Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

FalcoColumbarius wrote:

nxski wrote:One word...HYDROGEN! Another Top Gear episode about the Honda Clarity covers this one quite well I think.

Two words...



Falco.

I realise you are joking, but Hydrogen is far far less dangerous in a fire than gasoline. Gasoline pools on the ground underneath you, and it is more energy dense. Hydrogen, by contrast floats upwards into the sky away from you, and burns with less heat. In fact, in the Hindenburg disaster many survived because the fireball moved upwards and away from them, not down. Yes, people died, much of that was because they were hanging under a fireball made of coated rocket fuel and hydrogen many feet above the ground. Not conducive to a good day.

Mr. Flibble wrote: I realise you are joking, but Hydrogen is far far less dangerous in a fire than gasoline. Gasoline pools on the ground underneath you, and it is more energy dense. Hydrogen, by contrast floats upwards into the sky away from you, and burns with less heat. In fact, in the Hindenburg disaster many survived because the fireball moved upwards and away from them, not down. Yes, people died, much of that was because they were hanging under a fireball made of coated rocket fuel and hydrogen many feet above the ground. Not conducive to a good day.

yes but that is a fire. hydrogen is way more volatile when under high pressure in storage cylinders, and even at lower pressures when mixed with the wrong percentage of oxygen and a little ignition source will have an explosive nature rather than a burn. just a tiny built up pocket the size of a tennis ball of low pressure hydrogen and oxygen has enough energy to knock you on your ass when ignited.

rezdiver wrote:

Mr. Flibble wrote: I realise you are joking, but Hydrogen is far far less dangerous in a fire than gasoline. Gasoline pools on the ground underneath you, and it is more energy dense. Hydrogen, by contrast floats upwards into the sky away from you, and burns with less heat. In fact, in the Hindenburg disaster many survived because the fireball moved upwards and away from them, not down. Yes, people died, much of that was because they were hanging under a fireball made of coated rocket fuel and hydrogen many feet above the ground. Not conducive to a good day.

yes but that is a fire. hydrogen is way more volatile when under high pressure in storage cylinders, and even at lower pressures when mixed with the wrong percentage of oxygen and a little ignition source will have an explosive nature rather than a burn. just a tiny built up pocket the size of a tennis ball of low pressure hydrogen and oxygen has enough energy to knock you on your ass when ignited.

Luckily you're already sitting on your ass when driving. But seriously, if it was as dangerous as some make us beleive I doubt they'd be using aHydrogen powered busses to shuttle people around, nor would they sell a street legal Hydrogen powered car in California.

it is as dangerous, but luckily technology is slowly catching up to be able to control and safely use it as a fuel. it is abundant and renewable fuel and if it was easy to work with, I am sure the world would have already been running completely on hydrogen already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_vehicle

Falco,
those busses and cars are using hydrogen cells as an energy source to run an electric motor, they are not just compressed hydrogen. and I believe the hydrogen cell works kind of on the same principal as a dielectric, as it is a controlled reaction in a cell between hydrogen and oxygen to produce heat energy to drive a motor. they are infact electric cars and busses with electric motors, the difference is that the battery they use to power it is a hydrogen cell.
also these are just a few dozen vehicles and busses being used as an experiment and i do not believe there is anything on the production line yet.

Lol. Nagasaki??? What does the site of a nuclear FISSION bomb explosion have to do with Hydrogen gas, compressed or otherwise as a modern fuel source in automobiles? The Hydrogen bomb was developed years later, uses the process known as nuclear fusion and uses a different isotope of hydrogen completely..

psilosin wrote:Lol. Nagasaki??? What does the site of a nuclear FISSION bomb explosion have to do with Hydrogen gas, compressed or otherwise as a modern fuel source in automobiles? The Hydrogen bomb was developed years later, uses the process known as nuclear fusion and uses a different isotope of hydrogen completely..

My word, you're right. I guess I should of said "Bikini comes to mind". That's what you get when you scan the page too fast, hydrogen fusion being the fuse here. My poorly researched glib comment aside, my point is really about compressed hydrogen gas.

rezdiver wrote:those busses and cars are using hydrogen cells as an energy source to run an electric motor, they are not just compressed hydrogen. ......

But are we talking about compressed hydrogen at one point? Or have I got this completely wrong? Expand on this please.

Falco.

rezdiver wrote:also these are just a few dozen vehicles and busses being used as an experiment and i do not believe there is anything on the production line yet.

Hydrogen powered busses are transporting people around Whistler (not sure if that's a test or not) but the Honda Clarity is being sold in California, hydrogen fuelling station are available and it is in production.

FalcoColumbarius wrote:Actually Mr. Flibble, I am serious about this. If you ask a fireman if gasoline burns the correct answer should be no, gasoline does not burn. In fact nothing liquid or solid burns without compression. Gases burn. What makes gasoline so volatile is the rate in which the liquid vapourizes, no? Hydrogen on the other hand is already a volatile gas to start with and as Rezdiver points out, when stored under pressure it can be potentially explosive ~ and it doesn't just blow up, it blows in all directions. Nagasaki comes to mind. However, if we go with the blowing up model then if you are sitting above the fuel source.... hmm.

It's not that I'm against the electrical car or the hydrogen powered vehicle, I just want to see things in some sort of dialectic perspective.

I never heard the story about the Hummer being better for the environment than a Prius, sounds a bit suspect to me. I did, however, see the Top Gear episode where they demonstrated how a BMW M3 gets better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius, as well as expounding on what goes into the creation of one of those batteries that Toyota uses to claim such incredible mileage, which is like comparing apples to liposuction.

