Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Quite. If you check my post immediately after that one you'll see I
meant same as two stroke designs. Dunno how the 'other' got in there.
;-) Basically, the Wankle neither charges or evacuates as well as a
piston four stroke.

It will do with a blower or turbo.

So you know better than Mazda who have done more development work on the
Wankle than anyone else? Yet still given up on it?

I'm not sure whether your head is in the clouds or up your arse...

If you blow a Wankel the seals just wear out even quicker.


--
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.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Note, Mazda wasn't the first to proceed down the rotary extended-range
development path. Instead, it was Audi that showed the rotary-packing A1
e-tron concept at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show. That allegedly led to
talks between Audi and Mazda, and rumors that Mazda was developing a
special-purpose rotary engine for the Audi A1 e-tron. While Audi chose
to forgo a rotary for its eventual road-going A1 e-tron, it appears
Mazda won't doing the same.

Says it all, really. The largest European car maker group has investigated
the wankle for just this purpose and abandoned it. And they own the
patents for the principle.

Mazda will be looking to sell to the gullible like you who have no
knowledge of their own, but believe press handouts. But in your case you
couldn't afford one anyway.

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:03 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.

Really? BMW managed it on a dual fuel production car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because like all these wonderful ideas it has disadvantages over petrol
and diesel.


It;s wonderful when there is no petrol and diesel.

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

harry wrote:
It is how bus srevices used to be run years ago.
Local buses came every 20 minute when I was lad.
Timetables didn't exist.

There's always been a working timetable. It's just not normally
published when the buses run more frequently than every 15 minutes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article
,
harry wrote:
A battery is a fuel too. It is chemical energy. It converts chemical
energy to electricity.

It *stores* energy, if you're talking about a rechargeable type. A dry
cell creates it.

Energy can't be created or destroyed, just converted from one form to
another.

And the efficiency of that conversion is all important.

--
*Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
harry wrote:
Quote from Wikipedia. (First line.)

I do wish people would stop quoting Wiki as if it were the word of god.

Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of the
electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which adversely
affects handling

'Handling' doesn't much matter on the majority of electric cars. Ride
quality may, and that is adversely affected by unsprung weight. Brakes add
to the unsprung weight if fitted in the wheels - yet can be fitted inboard
on driven wheels. Yet few choose to do this.

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.

Yet you advocate an even more inefficient wankle?

WANKEL!!!!


--
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.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
A battery is a fuel too. It is chemical energy. It converts chemical
energy to electricity.

It *stores* energy, if you're talking about a rechargeable type. A dry
cell creates it.

Energy can't be created or destroyed, just converted from one form to
another.

And the efficiency of that conversion is all important.

As is the fundamentals of entropy and enthalpy, which determine if
indeed you CAN convert it.


--
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.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Quote from Wikipedia. (First line.)

I do wish people would stop quoting Wiki as if it were the word of god.

Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of the
electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which adversely
affects handling

'Handling' doesn't much matter on the majority of electric cars. Ride
quality may, and that is adversely affected by unsprung weight. Brakes add
to the unsprung weight if fitted in the wheels - yet can be fitted inboard
on driven wheels. Yet few choose to do this.

And unsprung weight is actually only relevant on bumpy surfaces

As those of us who used to drift Midgets round bumpy roads soon found out.


--
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.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact. That is it is
toxic to our atmosphere. Too much CO2 and we die stone dead.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

And this is relevant precisely *how* to the UK?

Look up tidal lagoons. 20% of the Irish Sea lagoon off can provide all the
power of the UK & Ireland and maybe a bridge to the Isle of Man and Ireland.
10% of the Irish Sea and others in the North Sea can also do it.

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Drivel - toxicity level - high

after a couple of his posts most people lose the will to live

Maxie, they will lose the will to live if CO2 is emitted. They will all be
stone dead.

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:47 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_h...eight_concerns

It concluded there were no concerns in unsprung weight.

I see you're illiterate too.

Quote from Wikipedia. (First line.)
Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of the
electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which adversely
affects handling

Fool, you never read on from there.

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.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Quite. If you check my post immediately after that one you'll see I
meant same as two stroke designs. Dunno how the 'other' got in
there. ;-) Basically, the Wankle neither charges or evacuates as
well as a piston four stroke.

It will do with a blower or turbo.

