In article
,
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote:

wrote in message
Imagine the pollution issues if a bunch started using wood for fuel?
Let alone fires om garages and such with wood you cant just throw a
switch....

Are you serious?

Imagine the pollution if people started using electricity from coal
powered electricity plants or the spent uranium form nuclear powered
plants.

The Denver, CO area has some restrictions on stoves. Info he
http://tinyurl.com/oprgy

Dean

----== 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 =----

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ann:
Imagine the pollution issues if a bunch started using wood for fuel?
You don't have to imagine it. Check out the situation in the Denver
area.

Even where I live - suburbia - all it takes is one person dumping trash into
their fireplace and it gets *really* bad...

We had a neighbor once who stuck an entire kitchen chair (aluminum
tubes with seat and back of vinyl-covered who-knows-what) into his
burn barrel.

--
"Dialogue is impossible without some shared sense of reality...
What's lacking isn't just truth, it's the entire social
mechanism by which truth is distinguished from falsehood."
Michelle Goldberg

Michael Daly wrote:
Rich256 wrote:

100 years from now there will quite likely be nuclear plants all over
the country producing electricity which will be used to make Hydrogen.

Ahhh, the hydrogen myth again. 100 years from now, rechargable battery
technology will be so much better than today that no one will waste
their money on something as silly as hydrogen. Battery electric cars
have already been on the streets available for ordinary consumers
(albeit in small numbers - from the old Baker Electric to the EV1). How
many hydrogen cars have been sold in the last 100 years?

Mike

I guess we won't be around to see. I see batteries as always being more
expensive to make. I don't see any other portable fuel that might
compete with Hydrogen. Hydrogen powered engines have been around for
over 30 or 40 years but no good source of fuel. It will take Nuclear
power in great amounts to make it available. I had great hopes for
Fusion but after 50 years of trying they still can't break even.

There wouldn't be many electric sold either if it were not for
government subsidy.

However, I might like one of those Tesla cars when they come out!! That
is, "like one" but won't be able to afford it.

Rich256 wrote:

I guess we won't be around to see. I see batteries as always being more
expensive to make.

Batteries more expensive than a fuel cell + a fuel tank? Especially since the
fuel tank technology still isn't ready for prime time?

Hydrogen powered engines have been around for over 30 or 40 years but no
good source of fuel.

Until very recently, no one could make a H2 engine that didn't produce lots of
NOx pollution - more than any gasoline engine. 30-40 years of prototypes that
can't be sold isn't too impressive.

There wouldn't be many electric sold either if it were not for government
subsidy.

Since when are electric cars subsidized? Which government subsidizes the
Sparrow? How much is this subsidy? Adding bull**** to the discussion isn't
going to make your point.

Mike

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:43:03 -0500, wrote:

:Has anyone ever seen any plans for a wood powered car?
:I know they have been made. With the gas going up and up and up, I am
:ready to start building one. I got plenty of dead trees, thus wood on
:my farm. If you have some plans, please post what you got, and if
:there is a way to get them in digital format. Or, is there a website?
:All that Google is offering are useless blogs (as usual, that seems to
:be about the only thing google finds lately).
:
:Thanks
:
:Mark

I was reading my dad's autobiography last night and there was a passage
where he recounted passage by ship from the west coast of USA to CBI
(China, Burma, India theater) from September to December, 1943. They
stopped in Hobart, Tasmania and all the cars ran on charcoal. To quote
him:

"What cars we saw were right hand drives and were powered by charcoal.
Gasoline, of course, was largely unobtainable, and so every trunk was
converted to charcoal burning engines. The cars were slow, and I believe
low on power, but (for wartime) it sufficed for transportation."

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...
wrote in message
Imagine the pollution issues if a bunch started using wood for fuel?
Let alone fires om garages and such with wood you cant just throw a
switch....

Are you serious?

Imagine the pollution if people started using electricity from coal
powered electricity plants or the spent uranium form nuclear powered
plants.



In Quebec, most houses are electrically heated.
But then, they're probably the biggest Hydro-electric producers in the
continent.

On the other hand, when they had an ice storm in the middle of winter of few
years back, some people were left in the cold until spring.

Michael Daly wrote:
Rich256 wrote:

I guess we won't be around to see. I see batteries as always being more
expensive to make.

Batteries more expensive than a fuel cell + a fuel tank? Especially since the
fuel tank technology still isn't ready for prime time?

Hydrogen powered engines have been around for over 30 or 40 years but no
good source of fuel.

Until very recently, no one could make a H2 engine that didn't produce lots of
NOx pollution - more than any gasoline engine. 30-40 years of prototypes that
can't be sold isn't too impressive.

