On Friday, 19 April 2019 19:09:57 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

Any envy here perchance?

Certainly not in my case. I'd be interested to try driving a Porsche as long
as I was fully insured, but I wouldn't want to own one - I'd be too worried
that it would get stolen or damaged by someone who was envious... or that
I'd be thought of as having a small penis ;-) (*)

(*) My wife refers to sports cars and other noisy, over-powered cars as
"penis cars" on the grounds that they are allegedly bought as compensation
by men who are under-sized.

Sports cars are mostly a bit crap. They're a real win of marketing over sense.


NT

On 19/04/2019 19:14, ARW wrote:
On 19/04/2019 19:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/04/2019 18:21, ARW wrote:
On 18/04/2019 11:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/04/2019 11:01, Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/04/2019 00:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* NY wrote:
Alloys are the one fad that I've never understood. They don't
affect the
performance or road holding or comfort or fuel economy or
anything like
that, and from a few metres away you'd be hard pressed to
distinguish
them from steel wheels with metallic wheel trims.

You might be. Most can tell imitation alloys at a glance.

Not *everyone* is taken in by
posing and bragging rights of alloys.

Given the vast majority of cars - other than basic shopping
trolleys -
have them, hardly anything to brag about.

Even my wife's 14 year old Matiz has alloy wheels - and that it
pretty well the definition of a basic shopping trolley!

SteveW
Alloys dont need hubcaps to make them pretty.

Pressed steel wheels are plain ugly

And I'd guess that the casting/machining is no great cost compared
with steel and spot welds and a hub cap.


If it's round and works I'm happy.

And the sad virgins with bright coloured break calipers behind their
alloy wheels need to get a life and not a Porsche.

Any envy here perchance?


No. And a Merc Maybach can only go as fast as my van in London. But at
least I get a shag when I get home and I don't have to have a wank over
the car bonnet.

I think the same, traffic is in effect a convoy, where the slowest car
governs the speed of all the others. I would prefer a vehicle for
comfort, where I am high up so I can see more than just the car in front.

But at the same time I wouldn't criticise anyone for liking a nice car
any more than I would criticise a friend's choice of partner or other
choices in life.

On 19/04/2019 19:09, NY wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
If it's round and works I'm happy.

And the sad virgins with bright coloured break calipers behind their
alloy wheels need to get a life and not a Porsche.

I agree.

Any envy here perchance?

Certainly not in my case. I'd be interested to try driving a Porsche as
long as I was fully insured, but I wouldn't want to own one - I'd be too
worried that it would get stolen or damaged by someone who was
envious... or that I'd be thought of as having a small penis ;-)Â* (*)

See below.

The same applies to personalised number plates. I would actively *not*
want a personalised plate because I like my car to blend in and not
stand out from the crowd.

If I had millions to burn then it might be something I could consider.

I'm sure that says a lot about my personality.

Perhaps I'm less self-conscious.

(*) My wife refers to sports cars and other noisy, over-powered cars as
"penis cars" on the grounds that they are allegedly bought as
compensation by men who are under-sized.

Perhaps in secret she is trying to say something? I've never had a wife
or girlfriend say anything like that to me!

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
If it's round and works I'm happy.

And the sad virgins with bright coloured break calipers behind their
alloy wheels need to get a life and not a Porsche.

I agree.

Any envy here perchance?

Certainly not in my case. I'd be interested to try driving a Porsche as
long as I was fully insured, but I wouldn't want to own one - I'd be too
worried that it would get stolen or damaged by someone who was envious...
or that I'd be thought of as having a small penis ;-) (*)


The same applies to personalised number plates. I would actively *not*
want a personalised plate because I like my car to blend in and not stand
out from the crowd.

I prefer bright yellow so its easy to find in the carpark,
particularly the massive carparks at major events.

Bit low tech tho and not that many even sell
bright yellow cars anymore and probably
not a great ideal given the way I drive.

Now that most dont even offer bright yellow
anymore, I have been considering a bright
light on a roof bar that I can turn on using the
phone instead to make the car easy to find.

Not much in the way of real hi tech car locators
that work very well in a massive great car park
full of parked cars.

I'm sure that says a lot about my personality.


(*) My wife refers to sports cars and other noisy, over-powered cars as
"penis cars" on the grounds that they are allegedly bought as compensation
by men who are under-sized.

