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

And is motor racing a branch of organic chemistry?

Manufacture of graphene is.

nah, chemical engineering, that.

DavidR wrote...

"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.

....but only because that is all the "punters" can afford.

If, after accidental damage, a car can be restored to its market value of
(say) £1500 only by the expenditure of (say) £2000 on repairs, the owner
will *waste* the £500 over-spend, with no hope of recovering it (unless he
somehow feels that a sentimental attachment to the car is worth £500 to him)
if he chooses to have the repairs done.

In article , Steve Firth
writes
Steve wrote:

Well, the real point is that fuel cells will become a universal power
source - the military already use them in numbers,

You missed out the word "small" that should be inserted before
"numbers".


2,800 newly installed systems in 2003., raising the total to around
8,000 globally - AiB forecast 45,000 military systems by 2014.

and there will be fuelcell laptops on the market almost certainly by the
end of this year

Almost certainly not.

(Toshiba and NEC have devices close to market) with cell phones close
behind.

http://www.arstechnica.com/archive/news/1057018098.html for NEC,

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2003_03/pr0501.htm for Toshiba

One of my clients is *the* leader in the development of small fuel
cells. Even they are not so stupid as to claim that they will be on the
market by the end of this year.

I hope they don't realise you don't know what you're talking about, then
- you can buy small fuelcells now from Smart Fuel Cell in Germany. And
if they are *the* leader, then I'll know them.

http://www.smartfuelcell.de/en/produkte/sfc_a25.html


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.

I have, as I pointed out, use of the same fuel in

Sorry? I repeat, 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.


Your blether about CO2 being saleable is ********. There is a huge
oversupply of CO2, there is no value in the raw material, the value
comes from the added value of the service of packaging the CO2 and
moving it where it is needed. Furthermore, selling it does not remove it
from the emissions inventory.

But you can sell it, right?



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.

They are looking for window dressing. Fuel cells can only make emissions
worse, not better. Unless and until hydrogen can be produced in
sufficiently large quantities from renewable sources. You can stick your
head in the sand all you like, but partially burning a fuel before
selling it does not make that fuel either clean or renewable, nor will
that fuel be affordable.

You really don't understand this, do you? How do you produce carbon
based fuels? By refining them... How is that different?


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.

Only if one takes a ludicroulsy short-sighted view of the term "zero
emission".

Where did I suggest it was anything else? However, would you prefer
emissions at street level, in your face, or in a handful of controllable
locations? (this is not NIMBYism - it's common sense. I'd rather live
next to a chemical works than beside the M25, for instance - the air
quality would be much better. And I'm in chemical plants and refineries
several times a month in the course of my job, so I know what I'm
talking about).

--
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------

In article , Steve Firth
writes
Steve wrote:

2,800 newly installed systems in 2003., raising the total to around
8,000 globally - AiB forecast 45,000 military systems by 2014.

vs 27,000,000 ICE civilian systems in the UK alone.


And in 1915 there were 21,500,000 horses in the UK, so what?
--
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------

"Steve" wrote in message
...


And in 1915 there were 21,500,000 horses in the UK, so what?

Your evidence for that being? :-)

In article , Steve Firth
writes
Steve wrote:


And in 1915 there were 21,500,000 horses in the UK

No, that was the horse population of the USA in 1915.
In the UK the figure was about 1 million at that time and today it is
about 1 million.

so what?

Indeed, so what? You were only 20 million out. And of course the
relationship between horses and cars is umm not entirely obvious, since
the UK horse population is actually growing at an estimated 30,000 per
annum.

Oops, read the figures wrong. My mistake - that blows a hole in that
argument.

IN 1905 BTW, there were already 16,000 motor cars on the road, if you
want a figure to compare with the laughably small ambitions of the fuel
cell junkies.


Where did anyone say they were going for world domination? Perhaps they
are being realistic.

Oh, well, at least I can admit I'm wrong when I am.

--
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------

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

I have, as I pointed out, use of the same fuel in

BTW, don't start ranting on about the efficiency of fuel cells either.
The DfT rates a fuel cell at 1.4MJ/km, a petrol engine at 1.98 MJ/km.
Hardly the huge difference in energy efficiency needed to overcome the
laughable fuel costs and weight penalties.

[Source: DfT "platinum and hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles"]

This is before we start to wrry about the effects of released hydrogen
on global warming and depletion of the ozone layer, the improbability
that there is enough platinum available to meet demand, and the
*increased* use fo fossil fuels in order to gnerate "clean[1]" hydrogen.

[1] Har, bloody har.

--

Through travelling to sunnier climes I've lost some of this thread and
therefore having to pick it up again from my laptop, however as previously
pointed out the use of platinum as a catalyst for hydrogen production is old
hat. A tin/nickel mixture in a low temperature, neutral emission process is
seen as the way forward. This will use far less energy than is currently
used to produce diesel, which is what the power cell idea is hopefully
replacing. The raw source of the hydrogen is also far more abundant and
cheaper. (glucose/plant waste mixture) Nickel/Tin catalyst costs are in the
region of one to two thousandths that of platinum. I do not have the paper
to hand, however a Google search should give several results. From memory it
was the University of Wisconsin and another University in Nagoya (Japan) who
were pioneering the process. Commercial sponmsorship to further the research
is assured. Therefore your DfT data is out of date. I understand a further
study by the DfT is currently underway in this area and their data may be
updated in due course using independent consultants.

