Interesting engine?

[dje]

http://www.bourkeengine.com/

[Richard Isakson]

"dje" wrote ...
> http://www.bourkeengine.com/

From the web site:
"Fuel Consumption: Russell Bourke, the inventor, claimed a brake-specific
fuel consumption (BSFC) of .25 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour."

Nothing interesting about it. He's a liar.

Rich

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Opposed cylinders, Scotch yoke. Not intersting at all.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Ben Hallert]

>From the web site:
>"Fuel Consumption: Russell Bourke, the inventor, claimed a brake-specific
>fuel consumption (BSFC) of .25 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour."
>Nothing interesting about it. He's a liar.

For gasolines, that's just over 4 gallons per hour for a 100hp engine.
What's wrong w/ that? Sounds ambitious, but not crazy.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Morgans]

> >"Fuel Consumption: Russell Bourke, the inventor, claimed a
brake-specific
> >fuel consumption (BSFC) of .25 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour."
> >Nothing interesting about it. He's a liar.
>
> For gasolines, that's just over 4 gallons per hour for a 100hp engine.
> What's wrong w/ that? Sounds ambitious, but not crazy.

It violates the laws of physics. There is not that much energy in gasoline,
even if there were zero waste heat. Have you ever seen an internal
combustion engine with zero waste heat?

The best SSFC engines today are in the range of the 40's. If he could
really prove that engine was that good, he would be a billionaire right now,
not searching for investors.

People that design engines see claims like that, and chuckle while turning
the page.
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> > >"Fuel Consumption: Russell Bourke, the inventor, claimed a
> brake-specific
> > >fuel consumption (BSFC) of .25 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour."
> > >Nothing interesting about it. He's a liar.
> >
> > For gasolines, that's just over 4 gallons per hour for a 100hp engine.
> > What's wrong w/ that? Sounds ambitious, but not crazy.
>
> It violates the laws of physics. There is not that much energy in gasoline,
> even if there were zero waste heat. Have you ever seen an internal
> combustion engine with zero waste heat?
>
> The best SSFC engines today are in the range of the 40's. If he could
> really prove that engine was that good, he would be a billionaire right now,
> not searching for investors.
>
> People that design engines see claims like that, and chuckle while turning
> the page.

The Bourque engine has been around for at least 50 years. About 30 or
more years ago, Sport Aviation published a series of articles on this
engine -- it did not live up to its claims, and, it had some mechanical
difficulties, IIRC.

There are a lot of balonium engines out there; more appear regularly,
too. Takr most claims with a healthy dose of salt (and, perhaps, a shot
of booze, too)!

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Flyingmonk]

What's so interesting about it? It is just a two cylinder 'radial'.

[Jim Carriere]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Just for comparison, the O-200 puts out 100hp at like 5-6gph of av gas,
> right? Whether or not the engine mentioned can do it, it seems
> difficult to believe that the O-200 is the height of efficiency. 100hp
> at 4gph doesn't seem like that far of a stretch when compared to the
> burn on the O-200, I guess, especially when energy denser fuels than
> avgas exist.
>
> That said, I don't understand what the bourke engine is supposed to do
> different to get the numbers it describes, like another poster
> mentioned, it looks like a two cylinder rotary.

Most internal combustion engines (including the O-200) have a BSFC
between 0.4 and 0.5 pounds/hp/hour.

I'd say an O-200 puts out 100hp at about 8gph, 5-6 gph is a typical
cruise fuel flow. 100hp is at sea level, wide open throttle, max rpm.
You don't spend too much flight time in that regime.

The O-200 is not the height of efficiency, but it isn't the height of
inefficiency either. From an engineering perspective, 0.25 lb/hp/hr is,
uh, extraordinary to say the least. Think of it like the internal
combustion engine's answer to cold fusion.

Also, consider which definition of energy density you're using. Avgas,
Jet-A, and kerosene have virtually the same mass energy density (avgas
is actually about one percent greater than Jet-A). A gallon of avgas is
lighter than a gallon of kerosene (and/or jet fuel, diesel), so it's
_volumetric_ energy density is less.

