Dubya says "Hydrogen is the future."

[Pooh Bear]

Hydrogen is the reactor.

Where does the hydrogen come from?
Electrolysis.

And whence cometh the oxygen to burn in?

The same electrolysis.

We will eventually suffocate from low oxygen.

No becasue the amount of oxygen burnt is the same as released during
electrolysis.

Graham

 

[William P.N. Smith]

Can anyone work out the mass of oxygen in the atmosphere at present, the
predicted rate of consuption and the natural rate of replentishment from
photo-synthesis and then compute the date by which the oxygen partial
pressure gets too low to support human life?

Even if (as Pooh Bear points out) the oxygen weren't being recycled at
the same rate, the plants would start producing more oxygen till we
were back in balance again.

And you'll never notice the rising worldwide CO2 levels.

 

[Chris]

What engine drives the generator that powers the elecrolytic cell to make
the hydrogen and oxygen?

It can only be a primary source of energy.

Chris.

 

[Pooh Bear]

What engine drives the generator that powers the elecrolytic cell to make
the hydrogen and oxygen?

It can only be a primary source of energy.

Chris.

The source of power for electrolysis is one of the *big* weaknesses with the
whole hydrogen fuel idea.

Ideally it should come from renewable sources.

Please don't top post btw.

Graham

 

[Chris]

What does "top post mean"

Chris.

The source of power for electrolysis is one of the *big* weaknesses with
the
whole hydrogen fuel idea.

Ideally it should come from renewable sources.

Please don't top post btw.

Graham

 

[William P.N. Smith]

What does "top post mean"

Chris.

Good one! I've always wondered what bottom posting without trimming
is...

 

[Pooh Bear]

What does "top post mean"

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=top+posting&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

If you're going to use Usenet regularly it helps if you understand the
etiquette.

Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

It means, an easy troll to get people to respond to others that have
nothing better to say. people can read posting at the top or the
bottom if they want to. Crybabies won't read either.

Forget about it. Top posting will survive in the end.

Top- posting is appropriate in some limited cases. In the case of your
previous post, trimming would ahve been better.

Top-posting frankly IMHO is just for lazy ppl who can't be arsed to use
their mouse and press delete. In some instances I just ignore lazy
top-posters. Not worth replying to them.

Graham

 

[John Gilmer]

For many places stopping and waiting is just not feasible. This would cause
a traffic jam that would back up side roads.

Well, "most of the time" it's not a matter of stopping but spotting the
"gap" as early as possible. But at the limit, it's better for drivers to
stop on the ramp and cause a backup than chance an accident on the
interstate which at a minimum will add another 20 minutes to everyone's
commute.

 

[William P.N. Smith]

Top-posting frankly IMHO is just for lazy ppl

IME, and maybe it's just my perception, top-posters (and folks who
refuse to trim) don't pay attention to the thread, and end up veering
off in strange and inappropriate directions.

 

[Pooh Bear]

GW's position on hydrogen is the only thing in his two terms that has
me think that he doesn't have an IQ or 27. If the bushwacker wants to
do something really good (in addition to getting out of this war)
before his term ends, he would come through with some BIG bucks for
research on ways to generate hydrogen independent of fossil fuel.

The ways to generate hydrogen are already well known. No research needed.

I think this can be done.

You do ?

Lets go back to school days and think about
what plants do for us. They take carbon dioxide, CO2, and water, H2O,
and with the energy from the sun via the wonderful process called
photosynthesis and take the hydrogen from water and add it to the
carbon from CO2 and make CHx in the form of carbohydrate and oxygen O2.
I think it is a matter of time until some bright young biochemist
figures out how to get the hydrogen from water in the form of H2 that
will run a fuel cell, rather than CHx that runs animal metabolism.

You're planning some kind of 'weird science' here are you ?

This is a GROSS over simplification,

Too damn right !

but I feel is ultimately the
source of the hydrogen needed for the hydrogen epoch.

What you feel is irrelevant I'm afraid !!

< remaining nonsesne snipped >

Daydreaming doesn't make things work btw.

Graham

 

[Ron Purvis]

Well, "most of the time" it's not a matter of stopping but spotting the
"gap" as early as possible. But at the limit, it's better for drivers to
stop on the ramp and cause a backup than chance an accident on the
interstate which at a minimum will add another 20 minutes to everyone's
commute.

Actually it is better to not drive a car that is not capable of handling the
road conditions that you are attempting to drive on. You would not drive a
Yugo through a swamp, so don't drive a car that doesn't have the necessary
acceleration on a busy interstate.

 

[Day Brown]

I'm inclined to think GW is for hydrogen because its so difficult to
make that only his transnational friends could make it.

I planted some more sorghum today. I dont really expect to make much
with it this fall, but do expect to have the seed to make a lot more.

The U of GA says I can expect 100-120 gallons/acre of sorghum; but I
dont havta make syrup, I can ferment it instead and make alcohol.

The only problem with this, is that any farmer can do it with equipment
he already has or with only a modest investment. There's no particular
advantage for a transnational. There's also the problem of the tax on
ethanol as a beverage that they dont want to loose control of.

