Re: Hydrogen fueled Helicopter - more Mook idiocy

On Jan 2, 10:44 am, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 1:57 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Dec 31 2007, 9:05 pm, Eeyore

<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
A search of the best art would reveal that a compressed gaseous tank
at best is no more than FOUR TIMES the weight of the hydrogen
contained

Fine.

I challenge you to find such an example that's safe for everyday commercial and
personal use.

Graham

There is NO commercial market for hydrogen tanks for everyday personal
use.  Only an idiot would demand this before proceeding with new
technology.  That's like saying to someone designing the next
generation computer to prove a gigabit memory is possible to build at
a reasonable price by buying off the shelf a gigabit memory chips at
the target price needed in the days when megabit memory chips were
common and gigabit chips didn't exist yet.   This sort of 'logical'
requiremenet - which is highly illogical - is guaranteed to halt
progress, not promote rational sane progress.

Graham, you seem to have problems with your ability to think
rationally and logically about things that are in the process of
happening.  Maybe you don't like change?  Maybe your momma didn't give
you enough TLC when you were a baby?   Who knows?  Obviously real
engineers making real plans for the real future actually engage in a
bit of thought about what they're doing based on fundamental
analysis.

Check out this 1998 report in NASA Tech Briefs

http://www.techbriefs.com/content/view/2222/32/

Now, this report says, among other things, that large tanks  - holding
tons of hydrogen are built and mass around 10 kg per sq m of tank
area.  These tanks not only hold the liquid hydrogen but also are
structural components in the spacecraft body and in some instances,
the outside houses a TPS while the inside holds cryogenic fuels.

The important thing is that we have a figure here - a fundamental
figure.  10 kg per sq m.

Now, a sphere that held 100 metric tons of hydrogen would have to have
a volume of 1,428.6 cubic meters.  That sphere would be 14 m in
diameter and have a surface area of 613.4 square meters.  At 10 kg per
square meter, it would mass 6.14 MT - which is 6.14 % - between 5% and
10% mass which is what I said is a reasonable target for a flight-
weight system for aerospace applications.

Reducing the size of a tank - due to the way things scale - of a given
structural strength, increases the structural fraction - For example,
a tank holding 10 metric tons of hydrogen has a voume of 142.86 cubic
meters.  That sphere wuold be 132.5 sq meters and mass 1.33 MT - which
is 13.3% of the hydrogen weight.     Of course, the engineering for
this particular tank was for 100 metric tons or more - including
sufficient structural strength to operate as a fuselage for a
spacecraft.  Smaller tanks specifically designed for aerospace
applications will be re-engineered and optimized for that application.
WHEN THAT ENGINEERING IS DONE - it is reasonable to believe that
structural fractions of 5% to 10% will be possible, based on the
construction of larger tanks where this engineering has been
completed.

Now, Graham, there is one reason and one reason only that people who
write these reports we gave as references don't mention details like
the tech brief above, or the calculation I just did with it.  ITS TOO
SIMPLE!    EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS THIS ***!  Otherwise, they wouldn't
be talking about hydrogen fueled anything, they'd be talking about
getting lower tank weights.

There's the underlying problem of this mostly semitic anti-think-tank
of their all-knowing Usenet of disinformation and continual denial of
their denials from hell.  These folks simply have no history of their
ever helping a soul to achieve goals or as even on behalf of promoting
anything that doesn't put our hard earned loot into their offshore
bank accounts.  Imagine that, it seems these pretend atheists are in
fact acting and/or badly reacting as though entirely Semitic or as
Third Reich.

As I've offered to share the obvious so many times before;  it seems
there's no such thing as failsafe energy storage.  Life as we know it
is a freaking risk no matters what, and as proof there's plenty of
folks having died, plus those currently dying and of others that will
soon enough die because of our having to access or taking charge over
various forms of energy, of implementing energy storage or from those
multiple energy usage related matters.  Supposedly we learn from our
mistakes, that is whenever the whole truth and nothing but the truth
gets shared, of which happens perhaps all of 1% of the time.

I was always thinking along the lines of a thick skinned composite of
mostly basalt fibers and of those highly insulative microballoons or
at least milliballoones, as easily bonded and otherwise metallic alloy
flash coated or ion plasma deposit coated inside to whatever thickness
extent you'd care to apply.  At least that way most of an aircraft
structural aerodynamic shape can become utilized as safe and
volumetric efficient fuel storage that should offer at the very least
R-32(0.03125), although R-64(0.0156) shouldn't be all that
insurmountable.

BTW, why exactly is our resident spook/mole "MI5 Persecution" getting
so gosh darn upset, as in going Usenet roboposting postal (aka, bent
out of shape) about the sorts of good and decent folks sharing
perfectly honest ideas along with the best available whole truth and
nothing but the truth?

- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,

There is reasonable sceptism, and unreaonsable scepticism. I forgive
many of the sceptics here because they have had to deal with YOU over
the years! lol. And your transparently unworkable schemes.

Of course I forgive you because you're apparently not well. I have
urged you on several occasions, to get a life. You'll be happier for
it.

.

Quantcast