[Ben Hallert]

Ah, gotcha! Thanks!

Regards,

Ben Hallert

[Bill Daniels]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Ben Hallert wrote:
> > Howdy,
> >
> > Just for comparison, the O-200 puts out 100hp at like 5-6gph of av gas,
> > right? Whether or not the engine mentioned can do it, it seems
> > difficult to believe that the O-200 is the height of efficiency. 100hp
> > at 4gph doesn't seem like that far of a stretch when compared to the
> > burn on the O-200, I guess, especially when energy denser fuels than
> > avgas exist.
> >
> > That said, I don't understand what the bourke engine is supposed to do
> > different to get the numbers it describes, like another poster
> > mentioned, it looks like a two cylinder rotary.
>
> Most internal combustion engines (including the O-200) have a BSFC
> between 0.4 and 0.5 pounds/hp/hour.
>
> I'd say an O-200 puts out 100hp at about 8gph, 5-6 gph is a typical
> cruise fuel flow. 100hp is at sea level, wide open throttle, max rpm.
> You don't spend too much flight time in that regime.
>
> The O-200 is not the height of efficiency, but it isn't the height of
> inefficiency either. From an engineering perspective, 0.25 lb/hp/hr is,
> uh, extraordinary to say the least. Think of it like the internal
> combustion engine's answer to cold fusion.

Yup. The gigiantic Sulzer marine diesels only get 0.278 lbs per hp per hour
on heavy bunker oil. That's about as good as it gets. Of course that's
1660 GPH for 108,920 hp and 5,608,312 lb/ft of torque at 102 rpm for the
I-14. Oh yes, no PSRU, the propeller is direct drive.

See: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

Bill Daniels

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Bill Daniels write:

> "Jim Carriere writes:

>> .. From an engineering perspective, 0.25 lb/hp/hr is,
>> uh, extraordinary to say the least. Think of it like the internal
>> combustion engine's answer to cold fusion.
>
> The gigiantic Sulzer marine diesels only get 0.278 lbs per hp per hour
> on heavy bunker oil. That's about as good as it gets.
> See: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

While I agree that the Bourke engine is vaporware, and doesn't/can't
achieve a BSFC of .25 lb/hp/hr, the web page you point to explicitly
states that the Sulzer diesel can achieve .26 lb/hp/hr.

Going from .26 to .25 is an advance of 4% - I hardly think that a BSFC
of 4% better than the best existing internal combustion engine puts it
into the category of cold fusion, or makes it violate the laws of
physics, as another poster implied.

Hyperbole isn't necessary here - no small internal combustion engine has
ever gotten near .25, and the Bourke engine certainly doesn't, but it IS
theoretically possible. Using ceramic materials instead of metals may
someday get us there.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Richard Isakson]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote ...
> Hyperbole isn't necessary here - no small internal combustion engine has
> ever gotten near .25, and the Bourke engine certainly doesn't, but it IS
> theoretically possible. Using ceramic materials instead of metals may
> someday get us there.

Ceramic engines have been built but the material is far too brittle to make
a useful product.

Rich

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Richard Isakson wrote:

> Ceramic engines have been built but the material is far too
> brittle to make a useful product.

Which is why I said "someday".

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Bill Daniels]

"Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote ...
> > Hyperbole isn't necessary here - no small internal combustion engine has
> > ever gotten near .25, and the Bourke engine certainly doesn't, but it IS
> > theoretically possible. Using ceramic materials instead of metals may
> > someday get us there.
>
> Ceramic engines have been built but the material is far too brittle to
make
> a useful product.
>
> Rich
>
Hey! Some of the new engineering ceramics are ductile enough to pull into a
wire. Mark isn't talking crockery here. Ceramics are already used in
engines. Diesel exhaust valves in one instance, turbocharger hot sections
for another. If you make the piston crown, combustion chamber roof and
valves out of highly insulating ceramics, diesels can get a LOT lower SFC.
They're working on it.

