Alternative Fuels Hummer may make indecent vehicle . . . merely scantily clad.
- Thread starter BaliBabyDoc
- Start date
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,999
- 109
- 106
Hmmm...interesting find there. The only problem I see with the hydrogen/alternative fuel systems is that there is no national distribution system yet. Eventually there will be though, so I'm optimistic. But as per making the Hummer "lose weight", I wouldn't suggest it at least for the non-civilian models. The ones that you see on the roads hardly ever do anything more stressful than hauling groceries, hence their impracticality.
"Although Hummers ? the base model 2003 H2 lists for about $48,000 ? are revered as a status symbol by some, conventional wisdom says their fuel inefficiency make them harsh on the environment, and the wallet. And to many, they?re simply a four-wheeled, rolling, environmental disaster. "
The same can be said about any Ferrari..although a Hummer is a tad cheaper.
The same can be said about any Ferrari..although a Hummer is a tad cheaper.
Hydrogen Fuel isn't as dangerous as you think and they do use it in foreign countries.
only one i can think of japan, but good for them
hydrogen has gotten a bad rap all thanks to the hindenburg incident. according to discovery channel, its not as dangerous as most ppl think, its actually less dangerous than gasoline, although i'm not sure if i should believe the discovery channel or my chem professor who blew up a hydrogen balloon in class...
still i think ethanol from corn is the best solution
only one i can think of japan, but good for them
hydrogen has gotten a bad rap all thanks to the hindenburg incident. according to discovery channel, its not as dangerous as most ppl think, its actually less dangerous than gasoline, although i'm not sure if i should believe the discovery channel or my chem professor who blew up a hydrogen balloon in class...
still i think ethanol from corn is the best solution
From my experience, the typical Ferrari owner logs very few miles. Accordingly, the per vehicle environmental impact is relatively minor.
I agree the Hummer is a waste of cash if they are not getting the orginal Army suspension, engine, transmission etc... Especially if all they are using it for is to haul tv dinners from Safeway and home.
Originally posted by: tallest1
Heh, if todays cars got in a car wreck with gasoline
The damage is much less than you imagine
Can someone please explain this view - I see it a lot. As a scientist, I cannot understand why a tank full of gasoline in a car crash is considered anywhere as near as dangerous as a tank full of pressurised hydrogen.
Thanks,
Andy
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Hydrogen as a fuel in a motor vehicle would not be of the liquified variety that you associate with the Space programs.
Hydrogen is adsorbed into/onto a metalic sponge material to hold it stable until it is needed for supply to a combustion
chamber. The pressure is low, and is not the Cryogenic liquid form - simular in concept to propane or butane fuels,
except without the pressurization and cold.
The biggest detriment to Hydrogen as a fuel is that it is explosive as a Fuel / Oxidier in a ratio anywhere between
a 5% Hyrdogen (in air) up to a 97% mixture. One of the hazards involved in rocketry is defeated by the vent stack being
used is tipped with a platinum passive igniter, so any vented hydrogen is ignited and burned at the vent stack before
it can enter the atmosphere and reach an explosive mixture level. Certain metalic substances are known to
make Hydrogen act as a pyrophoric substance - ignite upon contact - that's the Platinum in the vent stack.
It's been looked at for years as a fuel for Hypersonic Aircraft using the metalic sponge tecnique.
On the Hindenburg - the massive fire was from a spark of static electricity that did ignite a small Hydrogen
gas pocket, but once that flased over - the laquer and nitrocelulose dopes & pignemts in the paint is what burned.
Note: the material used in the fabric dope coating was nitrocelulose - a Nitrogenated Celulose compound which
rendered the covering to be like 'flash paper' an unstable, explosive, combustionalbe material.
Hydrogen is adsorbed into/onto a metalic sponge material to hold it stable until it is needed for supply to a combustion
chamber. The pressure is low, and is not the Cryogenic liquid form - simular in concept to propane or butane fuels,
except without the pressurization and cold.
The biggest detriment to Hydrogen as a fuel is that it is explosive as a Fuel / Oxidier in a ratio anywhere between
a 5% Hyrdogen (in air) up to a 97% mixture. One of the hazards involved in rocketry is defeated by the vent stack being
used is tipped with a platinum passive igniter, so any vented hydrogen is ignited and burned at the vent stack before
it can enter the atmosphere and reach an explosive mixture level. Certain metalic substances are known to
make Hydrogen act as a pyrophoric substance - ignite upon contact - that's the Platinum in the vent stack.
It's been looked at for years as a fuel for Hypersonic Aircraft using the metalic sponge tecnique.
On the Hindenburg - the massive fire was from a spark of static electricity that did ignite a small Hydrogen
gas pocket, but once that flased over - the laquer and nitrocelulose dopes & pignemts in the paint is what burned.
Note: the material used in the fabric dope coating was nitrocelulose - a Nitrogenated Celulose compound which
rendered the covering to be like 'flash paper' an unstable, explosive, combustionalbe material.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: tallest1
Heh, if todays cars got in a car wreck with gasoline
The damage is much less than you imagine
Can someone please explain this view - I see it a lot. As a scientist, I cannot understand why a tank full of gasoline in a car crash is considered anywhere as near as dangerous as a tank full of pressurised hydrogen.
Thanks,
Andy
Hi
I'm a scientist too, and i would like to know what graduate school gives classes in "posturing yourself across internet message boards, while making random, superfluous, unsubstantiated statements"
Thanks,
Jon
Well Jon, maybe you should take a step back and take a stress pill. I'm not posturing, I was angling for a better response than all the other ones I've read that say "because gasoline is dangerous too" - given that I've found pressurised gases to be particularly lethal.
As for "random, superfluous, unsubstantiated statements" if you mean that I don't know all of the facts concerning H vehicles - you're right, albeit in a very abusive way. That's why I say things like "I cannot understand".
You must have felt all high and mighty reading all of that into my response. Maybe if you read some of my other posts and knew me a *little* better then you wouldn't make such "unsubstantiated" statements about the size of my ego.
Andy
BTW: Thanks CaptnKirk - I understand a bit clearer now, though I would still think that the flammibility may be higher than for standard gasoline tank. Has there been any studies of such systems in crashes?
You're right. My sincere apologies. The style of my post here was an unfortunate reflection of another thread in this forum.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter