http://atcaltech.caltech.edu/tech-today/subpage.tcl?story_id=9281

interesting article, very good find.

somewhat of a semi-bummer though...
might not even matter however if we destroy the earth completely befor then OR build the new engines so that the H cant leak out...
________
MERCEDES-BENZ M123 ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M123_engine)

i think i also read about this on cnn.com, but i skimmed thru it so quick i didn't quite catch it! think they were talking about how the additional liquid released can prolong the depleted ozone and blah blah, gotta read it again! :cool:

I heard about this on NPR. It just goes to show that no matter what you use for energy, there are always drawbacks.

I'm not really worried about the excaping fuel because manufacturers and transporters will build tanks so that they don't leak anywhere near 10%. It HAS been done, and transporters will want to do this because H2 is very expensive.

What I'm worried about is how the H2 will be produced. There are only two ways to produce it, that I know of. One is to chemically extract it from Hydrocarbons like gasoline or natural gas. This process generates just as much pollution as burning the hydrocarbons.

The other way to produce H2 is to extract it from water using electricity, a process called electrolisis. The problem is that electrolisis is terribly inefficient. You end up using twice the amount of energy you can extract form the H2 you produce. Furthermore, the electricity you use to produce the H2 will most likely come from coal. So, ultimately, you end up generating more pollution by producing H2 than you would by burning hydorcarbons.

Originally posted by Schneegz

The other way to produce H2 is to extract it from water using electricity, a process called electrolisis. The problem is that electrolisis is terribly inefficient. You end up using twice the amount of energy you can extract form the H2 you produce. Furthermore, the electricity you use to produce the H2 will most likely come from coal. So, ultimately, you end up generating more pollution by producing H2 than you would by burning hydorcarbons.

Fusion energy is the solution to cleaner energy. With fusion we can generate the energy required to extract H2 from water. The problem that most scientists are concerned is heat. More engines will generate more heat, considering we would have an unlimited amount of energy at our disposal. You can read more about environmental solutions at the Union of Concerned Scientists website:
http://www.ucsusa.org/

Originally posted by desmo996


Fusion energy is the solution to cleaner energy. With fusion we can generate the energy required to extract H2 from water. The problem that most scientists are concerned is heat. More engines will generate more heat, considering we would have an unlimited amount of energy at our disposal. You can read more about environmental solutions at the Union of Concerned Scientists website:
http://www.ucsusa.org/

it would be nice but we are probably decades away from any usable fusion power. The problem is to create the reaction you need plasma that travels at close to the speed of light and at 500 million degrees F. We have been able to create very unstable fusion reactions for thousandths of a sec.

The real question is, how long till we see vehicles powered by a fusion (or hell a fission) reaction.

Originally posted by Schneegz
What I'm worried about is how the H2 will be produced. There are only two ways to produce it, that I know of. One is to chemically extract it from Hydrocarbons like gasoline or natural gas. This process generates just as much pollution as burning the hydrocarbons.

The other way to produce H2 is to extract it from water using electricity, a process called electrolisis. The problem is that electrolisis is terribly inefficient. You end up using twice the amount of energy you can extract form the H2 you produce. Furthermore, the electricity you use to produce the H2 will most likely come from coal. So, ultimately, you end up generating more pollution by producing H2 than you would by burning hydorcarbons.

hell yeah, this is where i KNOW that we need some serious innovation... electrolysis is fine by me, 'cause if it's set up that refuelling stations refine their own H2 from city water, using solar energy from ON SITE panels or some-such thing (like, on top of the huge huge covers over the pumps), and just continuously generate it whenever it can, and store it in big-ass tanks (as per usual), then the polution cost and capital cost of building the solar-panel'd hydro-stations would be greatly reduced over time (and solar panels, properly protected and cared for, last a good long time, right??)... considering that the captial investment would have to be huge, it would be a big leap of faith: we're no where close to that yet.

but, about the whole leakage thing: 10%??? gimme an effin' break... who the hell would buy a car that gets WORSE milage in a city goer than their old 7.0L v8 SUV??? not me!! no one will buy a car that just throws money out the freakin' window, that's stupid... it's not as if hydrogen is this untrappable gas... but yes, environmental concerns like this certianly have to be addressed. although this could be a big problem, there are easyish solutions to be had (easier at least than attaining perfect combustion with dirty gasoline and a medley of gases in our atmosphere).

yay, an article from my school....too bad its bad news. :(

instead of having having solar panels to power the electrolisis reaction at the fueling stations. how about putting those exercise bikes next to the hydrogen pumps. so that the customer has to cycle for like ten minutes to create the electricity needed to create the hyrdogens.

I know I know its a stupid idea. But hey imagine how many people would lose weight just to pump their cars full of hydrogen. *speaks with russian accent* No more fat americans ha ha ha ha.:p

Originally posted by Y&Y
instead of having having solar panels to power the electrolisis reaction at the fueling stations. how about putting those exercise bikes next to the hydrogen pumps. so that the customer has to cycle for like ten minutes to create the electricity needed to create the hyrdogens.

I know I know its a stupid idea. But hey imagine how many people would lose weight just to pump their cars full of hydrogen. *speaks with russian accent* No more fat americans ha ha ha ha.:p

OMFG!!! THAT'S SOOOOO BLOODY PERFECT!!!

you could get a big-ass discount for supplying the energy to electrolysize "your" (whatever, the same amount as what you're taking) hydrogen... oh my freakin' god... hahaha... too bad that our legs operate at the WATT level, and 1000 watts = 1.31 hp :D i think you'd have to ride for a little longer than 10 minutes, my friend. :D

For my next project, use the fat cells in your body for fueling mini power generators in your home. You can watch TV all day and still lose all that fat. hehe...j/k hmm reminds me of the matrix.;)

Does anyone use a exercise bike to power their TV's? I thought hey thats nifty. So I tried making one (this was when I was high school). and Eureka it works. But too bad I had to use a real bike. Well I had to go to the store one day and I need some mode of transportation. Well when I came out of the store, my bike was stolen. So I had to walk back and worst of all. No more free electricity for my TV. :(

But my quest for free yet cheap electricity continues on!

Check this:

www.powerball.net

Originally posted by Y&Y
my quest for free yet cheap electricity continues on!

...good luck with that... :confused:

We could stop the green house effect entirely if we would just legalize Hemp in the United States and the world. Hemp can be converted to the same type of fuels as crude oil and is the only plant on Earth that is cost competitive with crude. Due to the fact that Hemp consumes CO2 in its growth cycle it actually absorbs the green house gas out of the air that was put there when it is burned to power a vehicle or generator. Not only does Hemp absorb CO2 but it helps prevent deforestation by being a better substitute for paper and pressed board than trees...the saved trees would then absorb CO2 as well.

