[Scape]

CHEC HFI hydrogen injection system

[dgthe3]

hmm, looks like a good way to introduce hydrogen to the main stream market, sounds alot like how they are marketing some hybrids too. better economy and more power with no need to change infrastructure

[ridenrain]

Westport Technologies been playing with that for years. I don't think they actually sell anything but they sure soak up grants and investment dollars.

Westport.

[American]

[stream]http://www.nlhs.com/sounds/wls_morrison.wav[/stream]


We did get an introduction to hydrogen.

[dgthe3]

oddly enough, i believe that i heard my chem prof say that the energy density of Hydrogen is less than that of gasoline. ie, gas makes a bigger boom than hydrogen, but people always remember the hindenburg burning and forget that gasoline burns too, explosively in the right conditions.

[ridenrain]

Oddly enough? It's pretty obvious.
For a dilbert avitar, you're not very nerdy.

[dgthe3]

i never knew that it was so obvious that hydrogen, which when liquified is used as rocket fuel, has a lower energy density than gasoline. i didn't know everyone knew that

I thought american was using that pic to show how dangerous hydrogen is and how we were introduced to it (and he wasn't wrong). my post was intended to show that gasoline is potentially more dangerous than hydrogen yet people don't care about that.

and as far as my nerdyness, i resist the temptation strongly here. and if i want to get into a scientific debate i'll do that at school, not here because formulas, diagrams, and hand-talking are rather difficult to translate onto a computer.

[DrCaleb]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

and as far as my nerdyness, i resist the temptation strongly here.

You should have shed that shell a little to dispel the Hindenburg myth. Hydrogen is only dangerous when in the presence of Oxygen. Otherwise, it's pretty safe.

Also, I believe I've heard that gasoline has more thermodynamic chemical energy than TNT . . .

[ridenrain]

I'm not familiar with any fuel that will burn without Oxygen, other than solid rocket propellant type stuff.

That being said... I'm a big fan of zeplins.
We should bring them back.

[dgthe3]

Never heard that one about dynamite before, might be true though. but i have heard that the coating on the fabric of the hindenburg is esentially the same stuff that NASA uses for it's solid rocket boosters...that probably contributed a bit to the fire.

and it is esentially true that liquid gasoline doesn't burn, only the vapour. but it doesn take much to turn liquid gasoline into a vapour. introduce an ignition source like a spark from tearing sheet metal and boom.

And without oxygen, nothing will ever burn. fire needs a fuel, oxygen, and a source of heat to overcome the activation energy required to initiate a chain reaction.

[dgthe3]

rockets use oxidizers, a chemical that contains a large amount of oxygen. this reacts and releases oxygen when reacts with the rocket fuel. solid rockets condain both fuel and oxidizer in a single compound, i think, where as liquid rockets house them seperatly. this is the main reason why solids cannot be turned off when ignited but liquid rockets can if required

[American]

Wait a minute, what do rockets have to do with the hydrogen topic?

[ridenrain]

Oh be quiet... you started this whole mess.

[DrCaleb]

ridenrain ridenrain:

That being said... I'm a big fan of zeplins.
We should bring them back.

I agree. But isn't the drummer dead?