On 19/04/2019 19:09, NY wrote:
(*) My wife refers to sports cars and other noisy, over-powered cars as
"penis cars" on the grounds that they are allegedly bought as
compensation by men who are under-sized.

There's an Audi TT parked next door (red calipers and all!)

It belongs to the wife.

Andy

Wrote in message:
On Friday, 19 April 2019 19:09:57 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

Any envy here perchance?

Certainly not in my case. I'd be interested to try driving a Porsche as long
as I was fully insured, but I wouldn't want to own one - I'd be too worried
that it would get stolen or damaged by someone who was envious... or that
I'd be thought of as having a small penis ;-) (*)

(*) My wife refers to sports cars and other noisy, over-powered cars as
"penis cars" on the grounds that they are allegedly bought as compensation
by men who are under-sized.

Sports cars are mostly a bit crap. They're a real win of marketing over sense.


NT


I knew someone would try the double bluff... ;-)
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 05:21:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I prefer bright yellow

Nobody gives a ****, senile Ozzzietard!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 19/04/2019 18:25, ARW wrote:
On 18/04/2019 13:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 18/04/2019 10:01, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Since electric motors should be much more efficient than internal
combustion engines the above figures are pessimistic but even if
the power requirement was only 30% of the above they'd still be
problematic.

If we can actually produce an acceptable battery car in due course
for more than intra urban short hops, then all the infrastructure is
buildable over the same sort of period that aÂ* petrol and diesel
based infrastructure was rolled out in the last century.

Yes. What worries me is that we may find that we have to alter our
habits, scheduling in longer breaks whenever the car is getting low
on power, whereas we are used to filling up in a few minutes whenever
we need to (without having to plan ahead).

It's fine for people who have a commute with recharging points at
both ends,

How many people drive 120 miles to work and 120 mile back every day?


I did 843 miles this week and it's a 4 day week.


But most people don't commute to sites hundreds of miles away.
So for them there wouldn't be any need to charge an electric car at
work, just at home.
It makes a big difference to how much infrastructure is needed when they
can recharge the 20 miles they have driven overnight rather than a full
charge both ends.

I would have an electric car if they weren't so expensive.
I rarely drive more than a hundred miles these days.
Too knackered from the chemo to do much more.

In article , ARW adamwadsworth@blueyo
nder.co.uk scribeth thus
On 19/04/2019 17:05, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 18/04/2019 10:57, Tim Streater wrote:
That's just the one petrol station. Anyone know how many there are
across the country? Not that they'd all be using

essentially you can look at stats for trmspotrt fuel divide the energy
by about three* and end up with a national incease in grid capacity.

I made it that we would need to go to about 200GW capaciy from about
60GW to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE by electricity.



So a long term tripling of overall grid capacity in the next 50 years or
so,.

And the very awkward question is where the **** is that going to come
from?...



From a plug:-)


Yes quite....
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 19/04/2019 17:05, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 18/04/2019 10:57, Tim Streater wrote:
That's just the one petrol station. Anyone know how many there are
across the country? Not that they'd all be using

essentially you can look at stats for trmspotrt fuel divide the energy
by about three* and end up with a national incease in grid capacity.

I made it that we would need to go to about 200GW capaciy from about
60GW to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE by electricity.



So a long term tripling of overall grid capacity in the next 50 years or
so,.

And the very awkward question is where the **** is that going to come
from?...


your leccy bills of course



Are we what the grid can deliver or what the power stations can
produce?..

I'd have thought the latter, more the problem, the generation capacity
can hardly cope with a winters day load as it is anyway...

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 20/04/2019 12:17, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/04/2019 18:25, ARW wrote:
On 18/04/2019 13:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 18/04/2019 10:01, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Since electric motors should be much more efficient than internal
combustion engines the above figures are pessimistic but even if
the power requirement was only 30% of the above they'd still be
problematic.

If we can actually produce an acceptable battery car in due course
for more than intra urban short hops, then all the infrastructure
is buildable over the same sort of period that aÂ* petrol and diesel
based infrastructure was rolled out in the last century.

Yes. What worries me is that we may find that we have to alter our
habits, scheduling in longer breaks whenever the car is getting low
on power, whereas we are used to filling up in a few minutes
whenever we need to (without having to plan ahead).

It's fine for people who have a commute with recharging points at
both ends,

How many people drive 120 miles to work and 120 mile back every day?


I did 843 miles this week and it's a 4 day week.