?? My understanding from what reading I have done is that burning
hydrogen produces only water vapor. Where would the NOx come from?


snip

Mike

Harry K

Imagine the pollution if people started using electricity from coal
powered electricity plants or the spent uranium form nuclear powered
plants.

Coal CAN be burned cleanly, its just a matter of good quality coal and
lots of money for clean burn technology...

Harry K wrote:

?? My understanding from what reading I have done is that burning
hydrogen produces only water vapor. Where would the NOx come from?

Burning H2 and O2 produces water. Burning H2 and air produces water and NOx.
Unless you plan on making a vehicle with an oxygen supply as well as a H2
supply, you have to design away the nitrogen problem. Low temperature
combustion will help, but that's not going to work for internal combustion and
will produce a low efficiency external combustion engine. Fuel cells, of
course, don't have this problem. Ford (?IIRC) and BMW recently showed prototype
H2 internal combustion engines that licked the NOx problem, but I don't know
what they did to do so.

H2 burns somewhat hotter than gasoline or diesel and the NOx production is
related to the temperature.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:

LOL. Your comment is spot on. How clueless is it to write about
pollution from fires when all this person appears to want to do is
to
export the pollution caused by his/her heating into someone else's
backyard and to inflict it on the people who live where the
electricity plants are located.

Cheap wood stoves are dirty.

Cheapness isn't really an issue. Anyone can burn a stove dirtily if
they set out to do so but in my country wood burning stoves must
reach certain standards and if they can't reach the standard for
emissions then they aren't sold.

"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message

I was reading my dad's autobiography last night and there was a
passage
where he recounted passage by ship from the west coast of USA to CBI
(China, Burma, India theater) from September to December, 1943. They
stopped in Hobart, Tasmania and all the cars ran on charcoal. To
quote
him:

"What cars we saw were right hand drives and were powered by
charcoal.
Gasoline, of course, was largely unobtainable, and so every trunk
was
converted to charcoal burning engines. The cars were slow, and I
believe
low on power, but (for wartime) it sufficed for transportation."

That's interesting. Someone else posted yesterday that the Stanley
Steamer used a petrochemical based fuel and I replied that the one I
had seen certainly had a boiler like an old fashioned boat. If your
Dad saw these vehciles in Australia during WWII then it would sort of
support what I wrote about the Steamer. It certainly wouldn't
surprise me if they used this form of furel then I know my own father
talked of the problems of fuela nd he was afarmer so must have had
soem sort of ration. Australia had no oil fileds until (IIRC) the
1960s, so importing ti with the Japanes subs active would have been a
drama.

wrote in message

Imagine the pollution if people started using electricity from
coal
powered electricity plants or the spent uranium form nuclear
powered
plants.

Coal CAN be burned cleanly, its just a matter of good quality coal
and
lots of money for clean burn technology...

True, but I think that clean burning coal electricity plants is about
as rare as rocking horse manure.

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...
"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message

I was reading my dad's autobiography last night and
there was a
passage
where he recounted passage by ship from the west coast
of USA to CBI
(China, Burma, India theater) from September to
December, 1943. They
stopped in Hobart, Tasmania and all the cars ran on
charcoal. To
quote
him:

"What cars we saw were right hand drives and were
powered by
charcoal.
Gasoline, of course, was largely unobtainable, and so
every trunk
was
converted to charcoal burning engines. The cars were
slow, and I
believe
low on power, but (for wartime) it sufficed for
transportation."

That's interesting. Someone else posted yesterday that
the Stanley
Steamer used a petrochemical based fuel and I replied that
the one I
had seen certainly had a boiler like an old fashioned
boat. If your
Dad saw these vehciles in Australia during WWII then it
would sort of
support what I wrote about the Steamer. It certainly
wouldn't
surprise me if they used this form of furel then I know my
own father
talked of the problems of fuela nd he was afarmer so must
have had
soem sort of ration. Australia had no oil fileds until
(IIRC) the
1960s, so importing ti with the Japanes subs active would
have been a
drama.



a couple interesting links, undesirably brief, however:

http://www.toyota.co.jp/Museum/data_e/a03_19_1.html

http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/producer/index.html

wrote:

Actually it is a distinction without a difference. If you fill a
vessel with combustible gas and feed the oxygen in through a burner it
looks like the oxygen is burnng.

If you fill a vessel with only H2 and O2 and ignite it, the product is water and
heat. If you fill a vessel with H2 and air and ignite it, the H2 and O2 will
combine to form water and heat. The heat of combustion will then cause the N2
in the air to combine with the O2 to form oxides of nitrogen. That is a
significant difference.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
Harry K wrote:

?? My understanding from what reading I have done is that burning
hydrogen produces only water vapor. Where would the NOx come from?

