NY wrote:

Why is it that diesel engines and fuel cells have more of a problem with NOx
than petrol engines? Is it because diesel engines are very lean burn (they
use far more oxygen than is required to burn the fuel), whereas petrol is
stoichiometric (ie perfect petrol:air ratio)?

Fuel cells don't emit NOx. It's only when you burn Hydrogen in a
traditional IC engine you get NOx.
--
Steve H

"NY" wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
And used in an IC [hydrogen} is no better than diesel at NOX emissions

You would be better off making synthetic diesel.

Does most of the nitrogen in diesel NOx emissions come from the nitrogen
in the atmosphere? I'd always thought it came from the diesel fuel.
Evidently not.

Why is it that diesel engines and fuel cells have more of a problem with
NOx than petrol engines? Is it because diesel engines are very lean burn
(they use far more oxygen than is required to burn the fuel), whereas
petrol is stoichiometric (ie perfect petrol:air ratio)?


Apologies: in the second paragraph I meant to say "diesel engines and
hydrogen IC engines". I misunderstood what the the OP was, then re-read it
and corrected myself in one place but not in the other...

Nick Finnigan wrote:

[...]

Nobody has to be in attendance at a petrol / diesel station.

When was the law changed regarding that then?

It was always a legal requirement that an attendant had to be present, and
have full view of filling operations, at all times.

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

"Chris Whelan" wrote in message
...
Nick Finnigan wrote:

[...]

Nobody has to be in attendance at a petrol / diesel station.

When was the law changed regarding that then?

It was always a legal requirement that an attendant had to be present, and
have full view of filling operations, at all times.

There are plenty of filling stations (eg the one at the Asda near me) which
are open 24/7 as long as you use pay-at-pump, but are only staffed during
daylight hours. Maybe they are monitored remotely by CCTV when the payment
booths are unstaffed.

NY wrote:

There are plenty of filling stations (eg the one at the Asda near me) which
are open 24/7 as long as you use pay-at-pump, but are only staffed during
daylight hours. Maybe they are monitored remotely by CCTV when the payment
booths are unstaffed.

They are. The security guard in the main building usually has a
monitoring station for the filling station.

Some fuel companies have been investigating remote CCTV coverage for
unmanned stations - but UK petroleum officers aren't keen on it.
(Belgium is big on unmanned stations like this)
--
Steve H

Chris Whelan wrote:

Nick Finnigan wrote:

Nobody has to be in attendance at a petrol / diesel station.

When was the law changed regarding that then?

It was always a legal requirement that an attendant had to be present, and
have full view of filling operations, at all times.

There's certainly an asda here that is un-manned (no kiosk at all, I
think it has to have remote CCTV coverage) and the pay-at-the-pump ones
stay open after the kiosk is shut.

On 30-Sep-17 11:30 AM, Steve H wrote:
NY wrote:

There are plenty of filling stations (eg the one at the Asda near me) which
are open 24/7 as long as you use pay-at-pump, but are only staffed during
daylight hours. Maybe they are monitored remotely by CCTV when the payment
booths are unstaffed.

They are. The security guard in the main building usually has a
monitoring station for the filling station.

Some fuel companies have been investigating remote CCTV coverage for
unmanned stations - but UK petroleum officers aren't keen on it.
(Belgium is big on unmanned stations like this)


I wasn't talking about the staff. UK regulations requires the driver
holds the trigger on the pump nozzle for filling of Diesel and petrol.
All latching devices (beloved by the fire prone gas guzzling USA car
owners) had to be removed from the pumps for the public to safely use
the pumps without a pump attendant. In the USA people goof off and then
forget to remove the nozzle from the tank and drive off ripping the
filler hose off the pump. Or they get a static charge and pull a spark
igniting the fuel vapour that has been expelled from the open tank
filler when they go to take the nozzle out. In the UK if you are not in
attendance holding that trigger, stood out in a freezing gale, you don't
get any fuel.

You can plug an EV in and walk away or sit/nap in your nice warm dry
car. You can even make phone calls, send/receive texts/e-mail or use the
internet while charging. They will switch the pump off if they see you
doing that while filling with petrol or Diesel. I wonder what people
will do with 1/2 hour to kill when they get an EV RV.

You can plug a FCV (fuel cell vehicle) in and walk away as that is a
sealed filling system, locked on the filler port so is allowed to latch.

On 30-Sep-17 10:00 AM, MrCheerful wrote:
On 30/09/2017 09:40, Steve H wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

On 29/09/2017 23:30, Steve H wrote:
Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you
can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

It is only possible to store enough onsite for a couple of fills, and
then takes several hours to make the next lot.

So how many filling stations will be needed?

The install can deliver to 30 cars per day. But it's scalable and is
really at beta test stage.


The ITM Hydrogen Refueling Station (HRS) being rolled out in the UK for
public use does not serve 30 cars a day. It can serve 16 cars a day.
They will have to install a larger or 2nd unit for 30 cars/day.

A normal filling station at present serves 30 cars in thirty minutes, so
it would have to ramp up a real lot.
Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing.Â* I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

More FUD.

ITM HRS can only store about 15Kg of hydrogen so doesn't pose a big
threat if blown up. About the same risk as 3 car petrol tanks. LPG
filling stations with above ground tanks are a better target in terms of
energy release.

As it can only fill 3 cars back to back if you are 4th in line then you
have to wait 24/16 = 1 1/2 hours for it to make a tank full of H2. A HRS
with capacity for 30 cars/day is unlikely to store more H2 for safety
reasons so the wait for 4th fill will be 24/30 = 48 min.

There are less than 50 fuel cell cars in the UK and only idiots will be
buying them at £60K a pop. The EV equivalent (OK with 1/2 the range but
1/2 price fuel) is around £30K.

The ITM HRS is electrolytic and uses grid connected electricity to make
the H2 on-site. So a 30 car/day station will put just as much load on
the grid as an EV charger that can charge 30 cars/day.

20 tons H2/day needs 50 MW of power. That will need a large gas turbine
all to itself.
https://www.airqualitynews.com/2017/...ling-stations/

Huge wrote:

On 2017-09-29, Graham J wrote:

[27 lines snipped]

By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK.

I can only assume you've never owned an air conditioned car. I would never
buy a car without it, having owned one.

+1.

Traffic conditions, at least here in the SE, mean spending long periods
stationary or moving in queues very slowly. Even on a mild day, that's
pretty unpleasant with no A/C.

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

On 29-Sep-17 5:23 PM, NY wrote:
"Graham J" wrote in message
news
As an earlier poster commented: "we have not progressed an enormous
amount" - and the limitation is battery technology.

Irrespective of the battery technology you need to put in phenomenal
amounts of electrical energy, which means dangerously high charging
voltages or current that needs very thick cables - or a combination of
the two. 500 kWhr delivered in 5 mins is 6 MW - how the hell do we solve
the problem of delivering electrical energy at that rate

That's why you need either a swappable pre-charged battery or else an
on-board generator powered by an IC engine if you want to avoid the very
long charging times.

When electric cars can match my present car, which has a range of 700
miles on 60 litres of diesel, and I can replenish that 700 miles range
in a few minutes, then pure-electric cars will be a viable alternative.
Until then, you have to make sacrifices:

- have two cars (petrol/diesel for long journeys, mainly avoiding
congested town/city centres, and electric for shorter journeys into town)

- use public transport for longer journeys and hire a car locally when
you go on holiday for touring (this is not feasible if you want to take
bikes or lots of luggage)

- charge the car overnight or while you're at work, and live with the
fact that you cannot travel more than 100 miles or so (on current
technology) before you need to repeat this palaver.


So you need a hybrid or else a car with a fuel cell - either way, to
convert very "compact" energy of something like petrol/diesel or
compressed gas (LPG, hydrogen) into motion (via electricity).


