Hydrogen Powered C-4
- Thread starter WhalePirot
- Start date
Ken
Gone but not forgotten
That's cool Mike, but you know that Guldstrand's GS90 was supposed to be propane-fueled initially, don't you. It was supposed to make around 500 horsepower too with that set-up. Never did it though; I guess SoCal Edison (I think) backed out of the deal. :eyerole
- Thread starter
- #3
WhalePirot
Well-known member
Thanks, Ken. I wrote him and never got a reply. I am toying with converting my old 'Burb' to alternate fuel, but I am also pondering a fueling station; leaning to CNG, at this early stage.
Ken
Gone but not forgotten
I'm sorry, it wasn't propane specifically, it was CNG. :duh
that is sweeeeet. how much do you think it will cost??WhalePirot said:
larry bud
Well-known member
So, do you just pump in hydrogen and oxygen into the cylinder just like regular fuel? Everything else works the way it's supposed to?WhalePirot said:
B
boblx2a
Guest
United Nulcear appears to have the jump on most alternative energy options in that it is totally safe. No more thoughts about driving around in a bomb. Well no more then we are already. This hydrogen is abosrbed into granular Hydrides which are released by heat from the engine after the car has been running for a few minutes.
I have been a Hydrogen advocate since I learned of it in high school and have wondered for years why cars aren't powered with it. Obviously because the big oil companies could not make money on it!
My wife once asked me why we were not using Hydrogen if it was such a cheap alternative and I told her that we would not be using Hydrogen until the big oil companies figured out how to charge us$2.00 a gallon for water.
It sound like that time has arrvied without their approval. Thanks for the post it was most enlightening...................
I have been a Hydrogen advocate since I learned of it in high school and have wondered for years why cars aren't powered with it. Obviously because the big oil companies could not make money on it!
My wife once asked me why we were not using Hydrogen if it was such a cheap alternative and I told her that we would not be using Hydrogen until the big oil companies figured out how to charge us$2.00 a gallon for water. It sound like that time has arrvied without their approval. Thanks for the post it was most enlightening...................
Robertwav1
Well-known member
If the hydrogen car does take off, which in time it will have too, I wonder what the cost of gas will be in the transistion. Ya think they might try to phase gas out completely? Sounds like it might stir things up a bit....it's gonna be interesting. Seems to be a topic that's getting hotter!
B
boblx2a
Guest
I guess there are a couple of schools of thoughts about this issue. First, it is strange that a small unknown company suddenly breaks on the scene with something this great. You would think that GM or Bill Gates or some person or corporation with huge financial backing would break something like this.
The second thought is that it will probably suddenly disappear, never to be heard of again. Wonder why that so often happens? Remember the turbine engine of the 60's? There are several other products that appeared in print to suddenly disappear forever. Some of which were probably hoaxs from the start but it makes one wonder.......
I certainly hope this one is for real it will absolutely have a earth shattering change on our economy................I am sure we will all try to follow it closely since it seems apparent that the kit for the Corvette must already exist.............
The second thought is that it will probably suddenly disappear, never to be heard of again. Wonder why that so often happens? Remember the turbine engine of the 60's? There are several other products that appeared in print to suddenly disappear forever. Some of which were probably hoaxs from the start but it makes one wonder.......
I certainly hope this one is for real it will absolutely have a earth shattering change on our economy................I am sure we will all try to follow it closely since it seems apparent that the kit for the Corvette must already exist.............
- Thread starter
- #10
WhalePirot
Well-known member
glad U guys enjoyed the link
While the corporate labs make their contributions, many true breakthoughs come from some guy's garage. Look at Apple computer, the windshield wiper and a host of others.
Certainly not all the brains and creativity work for huge labs. I would argue that huge labs can stifle leaps forward.
Not sure that there is really a Corvette kit, yet, though.
While the corporate labs make their contributions, many true breakthoughs come from some guy's garage. Look at Apple computer, the windshield wiper and a host of others.
Certainly not all the brains and creativity work for huge labs. I would argue that huge labs can stifle leaps forward.
