Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 6:45 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy
containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better
fuels.

**** but you're thick.

Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

I should lie down and take a pill if I were you.

If I were you I'd shoot myself. I couldn't live with being thicker than
a cockroach.

You know, you're as bad as drivel in your own way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Whether hydrogen burns or not, and in doing so can be made to provide
useful energy, is not germane to the issue. More important is whether
the fuel (hydrogen in this case) can be mass produced, conveniently
distributed, and is then convenient at the point of use. For fuelling a
few rockets where cost is secondary, the answer is gonna be "yes". For
fuelling billyuns of cars and safely giving them a useful range, the
answer is gonna be "no".

I can go 600 miles on a tankful of dizzle. It can be stored in a simple
tank at atmospheric pressure, a tank made of steel and not some exotic
material. Try doing that with any useful amount of hydrogen. Energy
density is all, y'see.

Actually, with hydrogen, it isnt.

Its BULKY. Light but BULKY. that makes it unsuitable for aircraft. Too
much tank, too much drag.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.