eyeque
12th October 2008 - 06:19 AM
QUOTE (eyeque+Oct 12 2008, 06:12 AM)
Di borane was a rocket fuel 45 years ago
Hydrazin has more bang for your bucks than any rocket fuel HN3
Compare with Amonia NH3
Yes I have designed my fuel cell ingredients like rocket fuel or propelant to drive a .369 bullet at 1 knot per second with a 9 in two rifling twist (My Soultech post)
Nine in two twist? do you want to cum out lol
hawksecho
12th October 2008 - 06:33 AM
The major cost in fuel cells will be the refueling infrastructure. You can get hydrogen from methane (natural gas to Americans), and the distribution "pipes in the ground" are already there. But you need the refueling stations as well. For that reason fuel cells for transportation is not going to economically complete any time soon, meaning it's not going to be built very quickly. Splitting hydrogen/O2 and using the H for fuel costs A LOT of raw energy. In time, with more economical, and renewable electric energy production this will happen, and the economy will be there, but not today or the near future by any stretch.
The biggest cost in fuel cells today are the need for platinum. While true catalytic converters use platinum, its considerably less. At the moment the best hope lies in alternative fuel cell materials and production methods. Polymer fuel cells may be the hope here. Yes, I think fuel cells are being incorporated, or will be in certain high end computer products, but I don't know how they can reasonably be refueled. Any one out there who knows, don't keep it a secret.
But for the time being, combinations of more electrical/other power plant hybrids make more sense for most vehicles. I can see a sooner use of fuel cells in things like buses, vehicle fleets, etc because they can rely on a central refueling source that could use natural gas for both, the starting fluid and the power to convert it. With places like the Federal Express headquarters having its vast building covered with photo-voltaic cells, this offers a way to (now the place has such cells on the roof), used to produce hydrogen. From water (power intensive) or natural gas (much cheaper). Fleets of such vehicles can also help us work out the kinks that must show up when large numbers of vehicles are using them.
eyeque
12th October 2008 - 06:41 AM
Another thing you have no knolege about from 35 years ago was that platinum, or was that palladium, (At fifty my 12 old memory is faulting) but the text read that the metal absorbs larg amounts of hydrogen. Metal is metal and can be built into a humungus fuel cell. Soak all the liquid hydrogen into the paladium and build a fast acting fuel cell.
Im still riding on intelect of a 12 year old from 1973, however/but it has been modified
Don't even dare question my 10 year olds knoledge of particle accellerators/particle physics - youl be like a silly goat headbutting a tree
eyeque
12th October 2008 - 06:51 AM
Platinum is good to electroplate engine cylinder because it absobs lubricant oil into its electroplated surface.
Palladium is what absorbs liquid hydrogen qmongst its atoms and can be used to build a fast fuel cell(at 50 my memory is slugish, but there is a lifetime of leathal information in my brain)
hawksecho
12th October 2008 - 07:06 AM
QUOTE (eyeque+Oct 12 2008, 12:12 AM)
Di borane was a rocket fuel 45 years ago
Hydrazin has more bang for your bucks than any rocket fuel HN3
Compare with Amonia NH3
Yes I have designed my fuel cell ingredients like rocket fuel or propelant to drive a .369 bullet at 1 knot per second with a 9 in two rifling twist (My Soultech post)
I am aware of the use of hydrazine as a thruster fuel, as opposed to "pure" rocket fuel. I have no idea what di borane is, can you give me the chemical formula? 45 years ago we were using liquid o2 and alcohol, and H/o2. Not to mention very effective solid propellants, after not so great ones like gun powder... Also the Germans in WW-2 used T-stoff and S-toff, like hydrazine ultra corrosive, with the former all you had to do is combine them and let the hypergolic reaction do its thing. A .369 @ 1 knot per second is a pretty low energy reaction, and just what do you mean by "a 9 with two rifling twist"? What you have said does not to make much sense to me but then areospace for me (with the exception of stealth coatings) is just a passionate hobby. The actual membrane exchange that is the power mechanisim in fuel cells has very little kinetic energy potential. Just as the specific impulse, or thrust, of an ion rocket is so much less then chemical, let alone nuclear thermal as in NERVA ones. High velocity yes but sadly little "umph"
I should point out for whatever its worth I'm a long term member of the AIAA, American Institue of Avionics and Astronautics, the British Interplanetary Society and in the mid-1980's on the research and advisory panel of Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. Also a pilot. I like to certainly be kept up to date on whats going on, and dont like to think Ive missed something as basic as rocket or fuel cell chemistry. Thats why I ask a lot of questions.
eyeque
12th October 2008 - 07:34 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoraneDi-borane was used as a rocket fuel
angelinalove
14th October 2008 - 06:10 AM
Thanks for info. but I would like to tell about nokia n96
which is like a magic creation in this era. n96 wins hands down with 16 GB memory which is enough for an user.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.