point?
Well it certainly wasn't government. It was some poor old caveman who, acting in his own self-interest, decided to find a better way to get his work done. A good description of basic capitalism.

Why is it then american car manufactures have really tough time economically?
Most of thier cars are pretty lousey and the unions make thier labor cost prohibitive to being successful.

European have it a bit better.
Not much, Volkswagon is hurting.

And the japanese that also promote fueleffice is going excellente?
They, and the Koreans, build better cars, yes more power per gallon which is what the market wants, safer and do so more effieciently.

The Hyundai, Honda, and Nissan plants in Alabama and Mississippi are big customers of mine.

It just seem that car companies from countries that don't rely on the market is going better...
What on earth are you saying. They ABSOLUTELY rely on the market, they know it better, the react to it better, they supply what it wants better. They also know better what the labor market wants and are keeping the unions from getting in. I call on unionized plants in other industries and the realations between them and the non-unionized car plants are amazing. The Americans CANNOT survive with the current union situation. Some of the Delphi workers were making $65 an hour plus unbelievable retirement benifits. Many if not most of the workers in the car plants here came from unionized industries, textiles, pulp and paper, woodproducts, they want nothing to do with them again because they know what benifits they get will be short term and the working environments are lousey.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Originally Posted by Stinger
Wouldn't go that far, but until we decide to go nuclear for electricity it is pretty much out of the question.


jfuh said:
What are you talking about here?

H2, hydrogen. You said it was a joke. We will use hydrogen fuel cells in the future, but not until we have nuclear power from which to get the energy to produce H2.


The physical instability of Hydrogen itself as well as the incredible volume to energy ratio required for Hydrogen just makes it completely impractical. Even if you stored hydrogen in its liquid form it still will not have enough mass to power your vehicle. There just isn't enough energy in small volumes for a compact, midsize sedan or truck.
They've already produce the cars that run on it. It's getting the hydrogen that's the problem.

The only high energy stored fuel still remains liquid carbon based fuels - hence alternatives such as alcohols which are completely renewable are the only way to go. Everything else is just lip service.
Unfortunatily alcohol doesn't offer near the bang for the buck that gasoline does and it self is very flammable and dangerous compared to gasoline. AND it will take a hugh amount of land to grow enough corn to produce the alcohol we need.

It will end up being a mix.

The other incredible problem with hydrogen is infrastructure.
The market will handle it.

The entire transportation and production infrastructure that exists today would have to be completely rebuilt to accomidate a hydrogen run economy.
What do you think happend when we went from horses to automobiles, from steam trains to electric/desiel.

Then finally how do you generate hydrogen in the first place?
Nuclear power, using natural gas or sea water.


THe only alternative to gasoline is alcohols.
It's one of the alternatives that we will go to eventually. It won't be one or the other.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
972
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
Well it certainly wasn't government. It was some poor old caveman who, acting in his own self-interest, decided to find a better way to get his work done. A good description of basic capitalism.

Most of thier cars are pretty lousey and the unions make thier labor cost prohibitive to being successful.

Not much, Volkswagon is hurting.

They, and the Koreans, build better cars, yes more power per gallon which is what the market wants, safer and do so more effieciently.

The Hyundai, Honda, and Nissan plants in Alabama and Mississippi are big customers of mine.

What on earth are you saying. They ABSOLUTELY rely on the market, they know it better, the react to it better, they supply what it wants better. They also know better what the labor market wants and are keeping the unions from getting in. I call on unionized plants in other industries and the realations between them and the non-unionized car plants are amazing. The Americans CANNOT survive with the current union situation. Some of the Delphi workers were making $65 an hour plus unbelievable retirement benifits. Many if not most of the workers in the car plants here came from unionized industries, textiles, pulp and paper, woodproducts, they want nothing to do with them again because they know what benifits they get will be short term and the working environments are lousey.
Good you took up self interest that can be both good and bad for society. I can give a good example then it's bad. For example it can be good with smaller car because if most people are going around them the trafic situation are both more safe in general and the specific driver. But if people are getting bigger cars to protect themself. More people have to do it also so they just don't get crushed. Because in euroepe and japan smaller cars are a cause because less death in trafic. But I don't no if I even personally would dare to buy one in america because of your huge of cars that also is not very good in reducing the effect on the car they collide with.