I hope the government has correctly predicted the rate at which
technology will progress in the next 20 years, or there is going to be a
very ****ed-off population who have to accept a drastic reduction in
standard of living (live closer to work or at least to public transport,
no long holidays touring around).

The fundamental issue with fuel cell technology is that there isn't a
single dealer on the whole planet that can service the hydrogen fuel
system and the fuel cell.

Not only that but the RAC/AA/Greenflag can't do anything with them
either. Just put it on trailer and take it to the maker.

There will never be a lower cost non-franchise service option and the
only way of getting FCV will be on lease from the maker. That makes them
worthless on the 3rd hand market.

On 30/09/17 14:48, Peter Hill wrote:
On 29-Sep-17 5:23 PM, NY wrote:
"Graham J" wrote in message
news
As an earlier poster commented: "we have not progressed an enormous
amount" - and the limitation is battery technology.

Irrespective of the battery technology you need to put in phenomenal
amounts of electrical energy, which means dangerously high charging
voltages or current that needs very thick cables - or a combination of
the two. 500 kWhr delivered in 5 mins is 6 MW - how the hell do we
solve the problem of delivering electrical energy at that rate

That's why you need either a swappable pre-charged battery or else an
on-board generator powered by an IC engine if you want to avoid the
very long charging times.

When electric cars can match my present car, which has a range of 700
miles on 60 litres of diesel, and I can replenish that 700 miles range
in a few minutes, then pure-electric cars will be a viable
alternative. Until then, you have to make sacrifices:

- have two cars (petrol/diesel for long journeys, mainly avoiding
congested town/city centres, and electric for shorter journeys into town)

- use public transport for longer journeys and hire a car locally when
you go on holiday for touring (this is not feasible if you want to
take bikes or lots of luggage)

- charge the car overnight or while you're at work, and live with the
fact that you cannot travel more than 100 miles or so (on current
technology) before you need to repeat this palaver.


So you need a hybrid or else a car with a fuel cell - either way, to
convert very "compact" energy of something like petrol/diesel or
compressed gas (LPG, hydrogen) into motion (via electricity).


I hope the government has correctly predicted the rate at which
technology will progress in the next 20 years, or there is going to be
a very ****ed-off population who have to accept a drastic reduction in
standard of living (live closer to work or at least to public
transport, no long holidays touring around).

The fundamental issue with fuel cell technology is that there isn't a
single dealer on the whole planet that can service the hydrogen fuel
system and the fuel cell.

Not only that but the RAC/AA/Greenflag can't do anything with them
either. Just put it on trailer and take it to the maker.

There will never be a lower cost non-franchise service option and the
only way of getting FCV will be on lease from the maker. That makes them
worthless on the 3rd hand market.


I'm not entirely convinced the problem of 'repairing' batteries in
either all electric or even hybrid cars is entirely fixed.

We are in the process of looking at a replacement car. We started
looking at the Tesla 4x4. Two things convinced us it was a non-starter
(no pun intended). One was the concern of getting stuck being unable to
recharge it. The other was the battery/batteries seem to be so 'buried'
in the vehicle that replacement / repair would seem to be either
extremely difficult to impossible. In other respects, the claimed
reliability seemed extremely impressive but, with a 'dead' battery, it
is just a pile of junk.

We are currently looking at a couple of hybrids- a Merc and the
Outlander. At the moment I'm in the early stages but the Outlander at
least has a long warranty on the batteries (8 years for 70%) plus you
have the petrol engine at worst. The Merc warranty is much less
'impressive', as is the performance- at least on paper.

We tend to keep our cars a long time, we buy one we like and 'get
comfortable with it'- our current 4x4 is 11 years old and, having been
'looked after' will last several more years I am sure if we want it to-
not least as he have several vehicles.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-29, Graham J wrote:

[27 lines snipped]

By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK.

I can only assume you've never owned an air conditioned car. I would never
buy a car without it, having owned one.