But most people don't commute to sites hundreds of miles away.
So for them there wouldn't be any need to charge an electric car at
work, just at home.
It makes a big difference to how much infrastructure is needed when they
can recharge the 20 miles they have driven overnight rather than a full
charge both ends.

Except of course that these days most people change jobs a number of
times, so they can have a nice short round trip to work one month and
the next could be much, much further.

I would have an electric car if they weren't so expensive.
I rarely drive more than a hundred miles these days.
Too knackered from the chemo to do much more.

An electric car would make sense for my wife (and for me to borrow at
times), but even the "rarer" longer drive would mean that my car needs
to be petrol or diesel.

Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging and
when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when petrol and
diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough power can be
generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

SteveW

In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 20/04/2019 12:17, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/04/2019 18:25, ARW wrote:
On 18/04/2019 13:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 18/04/2019 10:01, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Since electric motors should be much more efficient than internal
combustion engines the above figures are pessimistic but even if
the power requirement was only 30% of the above they'd still be
problematic.

If we can actually produce an acceptable battery car in due course
for more than intra urban short hops, then all the infrastructure
is buildable over the same sort of period that a petrol and diesel
based infrastructure was rolled out in the last century.

Yes. What worries me is that we may find that we have to alter our
habits, scheduling in longer breaks whenever the car is getting low
on power, whereas we are used to filling up in a few minutes
whenever we need to (without having to plan ahead).

It's fine for people who have a commute with recharging points at
both ends,

How many people drive 120 miles to work and 120 mile back every day?


I did 843 miles this week and it's a 4 day week.


But most people don't commute to sites hundreds of miles away. So for
them there wouldn't be any need to charge an electric car at work,
just at home. It makes a big difference to how much infrastructure is
needed when they can recharge the 20 miles they have driven overnight
rather than a full charge both ends.

Except of course that these days most people change jobs a number of
times, so they can have a nice short round trip to work one month and
the next could be much, much further.

I would have an electric car if they weren't so expensive. I rarely
drive more than a hundred miles these days. Too knackered from the
chemo to do much more.

An electric car would make sense for my wife (and for me to borrow at
times), but even the "rarer" longer drive would mean that my car needs
to be petrol or diesel.

Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging and
when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when petrol and
diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough power can be
generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

they could do that when it's windy

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging and
when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when petrol and
diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough power can be
generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

A tank that is *very* well protected against being ruptured in a collision
(hydrogen is highly explosive - R101, Hindenberg etc) and with *very* good
seals to prevent it leaking out of the joints in the pipes between the tank
and the engine (hydrogen is the smallest of all molecules and can escape
through gaps that bigger molecules can't get through).

I'm not sure how much hydrogen a tank can hold, in terms of mass of hydrogen
or range of car, if it is roughly the same size as a petrol/diesel tank to
fit in the same space under the rear seats.

Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120 MJ/kg,
compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel (I was surprised that
there was very little difference between the figures for petrol and diesel).

On 20/04/2019 14:45, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging
and when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when
petrol and diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough
power can be generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

A tank that is *very* well protected against being ruptured in a
collision (hydrogen is highly explosive - R101, Hindenberg etc) and with
*very* good seals to prevent it leaking out of the joints in the pipes
between the tank and the engine (hydrogen is the smallest of all
molecules and can escape through gaps that bigger molecules can't get
through).

I'm not sure how much hydrogen a tank can hold, in terms of mass of
hydrogen or range of car, if it is roughly the same size as a
petrol/diesel tank to fit in the same space under the rear seats.

Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel (I was
surprised that there was very little difference between the figures for
petrol and diesel).

They have already produced some hydrogen cars. As you say, they have
very strong tanks.

Leaks (within reason) are not too bad (except in an unventilated garage)
as unlike petrol vapour or lpg, it rises and dissipates rapidly.

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Leaks (within reason) are not too bad (except in an unventilated garage)
as unlike petrol vapour or lpg, it rises and dissipates rapidly.

I was thinking also in the sense of not wanting to find that your car has
less fuel than it had the previous day. As you say, H2 gas won't hang around
for long - it will rise and dissipate.

On 20/04/2019 16:24, NY wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Leaks (within reason) are not too bad (except in an unventilated
garage) as unlike petrol vapour or lpg, it rises and dissipates rapidly.

I was thinking also in the sense of not wanting to find that your car
has less fuel than it had the previous day. As you say, H2 gas won't
hang around for long - it will rise and dissipate.