So you know better than Mazda

Senile one. Mazda made turbo charged Rotary engines.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Note, Mazda wasn't the first to proceed down the rotary
extended-range development path. Instead, it was Audi that showed
the rotary-packing A1 e-tron concept at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show.
That allegedly led to talks between Audi and Mazda, and rumors that
Mazda was developing a special-purpose rotary engine for the Audi A1
e-tron. While Audi chose to forgo a rotary for its eventual
road-going A1 e-tron, it appears Mazda won't doing the same.

Says it all, really. The largest European car maker group has
investigated the wankle for just this purpose and abandoned it. And
they own the patents for the principle.

Mazda will be looking to sell to the gullible like you who have no
knowledge of their own, but believe press handouts. But in your case
you couldn't afford one anyway.

This man is clearly senile. Mazda adopted it. Duh!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's mainly because their fuel efficiency is, and always will be,
poor.

This idiot is at it gain. The fuel consumption is not poor when run
at a constant speed high revs at it "sweet spot".

It is still poor when compared to a piston engine designed to do the
same thing.

Senile person, not so. Also the superior light weight and very small size
and ultra reliability make this unit idea as range extender that would not
kick in much. But this logic is beyond senile people. Sad but true.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.

Yet you advocate an even more inefficient wankle?

Senile person, you missed this out. "Corporations run matters."

On 22/09/2012 11:39, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Drivel - toxicity level - high

after a couple of his posts most people lose the will to live

Maxie, they will lose the will to live if CO2 is emitted. They will all
be stone dead.

On a personal basis, I guess I won't have any will after I stop emitting
CO2, or at least just the kind that's read out to my friends and family!

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yet you advocate an even more inefficient wankle?

WANKEL!!!!

No - I prefer wankle.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact. That is it is
toxic to our atmosphere. Too much CO2 and we die stone dead.

Pray tell which part of the atmosphere CO2 destroys? Which of the many
gasses in particular does it destroy?

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's mainly because their fuel efficiency is, and always will be,
poor.

This idiot is at it gain. The fuel consumption is not poor when run
at a constant speed high revs at it "sweet spot".

It is still poor when compared to a piston engine designed to do the
same thing.

Senile person, not so. Also the superior light weight and very small
size and ultra reliability make this unit idea as range extender that
would not kick in much. But this logic is beyond senile people. Sad
but true.

A wankle ultra reliable? Anymore 'facts' you wish to invent?

--
*Born free...Taxed to death.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's mainly because their fuel efficiency is, and always will be,
poor.
This idiot is at it gain. The fuel consumption is not poor when run
at a constant speed high revs at it "sweet spot".
It is still poor when compared to a piston engine designed to do the
same thing.

Senile person, not so. Also the superior light weight and very small
size and ultra reliability make this unit idea as range extender that
would not kick in much. But this logic is beyond senile people. Sad
but true.

A wankle ultra reliable? Anymore 'facts' you wish to invent?

You can rely on them not to last long. You can rely on them to break
easily. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact. That is
it is toxic to our atmosphere. Too much CO2 and we die stone dead.

Pray tell

This man is senile.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's mainly because their fuel efficiency is, and always will be,
poor.

This idiot is at it gain. The fuel consumption is not poor when run
at a constant speed high revs at it "sweet spot".

It is still poor when compared to a piston engine designed to do the
same thing.

Senile person, not so. Also the superior light weight and very small
size and ultra reliability make this unit idea as range extender that
would not kick in much. But this logic is beyond senile people. Sad
but true.

A wankle ultra reliable?

Yes. This man is senile.

John Williamson wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's mainly because their fuel efficiency is, and always will be,
poor.
This idiot is at it gain. The fuel consumption is not poor when
run at a constant speed high revs at it "sweet spot".
It is still poor when compared to a piston engine designed to do
the same thing.

Senile person, not so. Also the superior light weight and very small
size and ultra reliability make this unit idea as range extender
that would not kick in much. But this logic is beyond senile
people. Sad but true.

A wankle ultra reliable? Anymore 'facts' you wish to invent?

You can rely on them not to last long. You can rely on them to break
easily. ;-)

Another idiot with no brains. They congregate here.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

So what about an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2, then, like on
Venus. Does that destroy itself?

Another thicko. If we went to Venus and breathed in we would die within a
minute or two. Some are so dumb!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yet you advocate an even more inefficient wankle?

WANKEL!!!!

No - I prefer wankle.

It suits you.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:51:05 -0700, harry wrote:
It;s wonderful when there is no petrol and diesel.

There's always wood gas...

On Sep 22, 9:59*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *Doctor *Drivel wrote:

The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.


I believe it was originally thought that Wankel engines would be
cheaper to make and more problem free.
Proved not to be the case.