Both mine have air-con. I hardly ever use it. Unlike the heater.

--
*When you get a bladder infection urine trouble.*

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[...]

I can only assume you've never owned an air conditioned car. I would
never buy a car without it, having owned one.

Both mine have air-con. I hardly ever use it. Unlike the heater.

I never used to, but my current car has climate control, and if left on auto
runs the A/C pretty much all the time. It provides a reasonably stable
temperature, and doesn't mist up easily, so I just leave it like that.

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

In article ,
Chris Whelan wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[...]

I can only assume you've never owned an air conditioned car. I would
never buy a car without it, having owned one.

Both mine have air-con. I hardly ever use it. Unlike the heater.

I never used to, but my current car has climate control, and if left on
auto runs the A/C pretty much all the time. It provides a reasonably
stable temperature, and doesn't mist up easily, so I just leave it like
that.

Yes - my newer car has climate control. But also an AC defeat button
marked 'ECO'.

--
*PMS jokes aren't funny; period.*

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

On 30/09/2017 12:41, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-30, Peter Hill wrote:
On 30-Sep-17 10:00 AM, MrCheerful wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing.Â* I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

More FUD.

Well, quite. Skipping over the fact that "Mr. Cheerful" is an idiot troll,
when criticising the safety of hydrogen fuelled vehicles, his ilk seem
to conveniently forget just how dangerous petrol is, and we deal with
that adequately.

Petrol IS very dangerous, but it is a known danger, I am merely
summarising a couple of ideas that occurred to me, hydrogen in the
domestic market is not a known danger, and given its amazing powers to
burn really well, I for one would want a lot of likely problems to be
thoroughly sorted before (if ever) it becomes mainstream.

On 30/09/17 11:10, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 30/09/2017 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 09:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you
can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

Dont even go there. Hydrogen is enormously bulky and bloody dangerous.
Colorless, odorless, leaks out of any pipe that isn't perfect - teh
explosin at fukushinma was from far less than a car tank of hydrogen..

Â*Unlike, say, methane or LPG ?

Yes. They are a lot safer.

Anything that detonates at car tank level is a big bang.

But methane and LPG are a bit less likely to, and no nearly as laeky as
hydrogen



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 30/09/17 11:13, Steve H wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

122 litres of cryogenically frozen liquid hydrogen

But that is of course ********. You need way more hydrogen than 8kg.

8kg of hydrogen is about 1000 MJ.

That's about 29 litres of diesel. Something like 8 gallons

If you think you can do 500 miles on 29 litres of diesel good luck with
that.


Suggest you look at the official figures for the Honda Clarity and
Toyota equivalent.


'Official' ? written by advertsing agencies?


The big stumbling block for Hydrogen is the power to crack it from
water. But when you look at the requirements to charge 30 Teslas to do
500 miles, it doesn't look so bad!

There's probably a balance here - plug-in fuel-cell / battery hybrids
would work in 99% of situations.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 30/09/17 11:12, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
And used in an IC [hydrogen} is no better than diesel at NOX emissions

You would be better off making synthetic diesel.

Does most of the nitrogen in diesel NOx emissions come from the nitrogen
in the atmosphere?

ALL of it.

I'd always thought it came from the diesel fuel.
Evidently not.

Nope, Hihe temp and pressure and a lean mixtire has nitrogen 'burning'
top make Nox.

Why is it that diesel engines and fuel cells have more of a problem with
NOx than petrol engines? Is it because diesel engines are very lean burn
(they use far more oxygen than is required to burn the fuel), whereas
petrol is stoichiometric (ie perfect petrol:air ratio)?

Yes.

High temps presures and a superfluity of oxygen due to lean burn

Petrol tems to limit air as well as fuel.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 30/09/17 11:08, Steve H wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

The install can deliver to 30 cars per day. But it's scalable and is
really at beta test stage.


