Thread: More snake oil?

Originally Posted by Dougal

Hydrogen is a gimmick which is almost entirely useless.

\

If the power to create H2 comes from an source that produces no CO2 (nuclear)
and some high density storage mechanism becomes available (I remember reading about some metal matrix that could store H2 at mildly elevated pressures many times more densly than free gas) H2 has a future. But internal combustion is a joke. Fuel cells and electric drive is heaps more efficient.

Originally Posted by Dougal

Hydrogen is a gimmick which is almost entirely useless.
The energy density is terrible, at legal transport pressures a litre of hydrogen contains 1.6 MJ/litre, petrol contains 22 times as much.
Bottling the hydrogen genie - The Industrial Physicist

Then remember you're generating electricity at probably 50% efficiency, throw in line losses of 40%, generate hydrogen with an electrolysis, compress it, pump it, transport it then burn it in a spark ignition engine which only makes 30% efficiency at best.

Along with the Prius it's a feel-good concept which is already beaten by current technology. Get a diesel polo or lupo (almost 40% efficient) and run it on biodiesel.
Take one of Scanias ethanol powered diesel buses (50% efficient).
Even driving an electric forklift to work is a better idea than burning hydrogen in a spark engine.

all minor details that science will overcome..if someone pays them to..

i personally am not a fan of alternate energies, (so i am not asking for an argument dougal), i like powerful fuels, and for the record i dont mind a bit of global warming either..

the pointis we humans with our feble brains have no real understanding of mothernature..
Reply With Quote

define:
real
understanding

I think our ability to consciously manipulate nature in very large and small ways is proof of a real understanding. It isn't complete, sure, but it is real

Originally Posted by procrastination inc

the pointis we humans with our feble brains have no real understanding of mothernature..
Reply With Quote

define:
real
understanding

I think our ability to consciously manipulate nature in very large and small ways is proof of a real understanding. It isn't complete, sure, but it is real

i define real understanding to be complete..

we do of course have knowledge gained from experience and experimentation, yet we all have different opinions..how can an understanding of something lead to so many different conclusions..
take weather for example, if we understood how it worked, we might be able to predict it.

i believe that on mass humans are indesicive, easily led and quite stupid really..
i cannot think of any large way that we conciously manipulate nature.

i cannot think of any large way that we conciously manipulate nature....


if by manipulate nature you mean manipulate the environment as a whole, the I agree.

But all of our technology is about make stuff happen that doesn't happen naturally

look at a photo of earth from space at night and you'll see who large our manipulation is.

Originally Posted by dannydisco1

we do of course have knowledge gained from experience and experimentation, yet we all have different opinions..how can an understanding of something lead to so many different conclusions..

In most situations it's because you have two people with very different levels of knowledge and understanding.

For example, try to find two scientists or engineers who don't agree that magnets around fuel lines are snake oil.

Another example is political, the bush administration and global warming is an excellent example of that.

opinions vary, that is the beauty(downfall)of the human mind..

Originally Posted by Dougal

In most situations it's because you have two people with very different levels of knowledge and understanding.

For example, try to find two scientists or engineers who don't agree that magnets around fuel lines are snake oil.

Another example is political, the bush administration and global warming is an excellent example of that.

i dont get what you mean, about the bush administration ? is the bush administration the higher or lower level of knowledge or understanding ??
do you think global warming is a result of mans influence ??
i personally havent seen the evidence..and i can certainly find 2 scientists that will disagree all day and night.

a good experiment or survey will always give you the result you are looking for..
i have read a study by leading mathematicians that concluded, god creating life was the most feasible explanation for the beginning of life on earth..