They do lose it, but it is reasonably slow from what I remember.
Presumably the isolating valve would be right on the tank for safety and
that would also minimise leak paths when parked up.

SteveW

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel ...

... but a much poorer one when measured as MJ/litre. Which is the
important measure when filling a tank of a given size. Diesel is five
times better than liquid hydrogen by that measure.

True, but a gas can be compressed whereas a liquid can't, so a 50-litre tank
can contain 50 litres of petrol/diesel (very roughly 40 kg) but it can
contain far more than 50 litres of hydrogen because that can be compressed
to several atmospheres of pressure (limited by strength of tank!) so you may
be able to fit a greater weight of hydrogen in than of diesel. I'm not sure
what the typical tank pressure of hydrogen and LPG is.

As a very rough estimate, propane cylinders have a nominal weight of 47 kg
of gas. They are about 1.2 m high and have a diameter of about 30 cm, so the
volume is about 1.2 * pi * 0.15^2 = 0.085 m^3 (85 litres). Propane's density
is 490 kg/m^3 so at atmospheric pressure you'd get 493*0.085 = 42 kg.
Interesting - so propane cylinders are at only slightly above atmospheric
pressure (1 bar). I'd expected it (at a very rough guess) to be something
like 5 bar to get a reasonable flow rate to *fight* against atmospheric
pressure of air as the gas comes out of the burner.

Maybe LPG in cars is dispensed and stored in the car's tank at a higher
pressure than propane for central heating.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
... but a much poorer one when measured as MJ/litre. Which is the
important measure when filling a tank of a given size. Diesel is five
times better than liquid hydrogen by that measure.

True, but a gas can be compressed whereas a liquid can't, so a 50-litre
tank can contain 50 litres of petrol/diesel (very roughly 40 kg) but it
can contain far more than 50 litres of hydrogen because that can be
compressed to several atmospheres of pressure (limited by strength of
tank!) so you may be able to fit a greater weight of hydrogen in than of
diesel. I'm not sure what the typical tank pressure of hydrogen and LPG
is.

I'm not talking about compressed gaseous hydrogen. I'm talking about
liquid hydrogen, which, according to the gravimetric vs. volumetric
density chart in the link you gave above, shows liquid hydrogen
(9MJ/litre) a smidge better than hydrogen at 700 bar (5MJ/litre).
Compares poorly with diesel at 38MJ/litre. Good luck compressing liquid
hydrogen, or compressing gaseous hydrogen to a greater volumetric
energy density than liquid hydrogen.

Ah, right. I hadn't realised that liquid hydrogen (the ultimate compression
of gaseous hydrogen - until it liquifies) is still only 9 MJ/litre. Agreed -
liquid petrol and diesel are much greater energy density per litre than
this.

I wonder how thick the walls of a tank need be to contain a gas at 700 bar.
And I bet they need to be a lot thicker with a vaguely rectangular tank
(probably a very elongated egg shape) than a perfectly spherical one which
is harder to find room for in a car.

Is combustion of hydrogen in an internal combustion engine more or less
efficient than using the H2 in a fuel cell to generate power for electric
motors?

On 20/04/2019 12:58, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 19/04/2019 17:05, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 18/04/2019 10:57, Tim Streater wrote:
That's just the one petrol station. Anyone know how many there are
across the country? Not that they'd all be using

essentially you can look at stats for trmspotrt fuel divide the energy
by about three* and end up with a national incease in grid capacity.

I made it that we would need to go to about 200GW capaciy from about
60GW to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE by electricity.



So a long term tripling of overall grid capacity in the next 50 years or
so,.

And the very awkward question is where the **** is that going to come
from?...


your leccy bills of course



Are we what the grid can deliver or what the power stations can
produce?..

I'd have thought the latter, more the problem, the generation capacity
can hardly cope with a winters day load as it is anyway...


yes. It is in fact both. People do not spend money on building stuff
that isn't needed.

IF sensible policies are followed and there is a real market for non
subsidised electric cars, infrastructure will be rolled out to cope as
and when needed.



--
€œThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 20/04/2019 13:54, Steve Walker wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging and
when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars...

....everyone can drive a small bomb!


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 15:38:34 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2019 14:45, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging
and when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when
petrol and diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough
power can be generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

A tank that is *very* well protected against being ruptured in a
collision (hydrogen is highly explosive - R101, Hindenberg etc) and with
*very* good seals to prevent it leaking out of the joints in the pipes
between the tank and the engine (hydrogen is the smallest of all
molecules and can escape through gaps that bigger molecules can't get
through).