 

[John Gilmer]

Actually it is better to not drive a car that is not capable of handling the
road conditions that you are attempting to drive on. You would not drive a
Yugo through a swamp, so don't drive a car that doesn't have the necessary
acceleration on a busy interstate.

Oh, I've heard that one before.

The most common place is among the motorcycle crowd.

They keep wanting to get bigger and bigger "bikes" so that they can
"accelerate" themselves out of trouble. Their insurance and accident rates
show that most of the time their ability to "accelerate" out of trouble gets
them into more trouble than it gets them out of.

The interstates can be very safe places if folks drive like there is an egg
between the foot and the pedal.

The drivers who "accelerate" out of trouble don't seem to have any trouble
with cutting someone off and forcing him to brake HARD. But accidents are
caused by lane changing, speeding, and enexpected stopping.

The idea that you need a muscle car to drive safely on the interstate is
complete nonsense.

 

[Pooh Bear]

Oh, I've heard that one before.

The most common place is among the motorcycle crowd.

They keep wanting to get bigger and bigger "bikes" so that they can
"accelerate" themselves out of trouble. Their insurance and accident rates
show that most of the time their ability to "accelerate" out of trouble gets
them into more trouble than it gets them out of.

The interstates can be very safe places if folks drive like there is an egg
between the foot and the pedal.

The drivers who "accelerate" out of trouble don't seem to have any trouble
with cutting someone off and forcing him to brake HARD. But accidents are
caused by lane changing, speeding, and enexpected stopping.

The idea that you need a muscle car to drive safely on the interstate is
complete nonsense.

But it sells muscle cars though !

The US obsession with such vehicles is very odd. The fastest car I've ever owned
was a relatively small engined by US standards 2 litre Saab Turbo ( low pressure
version ) with 150 bhp. It was more than fast enough, great acceleration etc
for me and I'm no no slouch ! Returned pretty acceptable mpg too.

Graham

 

[Ron Purvis]

Oh, I've heard that one before.

The most common place is among the motorcycle crowd.

They keep wanting to get bigger and bigger "bikes" so that they can
"accelerate" themselves out of trouble. Their insurance and accident
rates
show that most of the time their ability to "accelerate" out of trouble
gets
them into more trouble than it gets them out of.

The interstates can be very safe places if folks drive like there is an
egg
between the foot and the pedal.

The drivers who "accelerate" out of trouble don't seem to have any trouble
with cutting someone off and forcing him to brake HARD. But accidents
are
caused by lane changing, speeding, and enexpected stopping.

The idea that you need a muscle car to drive safely on the interstate is
complete nonsense.

I am sorry that you are not capable of understanding the difference between
having adequate acceleration to get on the interstate without stopping and
requiring muscle cars and cutting people off. If you are really that stupid
that you can't understand the difference, you should not be entrusted with
any vehicle. I do not suggest that people be forced to use a muscle car. Nor
did I suggest in any place that people should drive in a reckless manner.
That doesn't mean that a car that is incapable of getting up to speed over
the distance of the on ramp should be allowed on the road either.

 

[John Gilmer]

I am sorry that you are not capable of understanding the difference between
having adequate acceleration to get on the interstate without stopping and
requiring muscle cars and cutting people off.

Nasty, nasty.

If you are really that stupid
that you can't understand the difference, you should not be entrusted with
any vehicle.

Nasty, nasty (again!)

I do not suggest that people be forced to use a muscle car. Nor
did I suggest in any place that people should drive in a reckless manner.
That doesn't mean that a car that is incapable of getting up to speed over
the distance of the on ramp should be allowed on the road either.

You DO know that when possible the designers of the interchanges provide for
"acceleration lanes" just for the purpose of letting folks have plenty of
time to come up to speed AND find a gap in the traffic.

If someone has a "good eye" and good judgement, all he needs to a good view
of the traffic stream he is joining and space to accelerate to the speed
limit or slightly beyond at the "bale out" point.

 

[Ron Purvis]

You DO know that when possible the designers of the interchanges provide
for
"acceleration lanes" just for the purpose of letting folks have plenty of
time to come up to speed AND find a gap in the traffic.

I know that but you don't seem to understand the system. You are the one
that made the ludicrous statement that it was ok to stop traffic and wait.
If your car can't come up to speed and find a gap in the traffic during
ordinary traffic, then it doesn't need to be on the road.

If someone has a "good eye" and good judgement, all he needs to a good
view
of the traffic stream he is joining and space to accelerate to the speed
limit or slightly beyond at the "bale out" point.

That is not what you were saying before. You said you were not ashamed to
stop and wait. A good driver with a decent car does not need to do that. Nor
do they need a muscle car to accelerate. They only need a normal car that is
designed to accelerate normally.

 

[Pooh Bear]

I am sorry that you are not capable of understanding the difference between
having adequate acceleration to get on the interstate without stopping and
requiring muscle cars and cutting people off.

It's the *driver* not the car that makes that difference !

That doesn't mean that a car that is incapable of getting up to speed over
the distance of the on ramp should be allowed on the road either.

No modern car is incapable of accelerating to that kind of speed.

Graham