Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

Well... I totally lack any ability to pick up on social cues... Or sarcasm... Back on topic...

[Nilik]

Yeah fuel cells is a toughie.  Any electric system is dangerous as hell because you're usually sitting on a giant capacitor.

Wait, what? More dangerous than an engine which is, by definition, powered by explosions?

[Siquo]

Yeah fuel cells is a toughie.  Any electric system is dangerous as hell because you're usually sitting on a giant capacitor.

Wait, what? More dangerous than an engine which is, by definition, powered by explosions?

Yes. A capacitor only needs a conductor. Depending on the conductor and it's resistance or capacity to heat, that's enough to burn or explode (so rainwater probably won't explode your car, but dropping your wrench in the wrong place will), while gasoline needs oxygen and heat, and doesn't explode when in liquid form. Sparks and heat are a lot less common than conductors.

[Leafsnail]

I thought the main problem was that you'd be carrying around extremely flammable highly pressurized gas.  Which can explode, and burns with an almost invisible flame...

Apparently the safety's got a lot better since the "explodes on collision" tests, though.

[Siquo]

Oh, the hydrogen is another problem, but even non-hydrogen batteries/capacitors can explode when short-circuited or overloaded.

[Miggy]

I thought the main problem was that you'd be carrying around extremely flammable highly pressurized gas.  Which can explode, and burns with an almost invisible flame...

Apparently the safety's got a lot better since the "explodes on collision" tests, though.

Transporting it as a gas is not feasible, and neither is transporting it under pressure. In order to get the distance you get from a regular gasoline fuel tank out of a hydrogen fuel tank you'd need an immensely big fuel tank. Not impossibly big, but just very, very impractically big. The holy grail find a metallic lattice in which hydrogen can be "stored", and then routinely added and removed.

My university professor in inorganic chemistry is one of the leading scientists on the field of hydrogen storage, and he's constantly bickering about how damn easy gasoline is (it's "free energy: we just dig it up and there it is".), making the switch to hydrogen power almost impossible. Any step in order to make hydrogen vehicles resemble the ease of gasoline vehicles ends up with a single large flaw. For instance, some lattices contain a lot of hydrogen, are easy to manufacture and can be filled/emptied in relatively convenient timeframes, but the weight of the metals make it infeasible as a whole. Others may look similar, overcoming the weight issue but replacing it with a refuelling issue, requiring several hours of recharge in order to fill up a small amount. So far the holy grail hasn't been found yet, and that's probably the main reason why hydrogen vehicles aren't really amounting to anything but PR stunts.

[Siquo]

Maybe if we attach the hydrogen to chains of carbon? That could be a solution? Perhaps... 2C's and an O for good measure?

[Nikov]

Maybe something like this?

[Leafsnail]

I dunno, cyclohexane seems like a ridiculously inefficient fuel storage method, considering it has to be made in a laboratory.  Probably best if we just use it as a non-polar solvent and for making other chemicals.

Edit: oops, benzene.  Still, seems like an odd choice.

[Nikov]

Mix it with some of this?

[Zrk2]

Dammit! I have grade 10 freaking science, laymans terms please? I have chemistry next semester...

[Earthquake Damage]

CH₃ is propane.  It's flammable.

[Renault]

Politics thread! Now with 50% more Chemistry!
 

[Aqizzar]

Yeah, not to derail Hydrocarbon Central, but here's some food for thought: Almost every state in America is in the middle of astounding budget shortfalls, as their bonds and stuff collapse.  Illinois decided to bring down the sky and kill all hope of economic recovery forever by raising the state income tax.  What I find hilarious is that sources from major newspapers to the Economist prefer to refer to this as a "67% increase in income tax", carefully omitting that the tax rate itself is a jump from 3% to 5% (which is indeed a "67% increase").  Booga booga booga.

Meanwhile, other states and localities have their own plans to squeeze pennies: New Jersey - Fire half the police force, a third of the firefighters.  To make up the safety difference, they will shovel money hire private patrol companies.  Arizona - Slash organ transplant Medicaid-matching, turn thousands of mental patients out of care.  Gee, why does that sound ironic?  Texas - Cut grade-school to eleven years.  Because it's not like one less year of highschool is going to make you any less employable than you were anyway.  And North Dakota - Spend millions on labor and equipment to tear up paved roads into gravel, saving money somehow.  Allow my old friend to explain-

[Earthquake Damage]

stuff

Gentlemen, the clowns are running the circus.  I'd love to hear some of what's still in the budget after these cuts.