George Bush - selfish!!!

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, there are some who speculate that hydrogen is simply too dangerous to ever be safely used for cars. Peter Voyentzie of Danbury, Connecticut’s Energy Research Corporation, which makes large stationary fuel cell power plants, is skeptical about automotive applications. “Hydrogen is a strange beast,” he says. “It’s the smallest molecule, and it leaks out of everything. You also can’t see it burn. In a car, it has to remain stable through collisions and constant agitation. That’s a lot to expect.

---

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?171

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Well I saw, think it was Fifth Gear on Five, two separate tests. One with a petrol car and the explosion sent the car up in the air about ten feet. The hydrogen car simply destroyed the car.

What they also found was that if a Hydrogen car exploded in a traffic jam it would destroy the cars around it, and if they were Hydrogen based also....well, do the words chain reaction mean anything?

---

It would save having to clear away all those motorway pile ups :lol:

Brings a new meaning to the phrase "jam busting" :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

there's safety issues with every kind of fuel but no manufacturer would get away with producing a system that blows up an entire block. And as I said, storage and handling is vital to using the system but the same goes for petrol tanks. Sadly, most people seem to think in apocalyptic terms when it comes to hydrogen.

Perhaps you've lived too long in the shadow of the bomb ;)

---

It's the fact that it leaks through steel, that worries me. It's a particularly hard chemical to enclose. I'm sure the technology will be there one day, but I suspect we need to invent new ceramics before it will deemed safe for regular road use.

I don't see the extensive proof of safety you mention, either. Please can you point me to a link?

Quote:

---

Hydrogen is regulated as a hazardous material by the U.S. Department of Transportation and is subject to many requirements found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (GFR) Parts 100-185, hazardous materials regulations. Hydrogen is also regulated under OSHA's hazardous materials regulations, 29 CFR Part 103. The OSHA material is extracted from the 1973 editions of NFPA 50A, Gaseous Hydrogen Systems at Consumer Sites, and NFPA 50B, Liquefied Hydrogen Systems at Consumer Sites.

---

I'm sure we can learn to handle it correctly at some point - perhaps in the very near future - but piping hydrogen under pressure around my car after proton exchange embrittlement to metals contained in my car is not my idea of 'particulary safe.' and is certainly not consistent with 'popular misconception'

What am I, Ask Jeeves?

lol

Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought you said that that issues over safety were a popular misconception and that it's all be thoroughly tested and deemed to be safe.

What was the car honda have just created powered by? It cost 1 million at the mo, but non the less its there.

Pino

I agree. Imagine going over a speed bump a little fast (which we all do) or hitting the kerb and in doing so a small hairline fracture appears on the tank. Thus the hydrogen leaks to mix with the oxygen...as explained by yrywddfa.

Perhaps it is best that Hydrogen is not used as a fuel until we can better contain it

Well NASA use hydrogen fuel cells but all the do is ignite the whole thing and blast their payload vertically upwards and hope for the best. Its really just a controlled firework with people inside it :D

Don't satellites use them too for maneouvering around up there in space where you have cosmic radiation constantly bombarding it, making it an environment even more hazardous than a speed bump? :)

Perhaps, but then sattelites are not made of a few mm's of steel are they

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

lol

Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought you said that that issues over safety were a popular misconception and that it's all be thoroughly tested and deemed to be safe.

---

I was referring to the hysteria surrounding it. The tech today can store and handle hydrogen just fine.
That's not to say that accidents can't happen. They happen with petrol as well. But that's safety and testing. I assume that, as stated, car makers spend so much money on getting it on the road, they didn't thoroughly test it first. Which tells me it isn't safer or more unsafe than any other fuel out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I agree. Imagine going over a speed bump a little fast (which we all do) or hitting the kerb and in doing so a small hairline fracture appears on the tank. Thus the hydrogen leaks to mix with the oxygen...as explained by yrywddfa.

Perhaps it is best that Hydrogen is not used as a fuel until we can better contain it

---

It's a little worse than that. Hydrogen extracts (slowly) the protons from the materials around it. This means, of course, that any metal that is slowly losing it's protons is not going to be as strong, or as stable.

NASA may indeed be using hydrogen fuel cells - the Apollo, and Gemini missions, for a start, but, in my opinion, it doesn't mean it's safe for Mrs Jones who insists on driving the 3/4 mile for little Jack to get to school in her huge 4x4 whilst doing her hair and makeup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Perhaps, but then sattelites are not made of a few mm's of steel are they

---

They're more delicate and in some areas, as thin as paper.