Bill Daniels

[rocky]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> Yup. The gigiantic Sulzer marine diesels only get 0.278 lbs per hp per hour
> on heavy bunker oil. That's about as good as it gets. Of course that's
> 1660 GPH for 108,920 hp and 5,608,312 lb/ft of torque at 102 rpm for the
> I-14. Oh yes, no PSRU, the propeller is direct drive.
>
> See: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
>
> Bill Daniels
>

OK So how large (gigantic) would a homebuilt plane have to be to use
this 14 cyl engine. And can I license it as an ultralight?
Very LARGE pun intended...
Rocky

[Capt.Doug]

>"Richard Riley" wrote in message
> OTOH, I'm doing some work now with a V6 that's getting an SFC of .05.
> But that's on pure hydrogen, so the fuel system ends up a little
> involved. :)

How big would the hydrogen tank be for a C-172?

D.

[Morgans]

"rocky" > wrote

> OK So how large (gigantic) would a homebuilt plane have to be to use
> this 14 cyl engine. And can I license it as an ultralight?
> Very LARGE pun intended...

How about a single engine C-5A? Now, the trick is the prop size. We'll
have to use a PSIU (propeller speed increasing unit), but I still think we
are going to have to increase the length of the landing gear, or shaft drive
multiple props. <g>

And no, you will not be able to license it as an ultralight. <BFG> Shoot,
the engine to start the main engine will be heavier than most light planes!
--
Jim in NC

[Flyingmonk]

Marc wrote:
>By coincidence, the energy in a gallon of liquid H2 is in the same
>ball park as a gallon of gasoline, so figure a 50 gallon tank. But a
>gallon of liquid H2 is just over 1/2 pound -1/12th the density of
>gasoline. That - and the need to keep it at minus 423 degrees F-
>makes for some interesting design tradeoffs. ;^)

Richard Riley! Is that you?

[Flyingmonk]

Jim in NC wrote:
>And no, you will not be able to license it as an ultralight. <BFG> Shoot,
>the engine to start the main engine will be heavier than most light planes!

I could salvage the metal in the crank shaft alone to pay off my
mortgages... "Damn that shaft's big!" saids wifey :<)

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Ben Hallert wrote:
> > Howdy,
> >
> > Just for comparison, the O-200 puts out 100hp at like 5-6gph of av gas,
> > right? Whether or not the engine mentioned can do it, it seems
> > difficult to believe that the O-200 is the height of efficiency. 100hp
> > at 4gph doesn't seem like that far of a stretch when compared to the
> > burn on the O-200, I guess, especially when energy denser fuels than
> > avgas exist.
> >
> > That said, I don't understand what the bourke engine is supposed to do
> > different to get the numbers it describes, like another poster
> > mentioned, it looks like a two cylinder rotary.
>
> Most internal combustion engines (including the O-200) have a BSFC
> between 0.4 and 0.5 pounds/hp/hour.
>
> I'd say an O-200 puts out 100hp at about 8gph, 5-6 gph is a typical
> cruise fuel flow. 100hp is at sea level, wide open throttle, max rpm.
> You don't spend too much flight time in that regime.
>
> The O-200 is not the height of efficiency, but it isn't the height of
> inefficiency either. From an engineering perspective, 0.25 lb/hp/hr is,
> uh, extraordinary to say the least. Think of it like the internal
> combustion engine's answer to cold fusion.
>
> Also, consider which definition of energy density you're using. Avgas,
> Jet-A, and kerosene have virtually the same mass energy density (avgas
> is actually about one percent greater than Jet-A). A gallon of avgas is
> lighter than a gallon of kerosene (and/or jet fuel, diesel), so it's
> _volumetric_ energy density is less.

Actually, its energy density per pound should be the same, for "traditional"
gasoline; but less per gallon.

0.25 lb/hp/hr should be readily achievable for a stratified charge engine
which runs unthrottled at a modest power output. That is how the diesels
accomplish it.

As to that kind of efficiency, and a reasonable weight, at a power level
that can fly an aircraft; medium size and larger turboprops are still "the
only game in town" and that won't change anytime soon!

BTW, I too regard this engine as impractical and vaporware, it addition to
the efficiency being unlikely.

