Mazda to RG- Hydrogen is coming !!!
 

I like poking at Fred everytime a new Hydrogen step is taken:)

This Time Mazda and Norway have gotten together to furthur advance Norways HYNor Hydrogen Highway. When they innaugurated the new effort 2 years ago Mazda was on hand in Norway with the First HRX-8 to run outside of Japan. It filled up at the newest Hydrogen filling station in Norway-

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog/...rogen-car.html

https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...12#post1460100

there is a video of it ill find later

Now Hynor has placed an order for 30 Hydrogen 8s!!

http://www.fullboost.com.au/news.php?newsId=1638

People say "there's no infrastructure for H" etc. Well Norway is building it in their country and with the help of Mazda and the Rotary they will have cars to drive on their Hydrogen Highway :)

Good news. Now where is the USA?

Oh I forgot... we like to drive gas gizzling SUV's that pollute more than cars.

oh here is the vid from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZUv9...elated&search=

from this thread

https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...80#post1704983

Kenya will pee on Norway all day.

Says the man whose car gets worse gas mileage than certain SUVs.

I was waiting for that. :lol:

Zoom: do you know if there's any plans to eventually bring the hydrogen state-side?

your an idiot.. most of gm's suvs and trucks get better gas mileage then the rx8's

the pollution index of a gmc 1500 5.3L truck is the same as a mazda 3

read some before you open your mouth

much anger I sense in you. Now back on topic...
Any time frame as to how long before those 30 Hydrogen 8's show up?

innntresting, its not like we need more power anyways

but this is good, finally, a rotary that gets good milage!

Good mileage? Um, no. Given hydrogen inherent lower engergy density and the rotary engines thirsty nature this thing will get horrible mileage. With a whopping range of 60 miles you'd have to refuel 5 times just to make it down the full length of this 350 mile hydrogen highway. But who cares, hydrogen's free, right?

There's a niche market for anything.

Norway is actually one of the only countries in the world, where they produce hydrogen with electrolysis and excess hydro-power. (I don't know of any other regions in the world where they have similar luxuries).

Right on.
________
Uruguayan Cooking

Awesome, from a thread I started a while back... here's a second follow up video of the Hydrogen RX-8... with some in-car shots and sound (hard to tell if it's running on gas or hydro)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBcZsGsWsMA

michael

I don't care what sub zero scandanavian country it's going to. It's still a crap fuel! You CAN NOT change that!!! Quit trying to make piss poor excuses for justifying crap. It burns too fast to be useful. Propane would be a much better choice if you want to use a gas. If Mazda builds an engine that runs on dog shit and crack and then places the infrastructure in service to allow it, but it makes a fraction of the power that gas does, would you use it too?

Hydrogen is terribly inefficient. You can't make anywhere near the power of other fuels with it and it takes far more of it to go the same distance. All while being weaker. It's a pain in the butt to store too. If the only thing it's got going in it's favor is emissions, that's not close to enough. That's not worth it. Car emissions are not heating up the planet anyways.

Back to hugging your tree...

jedi norway will take delivery next summer.


hehehehe rg

:) You do know that was said in a friendly way right?!

yeah thats why i laughed:)

i vote propane!!!

You guys may find this funny but I have actually pondered converting my RX-7 to propane for a while now. It would lose a small amount of power (but not nearly as much as hydrogen!). It doesn't mean I'll do it but I've researched it. Why? Just because I haven't done it yet. That's reason enough I guess.

Hydrogen as a car fuel is certainly doable, its just got really terrible energy content compared to gas or diesel fuel, which means that it will have less power and require more fuel volume to get you the same distance.

If we could generate hydrogen for free, such as with a fusion reactor, hydroden would make alot of sense, but until that point, hydrogen is mazda's E85. It makes you feel green and fuzy, but does nothing practical to help the environment or reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I'm waiting for my flinstone powered 8..........

http://www.seeing-stars.com/Images/P...lintstones.jpg

kinda like this idea, only picture it in the 8!!!:)

It would be more efficient! Too bad the environmentalists would complain about the CO2 output from heavy breathing!

Nuclear baby! That'll get you some energy from Hydrogen!! :)

They don't want you to do that either. Radiation danger not to mention the potential for a weapon. You can't win at this game. No matter what you do, it's not a good solution. The only viable option is for all of us to die.