I agree with Wally's point though. All fuels are dangerous, but manufacturers do know what they're doing. Shell has already started an experimental hydrogen fuel station somewhere near New York, for "testing" purposes.

Keep in mind that we're not chemical or automotive engineers, so we have the role of armchair critics. We're always wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

I was referring to the hysteria surrounding it. The tech today can store and handle hydrogen just fine.
That's not to say that accidents can't happen. They happen with petrol as well. But that's safety and testing. I assume that, as stated, car makers spend so much money on getting it on the road, they didn't thoroughly test it first. Which tells me it isn't safer or more unsafe than any other fuel out there.

---

I don't understand - and can't find any reference to - the technology that can keep compressed hydrogen safe in a car.

Sure you can keep it safe in a cylinder for transportation. But in a car it will need to moved from storage to somewhere where it will be burnt. This, clearly, will require moving parts and valves and all sorts of other things. It won't be like a fuel tank leak with a bit of petrol or diesel spilling out. This could be a highly reactive gas. In the open air, yes, it will dispel quite quickly but if it does ignite then it becomes a very serious problem indeed.

A system is only as safe as it's weakest component.

Regardless, I'm sure the technology will become available in the near future that will allow all of the safety issues to be resolved.

Wouldn't they also need to protect from vandalism? Setting a hydrogen car alight could cause some serious damage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

We are 50 different states (that's why it's called the United States of America).

Those 50 states have incredibly different economies and political agendas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

We've had 200+ years of reasonable cooperation among our 50 states...

Europe would like to model our structure - but the EU can't agree on anything. The "elite" European states don't want to give anything to the "less fortunate" European states. What a joke - they disparage us for something they want, but can't create because they are ultimately more selfish.

---

Now you sound like an American talking about Europe.

- In Europe they does this, and europe does that.


Well we are 50 differnet countries. With differnt types of leader ship. I guess if Mexico had a monarky (SP?), and you where told to cooperate with Mexico, you would probably feel that it was impossible too. Or what if you had to do it with China and India. So everytime they made a law, you had to follow them, and if you tried to say something against it, you would get a VETO in your face, because you are only 1/20 of their size. So right now I am just laughing at you. We are not even a part of the EU. Why should we. We are not the same country. We have different intrests. Like the US and Mexico has. It is impossible to compare the US and Europe like this. It is too different. Not the same at all. Even if the US states have different agendas, you are not even near the problems in Euope when it comes to culture, Language barrieres, money, and leader ships. Un comparable. And I am so sick of hearing this, because the average american I am talking to can name 4-5 countries in Europe, and have no idea what they are talking about (not saying that you are one of them), but it is true. What happens outside the US, never enters the US. And there is proofs for it too. Like the test that was done on 125++ countries. And the US barely managed to do it better then Mexico, but more or less ended on the last spot when questions about the world came up.


- ØØ -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Wouldn't they also need to protect from vandalism? Setting a hydrogen car alight could cause some serious damage

---

I see a lucrative market for "Please don't set me on fire" bumper stickers 10 years from now. :afrog:

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

Now you sound like an American talking about Europe.

- In Europe they does this, and europe does that.


Well we are 50 differnet countries. With differnt types of leader ship. I guess if Mexico had a monarky (SP?), and you where told to cooperate with Mexico, you would probably feel that it was impossible too. Or what if you had to do it with China and India. So everytime they made a law, you had to follow them, and if you tried to say something against it, you would get a VETO in your face, because you are only 1/20 of their size. So right now I am just laughing at you. We are not even a part of the EU. Why should we. We are not the same country. We have different intrests. Like the US and Mexico has. It is impossible to compare the US and Europe like this. It is too different. Not the same at all. Even if the US states have different agendas, you are not even near the problems in Euope when it comes to culture, Language barrieres, money, and leader ships. Un comparable. And I am so sick of hearing this, because the average american I am talking to can name 4-5 countries in Europe, and have no idea what they are talking about (not saying that you are one of them), but it is true. What happens outside the US, never enters the US. And there is proofs for it too. Like the test that was done on 125++ countries. And the US barely managed to do it better then Mexico, but more or less ended on the last spot when questions about the world came up.


- ØØ -

---

You go NoteMe!
:thumb:

:lol:

Go! NoteMe, Go!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

And comparing the US states to EU membership countries is shortsighted, impossible and shows a profound lack of geopolitical knowledge, not to mention centuries of history.
If anything it proves that thinking along simplified, general black-and-white lines is far too prevalent these days.