On Sep 22, 9:59*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *Doctor *Drivel wrote:

Note, Mazda wasn't the first to proceed down the rotary extended-range
development path. Instead, it was Audi that showed the rotary-packing A1
e-tron concept at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show. That allegedly led to
talks between Audi and Mazda, and rumors that Mazda was developing a
special-purpose rotary engine for the Audi A1 e-tron. While Audi chose
to forgo a rotary for its eventual road-going A1 e-tron, it appears
Mazda won't doing the same.

Says it all, really. The largest European car maker group has investigated
the wankle for just this purpose and abandoned it. And they own the
patents for the principle.

Mazda will be looking to sell to the gullible like you who have no
knowledge of their own, but believe press handouts. But in your case you
couldn't afford one anyway.


All true but there is still hope for it yet.

On Sep 22, 10:09*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:





On Sep 21, 8:03 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.

Really? BMW managed it on a dual fuel production car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because like all these wonderful ideas it has disadvantages over petrol
and diesel.

It;s wonderful when there is no petrol and diesel.

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not an advocate of hydrogen. Most of it is made from natural gas.
You might as well just use the natural gas. This is done in South
America.
Dribble is the hydrogen man.
It could be made by electrolysis but it would be inefficient and
costly.

On Sep 22, 10:09*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

A battery is a fuel too. It is chemical energy. *It converts chemical
energy to electricity.

It *stores* energy, if you're talking about a rechargeable type. A dry
cell creates it.

Energy can't be created or destroyed, just converted from one form to
another.

And the efficiency of that conversion is all important.


All cells are theoretically rechargeable. Just there are practical
difficulties with some. Eg, gases produced escape. The chemicals
migrate,, Polarisation.

The energy has to be "put into" the chemicals when cells are
manufactured.
You don't get anything for nothing.

On Sep 22, 10:20*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Quote from Wikipedia. *(First line.)

I do wish people would stop quoting Wiki as if it were the word of god.

Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of the
electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which adversely
affects handling

'Handling' doesn't much matter on the majority of electric cars. Ride
quality may, and that is adversely affected by unsprung weight. Brakes add
to the unsprung weight if fitted in the wheels - yet can be fitted inboard
on driven wheels. Yet few choose to do this.


What difference should a car being electric make?
These hub motors have significant weight.

On Sep 22, 11:24*am, 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.

--
Tim

So now you can see hydro gen is a fuel?
Stop woffling. We all know this stuff about energy density.

harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 10:20 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

Quote from Wikipedia. (First line.)

I do wish people would stop quoting Wiki as if it were the word of
god.

Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of
the electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which
adversely affects handling

'Handling' doesn't much matter on the majority of electric cars. Ride
quality may, and that is adversely affected by unsprung weight.
Brakes add to the unsprung weight if fitted in the wheels - yet can
be fitted inboard on driven wheels. Yet few choose to do this.


What difference should a car being electric make?
These hub motors have significant weight.

Not this senile one again. You have been told, and even in the link you
gave, that the motor-in-hub can, and will, be lighter. Even the hydraulic
motor/brakes was super light. Can you remember all this?

harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:59 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Note, Mazda wasn't the first to proceed down the rotary
extended-range development path. Instead, it was Audi that showed
the rotary-packing A1 e-tron concept at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show.
That allegedly led to talks between Audi and Mazda, and rumors that
Mazda was developing a special-purpose rotary engine for the Audi
A1 e-tron. While Audi chose to forgo a rotary for its eventual
road-going A1 e-tron, it appears Mazda won't doing the same.

Says it all, really. The largest European car maker group has
investigated the wankle for just this purpose and abandoned it. And
they own the patents for the principle.

Mazda will be looking to sell to the gullible like you who have no
knowledge of their own, but believe press handouts. But in your case
you couldn't afford one anyway.

All true but there is still hope for it yet.

Such senile babble.

harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:59 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.

I believe it was originally thought that Wankel engines would be
cheaper to make and more problem free.
Proved not to be the case.

Senile person, they are much smaller, much lighter, much simpler, high
power/weight ratio, only a few parts, ultra smooth, ultra quiet. They are
ultra reliable.

Now you know. Can you remember this for next time?

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

So what about an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2, then, like
on Venus. Does that destroy itself?

Another thicko. If we went to Venus and breathed in we would die
within a minute or two. Some are so dumb!

Did I suggest going to Venus or breathing the atmos, dip****?

Yes.

On Sep 22, 11:49*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
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.

That is specific energy density as opposed to volumetric energy
density.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.shtml