There are 2 types of people, those who pollute and those who don't. I have yet to find the latter anywhere. No, carbon credits don't offset a thing! That's just financial justification for polluting!

wrong- if i was using one of hondas "reformer's on a wall" http://www.motortrend.com/features/a...10_tokyo_tech/

i could be filling up my hydrogen rx-8 or Mazda5 at my house while heating the water for said house or even heating the house and with the help of a fuel cell even making electricity for said house without using any foreign petroleum whatsoever- just the NG already plumbed to my house

fred is absolutely correct- there is not one source capable of getting us of petroleum. we need to use the combination of sources that best fit where you live. for the south west that means more reliance on sun produced energy (not solar panels but solar furnace steam generated perhaps) wave energy for the coastal places, ng, geothermal,hydro,wind , bio mass, nuclear etc. only by using a combination of the alternatives can we replace coal and petroleum

What industry does the natural gas come from?

I do agree that we can be more efficient with what we've got and that each part of the country/world should focus on their strengths with the resources they've got at hand.

In one of Tom Clancy's books, there is a group of environmental types that are trying to reduce the human population by using a biological weapon. They figure then nature can "make a comeback". They of course decide that they are the humans that should survive . When they are inevitably taken down by John Clark, Ding Chavez, and the rest of the RB6 team, rather than kill them, take them in, etc, Clark strands them out in the middle of the jungle. He leaves them naked with no supplies and no technology. Basically tells them if they think the human race is so bad, then they can live without the things it has developed.

Just thought of this because of the comment someone made about the only solution being for us to just die. I do believe that some environmentalists would like to thin the herd of humans, so to speak. I guess I consider myself a rational environmentalist. I believe we have to do the best we can to preserve our environment, live in harmony with it, etc. Otherwise we will eventually not be able to survive. But I also believe that to some extend WE are part of the environment.

For example, some people talk about how we should force ourselves to wean off oil, etc by putting high taxes on it. What they don't want to talk about is the effect that will have on especially those of low income. You will have increased hunger, homelessness, etc. They will have less resources than they already do for things like health care, which will lead to the spread of more contagious diseases, etc. Of course I guess that will help thin the herd.

Anyway, back on topic. I think it is great that Mazda is doing research on alternative fuels with the rotary. If nothing else, they can use it for PR when people give them crap for the poor fuel economy. Plus in the process they are putting more R&D into rotary engines in general. That said, RG is right in that there is a lot less energy in an equivalent amount of hydrogen.

We could use the fusion reactor to power our flux capacitor... or our rotary warp engine.

I love the avatar!

note i said "foreign" petroleum. domestic regionally distributed power alternatives to reduce( i would love to say eliminate) our use of foreign petroleum



exactly

im sorry, but nuclear fusion does not give you hydrogen. you have to give hydrogen for fusion, because the outcome is helium. They take cubes of tritium, which is the third isotope of hydrogen, and place them into the reactor and then create a plasma field. the hydrogen fuses into helium and energy is produced. this is the same reaction that is happening on the sun. and many people think that the sun is perpetual, which its not, it will die in 4.6 billion years. right now, it is through about half its life. we are trying to replicate this reaction on earth, but so far not so good. we still havent hit the moment of perpetual. I designed and inertial confinemet fusion reactor but i was never able to build it or test it due to lack of funds (i was a sophmore in highschool). But thats my little ramble. RG, how much power is lost when you switch to propane?

Someone has been starting at the wikipedia too long...

Fusion DOES give you easy access to hydrogen...

You use the energy output to power hydrogen harvesting...

Since the electricity being used is "clean"...

When the generation of power is cheap...it opens up all sorts of possibilities...

yes, that does give you cheap energy, but im saying you dont get hydrogen from a fusion reaction, you get heat(form of energy) and helium(waste), i have done a lot of development and know quite a bit about it considering my age.

Yet you assume that others do not know how a basic and primitive fusion reaction works...

That's like what? 4th grade physics...

Come back and tout your knowledge when you can tell me the the mass of a gravitophoton...

heh...

fuck, i well i remember saying that photons do not have mass, and gravity is a force, and force isnt made of anything, and force has no mass. so im going to say zero

btw, im not assuming that none of you know about this stuff, i was just adding to the conversation. you guys are all very smart, much more than i am, but i do consider myself pretty smart on this subject based on my age

Seek ye Heim...

what? i dont speak spanish!!

english?

http://forums.hypography.com/physics...im-theory.html

http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/A_Abstract.pdf
or french?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9orie_de_Heim

fine, we will just use anti-matter to power our cars. jk, but i will definitely have to read those when i get home.

I've seen the light :) very cool stuff!

Also check out http://www.blacklightpower.com/ for a really cool energy generation process.

Basicly the guy has found/developed a catalyst that excites a H atom to have its electorn jump in 1 shell. This releases an amount smaller than fussion or fission but much greater than combustion. It also alows a plasma state to be reached at much less extreem tempratures.