---

Wally - no not shortsighted, simplified thinking...

Just sarcastic - pure and simple :D

I have no clue what is driving the EU initiative nor do I get any news in the US about it that sheds any real light on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

But as you've already said, you've only been around for 200 years. A teenage nation by any standard you choose to pick.

---

Actually a government of 200+ years is very mature. What countries in Europe have a longer standing "goverment" structure? Surely not England or France - and Germany has been beat down twice now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

I have no clue what is driving the EU initiative nor do I get any news in the US about it that sheds any real light on it.

---

My point exactly about americans. I am not saying it is ONE persons fault. But in general. People don't care to write in the media, or show on TV what is going on. And very few cares to try to find out either. But regardless of this, everyone in the US has an oppinion about Europe.

It is like when the US wanted to bomb Afghanistan. I can't remember the exact numbers, but very very many wanted it in the start. But more or less NO ONE in the US could point on a map where Afghanistan is. That is an ignorence that is bothering me about how the US works when you put all the pieces togheter.

And as I have indirectly said in my first post here. I can't talk for all countries in Europe. But at least in Norway at childrens school. We have to learn a little bit about every country in every continent. We also have to remember by heart all states in the US, and their "capitals". Can't sey I remember them all now anymore. But I don't think that is even normal for an American. But again, maybe it is, and I have just been unlucky with those I have asked about it.


- ØØ -

Noteme - there are clueless and uneducated people everywhere - most of the people on this forum are not in that category...

Actually, the people in the US that can't name the European countries are usually immigrants (oops, sarcastic again)...

Ok - back on track - I know all the countries in Europe and Asia - I know where Afghanistan is, and more important, I know how Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are regarded by our federal government. I understand the politics and the military goals and how precarious the situation is. I understand the the prior decades of Russian goals in Afghanistan.

And more important is that we have several hundred elected officials in Washington who do know where Afghanistan is and know why and when it needs to be bombed.

(I even know the states in Italy - but that's cause my grandpa came from Calabria...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Noteme - there are clueless and uneducated people everywhere - most of the people on this forum are not in that category...

Actually, the people in the US that can't name the European countries are usually immigrants (oops, sarcastic again)...

Ok - back on track - I know all the countries in Europe and Asia - I know where Afghanistan is, and more important, I know how Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are regarded by our federal government. I understand the politics and the military goals and how precarious the situation is. I understand the the prior decades of Russian goals in Afghanistan.

And more important is that we have several hundred elected officials in Washington who do know where Afghanistan is and know why and when it needs to be bombed.

(I even know the states in Italy - but that's cause my grandpa came from Calabria...)

---

Did I ever say you didn't know? Guess not...


But that doesn't change the view here. I have met a LOT of people on forums ranting about Europe. And then when I ask a question they can't answer. And you compared them too, and that ticked me off, since you can't. No, no, no...I mean you CAN'T. Impossible. You can try to compare France to USA, that would be more of the same thing with all their Cantones or what ever you say in English. One country, a lot of Cantones. But Eruope and USA is just two totaly differnt things. Like USA and America. Usa one country lots of states. America (or what you you use to refer to the WHOLE continent over there) is a lot of countries, that is NOT working togheter. And probably don't want to either. See where I am going here?



- ØØ -

It depends on what you mean by 'form of government' ?

Democracy has been around in Britain since AD100 where the Romans permitted regional leaders to represent their local interests to the senate in Rome.

Further on was our 'statement of rights' which was the Magna Carta. This was signed in 1215. This asserted that the Crown was not above the law and effectively paved the way for, and is considered the root of, social democracy the world over. Support for local justice, common law statutes, and trial by jury are all mentioned. Note this precedes the declaration of independence by some 500 years.

The more modern govt Britain currently uses has been around since (late) 13th century with the crown acceding power to the House of Lords. The House Of Parliament was (accidentally) given constitutional power in 1688 because the monarchs of the time were too dumb and stupid to stop them. The Houses Of Parliament conceded final bill ratification to the Crown to stop more revolutions, and to hold onto what had already been achieved.

Even today, the Queen still undersigns each and every law, and the govt 'act' on behalf of the Crown. Very much unlike the US, the Queen is also the head of the Church Of England so all our laws effectively pass through a Christian filter. I understand that the Church, and the State are required to be seperate in the US (yeah right!)

