A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

will the US military power dominate the world



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 24th 03, 03:13 PM
Ralph Savelsberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Stephen Harding wrote:

Regnirps wrote:


Stephen Harding wrote:

That's pretty typical of American thinking. But increasingly, we're going to
find that car is making demands on us that we aren't going to like. In some
areas, that's already the case.

snip

You must be at a University. Faculty? Grad student? I know a Stanford physicist


Former UMass/Amherst computer science dept programmer. Now part-timer and
self-employed technical writer and programmer. [Anyone looking to hire a tech
writer??]


you should talk to. This has been his field for the last 30 years. For
instance, he can give you The Five Reasons Commuter Lanes Don't Work and how
traffic engineers know how to fix most of the problems if the politicians would
let them. There is no looming catastrophe and we are not running out of
resources.


I pretty much agree with that, although I'm skeptical of politically limited
solutions to traffic problems.

Oil will run out probably sometime in the next 100 years, but by the time it
does, I suspect fuel cell technology running on straight H2 (rather than the
initial gasoline) will be meeting energy needs for centuries to come.


snip

I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.
I know H2 has some wonderful advantages. If you allow it to react with
oxygen in a fuel cell you get electricity and water. Zer pollution.
Fantastic! Also, you can store far more energy by using it to dissociate
water into O2 and H2 than by storing it in a battery for instance.
Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg





SMH


  #2  
Old October 24th 03, 03:59 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ralph Savelsberg wrote in
:




I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.
I know H2 has some wonderful advantages. If you allow it to react with
oxygen in a fuel cell you get electricity and water. Zer pollution.
Fantastic! Also, you can store far more energy by using it to
dissociate water into O2 and H2 than by storing it in a battery for
instance. Great! However, the big question that very few people seem
to be able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the
H2 should come from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something
you can dig up from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with
nuclear fusion, though that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg


Until we develop nuclear fusion,we can use nuclear fission.

We must put more effort into waste disposal and 'burning' of hi-level
wastes.And put all the waste into the Yucca Repository until those
techniques are developed.



--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #3  
Old October 26th 03, 05:18 AM
Regnirps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here is a little cold H20 for th hydrogen crowd.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/energy/

Check out where the hydrogen will come from.

-- Charlie Springer
  #4  
Old October 24th 03, 04:54 PM
Stephen Harding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.


Come on Ralph! Everyone is OT on r.a.m these days! Go ahead! Be
naughty! Do it! In fact...let's bash French fuel cell technology!!!

Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.


There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.

But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.

But I really think this technology is going to fly...and probably
nuclear power will triumph over the long haul.


SMH
  #5  
Old October 24th 03, 05:33 PM
Ralph Savelsberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Stephen Harding wrote:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:


I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but
I certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.


Come on Ralph! Everyone is OT on r.a.m these days! Go ahead! Be

naughty!
Do it! In fact...let's bash French fuel cell technology!!!

In fact I stopped posting alltogether a few months ago. The irritation
over the stupidity being expressed by people from both sides of the
Atlantic (and some other parts of the world as well) had begun to
outweigh the enjoyment I got from many of the discussions and
interesting exchanges of ideas/information. Anyway, I'm back now.
It's not the fact that its off-topic that stopped me from getting
involved in this thread, but its title.


Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be
able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the
H2 should come from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not
something you can dig up from the ground. Perhaps our hope should
lie with nuclear fusion, though that's not without its own
problems either. In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible
energy/environmental crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing
one problem with another.


There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as

attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.

But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.

But I really think this technology is going to fly...and probably
nuclear power will triumph over the long haul.


SMH


I realise that truly `green' types of energy simply aren't enough.
Wind-power is suitable for some situations, as is electricity from solar
panels. In some cases biomass can be a nice addition, but even a
combination of these on any realistic scale cannot satisfy all our
energy needs. We will run out of fossile fuels in the future. That's
simply a matter of consuming them faster than they are being produced.
As for nuclear technology I tend to be somewhat pessimistic. We will
also run out of useful fissionable materials, although on a longer
timescale than the fossile fuels. And then there is the issue with the
waste. Jim Yanik has great hopes for future technology to do the trick,
but I'm not so sure. Fission might be the only thing to keep us going
until fission comes along, but
who knows how long it will take to get nuclear fusion working properly?
For know the energy it takes to create an environment suitable for
fusion exceeds the energy you get from the fusion. Knowbody really knows
how big a tokomak must be before you could expect it to actually deliver
energy.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg





  #6  
Old October 25th 03, 12:34 PM
Seraphim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Harding wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
@cs.umass.edu:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:


Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from?


Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
(was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.

I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.


There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.

But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.


The energy will always be probematic if water is the only thing used. The
energy it takes to free the hydrogen will be equal to the energy you get by
running it through your fuel cell, assuming that there is no energy is lost
in the process (very unlikely). Now, there are ways around this. You can
introduce something else (like Methane above) which tends to help. Or you
can use 'cheap' energy, like solar or nuclear.
  #7  
Old October 25th 03, 07:32 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Seraphim" wrote in message
.. .
Stephen Harding wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
@cs.umass.edu:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:


Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able

to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from?


Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
(was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.


Why not just use the methane directly and not incur
all the losses conversion brings with it ?

Keith


  #8  
Old October 26th 03, 01:56 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Seraphim wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
@cs.umass.edu:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:


Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from?


Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
(was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.


But the big problem for the eco-types is all of the C02.

If you're going to make that, you might as well just use gasoline.

Now, if this new algae-based process of making H2 works out, we'll get
H2 with a net *reduction* of C02.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #9  
Old October 26th 03, 03:13 AM
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Seraphim wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
@cs.umass.edu:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:


Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from?


Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
(was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.


But the big problem for the eco-types is all of the C02.


You can scrub out the CO2 by trapping it by forming carbonate (CaCO3?).

If you're going to make that, you might as well just use gasoline.

Now, if this new algae-based process of making H2 works out, we'll get
H2 with a net *reduction* of C02.


Cite? Sounds interesting.
  #10  
Old October 26th 03, 04:14 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
Chad Irby wrote:

Now, if this new algae-based process of making H2 works out, we'll get
H2 with a net *reduction* of C02.


Cite? Sounds interesting.


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two Years of War Stop Spam! Military Aviation 3 October 9th 03 11:05 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world John Mullen Military Aviation 149 September 22nd 03 03:42 PM
World Air Power Journal Thomas Schoene Military Aviation 3 August 14th 03 01:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.