But there's more! There's a fair amount of new technologies coming down the pike and one of those is the "Star Rotor Engine." A weird "internal combusting turbine type engine" this thing promises 44% efficiency at producing usable work from fuel when made of metal and 64% when made from ceramic. It's of simple construction and vibrationless operation due to a complete circular rotation of the working components...much better than the rotary. The fundamentals of this design are solid and development should only take about 5 years before it arrives, with enough investment of course.

Simply put we have a renewable fuel source in the Hemp plant that is not only cost competitive with fossil fuels but is also nonpolluting, due to the cyclic nature of the plant, and is also 100% renewable; on top of this we have an engine technology that promises to be double or triple as efficient as the best piston or rotary engines of today. No crazy solar powered electrolysis stations that produce hydrogen gas to be burned in cars that require massive and expensive storage tanks. With hemp fuel there needn't be any changes to gas stations as they are designed today and the Star Rotor engine would actually be SIMPLER than contemporary engines.

The Feds could have the green house gas problem solved in 5 years with the legalization of hemp and investment in the Star Rotor engine...we know that's not going to happen. :(

Oh, and Hydrogen gas as a combustible fuel is a joke.

Originally posted by Mr. Wankel

Oh, and Hydrogen gas as a combustible fuel is a joke.

why?

Originally posted by zoom44


why?

Why? Uh, the energy required to make hydrogen gas is very high as others have pointed out...not to mention we would need a whole new supply infrastructure if your proposal is to produce hydrogen gas and then transport it. If it is to be produced at the "gas station" or in your car then you would have to burn fossil fuels to make it which completely defeats the purpose.

Secondly if we ever used hydrogen gas it would be in conjunction with FUEL CELLS! Fuel cells are massively more efficient than an internal combustion engine by several orders of magnitude. To combust hydrogen gas is just plain stupid when the fuel cell will be here in the time it takes to develop a sufficient hydrogen gas supply infrastructure.

Most of the people on this board and the Rx7 Forum just want to see hydrogen used so that their beloved rotary engine is used in every vehicle on the road...it's a pipe dream based on an unrealistic and inefficient fantasy.

actually the energy required can be much smaller than some think. also it is not my proposal to transport the hydrogen around. thirdly i feel slightly like you attacked me when i merely ask why you made that stament.

don't include me in your blanket statement about people on this board. i happen to like fuel cells. read this (http://www.ztekcorp.com/ztekreformer_release121301.htm) and then read some of my other posts concerning hydrogen (http://www.rx8club.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=60253&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending). those are just a few. i will admit that one or two mention the use of hydrogen in the rotary but it should be easy to see that that is not the norm in my conversations on this topic.

Originally posted by Mr. Wankel


Why? Uh, the energy required to make hydrogen gas is very high as others have pointed out...not to mention we would need a whole new supply infrastructure if your proposal is to produce hydrogen gas and then transport it. If it is to be produced at the "gas station" or in your car then you would have to burn fossil fuels to make it which completely defeats the purpose.

Secondly if we ever used hydrogen gas it would be in conjunction with FUEL CELLS! Fuel cells are massively more efficient than an internal combustion engine by several orders of magnitude. To combust hydrogen gas is just plain stupid when the fuel cell will be here in the time it takes to develop a sufficient hydrogen gas supply infrastructure.

Most of the people on this board and the Rx7 Forum just want to see hydrogen used so that their beloved rotary engine is used in every vehicle on the road...it's a pipe dream based on an unrealistic and inefficient fantasy.

Fuel cells suffer the same setbacks as combusting as far as production and storage are concerned. Not to mention the amazing pressures the hydrogen tanks must be kept at to work the fuel cell. However, fuel cells will be the next choice in engine design. The production of hydrogen would probably create the same environmental impact (maybe even alot less) than refining petroleum. So the effect here is the same. Now where the fuel cells come in is that the pollution trail ends with the production of the hydrogen. Therefore you have taken possibly half the hydrocarbons out of the air as a petroleum economy would have.

Now about that article where they are estimating a 10% loss to the atmosphere of H. That's crap. With the amazing volitility of hydrogen, the gov't standards on the transport and use would be amazing. I'd say that the fuel system would have to last at least 10 years past the life of the car it's in.

Now about that hemp idea......can you inhale the exhaust??? If so i don't need a tailpipe anymore. Just pump it into the AC!!

Originally posted by zoom44
actually the energy required can be much smaller than some think. also it is not my proposal to transport the hydrogen around. thirdly i feel slightly like you attacked me when i merely ask why you made that stament.

don't include me in your blanket statement about people on this board. i happen to like fuel cells. read this (http://www.ztekcorp.com/ztekreformer_release121301.htm) and then read some of my other posts concerning hydrogen (http://www.rx8club.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=60253&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending). those are just a few. i will admit that one or two mention the use of hydrogen in the rotary but it should be easy to see that that is not the norm in my conversations on this topic.

Well, you shouldn't have asked "why" hydrogen gas is a joke as a COMBUSTIBLE fuel if you already liked fuel cells. Any fuel cell enthusiast knows combusting hydrogen gas is much less efficient as a fuel cell and I was very careful to say that hydrogen gas was a joke as a COMBUSTIBLE fuel.

Originally posted by Farsyde


Fuel cells suffer the same setbacks as combusting as far as production and storage are concerned. Not to mention the amazing pressures the hydrogen tanks must be kept at to work the fuel cell. However, fuel cells will be the next choice in engine design. The production of hydrogen would probably create the same environmental impact (maybe even alot less) than refining petroleum. So the effect here is the same. Now where the fuel cells come in is that the pollution trail ends with the production of the hydrogen. Therefore you have taken possibly half the hydrocarbons out of the air as a petroleum economy would have.

Now about that article where they are estimating a 10% loss to the atmosphere of H. That's crap. With the amazing volitility of hydrogen, the gov't standards on the transport and use would be amazing. I'd say that the fuel system would have to last at least 10 years past the life of the car it's in.

Now about that hemp idea......can you inhale the exhaust??? If so i don't need a tailpipe anymore. Just pump it into the AC!!

Hemp as a fuel source, when properly managed, could stop ALL of our automotive CO2 air pollution...hydrogen just moves it to the refineries. Hemp is better than Hydrogen hands down.

Also, not quite sure what you meant by that last "inhale/pump it into the AC" statement.

Wakeech:

Solar pannels are not a good solution. They might work in a few states, like Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Texas, southern CA, and so on. But most states in the US don't get enough sun to produce solar-generated electricity for more than a few months out of the year. Wouldn't work.

In other places around the country wind power would be a good solution. But again, it would only work in a few places. Here in the North West wind energy would work in a few places, but water power is the MOST efficient.

Nuclear power is the best of all, but it generates radioactie waste. I'm affraid fusion power would be no different in that respect. Who knows?

Originally posted by Mr. Wankel


Well, you shouldn't have asked "why" hydrogen gas is a joke as a COMBUSTIBLE fuel if you already liked fuel cells. Any fuel cell enthusiast knows ....
i asked why so that you would clarify your position and state your reasoning so that people who are not fuel cell "enthusiats" could could better understand your statement.

Originally posted by Mr. Wankel
Hemp as a fuel source, when properly managed...

"properly managed" being the key words there. keep the government out(nearly impossible) and you might get there.

Originally posted by Mr. Wankel
Also, not quite sure what you meant by that last "inhale/pump it into the AC" statement.

you're kidding, right?
:)

What's Hemp?

And check this for an all new way of producing usable Hydrogen! www.powerball.net

OK, so those powerballs seem to be a good solution to the leaking problem. You can just store and transport the H2 inside the powerballs until it is ready to be used.

But I was never really worried about leakage. I'm still more conserned with how to PRODUCE the H2 to begin with. There really is no method that is cost efficient, mass efficient, high production AND non-polluting all at once. Not YET, anyway.

And as for our hemp-loving friends, you can make a hell of a lot more fuel out of sugar beets or corn than you can out of hemp. So quit trying to find a back door way to legalize your habit. ;)

Yes, I know hemp isn't meant for smoking. Don't have a cow.

search herc's posts for a nod to the powerballs a couple of months ago:D

See if they could figure a way to get energy out of ultra violet light then we'd be set. UV isn't effected as badly by clouds as visible light is. But if it rains, you're still screwed.

Wait a minute i've just had a vision......Cooking oil cars!!! Now all the lard asses can go to McD's, get a whopper, and fill their car up at the same time!! Hell it even has the added bonus of leaving a french fry smelled exhaust behind it!!!

You'd still be bruning a hydrocarbon with all the pollutants that are associated with other hydorcarbons.

Originally posted by Schneegz
But I was never really worried about leakage. I'm still more conserned with how to PRODUCE the H2 to begin with. There really is no method that is cost efficient, mass efficient, high production AND non-polluting all at once. Not YET, anyway.

And as for our hemp-loving friends, you can make a hell of a lot more fuel out of sugar beets or corn than you can out of hemp. So quit trying to find a back door way to legalize your habit. ;)

yeah, you're right... solar panels aren't the best way to do it universally, but it's just an idea, and well, without "crazy" ideas, i don't know if enough innovation will come about... anyhoo, taken in stride.

this all points us, as you keep saying, back to "how the H2 will be produced", which is most likely electrolysized from water... this will make it much more expensive than electricity, but this may in the end be cheaper than gasoline?? (i'm not sure on a per-watt basis what's cheaper... i'm assuming power... by a LOT)
so, the big big question (way off topic now) is how to make clean power. if we can do that, then we can just build the infrastructure to store, trasmit, and use that energy cleanly and cheaply... but nuclear, well, it's pretty good, i'm not so sure why people are so up tight about disposal... "dirty bombs" and whatever... there are obviously far more effective and easier things to inflict distruction with... anyways, another subject...

the end product of fusion is just heavier elements, right?? ...i don't know if they're necessarily radioactive isotopes either... for the next few hundred years, i cannot possibly see us going much further than H + H = He... so, i don't know how that'll all work out.
the big obstacle might yet be getting the fusion itself in a big enough way so that it can power the electromagnetic shieldin necessary to contain the plasma... after, of course, being able to sustain the fusion reaction, fuelling it, etc... hahaha...

yes yes, power is a tough thing to consider... but, i'm just not sure, but would it in fact be worse if we were to make hydrogen from (even our current "dirty" systems) electricty, and cut out petrol distillates all together???

Wakeech:

Don't get me wrong. If people in Arizona want to put solar pannels on top of their houses, I say "go for it!" Wind power? Sure, why not?

I think we should develop every energy source wherever it is most useful and economically viable. The hemp thing is moot, I think. Sugar beets and corn. That's all you need. The more sugar it contains, the more fuel you can make out of it.

As for cars themselves; modern cars burn so clean I think we can afford to continue to develop H2 in the lab and not rush it to production. Give the technology time to mature, keep working on cleaning up internal combustion engines and get more old cars off the road. That will be enough.

It's manufacturing/production plant exaust, not car exaust, that is really dirty nowadays.

One of my 'machines' at work is called a CCR, (contiuous catalytic reformer).
It makes high octane gasoline (really high, 101/106) that we blend down into street gasoline.
One of it's waste products is hydrogen, lots and lots of hydrogen...........
How about you get the government to pay for an 'hydrogen infrastructure' like the present experiment in H2 power in Iceland, and I will keep buying the high octane gas?
There is no shortage of available hydrogen, just the market demand.....we make about 50,000 cubic meters of hydrogen every hour......just be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
(stick with the Hi-Octane!)
.
.
.
doc

Hydrogen gas could leak when someone crash a hydrogen-powered car/SUV/truck/van/bus/bike/boat...

So what? Any fuel can leak (and does) when a vehicle powered by that fuel crashes.

Originally posted by Schneegz
So what? Any fuel can leak (and does) when a vehicle powered by that fuel crashes.

the problem with hydrogen is that it would have to be stored under extreme pressure. Have you ever seen a propane tank explode....they can take out a house. Now put 10-20 times the amount of hydrogen under much higher pressure in a "gas" tank and it makes for one hell of a bomb.

I have to disagree about the leaking thing. The only car (that i'm aware of) that leakes like crazy after being hit is the Crown Victoria b/c it has its tank behind the axle so it almost always bursts open in a rear accident.

Doctorr; What do they do with all that hydrogen left over??? Do you guys just burn it to get rid of it (is that what those towers in refineries are aways burning for?) or sell it? Maybe the gov't should be looking into mass storage of these resources now so that we won't have to burn more gas to get the hydrogen in the first place.

Oh yeah, Iceland is good at making hydrogen b/c they have unlimited electricity made by the unique thermal characteristics of the land. But from what i know iceland isn't using hydrogen to power anything are they? Just using the volcanically heated steam to turn generators. Now if only we could get them to do our dirty work???

Farsyde:

The leaking "problem" is not a problem at all. It's already been solved. Just scroll back to the post on "powerballs".

Besides, I never said that all vehicles leak every time there's an accident. I said they CAN leak. Why do you think some car accidents (not all involving Crown Vics) include fires?