[[email protected]]

Ben Hallert wrote:
>
> ...
>
> That said, I don't understand what the bourke engine is supposed to do
> different to get the numbers it describes, like another poster
> mentioned, it looks like a two cylinder rotary.
>

ITYM 'radial'. I make the same mistake in conversation all the time.

--

FF

[Flyingmonk]

Just wanted to make sure.

[Flyingmonk]

I got your post mixed up w/ Marc's. Sorry.

Note to self: Don't try to post when you didn't have enough rest.

[Chris Wells]

Someone said >

By coincidence, the energy in a gallon of liquid H2 is in the same
ball park as a gallon of gasoline, so figure a 50 gallon tank. But a
gallon of liquid H2 is just over 1/2 pound -1/12th the density of
gasoline. That - and the need to keep it at minus 423 degrees F-
makes for some interesting design tradeoffs. ;^)


Can someone post a cite? Everything I can find suggests a gallon of liquid hydrogen has much less energy than a gallon of even automotive gasoline. I'm not quibbling, I'm really just interested in knowing the specifics. Thanks.

[Roger]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:31:29 +0000, Chris Wells
> wrote:

>
>Someone said >
>
>By coincidence, the energy in a gallon of liquid H2 is in the same
>ball park as a gallon of gasoline, so figure a 50 gallon tank. But a
>gallon of liquid H2 is just over 1/2 pound -1/12th the density of
>gasoline. That - and the need to keep it at minus 423 degrees F-
>makes for some interesting design tradeoffs. ;^)
>
>
>Can someone post a cite? Everything I can find suggests a gallon of
>liquid hydrogen has much less energy than a gallon of even automotive
>gasoline. I'm not quibbling, I'm really just interested in knowing the
>specifics. Thanks.

You hit a topic that I've just been researching and I have never seen
so many *different* results from comparisons or such bias in studies.
The only thing with more conflicting results and promises was Alcohol.

But I can give you a few specifics which should be undisputed.
First, to directly answer your question: A gallon of gasoline has
about 120,000 BTUs, A gallon of liquid hydrogen has about 30,000 BTU,
so it takes 4 gallons of liquid hydrogen to equal the energy in a
gallon of gas. So the weight savings although substantial is not
nearly as much as it appears.

*OTOH* I believe (I'm trying to relocate the source of that one) an
engine running on straight H2 can be about twice as efficient as one
burning gas. (this is not quite as straight forward as it sounds),
but that means we only need half as much fuel to go the same distance.

"In general" the industry thinks of Hydrogen like a battery, rather
than a fuel. It is an intermediary where you put in energy to make H2
and then you get the energy back out.

Like charging a battery it takes more energy to make Hydrogen than you
can get back out of it. It is difficult to make and costly depending
on the method used.

Proponents like to cite esoteric ways of making hydrogen that cost
little, such as wind and solar energy, but those are only dependable
in a few geographic areas. They forget that the installation of a
suitable solar array is quite expensive and depending on location the
maintenance can also be expensive. Wind generators are not cheap
either.

So in reality it's expensive and it's difficult to store in quantity,
but there is some promise in using metal hydrides as metal sponges.
Unfortunately you just lost the weight advantage when using metal
sponges for storage.

Like electricity, the energy to create the Hydrogen has to come from
some where and there just aren't that many places where solar and wind
are dependable and/or predictable.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:24:55 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 02:30:09 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
>wrote:
>
>:>"Richard Riley" wrote in message
>:> OTOH, I'm doing some work now with a V6 that's getting an SFC of .05.
>:> But that's on pure hydrogen, so the fuel system ends up a little
>:> involved. :)
>:
>:How big would the hydrogen tank be for a C-172?
>:
>:D.
>
>By coincidence, the energy in a gallon of liquid H2 is in the same
>ball park as a gallon of gasoline, so figure a 50 gallon tank. But a

No, the energy in a gallon of Hydrogen is no where near the energy in
a gallon of gas. A gallon of gasoline has
about 120,000 BTUs, A gallon of liquid hydrogen has about 30,000 BTU,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>gallon of liquid H2 is just over 1/2 pound -1/12th the density of
>gasoline. That - and the need to keep it at minus 423 degrees F-
>makes for some interesting design tradeoffs. ;^)