Regarding trusting the powers that be to make the safe decision for you and me... did I mention the Hindenburg disaster? I doubt they sold those seats with the caveat that the purchaser beware of the risk involved in taking such a trip ~ and the people who did survive ~ how well did they survive? Perhaps the bus is safer.... Just wondering about how hydrogen under pressure might react if the metal container should be ruptured. Just a thought.

Falco.

Falco every type of liquid has a vapor pressure, where there is at all times a certain amount of the liquid returning to gas form. Every fluid is different. With gasoline at room temperature , a relativity narrow range of gas in percentage to air in gaseous form can be ignited by only a very high temperature ignition. Add pressure and heat, than gas explodes. Ether and diesel make for a good science project to demonstrate flash points under atmospheric conditions.

Any hydrogen system is going to be designed with huge safety margins, but true it is more volatile if the containment is damaged. So the question is which is better, a long prolonged burn of gasoline or a quick flash of hydrogen fire? Hopeful that short jet of burning high pressure hydrogen is directed away from the occupants of the vehicle. Think 'a big can of hairspray'. Some hydrogen providers suggest a large number of battery units (filling stations), or field compression, to provide your hydrogen fuel in liquid - or near liquid form.

Anybody here been stupid enough to drink small amounts of liquid hydrogen and helium? Yes, we did during late nights in the lab many years ago...dumb

I did a quick search and could not find the article about the lawsuit over the Hummer/Prius analysis article. It had calculated that the carbon footprint of both the building and the driving of each over 4 years, and the big original version of the Hummer came out as the better vehicle with less of a total carbon footprint. And that was not including the huge dead zones created on the planet from battery manufacturing. Toyota had a successful lawsuit against that article and its removal, I wanted to find the PDF of that court ruling but had not luck.

Now lets build a small diesel engine electric hybrid Delica! An electric motor for each differential (switchable of course), carrying a small battery load and a -hopefully WVO powered - small fueled generator. Maybe enough some solar charging, Delica's have large roof surfaces, for small distance charging. Hmmm

Hydrogen in not a viable fuel right now they get hydrogen from fossils fuels so its still the same problem. I work on the the hydrogen buses before they went to Whistler and trust me when I say this they are junk. The consumption rate of those buses is 7 kg of hydrogen equals 1gallon of diesel fuel. But the cost for hydrogen is $16 per kg only the government could afford to do this.
Our diesel hybrid buses in the city get double the mileage vs none hybrid but as soon as it goes on the hi way they start to get worse mileage. But the maintenance is a lot lower.
The next set for use is full electric with lith-ion batteries with the German invention of flash charging using solar panels and capacitors

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 11-04.html

Just a thought

Dustin

Anybody believe that the oil companies don't already have a plan of how they will survive when they can't sell oil ?

john

FalcoColumbarius wrote:Actually Mr. Flibble, I am serious about this. If you ask a fireman if gasoline burns the correct answer should be no, gasoline does not burn. In fact nothing liquid or solid burns without compression. Gases burn. What makes gasoline so volatile is the rate in which the liquid vapourizes, no? Hydrogen on the other hand is already a volatile gas to start with and as Rezdiver points out, when stored under pressure it can be potentially explosive ~ and it doesn't just blow up, it blows in all directions. Nagasaki comes to mind. However, if we go with the blowing up model then if you are sitting above the fuel source.... hmm.

The thing is, hydrogen is less dense than air, yes, it is already a gas. This is why it floats in balloons. So, if you try to coat yourself with hydrogen and set yourself on fire, it does not work very well. However, if you try the same with gasoline, well, you see what happens. The reason for this is that gasoline, is, as you stated, liquid. As it changes from liquid to gas and mixes with air it becomes flammable, or even explosive. It is this same explosion that can be used to drive a car or power a fuel-air explosive.

When it comes down to energy density, hydrogen is far lower than that of gasoline, diesel or propane. This is why hydrogen needs to be compressed - just in the same way propane is for your barbeque. The advantage is that it is easy to make from water, and it turns back into water when you burn it.

Does it burn? Well, yes. Otherwise it would be useless as a fuel. Does it explode? Sure, otherwise it would not be useful to power an engine. However, when it decompresses from a cylinder, it is safer because it floats upwards, as opposed to pooling below you in a form that is rapidly turning into a flammable gas. So, when you have a hydrogen fire, most of it is a lower temperature flame, that rapidly moves upwards with the source of ignition. With gasoline, you are stuck in the middle of the fireball.

The tradeoff of course, is that you need more hydrogen to get a comparable distance that you would compared to gasoline as hydrogen is less energy dense.

So, if given the choice, if you want to self-immolate like a monk, you are going to be far better off with hydrogen, because it won't stick to you and keep you burning.

As for Nagasaki, the "hydrogen" involved was undergoing nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions. And even that was not a hydrogen bomb. It was a plutonium bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man. Any "Hydrogen" you hear about in nuclear explosions is not common road hydrogen which is H2. H3 - known as Tritium - is what is used to enrich a nuclear explosion to increase the yield. This is what we call a hydrogen bomb. I do own some tritium as a lit pendant - because it is radioactive. However, regular hydrogen is not, not will normal hydrogen increase the yield in a nuclear explosion.

Mr. Flibble wrote: As for Nagasaki, the "hydrogen" involved was undergoing nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions. And even that was not a hydrogen bomb. It was a plutonium bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

Already posted that info.

psilosin wrote:

Mr. Flibble wrote: As for Nagasaki, the "hydrogen" involved was undergoing nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions. And even that was not a hydrogen bomb. It was a plutonium bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

Already posted that info.

Indeed, you did! :p

I don't get the hydrogen fear though, when it comes right down to it, it is much safer in a crash than gasoline, but everyone just feels comfortable with gasoline because we have had it and used it for years.