Here's a nice crash fire pic, by the way.

(Doctorr; What do they do with all that hydrogen left over??? Do you guys just burn it to get rid of it (is that what those towers in refineries are aways burning for?) or sell it? Maybe the gov't should be looking into mass storage of these resources now so that we won't have to burn more gas to get the hydrogen in the first place.)

No, we don't waste it, in fact we buy all the surplus hydrogen from the plant next door. We use it to 'bash' big molecules of hydrocarbon, and raise the ratio of hydrogen, it makes them more useful. The point was that the catalytic reformer 'produces' hydrogen as it makes the more valuable high octane gasoline - it takes straight strings of carbon (paraffins) and the catalyst bends them into 'ring' molecules (aromatics + olefins), freeing up the H2 atoms from the 'ends' of the strings. Roughly.
The plant next door takes salt out of deep deposits and zaps it with electricity, separating it into chlorine, caustic soda and hydrogen, and for years just vented the hydrogen to atmosphere - now I guess we buy it from them.
There is lots of hydrogen around but it is a pitiful fuel, low energy density. We use some as fuel in our huge furnaces, and it is the worst of all the available gases to burn.
.
.
.
doc

Originally posted by Schneegz
Farsyde:

The leaking "problem" is not a problem at all. It's already been solved. Just scroll back to the post on "powerballs".

Besides, I never said that all vehicles leak every time there's an accident. I said they CAN leak. Why do you think some car accidents (not all involving Crown Vics) include fires?

you're right i didn't even notice the post on powerballs. Although i don't know about the social impact of powerballs. it will be the first time ever that we will have to physically handle the waste produced by our cars. Assuming the powerball refilling stations had an easy means to off load the used powerballs it wouldn't be a problem. I wonder what the environmental issues are if someone just dumped their used powerballs into the garbae or sewer?

Maybe the powerballs could be left inside the vehicle and made to re-absorb the hydrogen. I'm not sure if that's possible or not.

I wrote a research paper for my freshman physics class on fuel cells. One of the storage systems used was a porus aluminum alloy that would just absorb the H2. The alloy was then stimulated to release the H2 when needed, and made to absorb more when refueling.

Sorry about the lack of details, but freshman physics was many moons ago. :)

Can anybody spell Hindenburg? It just seems to me that any fuel as volitile as hydrogen, no matter how perfectly contained/controlled, will cause major/insurmountable problems when finally released for use to the general public.

Sorry to burst anybody's hydrogen bubble, but I happen to know a few backyard mechanics. For them, the question wouldn't be if, but when.

Originally posted by Schneegz
.....
I wrote a research paper for my freshman physics class on fuel cells. One of the storage systems used was a porus aluminum alloy that would just absorb the H2. The alloy was then stimulated to release the H2 when needed, and made to absorb more when refueling.

Sorry about the lack of details, but freshman physics was many moons ago. :)

i read a report sometime within the last 6 months in Discover magazine about that pourous aluminum storage for fuel cells. it seemed to be an excellent idea.


as for the Hindenberg myth. do some research please. the Hindenberg went up like it did not because of the Hydrogen but because of the aluminum oxide coating on the fabric outer skin of the dirigible. the hydrogen dissipates so quickly when exposed to the atmosphere that it's impact on the fire was very negligible if anyat all.

http://engineer.ea.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm
http://www.vidicom-tv.com/tohiburg.htm
http://www.sitehouse.net/jamesbow/000046.shtml
http://www.hydrogenus.com/advocate/ad22zepp.htm

i could go on like this for days but those should help set the record straight for those that haven't been keeping up:p ;)


edit: i spelled it HindenbErg because that is the way i learned to spell it and because many German language articles about the airship spelled it that way also. also on a historic note my great uncle (grandfather's brother) was stationed at the base at the time of the accident and was a witness to it.

Racer X-8:

Yes, I can spell Hindenburg. And what do you think would have hapened to the Hindenburg if it had been filled with Propane, Butane, or gasoline vapor? Would the explosion have been any less catastrophic? Did you not see the crashed motorcycle picture I posted earlier on this page?

Originally posted by zoom44


i read a report sometime within the last 6 months in Discover magazine about that pourous aluminum storage for fuel cells. it seemed to be an excellent idea.


as for the Hindenberg myth. do some research please. the Hindenberg went up like it did not because of the Hydrogen but because of the aluminum oxide coating on the fabric outer skin of the dirigible. the hydrogen dissipates so quickly when exposed to the atmosphere that it's impact on the fire was very negligible if anyat all.

http://engineer.ea.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm
http://www.vidicom-tv.com/tohiburg.htm
http://www.sitehouse.net/jamesbow/000046.shtml
http://www.hydrogenus.com/advocate/ad22zepp.htm

i could go on like this for days but those should help set the record straight for those that haven't been keeping up:p ;)


edit: i spelled it HindenbErg because that is the way i learned to spell it and because many German language articles about the airship spelled it that way also. also on a historic note my great uncle (grandfather's brother) was stationed at the base at the time of the accident and was a witness to it.

Yeah, I heard it was "raining " under the flaming wreck as it was plummeting to earth. I never heard of aluminum oxide reacting to form H2O. Gee, do you think maybe the hydrogen had something to do with that? Ask your great uncle if you're still unsure.

Want to talk about hydrogen bubbles? The unexpected formation of a hydrogen bubble inside of reactor #2 at Three Mile Island caused every involved scientist in the whole world to stop dead in their tracks while going through the procedures in shutting down this reactor-gone-critical. For some thirty minutes or more, only God himself had control of that situation because man simply didn't know what to do. They went into a panic mode over that hydrogen bubble so bad, they simply froze.

I guess all would have been just fine if you guys had been around to tell them there's nothing to fear.

Keep dreaming;)

Originally posted by Mr. Wankel



Secondly if we ever used hydrogen gas it would be in conjunction with FUEL CELLS! Fuel cells are massively more efficient than an internal combustion engine by several orders of magnitude. To combust hydrogen gas is just plain stupid when the fuel cell will be here in the time it takes to develop a sufficient hydrogen gas supply infrastructure.


Hmmm... Some of the recent diesel engines have efficiencies approaching 50%, and regular petrol engines are still in the 20's or 30's so, one would imagine that it would be hard to be "several orders of magnitude" better.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by zoom44
as for the Hindenberg myth. do some research please. the Hindenberg went up like it did not because of the Hydrogen but because of the aluminum oxide coating on the fabric outer skin of the dirigible. the hydrogen dissipates so quickly when exposed to the atmosphere that it's impact on the fire was very negligible if anyat all.

I just watched the hindenburg documentory on the science channel last night. Here are some basics about the crash.