Not sure that there is really a Corvette kit, yet, though.
ZumZum
Well-known member
I noticed their site says there hoping to sell the conversion kit for an SUV for about $5000. I assume that is approximatly what a vette kit would sell for. It doesn't say if that includes the hydrogen generator. If not, what would the cost of the generator be? If you didn't have a generator then you would have to figure out where you're going to get your hydrogen and what you're going to be charged for the hydrogen.
Gorgon
Well-known member
I didn't read all the way through the article, but I'd be a little uncomfortable with four huge tanks of hydrogen sitting behind my head in a rear end collision. Gasoline has nothing on a hydrogen powered explosion. :eek
Leon
Leon
- Thread starter
- #13
WhalePirot
Well-known member
I thought the article said that his packages would include the generator. Some of the concerns expressed here are addressed in the full article, like his safety approach, using pellets to hold the H2.
Seems to be still at a hobby stage, at least until the gas generation rate can be increased to allow more frequent driving. Also, Vegas gets lots more free sunshine than most of us do, which has an impact on ongoing cost.
Who'd a thunk that a bunch of Vette guys were environmentalist? LOL
Seems to be still at a hobby stage, at least until the gas generation rate can be increased to allow more frequent driving. Also, Vegas gets lots more free sunshine than most of us do, which has an impact on ongoing cost.
Who'd a thunk that a bunch of Vette guys were environmentalist? LOL
B
boblx2a
Guest
Yes reading the full article would have been a plus. Safety appears to be a "non-issue" with this approach. It says you could shoot a bulllet through the tank and it would not cause a spark. Sounds much safer then gasoline to me.
The amount of which fuel can be generated could pose a problem. Those 4 tanks he shows are supposed to go about 700 miles but the question would be along the lines of how long does it take to generate those 4 tanks using regular electric power. Solar cells are out for me I live in Oregon!
The cost would be another factor, it is hard to believe one could get that complete setup for only $5000.00. I would expect a figure much higher. But $5000.00 would really work! I would call that quite a bargain with gasoline running $2.00 plus...........
The amount of which fuel can be generated could pose a problem. Those 4 tanks he shows are supposed to go about 700 miles but the question would be along the lines of how long does it take to generate those 4 tanks using regular electric power. Solar cells are out for me I live in Oregon!
The cost would be another factor, it is hard to believe one could get that complete setup for only $5000.00. I would expect a figure much higher. But $5000.00 would really work!
I would call that quite a bargain with gasoline running $2.00 plus...........
5 grand isn't that great of a deal, even at 2 bucks a gallon for gas. (I thought it was a good deal too, then I did the math)boblx2a said:Yes reading the full article would have been a plus. Safety appears to be a "non-issue" with this approach. It says you could shoot a bulllet through the tank and it would not cause a spark. Sounds much safer then gasoline to me.
The amount of which fuel can be generated could pose a problem. Those 4 tanks he shows are supposed to go about 700 miles but the question would be along the lines of how long does it take to generate those 4 tanks using regular electric power. Solar cells are out for me I live in Oregon!
The cost would be another factor, it is hard to believe one could get that complete setup for only $5000.00. I would expect a figure much higher. But $5000.00 would really work!
If you average 20MPG, and drive 15,000 miles per year, then your annual fuel use would be roughly 750 gallons. 750 x 2 = $1,500 per year (if you figure 15MPG's average, it is $2,000 per year).
So, the $5,000 would take at least 2 and half years to get back... and that doesn't factor in that you still need to buy gas to start the car, and if you run out of H2. If you drive more than 15k miles per year, then the H2 generators probably won't keep up with your driving anyway, so it negates itself... my quick math also doesn't factor in any extra electrical charges if you 'plug in' the generators either.... I figure, as a guesstimate, that the cost of the H2 system would take about 5 years to start saving you money. And that is if it doesn't eat through your engine or exhaust system:eyerole
B
boblx2a
Guest
I guess you won't be my competition then. Personally I would pay much more then that to keep from contributing to the greedy oil companies and the arabs. Not to mention the lack of air polution that I would not be contriubting to. Any damage to the car is complete conjecture so that is not even a worry to me. Of course this whole thing I believe is a pipe dream anyway as was mentioned in my first post on the subject. But if it is real I will not be counting on my fingers and toes as to how much I will save or lose the technology is enough for me.