[Roger]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:46:28 -0500, Roger
> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:31:29 +0000, Chris Wells
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Someone said >
>>
>>By coincidence, the energy in a gallon of liquid H2 is in the same
>>ball park as a gallon of gasoline, so figure a 50 gallon tank. But a
>>gallon of liquid H2 is just over 1/2 pound -1/12th the density of
>>gasoline. That - and the need to keep it at minus 423 degrees F-
>>makes for some interesting design tradeoffs. ;^)
>>
Remember fuel prices change rapidly and over a wide range so many of
these articles may be a tad out of date already.

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm for a fresh if not realistic
approach for most of us. Note the car uses tanks of metal hydride to
hold/store the Hydrogen safely.
>>
>>Can someone post a cite? Everything I can find suggests a gallon of
>>liquid hydrogen has much less energy than a gallon of even automotive
>>gasoline. I'm not quibbling, I'm really just interested in knowing the
>>specifics. Thanks.

See the above link and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
where they are using metal hydride sponges to hold the Hydrogen
safely. Note they talk about free fuel, but not the cost of
installing the system which is a long way from being cheap.

I think some confusion comes from the way the energy is stated.
Hydrogen does have the highest energy per unit weight, but not volume
and Hydrogen is far lighter even in liquid form than other fuels. It
appears to depend on what image a company wishes to convey whether
they rate the energy in unit volume of weight.

I should have included these in the original post.
As far as range the car "claims" a range of about 250 miles on the
Hydrogen it carries. I'm not sure how many tanks or how much weight
that would add up to. The engine is a dual fuel in that when it runs
out of hydrogen it switches to conventional gas.

Hydrogen and high compression do not mix well either in gas type
engines, but works great in diesel as pre ignition is no longer a
problem. However with high compression come nitrides as pollution.
>
In general, Hydrogen is considered expensive and would be in most
cases.


BTW, I've always been under the impression that Alcohol had a low
octane rating, but it's about 115 measured in the same manner as car
gas. You see all kinds of claims, but the true cost is about $2.40
something a gallon.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>You hit a topic that I've just been researching and I have never seen
>so many *different* results from comparisons or such bias in studies.
>The only thing with more conflicting results and promises was Alcohol.
>
>But I can give you a few specifics which should be undisputed.
>First, to directly answer your question: A gallon of gasoline has
>about 120,000 BTUs, A gallon of liquid hydrogen has about 30,000 BTU,
>so it takes 4 gallons of liquid hydrogen to equal the energy in a
>gallon of gas. So the weight savings although substantial is not
>nearly as much as it appears.
>
>*OTOH* I believe (I'm trying to relocate the source of that one) an
>engine running on straight H2 can be about twice as efficient as one
>burning gas. (this is not quite as straight forward as it sounds),
>but that means we only need half as much fuel to go the same distance.
>
>"In general" the industry thinks of Hydrogen like a battery, rather
>than a fuel. It is an intermediary where you put in energy to make H2
>and then you get the energy back out.
>
>Like charging a battery it takes more energy to make Hydrogen than you
>can get back out of it. It is difficult to make and costly depending
>on the method used.
>
> Proponents like to cite esoteric ways of making hydrogen that cost
>little, such as wind and solar energy, but those are only dependable
>in a few geographic areas. They forget that the installation of a
>suitable solar array is quite expensive and depending on location the
>maintenance can also be expensive. Wind generators are not cheap
>either.
>
> So in reality it's expensive and it's difficult to store in quantity,
>but there is some promise in using metal hydrides as metal sponges.
>Unfortunately you just lost the weight advantage when using metal
>sponges for storage.
>
>Like electricity, the energy to create the Hydrogen has to come from
>some where and there just aren't that many places where solar and wind
>are dependable and/or predictable.
>
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

[Chris Wells]

>But I can give you a few specifics which should be undisputed.
>First, to directly answer your question: A gallon of gasoline has
>about 120,000 BTUs, A gallon of liquid hydrogen has about 30,000 BTU,
>so it takes 4 gallons of liquid hydrogen to equal the energy in a
>gallon of gas. So the weight savings although substantial is not
>nearly as much as it appears.