The blimp was lined with 2 air compartments that were used to control boyancy on landing. To do this there are big valves that allow air to escape to atmosphere. The skin was actually coated with a type of jet fuel (they did not say what its chemical makeup was) to keep the skin of the blimp "moist" so it wouldn't crack.

The flames burning were bright orange but this was the fuel on the skin burning b/c hydrogen burns almost clear.

When one of the valves opened static electricity arched from the valve and ignited the skin. Have no doubt that the hydrogen did burn. It may not have been the cause of the fire but it did not just escape.

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Want to talk about hydrogen bubbles? The unexpected formation of a hydrogen bubble inside of reactor #2 at Three Mile Island caused every involved scientist in the whole world to stop dead in their tracks while going through the procedures in shutting down this reactor-gone-critical. For some thirty minutes or more, only God himself had control of that situation because man simply didn't know what to do. They went into a panic mode over that hydrogen bubble so bad, they simply froze.

yeah this was scary as hell. But the engineers were worried more about the pressure of the hydrogen building up than of the chance of combustion b/c it would breach containment and expose radiation to the atmosphere. It's so frustrating that the damn engineers didn't just let the safety systems do their job and avoid the hole mess.

Originally posted by Racer X-8
It just seems to me that any fuel as volitile as hydrogen, no matter how perfectly contained/controlled, will cause major/insurmountable problems when finally released for use to the general public.

Well maybe you should take the "backyard mechanics" into the class room. Look at the post on powerballs. the Hydrogen is stored in another molecule that is completely inert. Let me lay down an example for you. NaCl, or common table salt, is made up of 2 of the most reactive elements on teh periodic table. Na = sodium, it its pure form is extremely expolsive. Cl = Chlorine, in its gaseous form is extremely toxic and corrosive. However, together they form salt!

Originally posted by Schneegz
Maybe the powerballs could be left inside the vehicle and made to re-absorb the hydrogen. I'm not sure if that's possible or not.

I wrote a research paper for my freshman physics class on fuel cells. One of the storage systems used was a porus aluminum alloy that would just absorb the H2. The alloy was then stimulated to release the H2 when needed, and made to absorb more when refueling.

I don't think they could be reconverted into new powerballs b/c they are physically cut open and have to be grinded back to a sand-like texture to be extruded into balls again. However, if we could recapture even some of the H20 back into H2 then it would make the engine that much more effiecient

Originally posted by Farsyde


I just watched the hindenburg documentory on the science channel last night. Here are some basics about the crash.

The blimp was lined with 2 air compartments that were used to control boyancy on landing. To do this there are big valves that allow air to escape to atmosphere. The skin was actually coated with a type of jet fuel (they did not say what its chemical makeup was) to keep the skin of the blimp "moist" so it wouldn't crack.

The flames burning were bright orange but this was the fuel on the skin burning b/c hydrogen burns almost clear.

When one of the valves opened static electricity arched from the valve and ignited the skin. Have no doubt that the hydrogen did burn. It may not have been the cause of the fire but it did not just escape.



yeah this was scary as hell. But the engineers were worried more about the pressure of the hydrogen building up than of the chance of combustion b/c it would breach containment and expose radiation to the atmosphere. It's so frustrating that the damn engineers didn't just let the safety systems do their job and avoid the hole mess.



Well maybe you should take the "backyard mechanics" into the class room. Look at the post on powerballs. the Hydrogen is stored in another molecule that is completely inert. Let me lay down an example for you. NaCl, or common table salt, is made up of 2 of the most reactive elements on teh periodic table. Na = sodium, it its pure form is extremely expolsive. Cl = Chlorine, in its gaseous form is extremely toxic and corrosive. However, together they form salt!



I don't think they could be reconverted into new powerballs b/c they are physically cut open and have to be grinded back to a sand-like texture to be extruded into balls again. However, if we could recapture even some of the H20 back into H2 then it would make the engine that much more effiecient

OK, I took the powerball short course.

The NaH still needs to free the H2 in order to be used in the fuel cell. The "bubblegum machine" and the H2 storage tank and interconnecting plumbing, regulators, sensors and such throughout that side of the system - through to the fuel cell - must control/contain the no-longer-inert H2. I could think up quite a few scenarios (external leak causing H2 to "exit the system" causing loss of control/explosion/fire, or, loss of water in the "bubblegum machine" combined with faulty shutdown sensor causing low pressure causing cutter to cut many powerballs causing the cutter to spark somehow being unprotected by the water immersion causing "bubblegum machine" explosion). I could go on and on...

Or how 'bout one of my backyard mechanic buddies who left some of these powerballs laying around in his tool box and the polyethylene jacket has a crack or cut in it (its structural integrity has been compromised). Rain/humidity = H2 = fire/explosion?

Theory always looks good on paper until it gets down to the nuts and bolts of it all (reality). Leonardo da Vinci once said that a good engineer is the one who can take a thoery all the way through to successful completion. I totally agree and its one of those mottos in my career as a mechanical engineer that keeps me quite successful, thank you.

By the way, those big valves on the Hindenberg, did they allow air to excape to atmosphere in order to control boyancy on landing, or hydrogen? What kind of valves are going to be used to control the powerball machine? What kind of water level sensors are going to be used in the "bubblegum machine"? I hope it won't be the type used at TMI, you know, the ones that both failed in the redundant control systems, causing the technicians to open the valves that let the reactor coolant loop water out which caused the reactor to go critical? By the way, the "damn engieeers" were simply following documented proceedure which top level scientists developed to perform emergency shutdown for this type of scenario. Too bad the damn scientists didn't forsee that hydrogen bubble, so there was no contingency plan to resort to.

What are you going to paint it with? Hee haw:D

Originally posted by Schneegz
I think we should develop every energy source wherever it is most useful and economically viable. The hemp thing is moot, I think. Sugar beets and corn. That's all you need. The more sugar it contains, the more fuel you can make out of it.

Corn or sugar beets might have more yield per acre but I believe there's a cost issue in which Hemp can grow much faster and cheaper than those. I'd like to see a website that shows corn and sugar beets to have a higher yield than hemp if you could provide one.

Oh, no, this is not an attempt to legalize my "habit" but SAVE THE WORLD!

www.jackherer.com

Originally posted by BlueAdept
Hmmm... Some of the recent diesel engines have efficiencies approaching 50%, and regular petrol engines are still in the 20's or 30's so, one would imagine that it would be hard to be "several orders of magnitude" better.

Just a thought.

Last that I checked you couldn't burn hydrogen gas in a piston engine because of the mixture of phases which would cause the gas to pre-ignite...thus the "rotary hype" using it as a hydrogen gas powered engine.