A normal filling station at present serves 30 cars in thirty minutes, so
it would have to ramp up a real lot.
Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing. I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

We've had LPG for years and CNG is gaining momentum. You can put tanks
underground (as we do with LPG and CNG).

Filling is no more difficult than filling an LPG vehicle - the connector
and filling process is near identical. So it can be operated by any
member of the public without specialist attendants.

Its still bloody stupid and dengerous.

Hydrogen is the smallets atom there is. It LEAKS.
#


Hydrogen is just acting as a battery in these applications - as an
energy store it's more efficient than storing in a lithium battery.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 30/09/2017 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , MrCheerful
wrote:

On 30/09/2017 12:41, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-30, Peter Hill wrote:
On 30-Sep-17 10:00 AM, MrCheerful wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing.Â* I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

More FUD.

Well, quite. Skipping over the fact that "Mr. Cheerful" is an idiot
troll,
when criticising the safety of hydrogen fuelled vehicles, his ilk seem
to conveniently forget just how dangerous petrol is, and we deal with
that adequately.

Petrol IS very dangerous, but it is a known danger, I am merely
summarising a couple of ideas that occurred to me, hydrogen in the
domestic market is not a known danger, and given its amazing powers to
burn really well, I for one would want a lot of likely problems to be
thoroughly sorted before (if ever) it becomes mainstream.

One plus for hydrogen is that when it burns, the flame is not so
dangerous to be near (an explosion requires a mixture). This is because
the flame is not luminous, unlike a hydrocarbon flame which is, and
which therefore radiates a lot of heat sideways. You wouldn't have
wanted to be near one of those Buncefield tanks.

However, no one has yet indicated in what form teh hydrogen is in the
car. Liquid (seems unlikely), but if as compressed gas, at what
pressure?



The fact that it leaks through steel is an indication of the care
required in its usage.

The filling pressure seems to be listed as 35 or 70mpa (10,000 psi)
(that is dangerous in and of itself, no matter what the content is.)

The filling stations are extremely expensive to set up too.

On 30/09/2017 11:59, Peter Hill wrote:
On 30-Sep-17 11:30 AM, Steve H wrote:
NY wrote:

There are plenty of filling stations (eg the one at the Asda near me) which
are open 24/7 as long as you use pay-at-pump, but are only staffed during
daylight hours. Maybe they are monitored remotely by CCTV when the payment
booths are unstaffed.

They are. The security guard in the main building usually has a
monitoring station for the filling station.

Some fuel companies have been investigating remote CCTV coverage for
unmanned stations - but UK petroleum officers aren't keen on it.
(Belgium is big on unmanned stations like this)


I wasn't talking about the staff. UK regulations requires the driver holds
the trigger on the pump nozzle for filling of Diesel and petrol.

Where in the Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations 2014 are any other
current regulation is that requirement ?

On 29/09/2017 14:30, Bob Minchin wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Since one can only go a mile or so on the battery, I suspect the state
of charge at fill time has little effect on the figures.
Is this for real?? Only a mile on battery?? WTF
Surely you want enough electric propulsion to get you to a filling
station of being green, through a town and out the other side.
I cant really see how there can be much saving in running costs
A bit of saving on regenerative braking and maybe a bit more smoothing
out engine demand I suppose.

You obviously have no idea how hybrids are supposed to work.

Absolutely correct. I had assumed a greater proportion of electric power
capacity, the possibility of home charging and a "get you out of
trouble" petrol engine.

The original prius had under 5kWh of capacity or something like that.

To be honest, never really looked at them before and now I have a vague
interest with the possible fossil fuel vehicle ban in the future.

Is there a name for the technology nearer to what I described?

One of the so called "plug in hybrids" perhaps.

Also there are a class of EVs where the petrol engine is termed a "range
extender"


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/09/2017 15:08, Bob Minchin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
What you're saying is a car where the main motive force is the
battery/motor with a small petrol engine to recharge efficiently as you
go along (range increaser). That doesn't seem to be the main focus of
manufacturers at the minute.
Yes that is about it Tim.
Maybe manufacturers will take more of an interest as the fossil fuel
only vehicle ban becomes more definite unless a battery swap or near
instant charge method can approach what we are used to at a filling
station.
Eg 5 minute pause off the road extends range by 500 miles.