The only problem with the system is that the reaction requires a near vacume so the volumetric efficency is less then optimal. Still a very cool reaction that also leaves residual substances that me be useful in creating a new generation of batteries.

On a Heim side note Twinkie, I know plasma can be used in the generation magetic fields but is the magnitude tempature based? Could this method of plasma creation be used to create a stronger and more containable magnetic field? Sorry if this is a newb question, I have much curiosity and very little background...

Generally the higher in temp, the more energetic...

The higher the energy the more difficult it becomes to contain...

exactly what twink said, and to continue, the harder it becomes to contain, the more energy is spent on the magnets. that is the problem why we havent been able to hit perpetual with this machine.

I'm sorry the answer must be in the form of a convoluted question...

The answer we were looking for...

What is the conservation of energy...

No pie for you...

FINE, i dont want your pie, I WANT APPLE PIE!! i dont even like twinkies!! jk

Why not just burn the natural gas? As opposed to using energy to split it up, and create a gas which has less power?

physics time, which is physically heavier:

1. a watch completely stop

2. that same watch completely wound up and ticking



On the energy note, why not burn diesel not to power the wheels of a car but to merely charge several large batteries that will move the car electrically?

full charge, no running engine, charge low, run the diesel engine til it's charged again. It will maintain alot more energy from the diesel burn.

There seems to be a lot of people here that are very smart BUT at the same note have been left in the dark on recent Hydrogen power discoveries and advancements.

Hydrogen is VERY HIGH in energy! Nasa wouldn't be using it to propel thier space craft into outer space if it weren't.

There are plenty of people out there already running pure hydrogen as well as hydrogen boosted vehicles and getting incredible gas milage. You don't need a hydrogen tank in order to run hydrogen in your vehicle, you can actually produce your own hydrogen while running your vehicle with a hydrogen generator and a small amount of water.

All I will say now is RESEARCH before you attempt to flame me. Do a few google searches at least. There are some that for whatever reason do not want to believe in hydrogen power(you will see plenty who doubt without proof)......there are others who are not only believers but do'ers(with plenty of proof) already running on it with as much or MORE power than a gasoline engine.

If you still don't believe me I can supply you with link after link after link of people who do and have been using hydroden as an addition to gasoline or sole source or even mixed with other fuels such as propane!

Last time I checked NASA wasn't using an internal combustion otto cycle engine to propel rockets into space! It's a crap fuel in an internal combustion engine such as those that propel cars down the road. When Detroit decides to install rocket engines in cars, then I'll consider hydrogen!

Since you mentioned NASA and mixing hydrogen with gasoline, let's look at some JPL work with Hydrogen and gasoline. Here's a small excerpt on it. Great fuel you've got there!

http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/hydrogen.htm

Here's a page that supports what you say about hydrogen. They claim it's more fuel efficient that gasoline yet we have never seen a single engine verify that statement. Quite the opposite in fact and impressively at that. Ford has a Supercharged V10 engine that runs on pure hydrogen but makes only 210 hp. The hydrogen rotary makes about 100 hp or so which is less than half what it does on gasoline. Yep. That sure sounds far superior to me!

http://www.ecr.unimelb.edu.au/~cabur...h/exhaust.html

Also think about this. Hydrogen is a very small molecule. It has a tendency to leak out of places that other materials can't. Ever seen a car with a fuel leak? Hydrogen is going to be harder to contain. How many people fail inspection due to a gas cap not sealing properly? You want a hydrogen outlet somewhere? The plus side is that due to hydrogen being lighter than air, it floats rather than falling and spreading. That is at least one benefit of it. Too bad it's offset by storage issues. The tank that it's held in must be made very strong (heavy) since hydrogen needs to be under high pressure.

I know there are things like fuel cells out there and these are promising. Except that a fuel cell is like a hydrogen battery as through a reation with oxygen it can create electricity. It's a nice use because it's not directly going into an internal combustion engine to be burned. That's good. It burns 10 times faster than gasoline. Go look it up. It's fact. This alone is the single most important aspect of a fuel. It's more important than octane and more important than how many joules of energy are released when burned in a static test (to a point of course). These are important but any trait on it's own compared to another fuel using only the same singular trait tells us nothing. Sadly most people have the important issues out of order and don't realize this.

Say what you will. Hydrogen is a crap fuel for an internal combustion otto cycle engine and it will never be as good as other alternatives. It can't be. When you find an alternative car powered by hydrogen, I'll be driving the same car on some other fuel at twice the speed and for twice the distance. It may be with twice the emissions but I'm willing to live with that. I suspect most others would be too.