Burning H2 and O2 produces water. Burning H2 and air produces water and NOx.
Unless you plan on making a vehicle with an oxygen supply as well as a H2
supply, you have to design away the nitrogen problem. Low temperature
combustion will help, but that's not going to work for internal combustion and
will produce a low efficiency external combustion engine. Fuel cells, of
course, don't have this problem. Ford (?IIRC) and BMW recently showed prototype
H2 internal combustion engines that licked the NOx problem, but I don't know
what they did to do so.

H2 burns somewhat hotter than gasoline or diesel and the NOx production is
related to the temperature.

Mike

AHA!! Mind fart on my part. I wasn't seeing where the N was coming
from. Of course it is obvious as N is a large part of atmospheric air.

Harry K

In article ,
) says...

Has anyone ever seen any plans for a wood powered car?
I know they have been made. With the gas going up and up and up, I am
ready to start building one. I got plenty of dead trees, thus wood on
my farm. If you have some plans, please post what you got, and if
there is a way to get them in digital format. Or, is there a website?
All that Google is offering are useless blogs (as usual, that seems to
be about the only thing google finds lately).

I have seen a producer gas car run. Smelled it, too. They are
astonishingly stinky, just about the most polluting form of
transportation you can imagine. They don't run very fast or very far,
either. If you have half a day to get from one town to the next, they
work.

If you want convenient and economical transportation, check out
http://www.gsmotorworks.com or your local dealer.

In article 44dadc05$0$16008$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, please@askifyouwannaknow (Farm1) says...

That's interesting. Someone else posted yesterday that the Stanley
Steamer used a petrochemical based fuel and I replied that the one I
had seen certainly had a boiler like an old fashioned boat.

What you saw may have been converted for solid fuel. The original
Stanley used an oil fired burner and a steam tube boiler that was just a
bunch of copper pipes surrounded by a sheet metal shroud. It could go
from the pilot light to ready to roll in about 5 minutes.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

In article ,
Larry Caldwell wrote:



If you want convenient and economical transportation, check out
http://www.gsmotorworks.com or your local dealer.

A lot of motorcycle riders would probably be scared to death
riding one of those things. Keeping up with traffic flow is an
important safety measure.
That said a person might be better off with a scooter from one of the
major bike makers like these:
http://tinyurl.com/zeyek

Dean

----== 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 =----

Farm1 wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote:

wrote in message

Years ago I knew a fellow who heated his home with wood and was
proud
of it.

Good grief! Don't most people on farms still do that?

Not too many as far as I can tell. I don't see a lot of
woodpiles
in the yards. I think wood burning stoves make insurance companies
nervous. Propane and natural gas are probably the most common in
my
area.

Our insurance company wouldn't have a clue how we heat our house and
nor do they seem to care.

They will when your house burns down due to a wood burning stove
problem. At that time they will promptly point out the disclaimer text
of your policy that states that they are not liable for damages caused
by fire started from wood burning stoves. Read the fine print of your
policy, if you heat by stove, and make sure you have the proper
endorsement on your policy to cover fires cause by wood burning stoves.

Your premium will go up, but at least you will be covered.
--
ML

My disclaimer: The advice in the above text is my own and not of my
employer nor past employers, nor any potential future employers.

"ML" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:

Our insurance company wouldn't have a clue how we heat our house
and
nor do they seem to care.

They will when your house burns down due to a wood burning stove
problem. At that time they will promptly point out the disclaimer
text
of your policy that states that they are not liable for damages
caused
by fire started from wood burning stoves. Read the fine print of
your
policy, if you heat by stove, and make sure you have the proper
endorsement on your policy to cover fires cause by wood burning
stoves.

Don't be so sure. What applies with insurance companies in your
country doesn't apply in mine.

Wood burning heaters are acceptable to insurance companies here
because our country has stingent Standards which must be met at both
the production and installation stage for all wood burning stoves.
They can't be installed by home owners without inspection and approval
by local authorities.

Farm1 wrote:
"ML" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:

Our insurance company wouldn't have a clue how we heat our house
and
nor do they seem to care.

They will when your house burns down due to a wood burning stove
problem. At that time they will promptly point out the disclaimer
text
of your policy that states that they are not liable for damages
caused
by fire started from wood burning stoves. Read the fine print of
your
policy, if you heat by stove, and make sure you have the proper
endorsement on your policy to cover fires cause by wood burning
stoves.

Don't be so sure. What applies with insurance companies in your
country doesn't apply in mine.

Wood burning heaters are acceptable to insurance companies here
because our country has stingent Standards which must be met at both
the production and installation stage for all wood burning stoves.
They can't be installed by home owners without inspection and approval
by local authorities.

Same here, but that doesn't stop homeowners (and renters) from doing
it. That does void the insurance in many cases.

Harry K