Except a gallon of liquid H2 weighs much less than a gallon of gas.


>Proponents like to cite esoteric ways of making hydrogen that cost
>little, such as wind and solar energy, but those are only dependable
>in a few geographic areas. They forget that the installation of a
>suitable solar array is quite expensive and depending on location the
>maintenance can also be expensive. Wind generators are not cheap
>either.


A few geographic areas? That's hardly an accurate statement. Not only has there been an explosion in the growth of solar & wind energy, there are vast areas of the earth, far from human habitaion, where both forms could be used to produce hydrogen which could be shipped in hydride or some other form by robots in the near future. Also, wind energy is one of the cheapest forms of energy at the moment, and it's getting cheaper. There are other forms of renewable energy, and energy storage technologies, that though relatively unknown, have vast potential - such as wave energy and air compression.

No energy technology will single-handedly save us from our problems, but a combination of conservation and resource management can enable us to provide all of our energy needs with renewables, not that it would be necessary (or possible) to stop all fossil fuel use.

[[email protected]]

Chris Wells wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Proponents like to cite esoteric ways of making hydrogen that cost
> >little, such as wind and solar energy, but those are only dependable
> >in a few geographic areas. They forget that the installation of a
> >suitable solar array is quite expensive and depending on location the
> >maintenance can also be expensive. Wind generators are not cheap
> >either.
>
>
> A few geographic areas? That's hardly an accurate statement.

True. The actual statement was "...but those are
only dependable in a few geographic areas. "

And it is quite true because over most of the Earth
winds and clouds are highly variable.

> Not only
> has there been an explosion in the growth of solar & wind energy, there
> are vast areas of the earth, far from human habitaion, where both
> forms could be used to produce hydrogen which could be shipped in
> hydride or some other form by robots in the near future. ...

Which also provides a buffering effect compensating for that
variablity.

--

FF

[Roger]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:57:46 +0000, Chris Wells
> wrote:

>
>>But I can give you a few specifics which should be undisputed.
>>First, to directly answer your question: A gallon of gasoline has
>>about 120,000 BTUs, A gallon of liquid hydrogen has about 30,000 BTU,
>>so it takes 4 gallons of liquid hydrogen to equal the energy in a
>>gallon of gas. So the weight savings although substantial is not
>>nearly as much as it appears.
>
>Except a gallon of liquid H2 weighs much less than a gallon of gas.
>
I already said that. I also mentioned that an engine running on
Hydrogen can be almost twice as efficient as an internal combustion
engine running on gas.

>
>>Proponents like to cite esoteric ways of making hydrogen that cost
>>little, such as wind and solar energy, but those are only dependable
>>in a few geographic areas. They forget that the installation of a
>>suitable solar array is quite expensive and depending on location the
>>maintenance can also be expensive. Wind generators are not cheap
>>either.
>
>
>A few geographic areas? That's hardly an accurate statement. Not only

I stand by the statement as fairly accurate, but I will change it to
say a few handily accessible areas.

>has there been an explosion in the growth of solar & wind energy, there
>are vast areas of the earth, far from human habitaion, where both

The explosion in growth still leaves it as only a token in size.

Far from human habitation makes them expensive due to the added
requirements of storage and shipment. However as I understand it you
can get more hydrogen into a given volume of hydrides than you can
liquid hydrogen into the same volume. I have a bit of trouble
understanding the physics of that one, but I read it on the net so it
must be true. <:-)) However when you scale up the generation and
shipment you bring a whole new set of problems and costs into the
equation.

If you use the electricity directly from the wind generators it would
have to be a very large scale operation to justify the power
transmission lines if it is very far from populated areas which again
would make it expensive. At least the Hydrogen could be done on a
smaller scale and would be easier to scale up in smaller steps.

Take for instance Alcohol. The best places for growing crops/bio mass
to produce Alcohol in the US are in the southern states. However the
ability to produce biomass is limited by both geography and economic
conditions. How much productive land can be taken out of regular
production to produce biomass before it impacts the cost of other
crops and the availability of food? Brazil has already run into this
problem and they produce Alcohol from sugar cane. They have the ideal
climate and the ideal crop and they have an Alcohol economy.
Unfortunately it has already caused some severe economic problems.