If the can dodge the ban by installing a pack of AAs and calling it a
hybrid, then that would be easier ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/09/2017 18:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 11:10, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 30/09/2017 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 09:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) -
you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500
miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

Dont even go there. Hydrogen is enormously bulky and bloody
dangerous. Colorless, odorless, leaks out of any pipe that isn't
perfect - teh explosin at fukushinma was from far less than a car
tank of hydrogen..

Â*Â*Unlike, say, methane or LPG ?

Yes. They are a lot safer.

Anything that detonates at car tank level is a big bang.

But methane and LPG are a bit less likely to, and no nearly as laeky as
hydrogen

Hydrogen is indeed one of the worst gases - hence only it and acetylene
being in their own group for explosion risk purposes in industrial
installations.

Unlike petrol it does have the saving grace of dissipating rapidly
upwards and away instead of forming a liquid pool and a persistent
surrounding vapour cloud.

All in all, highly explosive, needing little energy to ignite it, but
rapidly dissipated after release.

SteveW

On 30/09/2017 18:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 11:08, Steve H wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

The install can deliver to 30 cars per day. But it's scalable and is
really at beta test stage.


A normal filling station at present serves 30 cars in thirty minutes, so
it would have to ramp up a real lot.
Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing.Â* I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

We've had LPG for years and CNG is gaining momentum. You can put tanks
underground (as we do with LPG and CNG).

Filling is no more difficult than filling an LPG vehicle - the connector
and filling process is near identical. So it can be operated by any
member of the public without specialist attendants.

Its still bloody stupid and dengerous.

Hydrogen is the smallets atom there is. It LEAKS.

It leaks fairly slowly and dissipates upwards rapidly. Vents on the top
of garages will let it go.

It is however very easy to ignite, needing only a very tiny spark.

If released in a crash it would be extremely explosive and esay to
ignite, but on the other hand, unlike petrol, it would drift upwards and
not maintain an explosive atmosphere for long.

SteveW

On 30/09/17 14:48, Peter Hill wrote:
The fundamental issue with fuel cell technology is that there isn't a
single dealer on the whole planet that can service the hydrogen fuel
system and the fuel cell.

No, te fundamentali issue is they dont work very well in cars.



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 30/09/17 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
One plus for hydrogen is that when it burns, the flame is not so
dangerous to be near (an explosion requires a mixture). This is because
the flame is not luminous, unlike a hydrocarbon flame which is, and
which therefore radiates a lot of heat sideways. You wouldn't have
wanted to be near one of those Buncefield tanks.

******** Tim.

Racing drivers ahve burnt to death because methanol burns with no flame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=MnDX4FpDAzQ

Its now fairly banned in the UK



--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

Nick Finnigan wrote:

Peter Hill wrote:

UK regulations requires the driver holds the trigger on the pump
nozzle for filling of Diesel and petrol.

Where in the Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations 2014 are any other
current regulation is that requirement ?

Possibly the DSEAR 2002? There are lots of vague mentions of "guidance"
from the fire service at the time that self-service pumps became common,
rather then regulations.

On 01-Oct-17 3:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
One plus for hydrogen is that when it burns, the flame is not so
dangerous to be near (an explosion requires a mixture). This is because
the flame is not luminous, unlike a hydrocarbon flame which is, and
which therefore radiates a lot of heat sideways. You wouldn't have
wanted to be near one of those Buncefield tanks.

******** Tim.

Racing drivers ahve burnt to death because methanol burns with no flame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=MnDX4FpDAzQ

Its now fairly banned in the UK

Not from Historic Racing it isn't.
http://www.britishhistoricracingclub...cation-MWh.pdf
Methanol may be used in any class of machine (Pre 1973).
An orange day-glow disc (minimum 3 inches diameter) must be affixed on
or immediately adjacent to the Racing Number Plate on both sides of any
machine using methanol.