I'm not sure how much hydrogen a tank can hold, in terms of mass of
hydrogen or range of car, if it is roughly the same size as a
petrol/diesel tank to fit in the same space under the rear seats.

Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel (I was
surprised that there was very little difference between the figures for
petrol and diesel).

They have already produced some hydrogen cars. As you say, they have
very strong tanks.

Leaks (within reason) are not too bad (except in an unventilated garage)
as unlike petrol vapour or lpg, it rises and dissipates rapidly.

SteveW

it dissipates even faster when it explodes.

FWIW the Hindenberg problem had nothing to do with the hydrogen, it was the rocket fuel they unknowingly painted it with. Engineering said no, hasn't been safety tested, but the owners overruled them.


NT

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Ah, right. I hadn't realised that liquid hydrogen (the ultimate
compression of gaseous hydrogen - until it liquifies) is still only 9
MJ/litre. Agreed - liquid petrol and diesel are much greater energy
density per litre than this.

It's all that carbon it contains. That's the rub.

Good point. That's why butane is more energy efficient than propane which is
more energy efficient than methane, in terms of the heat energy when burned
for a given amount (mass) of gas. That's why you only get bottles of butane
and propane (*), not methane. It would be more efficient in terms of the
volume of gas that needed to be supplied through the gas mains, to use
butane or propane - but nature has given us methane instead ;-)

(*) Although propane is a lower energy density, it does have the big
advantage that its boiling point is lower so it is less likely to turn to
liquid in cold weather - and you don't want liquid butane squirting out of
the gas jets if it hasn't all boiled off to gas by the time it reaches the
jet.

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 20:42:31 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/04/2019 13:54, Steve Walker wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging and
when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars...

...everyone can drive a small bomb!

A tank of petrol is less than ideal if it gets into a fire. Neither is good news. Diesel wins on that point too.


NT

On 20/04/2019 14:45, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging
and when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when
petrol and diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough
power can be generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

A tank that is *very* well protected against being ruptured in a
collision (hydrogen is highly explosive - R101 Hindenberg etc) and with
*very* good seals to prevent it leaking out of the joints in the pipes
between the tank and the engine (hydrogen is the smallest of all
molecules and can escape through gaps that bigger molecules can't get
through).

I'm not sure how much hydrogen a tank can hold, in terms of mass of
hydrogen or range of car, if it is roughly the same size as a
petrol/diesel tank to fit in the same space under the rear seats.

No. Hydrogen is a disaster Its very very BULKY - you need about 5 times
the size of tank for same energy using liquid hyrdogen.
..



Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel

That is in terms of WEIGHT. In terms of VOLUME diesel and petrol are way
superior.

(I was
surprised that there was very little difference between the figures for
petrol and diesel).

They are similar length hydrocarbons




--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 20/04/2019 15:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging
and when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when
petrol and diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough
power can be generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

almost certain;lyu a very expsnive twin skiked self sealing EWNORMOIUS
tank containing some metallic foam to prevent it all going bang at onmce.

Hyrogen is apointless fuel. Its not something that occurs in raw form
naturally so has to be made using something else as primary energy. Its
difficult bulky and dangerous to store.


Far better to synthesise diesel


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 20/04/2019 15:38, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2019 14:45, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging
and when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when
petrol and diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough
power can be generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

A tank that is *very* well protected against being ruptured in a
collision (hydrogen is highly explosive - R101, Hindenberg etc) and
with *very* good seals to prevent it leaking out of the joints in the
pipes between the tank and the engine (hydrogen is the smallest of all
molecules and can escape through gaps that bigger molecules can't get
through).

I'm not sure how much hydrogen a tank can hold, in terms of mass of
hydrogen or range of car, if it is roughly the same size as a
petrol/diesel tank to fit in the same space under the rear seats.

Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel (I was
surprised that there was very little difference between the figures
for petrol and diesel).

They have already produced some hydrogen cars. As you say, they have
very strong tanks.

Leaks (within reason) are not too bad (except in an unventilated garage)
as unlike petrol vapour or lpg, it rises and dissipates rapidly.

Except at fukushima.