Rotaries, due to the combustion chamber shape, are generally at the lower end of the efficiency spectrum...much lower than a fuel cell.

Originally posted by Racer X-8


OK, I took the powerball short course.

The NaH still needs to free the H2 in order to be used in the fuel cell. The "bubblegum machine" and the H2 storage tank and interconnecting plumbing, regulators, sensors and such throughout that side of the system - through to the fuel cell - must control/contain the no-longer-inert H2. I could think up quite a few scenarios (external leak causing H2 to "exit the system" causing loss of control/explosion/fire, or, loss of water in the "bubblegum machine" combined with faulty shutdown sensor causing low pressure causing cutter to cut many powerballs causing the cutter to spark somehow being unprotected by the water immersion causing "bubblegum machine" explosion). I could go on and on...

Or how 'bout one of my backyard mechanic buddies who left some of these powerballs laying around in his tool box and the polyethylene jacket has a crack or cut in it (its structural integrity has been compromised). Rain/humidity = H2 = fire/explosion?

Theory always looks good on paper until it gets down to the nuts and bolts of it all (reality). Leonardo da Vinci once said that a good engineer is the one who can take a thoery all the way through to successful completion. I totally agree and its one of those mottos in my career as a mechanical engineer that keeps me quite successful, thank you.

By the way, those big valves on the Hindenberg, did they allow air to excape to atmosphere in order to control boyancy on landing, or hydrogen? What kind of valves are going to be used to control the powerball machine? What kind of water level sensors are going to be used in the "bubblegum machine"? I hope it won't be the type used at TMI, you know, the ones that both failed in the redundant control systems, causing the technicians to open the valves that let the reactor coolant loop water out which caused the reactor to go critical? By the way, the "damn engieeers" were simply following documented proceedure which top level scientists developed to perform emergency shutdown for this type of scenario. Too bad the damn scientists didn't forsee that hydrogen bubble, so there was no contingency plan to resort to.

man racer your huge pessimist. You do raise safety concerns that are waranted, but many of these things will have simple solutions. If storing pressurized gas was a problem that propane would never be used. It's been used for decades and the knowledge of propane storage is no secret. We can't all ride bikes or walk places. New technologies will all have concerns over storage and consuption of their fuel.

I'm not an advocate of the powerball system but it does present very good safety features that a simple propane style tank lacks.

About the 3 mile island thing, it was human error. There were a few enigineering flaws but it was human error that started, and perpetuated the runaway. The backup systems were doing what they were intended to do...scram the reaction. It was the engineers that decided on their own that the system was flawed. There may be times to not listen to the system but when you have a triple redundant system and you shut down the emergency safety controls b/c the primary meter has a post-it on it w/o even looking at the backups..... well then you get a meltdown, which happened. Luckily it was small and was contained, but the reactor is permenantly out of commission, at least until the 10,000 year cool down passes.

Any attempt to use H2 with internal combustion engines is futile. The most effective and efficient way to power anything using H2 is with fuel cells. Combusting H2 will just be a huge waste of energy, money and other resourses.

Originally posted by Schneegz
Any attempt to use H2 with internal combustion engines is futile. The most effective and efficient way to power anything using H2 is with fuel cells. Combusting H2 will just be a huge waste of energy, money and other resourses.

Are you SURE that's true... I'm not disputing it, but I'd like to see the numbers... with IC engines anywhere between 25 and 50% efficient, and fuel cell's large, heavy and expensive at present, it might well prove to be a close thing at least initially...

According to my Internal Combustion Engines professor, the best ICs are about 30% thermodynamically efficient. That is with diesel fuel. With H2, it's much, much lower.

Fuel cells are far more efficient then IC engines that use H2. I'll have to look up the numbers however.

in the hindenberg, the hydrogen did burn, but not to the extent that most people believe...

ANYWAYS

i dont think internally combusting Hydrogen would be too good an idea because the power yeilds would make it very difficult to contain/control. (Yes they use hyrdogen in the space ships, but thats not IC, see the flames coming out?)

If a hydrogen based fuel were to be internally cumbusted, it would have to be a small amount (due to the power yeild), and it would still be inneficient, to a degree which depends ALL on the design of the engine.

HOWEVER hydrogen should still be pursued because it is our best chance to have a clean and powerful (ie stil being able to go 110 mph down a roadway) w/ the lowest cost. By this i mean, sure, you could probably do it with solar, if solar cells were more than 3% efficient (i think the top now is around 15% or something) and did whatever else was necessary, but i dont know what that is.
________
Digital Vaporizer Reviews (http://www.vaporshop.com)

As something unrelated, id just like to say that cold fusion should be looked at a lot more closely (though it isnt really being looked at at all lol)

Supposedly, there are ppl running their homes off the "stuff" this guy in california has beein doing it for years.

there are many ways to get energy cleanly, people just have to be willing to put the resources into getting them to work


NOTE:
are any of you guys familiar with that engine that runs off a temp difference? forget what its called, but if its hot on one side and cold on another it runs, and the diff can be only a few degrees or something, really neat, peopel should look into that aswell, but it wouldnt delive the power peopel want in a car, which is REALLY the main problem with most of these alternative energy methods. to deliver the power and torque wanted in a car, you really do need IC, of some sort.

NOTE: its called the stirling engine, knew i knew what it was called lol, though i had to look it up to be sure...
________
HAWAII DISPENSARY (http://hawaii.dispensaries.org/)

Corn or sugar beets might have more yield per acre but I believe there's a cost issue in which Hemp can grow much faster and cheaper than those. I'd like to see a website that shows corn and sugar beets to have a higher yield than hemp if you could provide one.

I read the website. Yeah, I've heard all that "hemp will save the world" stuff. I'm not talking about making paper. If you want to make paper out of hemp; fine, go ahead.

However, if you want to make alcohol (like ethanol), the most efficient way to do it is to start with sugar. That is why most alcoholic beverages are traditionally made from high-sugar plants.

Hemp is a lot better for making fibrous materials, because it is a fibrous material. High-sugar plants are better for making ethanol, because sugar is a hydrocarbon, and ethanol is a hydrocarbon. You can get a whole lot more ethanol per acre from high-sugar plants than you can from hemp. Economically, that is all that matters. As an engineer, that is all I care about.

Originally posted by Schneegz
According to my Internal Combustion Engines professor, the best ICs are about 30% thermodynamically efficient. That is with diesel fuel. With H2, it's much, much lower.

Fuel cells are far more efficient then IC engines that use H2. I'll have to look up the numbers however.

Yes, that sounds about right, the 50% figure is very high, although real in a sense... it was a 25,000 BHP Diesel engine on a ship... running at constant output... but then with electric assist, an IC engine can probably be run closer to it's maximum efficiency more of the time...