To reiterate no one from this side of the industry in the UK is trying to
con the public as the companies I work with are quite open in their press
releases about the current drawbacks. BP is supplying the hydrogen currently
used and the buses are a trial of the technology.

To rattle on using old data to try and prove a point of view is not good
form. Similar arguments were put forward at the time Boeing began developing
the 747. At the time of project launch there were various engineering
problems that could not be solved using then current metals in some of the
heavier loaded areas of the airframe. The new alloys had to be invented.
There were many both within Boeing and Nasa who said the required
strength/weight ratio could not be achieved, of course the cleverer ones in
those organisations were not put off and their persistence has paid off many
times over. The alloys were invented and produced in quantity within three
years.

No one is pretending the fuel cell is the panacea for all auto-motive
traffic, however if a clean process is developed to produce hydrogen in
industrial quantities there are many towns/cities which will benefit from
having less polluting emissions damaging the health of their occupants and
the fabric of their buildings, not to mention noise pollution. Quieter, less
damaging buses are one way of contributing to a better environment. As
pointed out elesewhere in this thread, when dealing with emerging
technologies it is well to keep a more open mind rather than put forward a
rigid point of view as well as rubbishing/trying to discourage others from
pursuing the research. If such attitudes prevailed in the 1960s we'd have
neither cheaper air travel or non stick frying pans.

Regards,

Jon

Mijas, head clear of the sand.

"JNugent" wrote
DavidR wrote...

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.

...but only because that is all the "punters" can afford.

If, after accidental damage, a car can be restored to its market value of
(say) £1500 only by the expenditure of (say) £2000 on repairs, the owner
will *waste* the £500 over-spend, with no hope of recovering it (unless he
somehow feels that a sentimental attachment to the car is worth £500 to
him) if he chooses to have the repairs done.

Agreed. But consider how often are we told by the likes of Quentin Wilson to
avoid poverty spec models because thay are harder to sell. Is there some
point in the ownership chain where owning the poverty spec becomes an actual
bargaining advantage?

What I can never be sure of is whether people buy the toys for themselves or
for an eye to (or fear of) resale value. I think the fashion for sunroofs
some years ago were an obvious contender for the most useless accessory
ever.

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

Well, the real point is that fuel cells will become a universal power
source - the military already use them in numbers,

You missed out the word "small" that should be inserted before
"numbers".

and there will be fuelcell laptops on the market almost certainly by the
end of this year

Almost certainly not.

(Toshiba and NEC have devices close to market) with cell phones close
behind.

One of my clients is *the* leader in the development of small fuel
cells. Even they are not so stupid as to claim that they will be on the
market by the end of this year.

Would that be AEA Technology, Hitachi Industries, Siemens, Mercedes, BMW,
NASA. Maybe General Motors, Toyota, Ford, (plus a couple of very impressive
East European companies who I will not try and spell!)
I'm sure they have all put all those millions in just to see it wasted but
of course you know better than them. The money going into clean fuel
production and cheaper catalytic processes isn't small either. Fuel cell
technology has a future, development is continually assessed and both
private and public money is funding the research. One of the funding
companies being my employer. Several Universities on this side of the pond
benefiting from the research funding being made available. We like our
researchers to have open minds and receptive to fresh thinking. There are an
awful lot of very bright researchers out there and all the above companies
are putting money into University coffers. The results are very encouraging,
as are the future prospects for those researchers who get the results. But
all reserach has to start somewhere and that is what we are doing with our
fuel cell buses. There are even some fuel cell powered locomotives beginning
trials across the pond. All of which is being followed closely over here.

"Jon Porter" wrote in message
...

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

Well, the real point is that fuel cells will become a universal power
source - the military already use them in numbers,

You missed out the word "small" that should be inserted before
"numbers".

and there will be fuelcell laptops on the market almost certainly by
the
end of this year

Almost certainly not.

(Toshiba and NEC have devices close to market) with cell phones close
behind.

One of my clients is *the* leader in the development of small fuel
cells. Even they are not so stupid as to claim that they will be on the
market by the end of this year.

Would that be AEA Technology, Hitachi Industries, Siemens, Mercedes, BMW,
NASA. Maybe General Motors, Toyota, Ford, (plus a couple of very
impressive
East European companies who I will not try and spell!)
I'm sure they have all put all those millions in just to see it wasted
but
of course you know better than them. The money going into clean fuel
production and cheaper catalytic processes isn't small either. Fuel cell
technology has a future, development is continually assessed and both
private and public money is funding the research. One of the funding
companies being my employer. Several Universities on this side of the pond
benefiting from the research funding being made available. We like our
researchers to have open minds and receptive to fresh thinking. There are
an
awful lot of very bright researchers out there and all the above companies
are putting money into University coffers. The results are very
encouraging,
as are the future prospects for those researchers who get the results. But
all research has to start somewhere and that is what we are doing with our
fuel cell buses. There are even some fuel cell powered locomotives
beginning
trials across the pond. All of which is being followed closely over here.


Late at night and a little tired, but this response was addressed to Mr.
Firth, sorry for any confusion caused to the other Steve.