SteveW



--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 20/04/2019 17:58, NY wrote:
True, but a gas can be compressed whereas a liquid can't, so a 50-litre
tank can contain 50 litres of petrol/diesel (very roughly 40 kg) but it
can contain far more than 50 litres of hydrogen because that can be
compressed to several atmospheres of pressure (limited by strength of
tank!) so you may be able to fit a greater weight of hydrogen in than of
diesel. I'm not sure what the typical tank pressure of hydrogen and LPG is

********. liwuid hydrigen is what you get at high perssure and liquid
hydrogen is 14 times lighterr than water for te smae volume whereas
diesel is about 0.9

In reality you need a 5 times bigger tank for hydrogen.


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

wrote in message
...
FWIW the Hindenberg problem had nothing to do with the hydrogen, it was
the rocket fuel they unknowingly painted it with. Engineering said no,
hasn't been safety tested, but the owners overruled them.

I didn't know that. I always though the various airship disasters were all
caused by the hydrogen burning explosively.

On 20/04/2019 14:22, charles wrote:

Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging and
when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when petrol and
diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough power can be
generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

they could do that when it's windy


Probably they couldn't.

Windmills don't have much return on investment for CO2.
Using them to generate a inefficient fuel like hydrogen probably wont
cut CO2.

Now using a nuke to superheat the water and then splitting it uses far
less electrical energy than electrolysis.

Also why make hydrogen when you can synthesise diesel and use existing
clean technology for the engines.
Not all diesels are filthy VWs.

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 20:54:45 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/04/2019 15:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:

Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging
and when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when
petrol and diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough
power can be generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

almost certain;lyu a very expsnive twin skiked self sealing EWNORMOIUS
tank containing some metallic foam to prevent it all going bang at onmce.

Hyrogen is apointless fuel. Its not something that occurs in raw form
naturally so has to be made using something else as primary energy. Its
difficult bulky and dangerous to store.


Far better to synthesise diesel

It's taking fuel, converting it at significant cost into another fuel that's a total pain to work with. When assessed rationally, it hasn't a chance of being useful.

* Unless you define useful as fooling customers into thinking you're trying to do something about the 'problem' of the petrol & diesel you sell.


NT

On 20/04/2019 20:58, NY wrote:
wrote in message
...
FWIW the Hindenberg problem had nothing to do with the hydrogen, it
was the rocket fuel they unknowingly painted it with. Engineering said
no, hasn't been safety tested, but the owners overruled them.

I didn't know that. I always though the various airship disasters were
all caused by the hydrogen burning explosively.

Well its a bit like sdaying 'teh reason te cannon went off is the fuse
was lit'

yest the dope was inflammable. But so too was the hydrogen, The dope may
have been whatr caught initially but the ship didnt stay up with gas
bags intact did it?

Neither did challenger have a doped linen tank.

Thats pretty much what a hydrogen tank going up looks like

its much easier to start a fire with hydrogen than diesel although its
harder to detonate a fuel air mixture

But the hyrogen as trswnport fuel is just more unicorn farts really. It
makes no sense other than as a virtue signalling piece of obscure technology


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 20/04/2019 14:45, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging
and when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when
petrol and diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough
power can be generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

A tank that is *very* well protected against being ruptured in a
collision (hydrogen is highly explosive - R101, Hindenberg etc) and with
*very* good seals to prevent it leaking out of the joints in the pipes
between the tank and the engine (hydrogen is the smallest of all
molecules and can escape through gaps that bigger molecules can't get
through).

I'm not sure how much hydrogen a tank can hold, in terms of mass of
hydrogen or range of car, if it is roughly the same size as a
petrol/diesel tank to fit in the same space under the rear seats.

Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel (I was
surprised that there was very little difference between the figures for
petrol and diesel).

Partly true..

"On a volume basis, however, the situation is reversed; liquid hydrogen
has a density of 8 MJ/L whereas gasoline has a density of 32 MJ/L,"

So your tank needs to be a lot bigger and that assumes liquid hydrogen
not compressed gas.

On 20/04/2019 17:58, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel ...

... but a much poorer one when measured as MJ/litre. Which is the
important measure when filling a tank of a given size. Diesel is five
times better than liquid hydrogen by that measure.

True, but a gas can be compressed whereas a liquid can't, so a 50-litre
tank can contain 50 litres of petrol/diesel (very roughly 40 kg) but it
can contain far more than 50 litres of hydrogen because that can be
compressed to several atmospheres of pressure (limited by strength of
tank!) so you may be able to fit a greater weight of hydrogen in than of
diesel. I'm not sure what the typical tank pressure of hydrogen and LPG is.