>forms could be used to produce hydrogen which could be shipped in
>hydride or some other form by robots in the near future. Also, wind

They aren't going to be shipped by robots in the near future. Local
labor would howl like mad were the equipment available, but the
technology (both wind and solar) is expensive to implement and you are
talking Hydrogen in *quantity* which becomes a whole different animal.
You really need to live in an area where solar or wind is viable and
close to produce Hydrogen on a small scale.

>energy is one of the cheapest forms of energy at the moment, and it's
>getting cheaper. There are other forms of renewable energy, and energy

That is true, but there are so many places where it is not a viable
source. Take Michigan for example. Although there are a few working
wind generators and we have the ideal average wind of 8 mph, we have
long periods of little or no wind and periods of high winds to get
that average. Neither the high winds or calm are of much use in power
generation. At least the newer generators are not nearly as noisy as
the old two bladed ones. Those things were loud!

>storage technologies, that though relatively unknown, have vast
>potential - such as wave energy and air compression.


So far, air compression is not viable on a large scale and it's a very
lossy (large negative net power gain), but water being pumped to a
higher elevation (potential energy) is much more efficient. It's also
being used as a storage medium here in Michigan by at least one power
plant on Lake Michigan. The problems with these storage methods is
they take more power then they give back so they are used during slack
times to store excess energy. All forms of energy storage have a
negative, net power gain. Hydrides, and Hydrogen storage are probably
the most efficient, but they are not exactly light weight or cheap
Wave energy is a method of power generation rather than storage unless
we are talking about two different things.

Even if you could produce the Hydrogen for free the equipment for
transportation and storage would make it an expensive fuel.
*Eventually* the prices would probably come down when Hydrides are
available on a large scale, but again it most likely would take
decades. I say hydrides as they are currently about the only safe way
of storing large amounts of Hydrogen in a hostile environment (the
highway) They are actually much safer than cars using gas.

>
>No energy technology will single-handedly save us from our problems,
>but a combination of conservation and resource management can enable us
>to provide all of our energy needs with renewables, not that it would be
>necessary (or possible) to stop all fossil fuel use.

Here we are in agreement, but I see the adoption of alternative fuels
on large scale as being quite a ways off and "on the average" they are
still well above the cost of regular gas. From what I've read in the
last few weeks puts the cost of gas, on average at roughly $2.50 to
$3.00 a gallon before the alternative fuels can become a viable
alternative. When subsidies are figured in that is just about the cost
of a gallon of Alcohol ($2.46).

I think the adoption of alternative fuels and energy sources on
anything other than a token scale or localized such as the wind farms
in California and Japan is more than a decade off and most likely even
a couple of decades or more. I wish it were sooner, but the more I
study it the farther off it seems.

As to conservation: If every car and truck on the road could cut
their consumption by a third (33%) by what ever means, we'd probably
no longer have to import oil.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

Roger wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I also mentioned that an engine running on
> Hydrogen can be almost twice as efficient as an internal combustion
> engine running on gas.
>

Wouldn't twice the efficiency of a gasoline engine
be greater than the maximum thermodynamic
efficiency?

--

FF

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
Roger > wrote:


>
> As to conservation: If every car and truck on the road could cut
> their consumption by a third (33%) by what ever means, we'd probably
> no longer have to import oil.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

According to Environmental Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, senior
counsel for the National Resources Defense Fund:

* If we raise fuel efficiency standards in American cars by one mile
per gallon, in one year, we would save twice the amount of oil that
could be obtained from the arctic national wildlife refuge
* Raise it by 2.7 miles a gallon to eliminate all the oil imports from
Iraq and Kuwait combined
* Raise it by 7.6 mpg, we eliminate one-hundred percent of our gulf oil
imports into this country.


end quote.

(Unfortunately, every time cars are made more fuel efficient, Americans
drive more.)