However, the last time a monarch refused the will of parliament, he got his head lopped of. So generally the monarchs do as they're told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

But regardless of this, everyone in the US has an oppinion about Europe.

---

And vice versa. In fact, the world over, everyone has an opinion about the US. Somehow it's alright for someone from Bangladesh or "your own country" to criticize the USAs policies, but the opposite isn't OK.

Learning the names of all countries in the world with their capitals is irrelevant. Opinions are how you allow them to be shaped. You could form them yourselves or you could allow a jingoistic media to form them for you. That is where the difference lies.

And out of interest when the colonies rose up for independence they fought for a particualr right:

Quote:

---

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.

---

Magna Carta 1215

I am led to believe that is now manifested in the US consitution:

Quote:

---

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

---

The fifth amendment.

Quote:

---

..the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

---

The sixth amendment.

Your forebears rose up to fight against injustice on the basis of an ancient English right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Somehow it's alright for someone from Bangladesh or "your own country" to criticize the USAs policies, but the opposite isn't OK.

---

I am just critisizing the way they are critisizing..;)..Critisizing something you don't know anything about never ends in anything good. It is like me starting to critize what you wears because I heard that someone in your continent didn't buy the new CK shoos that came out this summer. Completly irrelewant. And completly dumb statment. Just like the empthy statments about Eruope I am refering too in my posts.


- ØØ -

I welcome criticism of the Uk. I am normally first in line in criticising Mr "devil-incarnate, the beast of revelations" Blair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Your forebears rose up to fight against injustice on the basis of an ancient English right. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Yeah, yeah - right...

We are, like you, mimicing a democratic form of goverment used in ancient Greece - the English certainly do not have a corner on this form of government because of the Magna Carta...

My point was that 200+ years of a single, steady constitution and stable government is not a "teenager" as previously posted. It's actually an incredible accomplishment being that this country in the past 200+ years has grown physically (land wise and population wise) and econimically at an exponential rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I welcome criticism of the Uk. I am normally first in line in criticising Mr "devil-incarnate, the beast of revelations" Blair.

---

I love Blair - we get to watch the BBC cable leads of the "house of commons" (I'm guessing here) and I think he debates those other idgit galloots with a great sense of humor. I forget that I'm watching a real form of government and start thinking "is this Monty Python??"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

I love Blair - we get to watch the BBC cable leads of the "house of commons" (I'm guessing here) and I think he debates those other idgit galloots with a great sense of humor. I forget that I'm watching a real form of government and start thinking "is this Monty Python??"

---

It can be very amusing, I agree. :)

I want to know why the back-benchers always chant "Rhubarb" or "Custard" everytime someone says something. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Yeah, yeah - right...

We are, like you, mimicing a democratic form of goverment used in ancient Greece - the English certainly do not have a corner on this form of government because of the Magna Carta...

My point was that 200+ years of a single, steady constitution and stable government is not a "teenager" as previously posted. It's actually an incredible accomplishment being that this country in the past 200+ years has grown physically (land wise and population wise) and econimically at an exponential rate.

---

I didn't mean to infer that Britain invented democracy, and in fact I think I pointed out that Rome brought it to Britain.

You said that surely no European nation has been around longer in their 'form of govt' That's simply wrong.

200 years is not a long time at all. For as stable govt, or otherwise.

What is a stable government anyway? Where one form of government went on for decades without being threathened by war, revolution, economic woes, strife, invasions etc...? Pretty much every country experienced that within the decade. America is no exception.
Or do you mean being governed by the same type of government with the same laws and rules? Then ancient Egypt has had a stable government for over 4000 years (Pharaohs).

So what exactly is a stable government?

USA-because they are so big and know what is right....*sorry I couldn't hold it....please don't read this post*...:D:D:D::D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

I am just critisizing the way they are critisizing..;)..Critisizing something you don't know anything about never ends in anything good. It is like me starting to critize what you wears because I heard that someone in your continent didn't buy the new CK shoos that came out this summer. Completly irrelewant. And completly dumb statment. Just like the empthy statments about Eruope I am refering too in my posts.


- ØØ -

---

Yes, and... you get it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Yes, and... you get it. ;)

---

So if I get it, then you get it. And your post was unnessesary. Or maybe aimed to those from the US. I havn't changed a bit since I entered this thread. There is still nothing to compare.

high horse -> noteme
noteme -> high horse

et voilà! Easy peasy.