Not a snowballs chance in hell can it.
It would turn to liquid if you compressed it a lot and liquid hydrogen
has less than a quarter of the energy density by volume that diesel has.


As a very rough estimate, propane cylinders have a nominal weight of 47
kg of gas. They are about 1.2 m high and have a diameter of about 30 cm,
so the volume is about 1.2 * pi * 0.15^2 = 0.085 m^3 (85 litres).
Propane's density is 490 kg/m^3 so at atmospheric pressure you'd get
493*0.085 = 42 kg. Interesting - so propane cylinders are at only
slightly above atmospheric pressure (1 bar). I'd expected it (at a very
rough guess) to be something like 5 bar to get a reasonable flow rate to
*fight* against atmospheric pressure of air as the gas comes out of the
burner.

Propane and butane cylinders are full of liquid not gas.


Maybe LPG in cars is dispensed and stored in the car's tank at a higher
pressure than propane for central heating.

It can't be, its liquid in both.

Its why the cylinders get cold and covered in ice when they are used,
the latent heat of evaporation has to come from somewhere. Its also why
butane stops working in cold weather.

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 21:10:38 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/04/2019 20:58, NY wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...

FWIW the Hindenberg problem had nothing to do with the hydrogen, it
was the rocket fuel they unknowingly painted it with. Engineering said
no, hasn't been safety tested, but the owners overruled them.

I didn't know that. I always though the various airship disasters were
all caused by the hydrogen burning explosively.

that's what people thought for a long time, but it doesn't add up.

Well its a bit like sdaying 'teh reason te cannon went off is the fuse
was lit'

yest the dope was inflammable.

it's more than just flammable, it's rocket fuel, literally.

But so too was the hydrogen, The dope may
have been whatr caught initially

it is. Sparks occurred when the hindenberg got close to the landing mast, that's operation as normal. But when those sparks hit rocket fuel, things went very wrong.

but the ship didnt stay up with gas
bags intact did it?

the H2 burnt once the outer covering burnt away. Had the Hindenberg used helium etc instead, it would still have been very bad.

Neither did challenger have a doped linen tank.

Thats pretty much what a hydrogen tank going up looks like

No, and that's what prompted further investigation, it's not at all what hydrogen burning looks like.

its much easier to start a fire with hydrogen than diesel although its
harder to detonate a fuel air mixture

One of hydrogen's issues is that it will detonate & burn over a very wide concentration range in air. That is not a good point for safety. Diesel OTOH is the hardest to ignite of the car fuels. (Bunker fuel is probably harder, but not used in cars.)

But the hyrogen as trswnport fuel is just more unicorn farts really. It
makes no sense other than as a virtue signalling piece of obscure technology

pretty much. It makes no sense at all.


NT

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Electric cars are unlikely ever to have sufficiently quick charging and
when they make affordable Hydrogen powered cars, that is when petrol and
diesel will have a viable replacement - assuming enough power can be
generated to release the Hydrogen in the first place.

What is the hydrogen going to be stored in? (when in the car, I mean,
not at the petrol station).

A tank that is *very* well protected against being ruptured in a collision
(hydrogen is highly explosive - R101, Hindenberg etc)

Not convinced that that is necessary with compressed hydrogen
in a cylinder, it should be fine in a collision tho the design may
well need to avoid it wrecking the humans.

And hydrides dont have that problem at all.

and with *very* good seals to prevent it leaking out of the joints in the
pipes between the tank and the engine (hydrogen is the smallest of all
molecules and can escape through gaps that bigger molecules can't get
through).

Yeah, tho that seems to be pretty easy with the
few hydrogen powered buses that are around etc.

I'm not sure how much hydrogen a tank can hold, in terms of mass of
hydrogen or range of car,

Likely that isnt great given that its mostly buses using it
currently, presumably due to the size and weight of the tank.

if it is roughly the same size as a petrol/diesel tank to fit in the same
space under the rear seats.

Cant see that being feasible, particularly with the
much thicker walls needed for compressed hydrogen.

Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel (I was surprised
that there was very little difference between the figures for petrol and
diesel).

The difference comes from the more effective extraction of that
energy with diesel due to the different combustion temps and
pressures. But those also produce much worse pollution too.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
... but a much poorer one when measured as MJ/litre. Which is the
important measure when filling a tank of a given size. Diesel is five
times better than liquid hydrogen by that measure.