Not sure on the efficiency of a fuel cell at present, although it'd have to be very high because I can't see a convenient way for it to waste energy... especially without distroying itself. The thing is that at present a fuel cell system does not have the high energy density to make a car that's practical... how "efficient" is a 2 seater car tht weighs 3000Kg. I expect that if hydrogen and fuel cells is the way to the future then we will see large vehicles like trucks and coaches taking it up first because they are large enough to accomodate the technology while it is developed into a smaller package.

COLD FUSION?
Cold fusion is a dead issue - stone COLD dead!
The only use for fusion is the tremendous heat it releases can be useful.
We don't need fusion that happens at room temperature.
In case you hadn't noticed, we have more than enough 'room temperature' already!
Who needs radioactive byproducts made with no energy output?
Let it die it's disgraceful death -
S

Originally posted by StealthTL
COLD FUSION?
Cold fusion is a dead issue - stone COLD dead!
The only use for fusion is the tremendous heat it releases can be useful.
We don't need fusion that happens at room temperature.
In case you hadn't noticed, we have more than enough 'room temperature' already!
Who needs radioactive byproducts made with no energy output?
Let it die it's disgraceful death -
S

I think you are misunderstanding the processes involved with fusion. The whole point of Fusion is to put some energy into the reaction to begin/sustain the reaction but extract several magnitudes more energy out of the reaction. Fusion that is "normally" researched involves using a large particle accelerator that accelerates matter as close to teh speed of light as possible. Now in order for the matter to fuse (usually H + H = He or dueterium) you have to heat the matter to several million degrees. To contain this plasma reaction large magnetic field hold the plasma so it doesnt destroy anything it touches.

Current fusion generators need enourmous amounts of energy to begin/sustain the reaction. They are only able to return about 60-70% of the energy they put into the reaction. Thats like cutting down a whole forest to light a fire that gives no heat off. This is where the "miracle" of cold fusion comes into play. The theories are that dueterium (kind of think of it as 2 hydrogens interestingly bonded) can fuse to form Helium on the nuclear level at room temperature using heavy water and palladium. This is key b/c bearly any energy is required to start the reaction which means it is practically free power. However, after huge Hype in the 80's and 90's and a few mistakes by cheif engineers, cold fusion was shot down and the only reason it is not still being researched today is that no science journal will publish documents on cold fusion b/c of the bitter taste initial experiments put in the mouths of publishers. Chances are cold fusion will again be researched but not until all the skeptics are dead.

Right now cold fusion is considered the scientific miracle that will save humanity but is more like the Unicorn that will never be caught. There are actually close to 200 independent scientists running cold fusion tests and every single one has witnessed heat and byproducts of cold fusion reactions. All they need now is alittle compassion from the rest of the scientific community and we'll all live happily ever after.

damn that was long......

pretty much...we, as in globally, really need to start changing everything to cleaner forms of energy, and not just one, a combination of all (ie solar, hydro, wind, those are the biggies, sure there is geothermal but that isnt so mainstream) and we need tostart sooner rather than later.

More money should be poured into research and the sciences and countries should share their knowledge rather than horde their secrets.

Of course all of this is a pipedream, so we might as well stick with what we have lol
________
grandma Cams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/granny/)

BlueAdept
Not sure on the efficiency of a fuel cell at present, although it'd have to be very high because I can't see a convenient way for it to waste energy... especially without distroying itself. The thing is that at present a fuel cell system does not have the high energy density to make a car that's practical... how "efficient" is a 2 seater car tht weighs 3000Kg.
I agree with you there. By "efficiency" I meant pure efficiency of E(out)/E(in). Fuel cells definitely need to get smaller, lighter and cheaper. That'll take decades.

In the mean time, I'd like to see fuel sources developed that we can produce right here in the US, like Ethanol. Running an IC engine on ethanol is less thermodynamically efficient than gasoline, but once an a large enough infrastructure is in place for production and distribution, it should be cheaper than gasoline. Also, we can produce it right here from plants we already grow here.

Furthermore, ethanol doesn't produce as much SO2 or NOx as gasoline does. Those (along with CO) are the emissions we should worry about, not CO2.

Considering how clean modern cars run, it's more important to me that we develop fuels that we can produce here and be free of the foreign oil, than developing "zero emissions" vehicles.

StealthTL:
I tihnk you misunderstand what is meant by "cold" fusion. To say that it is "cold" is not to say that it takes place at room temperature. Remember that "cold" and "hot" are purely relative terms.

What is meant by "cold" fusion is that it takes place at temperatures much lower than what you would find at the center of a fusion detonation, or at the center of the sun. Those temperatures are physically impossible to manage. "Cold" fusion would be fusion that takes place at temperatures we can manage, like a fission reaction.

I'm not hopeful that cold fusion will be achieved any time soon. If it is achieved in my life time I will be surprised.

Quote ;"it will be researched again, but only after all the skeptics are dead"
Wow - those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it! Go for it, but don't expect any better results after I'm gone!
Quote ; " cold fusion takes place at temps much lower...."
You are missing the essential point, and this is the crux of the debate, see if you can get it this time, "No it doesn't"
Ah, whatever, go and waste your millions/billions.
S

Woha there...

What's being discribed here as "cold fusion" isn't what some guy believed he'd done in a jamjar in his kitchen a while back... don't say "cold fusion" if you want to be taken seriously...

That said, there is a lot of research going on into fusion plasma, and from what I understand of the physics... the temperature of the plasma is fixed.... hence the problem is more one of containment... and so the plasma is housed inside a vacuum and contained with magnetic forces to stop it from touching anything....

There is a lot of research going into this stuff at present, but if you're looking for a power supply for a car then I suspect that compact electricity storage is more of a pressing concearn... I have seen a small 2 seater sportscar powered by Li-Ion bateries which could compete with an Elise... but it was about $100,000 and had a range of only 100 miles... make that $30,000 and with a 500 mile range and you're set for life.

BlueAdept:

A range of 300 miles would be fine. But you forget one thing. It needs to be recharged in less than five minutes, otherwise road trips are impossible.

That's why I think alternative fuels and hybrids are better areas in which to invest R&D money. It may be possible to reach the level of convenience you and I have described with an electric car, but if it is possible, it will take multiple decades to reach. Think how inadequate our electricity storage technology is now despite how long it's been worked on.

Originally posted by StealthTL

Wow - those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it! Go for it, but don't expect any better results after I'm gone!