Nor from speedway / grass track.

Nor from Drag racing. Top Methanol Funny Car, Top Methanol Dragster
http://www.eurodragster.com/sprc/gettingstarted.html

I can't think of any racing class for bikes or cars that was using it
and has been stopped from using methanol in the last 30 years.

Seems to be easy to obtain in race fuel grade in UK.
http://www.trackstuff.co.uk/VP%20M1%20Methanol.htm
https://aaoil.co.uk/product/sunoco-r...ol-99-85-pure/
http://www.chemiphase.co.uk/methanol...ding-delivery/

The last supplier also lists dilution ratios for use in production of
BioDiesel. You could have a 1000L ICB delivered on your doorstep in a
few days, enough to make 5000L of BioDiesel.

But none of those re-fuel with quick fillers and a hot (running?)
engine. (Only the Yanks?)

Nitromethane used in "top Fuel" drag racing class and model IC engines
("glow plug") burns to produce Nitric Acid. That's a bit toxic, drivers
and fire lane crews wear gas masks.

Natural gas in domestic gas boiler will produce Formaldehyde during warm
up. The flame is "quenched" on the cold heat exchanger, the reaction
stops with highly toxic part products of combustion.

Many years ago my mum complained about a town gas leak venting from a
tubular gate post. A bloke from the gas co came and inspected it. He
wasn't bothered as it was vented and not collecting in an enclosed
space. With the exception of Hydrogen most gas fuels have to be in an
enclosed space to reach explosive mixture, otherwise they just
dissipate. Heavier fuel gases like propane will flow along the ground
and can then concentrate in drains which can then blow up.

Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-29, Graham J wrote:

[27 lines snipped]

By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK.

I can only assume you've never owned an air conditioned car. I would never
buy a car without it, having owned one.




I've driven cars since 1970 and until 2005 never had air conditioning.
I didn't miss it, except possibly for one summer day in 1994.

However, since owning a car with a/c I do appreciate it, and can afford
to buy a car that has it.

My point is that it isn't really necessary in the UK - unlike a heater.
Having said that my father (now long gone) drove cars without heaters
until about 1960. I think the mini in 1959 was the first entry-level
saloon that had a heater as standard.

--
Graham J

"Huge" wrote in message
...
I've driven cars since 1970 and until 2005 never had air conditioning.
I didn't miss it, except possibly for one summer day in 1994.

However, since owning a car with a/c I do appreciate it, and can afford
to buy a car that has it.

My point is that it isn't really necessary in the UK -

A/C is nowhere near as necessary as a heater. My first three cars didn't
have it. I *think* my 1993 Mark III Golf had A/C. I know my various Peugeots
(306 and 308) have had it.

I managed without until then. There were days when I got into an unbearably
hot car and had the blower blowing "cold" (ambient air temperature) air onto
me to keep me cool. There were a few days when this wasn't sufficient,
especially if I was stuck in a traffic jam and had *only* the blower,
without the added ram-jet effect of the car travelling along at 60 mph to
force air through the dashboard vents.

When I got a car with A/C it made a tremendous difference. Firstly it kept
the car to a bearable temperature on the relatively few scorching hot days.
Secondly it dried the air which made it demist the inside of the windows a
lot more quickly on cold damp mornings. I used to have to wipe the inside of
the windscreen and side windows before it was safe to drive, and they
quickly misted up again; now I have A/C, I put the heater on hot with A/C to
get hot dry air, which demists the windows and keeps them demisted. Warm dry
air is better than hot humid air for doing this (the A/C chills as well as
dries the air, and the heater has to overcome the chilling).

