Posted on 04/21/2022 2:39:28 PM PDT by Jonty30
A revolutionary cryogenic tank design promises to radically boost the range of hydrogen-powered aircraft – to the point where clean, fuel-cell airliners could fly up to four times farther than comparable planes running on today's dirty jet fuel.
Weight is the enemy of all things aerospace – indeed, hydrogen's superior energy storage per weight is what makes it such an attractive alternative to lithium batteries in the aviation world. We've written before about HyPoint's turbo air-cooled fuel cell technology, but its key differentiator in the aviation market is its enormous power density compared with traditional fuel cells. For its high power output, it's extremely lightweight.
(Excerpt) Read more at newatlas.com ...
“Very light hydrogen worked so well in the Hindenburg”
It works great as long is you keep it away from oxygen and static electricity
Liquid hydrogen. Kind of like Hindenburg in a can.
The lighter the car, the longer it will take to stop.
Water and electricity. The electricity can be from any source, but preferably the sun, hydroelectric, or wind.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-processes
We’re not getting any hydrogen? Why not?
Now that right there is funny, no matter who you are.
And don’t coat your ship in rocket fuel!🤔
Wont’ we run out of water if we take the hydrogen out of it? The oceans will dry up.
So potentially are batteries and capacitors.
Energy be Energy.
Don’t EVER try to disobey the Laws of Physics [and Chemistry].
Science doesn’t have multiple tiers of Justice.
Hint, so can gasoline.
There’s also ongoing research on solar-direct-to-hydrogen, skipping the “electricity” middleman.
Surely you can’t be serious.
If you spill some liquid hydrogen on some asphalt the best thing you can do is step on it.
“Catalysts can change the kinetics (rate) of a reaction, but they can’t change the thermodynamics.”
Thanks for reminding me, it’s been awhile since I’ve taken those courses back in college. Energy input will be higher than energy output as long as mass is conserved, but I was attempting to imagine some sort of catalytic reaction which would initiate the loss of some mass during separation that could be used to drive the reaction forward beyond what the energy inputted would do, thus some of the mass being converted into energy like what happens in a fusion reaction, something that probably isn’t possible according to current science. Oh well.
The reason why I said what I did is because of HOW you get Hydrogen. You don't mine it, you don't drill for it, you don't harvest it, you manufacture it either from electrolysis of water or the steam-methane reforming process of Natural Gas.
Thus, Hydrogen is in and of itself not a fuel source, it is an energy storage medium created from another energy source.
We will wait a couple of decades before trying this!
https://www.history.com/news/the-hindenburg-disaster-9-surprising-facts
When I lived in Palm Springs the entire Sun Bus line was running on Natural Gas, they also would install conversion kits on your car for a couple grand twenty years ago.
Isn’t today’s “science” mostly BS? It’s what you get when you start from false premises.
1) Whatever you do to generate Hydrogen, it won’t be “clean”.
2) Unless you’re going to lug around pure Oxygen, too, any reaction you try with “air” won’t be “clean”, either.
The planes will probably just finally destroy the Ozone layer for good. We can all die of skin cancer, but at least we’ll feel “clean”.
F=[mu]N
It’s all the same as long as the brakes can develop sufficient torque to take advantage of the tires’ friction. [to the first order of analysis]
The Sun has a lot of Hydrogen.
Why not just mine it there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.