True, but a gas can be compressed whereas a liquid can't, so a 50-litre
tank can contain 50 litres of petrol/diesel (very roughly 40 kg) but it
can contain far more than 50 litres of hydrogen because that can be
compressed to several atmospheres of pressure (limited by strength of
tank!) so you may be able to fit a greater weight of hydrogen in than of
diesel. I'm not sure what the typical tank pressure of hydrogen and LPG
is.

I'm not talking about compressed gaseous hydrogen. I'm talking about
liquid hydrogen, which, according to the gravimetric vs. volumetric
density chart in the link you gave above, shows liquid hydrogen
(9MJ/litre) a smidge better than hydrogen at 700 bar (5MJ/litre).
Compares poorly with diesel at 38MJ/litre. Good luck compressing liquid
hydrogen, or compressing gaseous hydrogen to a greater volumetric
energy density than liquid hydrogen.

Ah, right. I hadn't realised that liquid hydrogen (the ultimate
compression of gaseous hydrogen - until it liquifies) is still only 9
MJ/litre. Agreed - liquid petrol and diesel are much greater energy
density per litre than this.

I wonder how thick the walls of a tank need be to contain a gas at 700
bar.

Pretty thick. The hydrogen cylinders were noticeably
heavier in chem labs than oxygen and nitrogen etc
and they arent even liquid hydrogen.

And I bet they need to be a lot thicker with a vaguely rectangular tank
(probably a very elongated egg shape) than a perfectly spherical one which
is harder to find room for in a car.

Yeah, they'd have to be round, another major downside.

But hydrides would fix that problem.

Is combustion of hydrogen in an internal combustion engine more or less
efficient than using the H2 in a fuel cell to generate power for electric
motors?

Hard to say because fuel cells are much less mature technology.

"NY" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
FWIW the Hindenberg problem had nothing to do with the hydrogen, it was
the rocket fuel they unknowingly painted it with. Engineering said no,
hasn't been safety tested, but the owners overruled them.

I didn't know that. I always though the various airship disasters were all
caused by the hydrogen burning explosively.

No, and you can see from the movie footage
that the Hindenburg didnt burn explosively.

On 20/04/2019 17:58, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Hydrogen has very high energy density -
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage says about 120
MJ/kg, compared with about 45 MJ/kg for petrol or diesel ...

... but a much poorer one when measured as MJ/litre. Which is the
important measure when filling a tank of a given size. Diesel is five
times better than liquid hydrogen by that measure.

True, but a gas can be compressed whereas a liquid can't, so a 50-litre
tank can contain 50 litres of petrol/diesel (very roughly 40 kg) but it
can contain far more than 50 litres of hydrogen because that can be
compressed to several atmospheres of pressure (limited by strength of
tank!) so you may be able to fit a greater weight of hydrogen in than of
diesel. I'm not sure what the typical tank pressure of hydrogen and LPG is.

As a very rough estimate, propane cylinders have a nominal weight of 47
kg of gas. They are about 1.2 m high and have a diameter of about 30 cm,
so the volume is about 1.2 * pi * 0.15^2 = 0.085 m^3 (85 litres).
Propane's density is 490 kg/m^3 so at atmospheric pressure you'd get
493*0.085 = 42 kg. Interesting - so propane cylinders are at only
slightly above atmospheric pressure (1 bar). I'd expected it (at a very
rough guess) to be something like 5 bar to get a reasonable flow rate to
*fight* against atmospheric pressure of air as the gas comes out of the
burner.

Propane in a closed vessel is at 6.4 barg at 16°C. It is actually a
liquid in the tank, with a layer of gas over it. As you take gas out,
the pressure drops and the liquid boils, restoring the pressure, until
there is no liquid left.

Maybe LPG in cars is dispensed and stored in the car's tank at a higher
pressure than propane for central heating.

The pressure is determined by the vapour pressure of the gas. The bulk
of it is liquid in the tank. Higher pressures would add little mass, as
the bulk is the incompressible liquid.

SteveW

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:54:35 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I didn't know that. I always though the various airship disasters were all
caused by the hydrogen burning explosively.

No

LOL He said it again, the clinically insane auto-contradicting asshole.

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:39:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

I wonder how thick the walls of a tank need be to contain a gas at 700
bar.

Pretty thick.

Certainly not as thick as you are, senile Rodent!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID: