Steve Firth wrote:
W K wrote:

A knowledge of organic chemistry, something you were preening
yourself on a few moments ago.

No, not organic chemistry actually,

Yes, organic chemistry. The chemistry of carbon compounds.

Like CO2 for example?

--

Geoff

"Nigel Pendse" wrote the following
in:

I now own a car with a fiendishly complex 32V V8

snip

But a friend's car has a larger version of the same engine, that
was recently ruined when he drove through a deep puddle, because
water got sucked into the cylinders. That cost a cool £10,000 to
repair -- and he was told that he'd got off lightly.

Perhaps it cost so much to repair because it was an unnecessarily large
and expensive 32V V8 engine. This is hardly standard kit.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Jon Porter wrote:

The gas used is hydrogen, not methane. It is held in tanks in the roof.

then why are TFL telling the public that they are fuelled by natural
gas?

TFL did not purchase the buses.

Then why are TFL telling the public that *they* paid 3 million quid for
these buses?

They were provided by external financing and my own employers are part
of
the trial that is also taking place in other UK

Your employers are to be commended for the insanity of their proposals.

Would they care to tell people where the hydrogen to power the buses is
coming from? Or do they just want to pretend that it is made from magic
moonbeams?

--

One has to start somewhere, however the latest advances indicate that
hydrogen production from a plants/sugar/alcohol in a low temperature process
using a catalyst of nickel and tin is possible on an industrial scale and is
greenhouse gas neutral at the point of production. Platinum can also be used
as a catalyst but it is far more expensive. The basic raw material can be
harvested or can be a by- product from food production. Magic Moonbeams are
not mentioned in the research papers, however if you feel they may be
relevant please put us in touch with your supplier. For the moment we have
to rely on BP. The production emissions certainly being no worse than diesel
fuel, and certainly a lot cleaner at point of use
TFL press release list all the interested parties/companies taking part. The
total cost of all the vehicles is 3 million and not all are in London. there
are nine EEC cities in the trial. I have not read/heard anything by TFL
saying they had paid for the buses, and I have been following developments
closely
My employers are to be commended for their efforts in this area and they
plainly state the origin of the hydrogen and the method used to produce it
in all the press releases. At least they are doing something to advance this
technology and not sniping with inaccurate comment at the sidelines. Let's
see how things pan out at the end of the trials and with the hydrogen
production research currently taking place in the USA and Germany.

"Robin May" wrote in message
.4
"Nigel Pendse" wrote the following
in:

I now own a car with a fiendishly complex 32V V8

snip

But a friend's car has a larger version of the same engine, that
was recently ruined when he drove through a deep puddle, because
water got sucked into the cylinders. That cost a cool £10,000 to
repair -- and he was told that he'd got off lightly.

Perhaps it cost so much to repair because it was an unnecessarily
large and expensive 32V V8 engine. This is hardly standard kit.

It was standard kit on that car, a BMW 740. In fact, it wasn't even the
largest engine for that car available at the time -- he could have had the
12-cylinder version instead, which would presumably cost even more to repair
if ruined.

But that's hardly the point, which is that expensive repairs on complex cars
can force them to be scrapped earlier than might be expected. It can happen
just as easily with cheaper as well as more expensive complex cars -- and
most modern cars, regardless of price, are relatively complex.

Just think of a car door. My first few cars had no electric motors or wiring
in the doors at all, nor heating ducts. Now, with central locking, electric
windows, footwell lights, speakers, heated, folding and remote adjustable
external mirrors, etc, there are numerous electric and electronic circuits
and multiple electric motors in each front door, and some in the rear doors
as well. And that's not to mention the strengthening beams to protect
against side intrusions and the sophisticated rust proofing.