A/C is very nice to have, but not essential like a heater is. I've never
appreciated a heater more than the freezing cold day that the windows of my
1993 Golf spontaneously went down and wouldn't go back up, just as I parked
at work. That lunchtime (*) I had to drive about 10 miles to the garage in
sub-zero temperatures with the heater on full blast blowing very hot air out
of all the vents to try to counteract the chilly air that was coming in
through the windows. The fault was found to be a burned-out loom, and
neither VW nor the branch of Halfords which fitted my alarm would accept
responsibility, so I had to fork out about £400 for that.


(*) Fortunately when I explained what had happened, the security guys at
work let me park right next to their office so they could keep an eye on the
car, since it was insecure with the windows open (but the doors dead-locked
so they couldn't be opened by anyone who put their hand in through the open
window).

On Saturday, 30 September 2017 09:46:05 UTC+1, Chris Whelan wrote:
Steve H wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

Remember, these are fuel cell vehicles - they're not combusting hydrogen
in the traditional sense (which is what many people think hydrogen cars
do)

If the production of hydrogen requires electricity, where is that
electricity going to come from?

Most hydrogen is made from natural gas.
Hydrogen is pointless.
Every means of manufacture is very inefficient.
It's dangerous to store and use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrog...team_reforming

Nick Finnigan wrote:

Peter Hill wrote:

UK regulations requires the driver holds the trigger on the pump
nozzle for filling of Diesel and petrol.

Where in the Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations 2014 are any other
current regulation is that requirement ?

I asked someone who used to design petrol pumps, his reply ...

"it is a legal requirement, as part of the type approval of the pumps
for self-service. Ultimately type approval is only central government
guidance to local authorities who have the final say through the issuing
of petroleum licences. So the legal instrument covering it is the licence."

On 02/10/2017 11:24, Andy Burns wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:

Peter Hill wrote:

UK regulations requires the driver holds the trigger on the pump
nozzle for filling of Diesel and petrol.

Where in the Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations 2014 are any other
current regulation is that requirement ?

I asked someone who used to design petrol pumps, his reply ...

"it is a legal requirement, as part of the type approval of the pumps for
self-service. Ultimately type approval is only central government guidance

Did he mention the Measuring Instruments Directive (EC)?

to local authorities who have the final say through the issuing of
petroleum licences. So the legal instrument covering it is the licence."
Did he mention licences being replaced by certificates ?

Nick Finnigan wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I asked someone who used to design petrol pumps

Did he mention the Measuring Instruments Directive (EC)?
Did he mention licences being replaced by certificates ?

No, but I suppose neither were applicable back in the 80's when he was
designing them ...

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 30 September 2017 09:46:05 UTC+1, Chris Whelan wrote:
Steve H wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a
big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you
can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles
of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

Remember, these are fuel cell vehicles - they're not combusting
hydrogen
in the traditional sense (which is what many people think hydrogen cars
do)

If the production of hydrogen requires electricity, where is that
electricity going to come from?

Most hydrogen is made from natural gas.

Currently.

Hydrogen is pointless.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something.

Every means of manufacture is very inefficient.

Thats a lie when produced directly by nukes.

It's dangerous to store and use.

But that may not be true forever with hydrides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrog...team_reforming

Andy Burns wrote:

No, but I suppose neither were applicable back in the 80's when he was
designing them ...

Back in the days of mechanical pumps there used to be a
mechanical number display on the side, which was the actual total
gallons dispensed, and a multiplication factor which was close
(but not equal) to 1.

AIUI, because the pump accuracy was greater than the tolerance
specified by Weights and Measures, it was possible to routinely
dispense slightly less than was indicated. Not much, but enough
to be worth doing.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 30/09/2017 00:43, Graham J wrote:

Providing heat for these requirements - even if the vehicle is
spectacularly well insulated - will be an additional drain on an
electrical vehicle.

By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK. There are of course a few days most summers when
it's nice to have ...

I would suggest that a decent heat pump AC system is essential for
battery powered cars! Since its a far more efficient way of heating and
demisting. (also not many people would be so keen to buy a car without
AC anyway these days)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/