Re: Hydrogen Cars, Trucks, and Buses Are BS Indeed

On Dec 19, 10:01 am, "Yup! BUSH trashed US$$"
<Russianad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tyrone schneider pjwfeldcw...@xxxxxxxxx,

You're A Liar!! Many of you don't know what is really combustible and what is not, you came in here and made your propaganda just like that, hoping people will buy your funky Hydrogen plan.

Your tiny Hydrogen can't even move your own ***, why you imagine it can move 85 Tons of load?

Further more, it costs enermous energy to produce Hydrogen. Do yourself a favor, go to school and finish your chemistry degree, and we can talk further.

Byebye Liar.

BTW - H2O gas can be returned to water and cause corrosion in your catalyst converter, watch out with the cheap plan, there are victims of this type of problem.


That's all true, although there are unlimited resources of clean and
renewable energy that can become diverted into the makings of Mook's
LH2, or that of my h2o2 + synfuels that do not require the extensive
external volumes of insulated tankage in order to store such for
whatever energy on demand situation.

This following is just an ongoing example of what goes back and forth
between lord Mook and myself.

On Dec 17, 3:04 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 18, 7:14 am,BradGuth<bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 17, 3:46 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

A sub-sonic turbo-fan engine has an *effective* specific impulse at
its designed cruising altitude and speed of 2,200 to 2,500 sec Isp -
since it doesn't have to carry the oxidizer around with it.

And in the process of consuming our mostly polluted N2 atmosphere is
why it also unavoidably creates a great amount of CO2 plus
contributing way more than it's fair share of NOx, that is unless
having to cool burn whatever fossil or synfuel as running fuel rich,
as well as having to expend such a great deal of energy in having to
pack along so much additional engine mass that's necessary for
compressing all of that mostly N2 atmosphere, and don't forget what it
takes for all of the "sub-sonic turbo-fan engine" R&D, construction
and servicing.

Actually a composite or hybrid "sub-sonic turbo-fan engine" as getting
the benefit of h2o2 isn't such a bad idea, especially if such allowed
for a 60,000' cruising altitude and much greater velocity to boot, and
without ever having to pack along such massive turbo-fan engines that
are typically not very efficient for their volume and mass when
operating much below 20,000'.
- Brad Guth

You are talking now about a rocket jet combination. For subsonic
airliner use such an idea is a monumentally bad idea. That was the
pont of my response Brad. For specialty applications, like torpedoes,
or rocket belts, or turbopumps for a large rocket, or tiny
transportable theater missiles to get a high view above a battle field
in minutes - they're a good choice. Bad choice for other
applications. As to why that is, I've tried to educate you - and
you've blithely ignored such efforts, or worse, begun accusing me of
being some sort of evil incarnate. Fact is, if you're interested in
this subject, rather than spend decades posting mostly wrong drivel,
why don't you go to school and educate yourself on these topics that
interest you so much? Then you can figure these things out for
yourself and not spend so much time trying to defend indefensible
positions.

Unfortunately, you are not the one and only God of aviation, nor the
all-knowing wise soul of using hydrogen, and I'm not even certain that
you're Jewish enough to start with, which might explain your anti-
fetish about using good old h2o2+synfuel that would have easily won
WWII if their supply of their mostly Jewish made h2o2 wasn't
insufficient.

For cruising at or above 100,000' you'll likely need a bit more rocket
thrust than jet engine blast, unless it's of a Mach 5+ scramjet
configuration, that actually would do quite nicely if supplied with
enough of your LH2 or even the much higher energy density option of
h2o2+synfuel.

At mach 5+ the amount of horrific LH2 fuel supply would only have to
be sustained at the 100,000' altitude for as little as an hour. Of
what's needed is a stretched SR-71 like spike of a craft and those
minimal wings of titanium and composites that's offering extremely
little aerodynamic friction. Perhaps accommodating one single row or
column of passenger seats that'll slide off center for the crawl pass
loading/unloading process.

All you have to do is get that massive aircraft tonnage up to its
cruising altitude of 100,000' and scramjet speed of Mach 5+ to start
with. A pair of those fully reusable LRBs should do that trick.

Thought you might like these numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine
SSME thrust can be throttled between 67 to 109% of rated thrust.
Current launches use 104%, with 106 or 109% available for abort
contingencies. Thrust can be specified as sea level or vacuum thrust.
Vacuum thrust will be higher due to no atmospheric effects.

100% thrust (sea level / vacuum): 1670 kN / 2090 kN (375,000 lbf /
470,000 lbf)
104% thrust (sea level / vacuum): 1750 kN / 2170 kN (393,800 lbf /
488,800 lbf)
109% thrust (sea level / vacuum): 1860 kN / 2280 kN (417,300 lbf /
513,250 lbf)

SSME Specifications
Design Altitude = 60,000 feet
Nozzle Mach Number = 5.05 (calculated)
Throat Area = 93 square inches
Nozzle Area = 50.265 square feet
Chamber Pressure = 2994 psi
Exit Pressure = 1.049 psi (calculated)
Burn Time = 520 seconds
Vacuum Isp = 452.5 seconds
Vacuum Thrust per Engine = 490,850 pounds at 104.5% of Design Thrust

Flow rates: At FPL (104.5% RPL) the oxygen flow rate into the SSME is
about 935 lb/s(424 kg/s), while the hydrogen flow rate is about 155 lb/
s(70.3 kg/s).

Since the SSME is operated fuel rich is why not all of the hydrogen
will be consumed, but all of the oxygen will be consumed in the
combustion process. The energy release per mole(32 g) of O2 is 483.6
kilojoules, thus at a flow rate of 424.33 kg/s (424,330 g/s or
13,260.3 mol/s) we have an energy release rate of approximately 6.4127
GJ/s (GW).

Cut down the exhaust nozel area to roughly half the SSME 50.265 sf,
making it instead 25 sf should yield an exit velocity of Mach 10.

So, if your advanced H2 turbine enngine driven compressor can somehow
manage to deliver those 935 lbs of atmospheric derived O2 per sec w/o
N2, that means an hour worth of LH2 is only going to require 155 x
3.6e3 = 558e3 lbs(279 tons), and of course that's not including
whatever O2 and H2 is being taken in order to operate that nifty
turbine/jet engine driven compressor and N2 removal process.

It seems that lord Mook's "view of things" is one of a mainstream
snookered and dumbfounded fool, unless your pretend atheism is also
that good at pretending your way throughmost everything else. Such as
your pretending that your LH2 is ever going to affordably become so
commercially available without involving those big-government and of
their big-energy puppeteers, each taking their big cut of the action
so that the conventional fossil fuel and NOx producing alternatives
are going to forever remain as the primary and most affordable energy
(no matters how much blood and guts of others it takes).

BTW, at hundreds of tonnes required per each 'go like hell' SST
flight, where's all of that affordable clean solar PV created cache of
Mook LH2?
- Brad Guth
.

Quantcast