Most of this applies to moderately priced as well as expensive cars. If such
a door ever gets damaged, say in a minor accident, repairing/replacing it
will be a much more complex and expensive business than in the old days, and
may bring forward the date when the car gets scrapped.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
W K wrote:

If you will not state your position, then you can hardly expect people
to
notice the difference between extreme skeptic, knocking it in all
possible
ways, and someone who doesn't believe it at all.

My position was stated clearly. It does not match with your
misrepresentation of my position.

Where?

If you don't want to be misrepresented, you could actually point to what
your real position is.

At worst I've mistaken you for Huge.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
W K wrote:

A knowledge of organic chemistry, something you were preening yourself
on a few moments ago.

No, not organic chemistry actually,

Yes, organic chemistry. The chemistry of carbon compounds.

That is not the definition of organic chemistry.
Even if it was, the study of certain behaviours of an organic compound
doesn't mean its organic chemistry.

I was not making a point about organic chemistry.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
GeoffC g_cannatM$coldpost wrote:

Yes, organic chemistry. The chemistry of carbon compounds.

Like CO2 for example?

Yes, and at an extreme allotropes of carbon. Although they only start to
get interesting when they react with something else.

calcium carbonate?
Potassium cyanide?
EDTA?

And is motor racing a branch of organic chemistry?

In article , Steve Firth
writes
Jon Porter wrote:

My employers are to be commended for their efforts in this area

Why? Other than the fact that they are your employer that is? What is
runnign three hugely expensive, impractical buses around London while
using an unsustainable fuel source going to prove? That some companies
are adept at obtaining massive government subsidies for pointless
exercises?

and they plainly state the origin of the hydrogen and the method used to
produce it in all the press releases. At least they are doing something to
advance this technology and not sniping with inaccurate comment at the
sidelines.

If you could identify what you see as innacurate comment, I would be
most interested to review your views for accuracy.

In the meantime I shall look to the sky to see how your pie is cooking.


Well, the real point is that fuel cells will become a universal power
source - the military already use them in numbers, and there will be
fuelcell laptops on the market almost certainly by the end of this year
(Toshiba and NEC have devices close to market) with cell phones close
behind. You still haven't explained why the production of hydrogen in a
single place, where emissions are far more easily regulated and cleaned
- economies of scale make regulation and technology much more affordable
and efficient - is not preferable to loads of small, badly maintained
emissions generators (vehicles) pushing out pollutants at street-level
in centres of population. And, of course, for a company like BOC, CO2 is
a saleable by-product, not a vented emission.

Which, of course, is the nub - Governments recognised the harm not being
able to control emissions from individual sources does, so currently
fuel cells are a natural progression in the legislation led drive for
zero-emission vehicles. By focussing on vehicles, the authorities are
not looking for a holistic approach, but a pragmatic one.

And, whether you like it or not, fuel cells are currently winning the
race to provide zero-emission motive power for vehicles, to comply with
that legislation.

The pie has be cooked and is being eaten - take you head out of the sand
and look.

--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

"Nigel Pendse" wrote

Just think of a car door. My first few cars had no electric motors or
wiring in the doors at all, nor heating ducts. Now, with central locking,
electric windows, footwell lights, speakers, heated, folding and remote
adjustable external mirrors, etc, there are numerous electric and
electronic circuits and multiple electric motors in each front door, and
some in the rear doors as well. And that's not to mention the
strengthening beams to protect against side intrusions and the
sophisticated rust proofing.

This stuff is not inevitable. The thread may be bemoaning how complex cars
are and how they are scrapped when beyond economic repair but it is what the
punters want.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
W K wrote:

If you don't want to be misrepresented, you could actually point to what
your real position is.

What, again?

When did you last state your real position?
Do you expect me to trawl through all the google articles that _others_
reply to, to find out?

In almost every topic you play your cards so close to your chest its not
even clear what game you are playing, or even whether you have any cards.
As such misrepresenting you is almost inevitable, stop complaining. (or
whatever the fact that you comment about it is actually ... whinging ?
stating? I dunno, just guessing).