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> As to conservation: If every car and truck on the road could cut
> their consumption by a third (33%) by what ever means, we'd probably
> no longer have to import oil.

Really? I don't doubt you are sincere in stating that, but I find it hard
to believe. How did you figure that, or was it a s-wag? ;-)

By the way, I'm looking forward to your Titanic show! Way to go!
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:47:44 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote
>
>> As to conservation: If every car and truck on the road could cut
>> their consumption by a third (33%) by what ever means, we'd probably
>> no longer have to import oil.
>
>Really? I don't doubt you are sincere in stating that, but I find it hard
>to believe. How did you figure that, or was it a s-wag? ;-)

You will note the weasel word in there, "probably"<:-)) However, I
based that on the % of fuel we import, and the estimated national
consumption on the roads.
>
>By the way, I'm looking forward to your Titanic show! Way to go!

Titanic show? Now what did I mistype, or my spell checker
change?<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Flyingmonk]

He's thinking of Rogwe Long, not Roger Halstead.

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> He's thinking of Rogwe Long, not Roger Halstead.

YES, you are correct. So, who do I have to pay? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Smitty Two wrote:
> ...
>
> (Unfortunately, every time cars are made more fuel efficient, Americans
> drive more.)

According to commentator George Will, for a 10% increase
in fuel economy Americans drive 2% more. He wrote that
means improvement in fuel economy _may_ result in Americans
using more gas than without the improvement. That opinion
is not shared by those of us who learned arithmetic in elementary
school.

--

FF

[Roger]

On 19 Dec 2005 12:50:42 -0800, wrote:

>
>Smitty Two wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> (Unfortunately, every time cars are made more fuel efficient, Americans
>> drive more.)
>
>According to commentator George Will, for a 10% increase
>in fuel economy Americans drive 2% more. He wrote that

I think he may be off more than a bit. The amount Americans drive is
quite dependent on price. No it's not logical in the long run, but if
gas is $3.00 a gallon an increase in mileage of 10% will have a far
greater affect on how much people drive than if the change occurs on
$2.00 a gallon gas.

>means improvement in fuel economy _may_ result in Americans
>using more gas than without the improvement. That opinion
>is not shared by those of us who learned arithmetic in elementary
>school.

You have to look beyond the basics, but it doesn't take much beyond
$2.50 a gallon before people really start backing off on how much they
drive. If gas is under $2.50 a gallon I seriously doubt a 20%
increase in mileage would have much affect at all.

So, what he said may, or may not be true depending on the price of gas
at any particular time.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

Roger wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 12:50:42 -0800, wrote:
>
> ...
>
> So, what he said may, or may not be true depending on the price of gas
> at any particular time.
>

It is never true that driving 2% farther with a improvement
in economy of 10% will result in more gas being used.

--

FF

[Roger]

On 20 Dec 2005 06:23:01 -0800, wrote:

>
>Roger wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2005 12:50:42 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> So, what he said may, or may not be true depending on the price of gas
>> at any particular time.
>>
>
>It is never true that driving 2% farther with a improvement
>in economy of 10% will result in more gas being used.

That isn't quite what I read out of the OP. I may have misread it,
but I saw it as a 10% increase in economy would only result in an
increase of 2% in driving or miles driven according tot he
commentator. Which would depend on pricing, or the range of gas
prices meaning that figure doesn't have a sound basis.

I agree that driving 2% farther (under the same conditions) when there
has been a 10% increase in economy will not result in more gas being
used.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

Roger wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005 06:23:01 -0800, wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> >It is never true that driving 2% farther with a improvement
> >in economy of 10% will result in more gas being used.
>
> That isn't quite what I read out of the OP. I may have misread it ...

OP was columnist George Will. As I recall he wrote that for every
10% improvement in fuel economy Americans drive 2% farther.
Therefore that imprevement MAY (or might) result in more fuel
use.

His use of the conditional indicates that he didn't even know how to
do arithmetic. That a supposedly intelligent person would publish
such a statement is a sad commentary on the level of education
in our society.

Your other comments, about how the _price_ of fuel is plainly the
more important factor regarding fuel usage, are well-taken.

--

FF