I'm not talking about ethnic cleansing here, i'm talking about a new energy source. I am not trying to sell cold fusion either. It is a very skeptical "discovery" but as of yet, noone has been able to disprove the results of hundreds of experiments. However to just write it off b/c we don't yet understand it is stupid. About this history you speak of? Do you think humans have only tried endevours that we knew we could conquer? Hell no we explore the sciences to advance mankind. Think about what would have happened if scientific projects were all stopped b/c the outcome of the research wasn't known upfront. Hell w/o risk there is no reward. There are some certainties about science: Whether you like it or not change will happen. Whether you can accept righteous change is up to you.

Originally posted by StealthTL

Quote ; " cold fusion takes place at temps much lower...."
You are missing the essential point, and this is the crux of the debate, see if you can get it this time, "No it doesn't"
Ah, whatever, go and waste your millions/billions.


again YOU are missing the point of cold fusion. There is no plasma state of matter which means that unlike normal, or hot fusion which gov'ts are funding which requires extreme temperatures, cold fusion occurs naturally at room temperature.

Would it really be such a bad thing to throw a few million at cold fusion research??? Let's take the US for example. Every year trillions are wasted on projects like watching the migration habits of ants. Are programs like this ever going to contribute to the legacy of man? Maybe in some very, very small way but no average person ever knows/cares about these things.

Originally posted by Schneegz

A range of 300 miles would be fine. But you forget one thing. It needs to be recharged in less than five minutes, otherwise road trips are impossible.

That's why I think alternative fuels and hybrids are better areas in which to invest R&D money. It may be possible to reach the level of convenience you and I have described with an electric car, but if it is possible, it will take multiple decades to reach. Think how inadequate our electricity storage technology is now despite how long it's been worked on.


this is definately where humans will be avoiding for many years to come. Since we can't efficiently store electricity we'll just create things like fuel cells so we don't have to store it.

It's a very interesting time to be around. It's prolly the first time we have had to think about new power sources and to develope these sources since the implementation of fission

Originally posted by Farsyde


man racer your huge pessimist. You do raise safety concerns that are waranted, but many of these things will have simple solutions. If storing pressurized gas was a problem that propane would never be used. It's been used for decades and the knowledge of propane storage is no secret. We can't all ride bikes or walk places. New technologies will all have concerns over storage and consuption of their fuel.

I'm not an advocate of the powerball system but it does present very good safety features that a simple propane style tank lacks.

About the 3 mile island thing, it was human error. There were a few enigineering flaws but it was human error that started, and perpetuated the runaway. The backup systems were doing what they were intended to do...scram the reaction. It was the engineers that decided on their own that the system was flawed. There may be times to not listen to the system but when you have a triple redundant system and you shut down the emergency safety controls b/c the primary meter has a post-it on it w/o even looking at the backups..... well then you get a meltdown, which happened. Luckily it was small and was contained, but the reactor is permenantly out of commission, at least until the 10,000 year cool down passes.

Darned right I'm a pessimist! You ought to talk to some of the engineers I work with @ Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels Div. Now that's hardcore pessimism! They treat EVERYTHING with utmost care. You don't just go and do your thing there. You wouldn't believe it. About the TMI story, click here for the whole story. (http://kd4dcy.net/tmi/) It's a nice short and sweet story of what all happened. They said before it happened that it would be virtually impossible. At least that's what my professor told me at Penn State Capitol Campus (Middletown, PA) in 1977. My senior class took a tour of unit 2 when it was still under final stages of construction. I was living in Shady Grove PA, working in R&D for Grove Cranes when the event occured. My wife and I had our things packed in our cars with a rendezvous point along I-81 southbound, in case it blew. I forget, but it seemed like for more than a week that the situation was critical. The surreal sense that at any moment your whole world that you've grown up in, which to me at the time was the whole freakin eastern half of Pennsylvania, might suddenly become evacuated and from then on, uninhabitable for the rest of your life + , with major human loss & suffering to go with it...how would you feel?

And stop calling every Tom, Dick or Harry that wears a lab coat & walks around with a clipboard, acting like he knows it all an engineer. We true engineers sure do take a beating over everything that's wrong in the world. We have yet to achieve solid-state perfection in everything yet. Get your engineering degree and pitch in if you don't like it.

Originally posted by Racer X-8

And stop calling every Tom, Dick or Harry that wears a lab coat & walks around with a clipboard, acting like he knows it all an engineer. We true engineers sure do take a beating over everything that's wrong in the world. We have yet to achieve solid-state perfection in everything yet. Get your engineering degree and pitch in if you don't like it.

Im not calling everyone an engineer as you think they are. i understand the rigors you guys go through to be called a true engineer. I've got 2 roommates and my dad who are engineers and have explained it to me a million times. i understand how you work and that you are crazy pessimists but only to insure the quality of your work.

What should i call the guys that run the control center? Just nuclear technicians? Im not calling every person in the control room an engineer but you can bet the farm the room was full of engineers advising the technicians of failure scenarios and equiptment specs.

Don't you love how every person who said stuff like "it can never happen" always ends up eating their words?

Originally posted by Farsyde


What should i call the guys that run the control center? Just nuclear technicians? Im not calling every person in the control room an engineer but you can bet the farm the room was full of engineers advising the technicians of failure scenarios and equiptment specs.

Don't you love how every person who said stuff like "it can never happen" always ends up eating their words?

Operators Craig Faust and Ed Frederick, under the supervision of shift supervisor Bill Zewe. Faust and Frederick, like Zewe, were former Navy reactor operators who had decided to make nuclear power their careers in civilian life as well. All were licensed, experienced men, and all had scored well above average on the tests that culminated their training.

The remainder of Zewe's 16-man crew, who were trained but unlicensed "auxiliary" operators, dispersed to various locations throughout the plant to perform regular maintenance duties.

Zewe dispatched shift foreman Fred Scheimann to lend a hand.

This sounds about right for a typical "production" crew.

Here's what happened when an engineer finally got there...
The day shift engineer, a man named Ivan Porter, looked around, saw that primary pressure was low and containment pressure was high, and made the connection. He suggested closing a block valve in the steam line, immediately past the stuck PORV. As soon as the switch was thrown, RC pressure began to rise again.

See how the engineer saw the situation differently and immediately rectified one of the main causes? Too bad he got there too late.

Sounded to me like, as is the case in so many accidents, the people got so used to the system, they started abusing it, improvising procedures, forgetting this, overlooking that, circumventing, and so on. There wound up to be so many screwed-up things at the same time, it was like a domino effect when it all came tumbling down. Man, what a clusterf__k!

Typical production-rules mentality. Anything goes when it comes to making the almighty buck, just don't tell the higher-ups, cuz if you do, then they'll have to tell you to fix it. CYA, and that's that.

Sorry. I'm rambling now. I'll stop.