home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!aas7
- From: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
- Newsgroups: rec.autos
- Subject: Re: NOx, hydrogen, and zero emmissions
- Message-ID: <1epkfnINNjoo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- Date: 23 Nov 92 03:51:19 GMT
- References: <1992Nov22.195133.16417@iitmax.iit.edu> <By3Jrs.BL1@rahul.net> <1en8bnINN7qm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- Reply-To: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
- Lines: 61
- NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu
-
-
- In a previous article, petebre@elof.iit.edu (Brent A. Peterson) says:
-
- >In article <1en8bnINN7qm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:
- >>
- >>In a previous article, wilsont@rahul.net (Timothy Wilson) says:
- >>
- >>>First off, NOx is produced whenever there is combustion of any sort in
- >>>our atmosphere.
- >>>
- >>>Emmission control is through the fuel/air ratio. The ratio is so extreme,
- >>>( i forget which way) that there is a serious power loss.
- >>>
- >>>
- >>>Zero Emmisions: Its just that... ZERO. a zero emmission vehicle does not
- >>>have a tail pipe!
- > Not really.... Electric's DO produce emmisons... it just doesn't come
- >from the car itself... but rather the plant that made the electricity that
- >it is using. (since nuclear plants have their waste, and besides I don't think
- >that they will be built to supply a nation of electric cars with power, it will
- >most likely be good old coal plants, burning cheap and dirty coal.)
- >
- > Hydrogen engines will only produce water and NOx, and hopefully there will
- >soon be a NOx catalayst that works without the presence of hydrocarbons.
- >>>
- >>fifteen page paper or no, i do not believe what you are telling me. but that
- >>is ok, since you obviously are going to disagree with me. So, you can be happy
- >>with whatever makes you happy, and i'll do the same. H power is still not
- >>a very viable option in the immediate future, or at least, i do not see it.
- >>perhaps you do. i think H power is STUPID. there are better and easier
- >>and just as Efreindly solutions. but i know that i would be told that i
- >>am a dork and stupid, and thus will not "publish" what i think here, aside
- >>from what i have heard/think i know about H power not being viable..now at
- >>least.
- >>DREW
- >
- > Actually, a switch to hydrogen would be much easier that electrics.
-
- electric sux too, if you bothered to read what i said, i agreed with what
- you posted above, about where their emmissions come from.
-
- >first, piston engines will require new fuel systems and heads, rotories only
- >a new fuel system. This is a minimal tooling and desgin change when compared
- >to eletrics, which change the entire weight balence of the car, requiring
- >changes to structure, suspension, drive drain, controls, new ways of operating
- >all the accesories that run on engine vacume (power breaks, power steering, etc)
- >among other things. actually to make hydrogen work will be best option.
- >the major problem with hydrogen is storage and transport. metal hydride storage,
- >where the H2 is dispressed in the metal's atom lattice until it is realeased by
- >heat, is as I remember a bit heavy, but does work. The goal is to get a fuel
- >that has the same energy to weight ratio as gasoline, and as of today nothing
- >comes close. (except for prehaps some other HC fuels, but they produce other
- >emissons that there is no way at present to control)
- > -Bp
- >
-
- DREW
- --
- ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
- ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
- ?????????????????????????????????-----whatever!
-