Also anyone who thinks that the oil companies are going to stop at $2.00 a gallon I have a bridge I would like to talk to you about! Anyone want to guess what they are paying for gasoline in Europe?
If this is real (which I still doubt) it is a break through of the proportions of the turbine engine, which Detroit noticably did away with. The oil companies will probably six deep this too if it is on the level. So I doubt any of us will have to worry about it damaging our engines, etc.
Also anyone who thinks that the oil companies are going to stop at $2.00 a gallon I have a bridge I would like to talk to you about!
Anyone want to guess what they are paying for gasoline in Europe?If this is real (which I still doubt) it is a break through of the proportions of the turbine engine, which Detroit noticably did away with. The oil companies will probably six deep this too if it is on the level. So I doubt any of us will have to worry about it damaging our engines, etc.
I agree with you about the oil companies... I am also with you on waiting to see one of these things in action before I can believe it actually worksboblx2a said:I guess you won't be my competition then. Personally I would pay much more then that to keep from contributing to the greedy oil companies and the arabs. Not to mention the lack of air polution that I would not be contriubting to. Any damage to the car is complete conjecture so that is not even a worry to me. Of course this whole thing I believe is a pipe dream anyway as was mentioned in my first post on the subject. But if it is real I will not be counting on my fingers and toes as to how much I will save or lose the technology is enough for me.
Also anyone who thinks that the oil companies are going to stop at $2.00 a gallon I have a bridge I would like to talk to you about!
If this is real (which I still doubt) it is a break through of the proportions of the turbine engine, which Detroit noticably did away with. The oil companies will probably six deep this too if it is on the level. So I doubt any of us will have to worry about it damaging our engines, etc.
- Thread starter
- #18
WhalePirot
Well-known member
Last I checked, hydrogen is not an oxidizer but oxygen is. The combustion of hydrogen only produces pure water vapor. Burning up the engine is less of an issue, I'd think, than with gasoline. Our cars produce hydroCARBONS, some of which CAN be corrosive.
One of the mysteries is the 100 mpg carb, supposedly bought by the oil companies.
I know we have members in/near Vegas. Maybe one could witness the system in action.
One of the mysteries is the 100 mpg carb, supposedly bought by the oil companies.
I know we have members in/near Vegas. Maybe one could witness the system in action.
XS650
Well-known member
The big problem is that it takes more energy to get hydrogen separated from the water than you get from burning it.WhalePirot said:I thought the article said that his packages would include the generator. Some of the concerns expressed here are addressed in the full article, like his safety approach, using pellets to hold the H2.
If you can come up with away to generate hydrogen that makes a hydrogen powered car economically viable, you will become so filthy rich that you won't care what gas or anything else costs.
Hint: The answer is not solar cells. In the real world, it costs more to generate electricty with solar cells than it would to invest the cost of the solar cell system and use the income to buy the power from the power company.
S
Skant
Guest
Science fiction almost always thinks in terms of theoretical technology rather than practical technology. That is... we tend to inherently believe that new technologies will work easily and without limitations until we actually have them... and then we realize the limits, drawbacks, and practical problems. Fiction about nanotechnology is a wonderful example (t could do _ANYTHING!_ and fast and perfectly!). So are alternative fuel vehicles.
I read the article, and two major points stuck out for me... one is that you have to use a generator at your house to make the hydrogen. That means you're using electricity, and a lot of it. If the major point is saving the environment, then... well... it's the same reason why electric cars aren't green either. Even though a lot of people think they're 100% nonpolluting.. in fact, all they're doing is shifting the pollution generation elsewhere. And when you factor in the inefficiencies in the transmission of energy.. plus the sheer amount of electrical energy required... what you're really talking about is _a lot_ of new nuclear power plants... and staggeringly more nuclear waste. And that's _if_ we could get our power grids to handle the strain.
