Re: En Nahud, Sudan yesterday

On Feb 6, 10:12 am, "gb6...@xxxxxxxxx" <gb6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:00 am, "gb6...@xxxxxxxxx" <gb6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 6, 9:49 am, "gb6...@xxxxxxxxx" <gb6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 6, 9:22 am, "gb6...@xxxxxxxxx" <gb6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bush sees one thing, a simple logic can tell otherwise.

A gas engine is stronger than an electric.

Fuel cell technology is 60 percent efficient, meaning the energy
produced by the electric engine powered by hydrogen fuel cell
(producing electricity out of hydrogen) could be used to generate
60 percent of the hydrogen back.

Clearly elementary school kids can see that a gasoline engine
is more powerful than an electric engine. When hydrogen produces
electricity, the electricity is used for running an electric motor.

But since hydrogen can be used as a replacement to gasoline
as hydrogen gas is highly explosive as oline gas, a burning hydrogen
is expected to produce multiples of energy compared to the power
of an electric engine.

The only reason hydrogen is not used is because its production
in a chemical plant is more expensive that the price of gas
(roughly double).

Simple assumptions:

An engine burning hydrogen gas produces more energy than an
electric engine.

A lot of processes done in a chemical factory (including handling,
the cost to maintain a company, taxes, salaries, packaging,
delivery costs can be avoided if the hydrogen is produced inside
a car by getting it from water using the energy of the hydrogen
powered combustion engine via a powerful electrolysis).

The produced hydrogen gas from the electrolysis fed directly
to the combustion engine (no need to compress and
store the hydrogen as liquid, this too saves cost and energy).

One can calculate the overall energy equivalent to a full tank
of gas.

A full tank of gas is equivalent to 5 times the size (but much
lighter) liquid hydrogen gas tank. Liquid hydrogen is measured by
the kilogram. The output is clean electric energy. Its cost to
fill using current technologies is more than double to gasoline,
and the output energy may be sufficiently strong, but has weaker
engine in terms of electric horsepower than a gasoline engine.
Electric hydrogen fuel cell technology is used in some busses
in Chicago.

Simple logic: If hydrogen can be used as a replacement to
gasoline and produce the same power, then a combustion
engine's power should produce more energy than an electric
engine. True or false? True.

Believe in the truth, not in the lie.

So, we have a combustion engine running on hydrogen gas
which can produce more energy than the energy of a 'running'
fuel-cell engine.

A full tank of gas would burn in roughly the same time if
using fuel cell or burning the hydrogen as gas, in both cases
the full tank may need to be larger than gasoline tanks for
storage.

The energy produced by this engine is clearly not strong
enough to reproduce the same amount of hydrogen in
a fuel cell-driven electric engine, but I question the same
for a much more powerful combustion engine where the
hydrogen gas that is highly explosive burns. I am using
the power of exploding hydrogen gas, not an electrical
or a chemical, but the energy derived from an exploding
power of hydrogen gas that runs the engine as the
exploding power of gasoline. One uses very little hydrogen
gas to produce a powerful explosion that drives the
combustion engine at high power.

There is no perpetual mobile here as energy exists
and 'not converted', but uses an existing resourse
and comes from burning hydrogen (which is highly
explosive and this explosive power is used to run a
combustion engine).

The binding energy of H and O depends on a lot
of environmental factors.

For example, one can extract water out of air.
Air has humidity. To extract this water, air needs
to be compressed sufficiently. That's how air
conditioners work. During summer in high heats,
the air conditioner produces a lot of water. It is
easier to extract water in the summer from the
air by compressing the air. At some occasions,
water is easier to extract than in others from the
air, and water is easier extracted when it is a
warmer humid air by compression, meaning less
energy is needed to produce water from air by
compression if the air is warm and humid. An
ordinary air conditioner can extract an impressing
amount of water from the air if the air is heated
but not overheated 50 percent humidity and
50 degrees Celcius the water flows from the air
conditioner, that is when air conditioners can
often burn out when running at maximum power
in very hot places. But even in Nevada where it
can be 60 degrees Celsius in the Summer and
hardly any humidity, the heat allows water to
come as a waste product from an air conditioner
(that 10 percent humidity just pours like water
in the 60C temperature, and doesn't sit around for
years like cactuses.)

Energy even for electrolysis depends on the
environment. Very cold air cannot be used to
extract water from air, or a lot more energy
is needed for compressing the air to get water.
Some environmental circumstances are better
than others for using little energy to gain access
to the needed resource, like hydrogen in the air
or water.

One bases this technology based on an existing
car, and intends to replace the power with hydrogen
gas. A running motor produces heat, and this
heat is used as a heater in cars. The heat of the
motor can be used to warm the air so water can
be extracted from the air at a needed speed,
even when humidity in the air is 10%.

Of course this car is designed to hold water in the
gas tank, so if it all goes dry, one would rely on
having to pump water into the car's gasoline tank.

Yes it is possible with energy to extract water
from the air.

Yes it is possible using electricity to produce
hydrogen out of water (at 60 percent energy efficiency).

Yes it is possible to use hydrogen gas as a
replacement for gasoline engines.

Yes a combustion engine is more powerful
than an electric engine (for the same amount
of fuel). As being more powerful, it can make up
for that 40 percent 'electric' efficiency, as the power
of exploding hydrogen for an engine is stronger
than the power of an electric current. Here energy
is burned, there it flows. There is a difference
in energy output.

Now energy as electric, and energy as burning/
combustion. What is the difference?

Electric energy is stored as a differential, like
a battery, burning hydrogen is not the same.

The most important is that the two have nothing
to do with each other. Fuel cell cannot be compared
to burning hydrogen. One cannot have the same
formula. However the combustion energy of hydrogen
since more explosive, more powerful as a chemical
process, should produce enough for a specific
need to extract hydrogen from the air.

One takes the simple facts we all observed in life:

An explosive energy is a car produced by gasoline
and replacable by the highly explosive hydrogen gas,
should produce more mechanical energy then electric
engines in terms of horsepower.

One can produce energy by means of battery and
electricity, gets a cleaner environment, or one can
burn fuel or hydrogen and get similar and higher
horsepower than electric motors.

Simple observation. This is more powerful.
That is 60 percent energy efficient. Use this
to make up for the energy loss, as this is more
powerful this way.

Even Bush could understand that burning hydrogen
produces more horsepower than an electric
engine, and yet fuel cell storing hydrogen needs
a big gas tank to get the energy of a bus with
compatible energy capabilities (sufficient speed,
distance capabilities as busses that go with
conventional gasolene).

The burning energy of hydrogen produces the same
or more power as gasoline. It burns the same amounts
of kilograms as gasoline in a car's engine, meaning
one needs to produce 50 kilograms of hydrogen to
run a car's combustion engine and use 9 liters (kilograms)
of fuel per 100 kilometers on average.

Comparing, with hydrogen fuel cell, the same amount
of fuel can be used to produce the same amount of
distance with a full tank, but with less horsepower.

If we have more horsepower, we have more energy,
we have multiples of energy (200 horsepower vs.
60).

It means we could have roughly 3 times the horsepower
when using hydrogen as a combustion. That is more energy
output than what was needed to produce the hydrogen.

I am not arguing about a zero point energy where everything
is about beating the zero point energy of perpetual
machines. I am saying that burning hydrogen is a lot
more powerful than building fuel cell batteries.

Of course these observations are not based on early 20th
century physics and chemistry, when cars were only
able to produce 20 horsepowers.

These observations are based on modern technology
when cars consume 9 liters per 100 kilometers and
can travel at 200km/hour.


.

Relevant Pages