Sorry I didn't explain that I meant very well. I just though it was intersting was that countries that meddle in the price of gas and rasied it over the "market price" seems to have better car industries: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/nation.html#table

But that I you talkning keeping the unions out? I may be partly true for the asian countries. But europe have much stronger unions then america. But yes it is a problem that you don't have a strong national unions that enrolle most of the workers. Because that and also a lack of a welfare system may lead to the unions have more to fight for the short term intersest of the workers in a specific branch. Personally I think you have more "problems with unions" there unions are weak on a national and branch wide level then there are strong. Even if it's sound silly to you.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bergslagstroll said:
Sorry I didn't explain that I meant very well. I just though it was intersting was that countries that meddle in the price of gas and rasied it over the "market price" seems to have better car industries: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/nation.html#table
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/nation.html#table

Neatherlands
Norway
Italy
Denmark
Belgium
Sweden
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Portugal

That's the top ten and only Germany and Sweden could have a claim to a "better car industry" and at that Volkswagon is not doing too well and neither is Volvo or Saab last time I looked.

Japan comes in at 18th and that's where the best cars are "coming from" although most of their inventory here is built here in the US.



But that I you talkning keeping the unions out? I may be partly true for the asian countries. But europe have much stronger unions then america.
Which is one reason they become less and less competitive just like the American companies.


But yes it is a problem that you don't have a strong national unions that enrolle most of the workers.
Hardly, it's a benifit.

Because that and also a lack of a welfare system may lead to the unions have more to fight for the short term intersest of the workers in a specific branch.
We have a welfare system, it just needs more reform like we had in the 1990's. And unions are dying here, workers don't won't them.


Personally I think you have more "problems with unions" there unions are weak on a national and branch wide level then there are strong. Even if it's sound silly to you.
Again they are losing here because workers see they do them more harm than good. Employer/worker relations have gone through a sea-change over the last 50 years or so. The advisarial relationship is not good for either side. Workers here would rather have the opportunity to better themselves and advance on their own merits which unions oppose.
 

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
doble steam car dose any one know were were i can find information on this wonderful car?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
H2, hydrogen. You said it was a joke. We will use hydrogen fuel cells in the future, but not until we have nuclear power from which to get the energy to produce H2.
IT very much is a joke. Just for the very reasons that I've posted previously. Try reading, stop :spin:

Stinger said:
They've already produce the cars that run on it. It's getting the hydrogen that's the problem.
"They've" also produced aircraft that run on nukes. There is no problem with obtaining hydrogen. It's storing enough hydrogen in a passenger vehicle, the infrastructure needed transport hydrogen, the saftey standards neccessary.

Stinger said:
Unfortunatily alcohol doesn't offer near the bang for the buck that gasoline does and it self is very flammable and dangerous compared to gasoline. AND it will take a hugh amount of land to grow enough corn to produce the alcohol we need.
Lol, and hydrogen does? DO you know of the energy variance between alcohol and hydrogen? More :spin:
Next, you do not need to use the fruiting body of a plant to make alcohols, use the waste corn stalks instead of the corn itself. THat's how. There's plenty of biomass that you could use to convert, not just corn itself, wheat stalks, corn stalks, grass clippings, ect ect.

Stinger said:
It will end up being a mix.
a mix of what?

Stinger said:
The market will handle it.[/QUTOE] That's your answer to everything I know. It's also known as burying your head in the ground.

Stinger said:
What do you think happend when we went from horses to automobiles, from steam trains to electric/desiel.
THere was infrastructure for horses?
Steam to desiel is simple as trains are highly centralized. More :spin:

Stinger said:
Nuclear power, using natural gas or sea water.
Nuke power, yes. Natural gas? You've got to be kidding, that takes out excess greenhouse gases how?
Sea water is energetic? Interesting.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
IT very much is a joke. Just for the very reasons that I've posted previously. Try reading, stop :spin:
Well tell that to Ford, they have a H2 power car, using an internal combustion engine, that has a 300 mile range already. But for as far as we can possible see in the future they will be shorter range vehicles.

"They've" also produced aircraft that run on nukes. There is no problem with obtaining hydrogen. It's storing enough hydrogen in a passenger vehicle, the infrastructure needed transport hydrogen, the saftey standards neccessary.
See above, yes there are hurdles but not insurmountable.


Next, you do not need to use the fruiting body of a plant to make alcohols, use the waste corn stalks instead of the corn itself.
So you are claiming we can replace all of our gasoline usage with the left overs of our corn crops. Now that's :spin:It's still going to take a massive increase in argiculture, which is a bonus to us since we have a very effiecient agricultural system.

THat's how. There's plenty of biomass that you could use to convert, not just corn itself, wheat stalks, corn stalks, grass clippings, ect ect.
But will only supply a a fraction of what we need as far as our total enegy needs.

a mix of what?
Sigh, what we are talking about ALL the various forms of energy. We will be using a mix not just one of them.

Stinger said:
The market will handle it.[/QUTOE]
That's your answer to everything I know. It's also known as burying your head in the ground.
Because it is the most effiecient means to do it, if you believe government can accomplish it then you are sticking you head some where else.

THere was infrastructure for horses?
ROFL Yes. And we moved from it to one of a petroleum based system without the "benifit" of government, the market handle it quite well thank-you.

Steam to desiel is simple as trains are highly centralized. More :spin:
Not at the time they were our major means of mass transportation and when the switch was made from coal fired to diesel it was the market that did it not the government.

Nuke power, yes. Natural gas? You've got to be kidding, that takes out excess greenhouse gases how?
Takes out what greenhouse gases, what on earth are you talking about?

Sea water is energetic? Interesting.
Didn't say it was energetic did I, Interesting. But as a source for hydrogen..........
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Well tell that to Ford, they have a H2 power car, using an internal combustion engine, that has a 300 mile range already. But for as far as we can possible see in the future they will be shorter range vehicles.
Wait wait wait, am I reading this right? H2 powered car that uses an internal combustion engine? You do know that that's been around since the end of WWI right? It's nothing new. But same as the hindenberg that arrived decades later, it was a catastrophic "hydrogen bomb".

Stinger said:
See above, yes there are hurdles but not insurmountable.
How many times do I have to repeat myself to you. There is absolutely no method of overcoming the physical instability of Hydrogen gas itself. The physical property of Hydrogen is itself a level 4 fire hazard, extreemly flammable. Literally the static shock you get when dismounting your vehicle would be plenty sufficient in some rare cases to ignite gasoline much less hydrogen gas which has an much much lower activation energy.
Even in it's liquid form you would require the volume of 80% of a minivan just to be able to go 300miles in a vehicle the weight of a Toyota Corolla/Honda Civic/Ford Focus.

Stinger said:
So you are claiming we can replace all of our gasoline usage with the left overs of our corn crops.
Precisely, finally listening.

Stinger said:
Now that's :spin:It's still going to take a massive increase in argiculture, which is a bonus to us since we have a very effiecient agricultural system.
No you do not. Since you seem to have studied up on hydrogen fuel cells, have you read up on alcohol fuel cells? The amount of energy contained within a single molecule of alcohol is nearly 200times that of a single molecule of hydrogen. Fuel cells allow for nearly complete transfer of the oxidation energy of the "fuel" into electrical energy. It is inevitable that the internal combustion engine will be replaced by "electric" vehicles. Alcohols allow for a very simple change that utilizes the current pipline infrastructure that exists nearly around the world (as well as tanker ships). The best part about alcohols is the bonus it gives to agriculture through the fermentation of the waste stalk in contrast to the current wasteful methodology of using the fruting bodies (very expensive).

Stinger said:
But will only supply a a fraction of what we need as far as our total enegy needs.
That's the current popularist thought in the mainstream media, however in the scientific community that is not the case.

Stinger said:
Sigh, what we are talking about ALL the various forms of energy. We will be using a mix not just one of them.
Fusion yes it will be used. However hydrogen no. For the saftey reasons I've mentioned over and over again.

Stinger said:
The market will handle it.[/QUTOE] Eventually, however in the current case of various global warming trends governmental incentive is a good option.

Stinger said:
Because it is the most effiecient means to do it, if you believe government can accomplish it then you are sticking you head some where else.
I've never said that government should ever take over and push for products as all such centralized forms of control have resulted in a complete waste of tax dollars and utter failure. I'm speaking of incentives and phasing in. Just as analog TV sets will be completely phased out by Feb 2009.

Stinger said:
ROFL Yes. And we moved from it to one of a petroleum based system without the "benifit" of government, the market handle it quite well thank-you.
Certainly, you're right, there were massive piplines, I mean trains? that transported horses as well as continuous flows of water lines to quench thier thirst. Sweepers nationwide to take care of their droppings. Yep, there certainly was a massive nationwide infrastructure for horses.

Stinger said:
Not at the time they were our major means of mass transportation and when the switch was made from coal fired to diesel it was the market that did it not the government.
Trains were not centralized? You're kidding right, there were only a handful of companies that owned rail lines. Diesel was immediately implemented by various companies because it eliminated the "fireman" as well as various maintainances required on a external combustion boiler on wheels. It had nothing to do with market driving the incentive, it was simple cost vs benefits. Bad example on your part.

Stinger said:
Takes out what greenhouse gases, what on earth are you talking about?
Why use hydrogen at all if you're not utilizing a fuel that is environmentally friendly. If you're simply using hydrogen for "efficiency" means then by all standards stick with gasoline, it's much simpler.

Stinger said:
Didn't say it was energetic did I, Interesting. But as a source for hydrogen..........
No you didn't say it was, however you set it up with nuke, and natural gas, both are currently used to produce hydrogen through electrolysis though NG is also used directly as a H2 source. Your exact quote in response to my question was:

jfuh said:
Then finally how do you generate hydrogen in the first place?
Stinger said:
Nuclear power, using natural gas or sea water.
I asked you how it's generated, thus your method of answering seems to imply that you see sea water as capable of generating H2.
To have properly answered that question would be: Using nuke plants to electrolize NG or sea water to generate H2.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
Wait wait wait, am I reading this right? H2 powered car that uses an internal combustion engine? You do know that that's been around since the end of WWI right? It's nothing new.
So what?


How many times do I have to repeat myself to you. There is absolutely no method of overcoming the physical instability of Hydrogen gas itself.
How many times do I have to repeat myself, they are doing it now.

I understand you have no faith in a hydrogen powered vehicle. OH well.


I asked you how it's generated, thus your method of answering seems to imply that you see sea water as capable of generating H2.
To have properly answered that question would be: Using nuke plants to electrolize NG or sea water to generate H2.
My answer was fully understandable and concerned the sources from which we might obtain free hydrogen since all the hydrogen on earth is combined in something. Natural gas and sea water are the most abundant sources. And throughout I have stated that nukes would be needed to supply electrical energy. This is why I tire of discussions with you so quickly. You will note on several fronts we agree, you tend to want to fight rather than discuss. OH well.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
So what? You speak of it as if it's some new kind of technology.

Stinger said:
How many times do I have to repeat myself, they are doing it now.
No, they are not, no manufacturer has been able to overcome the physical instability associated with the utilization of hydrogen outside of the highly controlled labratory.

Stinger said:
I understand you have no faith in a hydrogen powered vehicle. OH well.
Oh, I see, so this is how it is? So it's faith that you have in H2?
That in contrast to my knowledge of the science associated with H2. Well I don't think it take a rocket scientist to show how irrelevant your faith is.
I believe that if I pray really hard, all the troubles in the world will go away. Damn it, I'm not praying hard enough.

Interesting how you've totally butchered my former post to just a few responses. I guess that either means you have no response to those points or that you conceed in agreement.
 
Top Bottom