The other thing that concerns me is the safety factor. In the article, they hand wave away the danger of carrying around hydrogen tanks because the hydrogen is bonded with another chemical. It can only be unbonded with the application of heat.
Ummm...
Uhhh....
Vehicular accidents and heat tend to go hand in hand. Either due to open flames or kinetic transfers (ie. bending metal heats up fast). While I doubt that common accidents would cause any issues, I suspect that there are vulnerabilities in that area. You know... as much as Hollywood likes to present gasoline as having a TNT like reaction to heat... in reality, gasoline is amazingly stable stuff.
In fact, the reason we use gasoline isn't because it's powerful, but because it's stable. There are pleanty of alternative fuels which are much more powerful, but also much more dangerous. We use some of the milder ones in racing applications (nitro methanol, for example).
Developing an alternative fuel which is a match for the power and safety of gasoline is exceptionally difficult. And just to raise the bar even higher, any alternative has to be practical to make and distribute in huge quantity.
While some people would like to think that it's obvious we would be able to just do this, and it must be the big oil companies holding back progress... I think the reality is it's just not easy. In fact, it's really _REALLY_ difficult.
Furthermore, I don't see why oil companies would stand in the way anyway. If they can develop an alternative fuel that really works, they'll crush their competitors. Whatever the eventual solution is, you can bet they'll own it and will still be in the business of distributing fuel and making lots of money.
You see... some people may think that new technology will somehow make something for nothing. But the reality is that it takes a lot of energy to move a car around. And generating that energy will always require considerable effort. And someone will get paid for that effort. There just isn't any way around it. Shuffling the energy generation around doesn't change that equation.
- Skant
I read the article, and two major points stuck out for me... one is that you have to use a generator at your house to make the hydrogen. That means you're using electricity, and a lot of it. If the major point is saving the environment, then... well... it's the same reason why electric cars aren't green either. Even though a lot of people think they're 100% nonpolluting.. in fact, all they're doing is shifting the pollution generation elsewhere. And when you factor in the inefficiencies in the transmission of energy.. plus the sheer amount of electrical energy required... what you're really talking about is _a lot_ of new nuclear power plants... and staggeringly more nuclear waste. And that's _if_ we could get our power grids to handle the strain.
The other thing that concerns me is the safety factor. In the article, they hand wave away the danger of carrying around hydrogen tanks because the hydrogen is bonded with another chemical. It can only be unbonded with the application of heat.
Ummm...
Uhhh....
Vehicular accidents and heat tend to go hand in hand. Either due to open flames or kinetic transfers (ie. bending metal heats up fast). While I doubt that common accidents would cause any issues, I suspect that there are vulnerabilities in that area. You know... as much as Hollywood likes to present gasoline as having a TNT like reaction to heat... in reality, gasoline is amazingly stable stuff.
In fact, the reason we use gasoline isn't because it's powerful, but because it's stable. There are pleanty of alternative fuels which are much more powerful, but also much more dangerous. We use some of the milder ones in racing applications (nitro methanol, for example).
Developing an alternative fuel which is a match for the power and safety of gasoline is exceptionally difficult. And just to raise the bar even higher, any alternative has to be practical to make and distribute in huge quantity.
While some people would like to think that it's obvious we would be able to just do this, and it must be the big oil companies holding back progress... I think the reality is it's just not easy. In fact, it's really _REALLY_ difficult.
Furthermore, I don't see why oil companies would stand in the way anyway. If they can develop an alternative fuel that really works, they'll crush their competitors. Whatever the eventual solution is, you can bet they'll own it and will still be in the business of distributing fuel and making lots of money.
You see... some people may think that new technology will somehow make something for nothing. But the reality is that it takes a lot of energy to move a car around. And generating that energy will always require considerable effort. And someone will get paid for that effort. There just isn't any way around it. Shuffling the energy generation around doesn't change that equation.
- Skant
Similar threads
Corvette Forums
Supporting Vendors
Dealers:
