Quote:
Originally Posted by cmcclive
Not to ruin your pipe dream but:
if it has 4 wheels and goes over 30mph it needs to meet same crash test results as a car...
A trike on the other hand only has to meet motorcycle crash test ratings.
I too had heard of a chemical catalyst, and although I do not know the specifics (we wanted to make fuel cells, a different group worried about fuel storage/delivery) I am guessing the chemical is expensive and possibly carcinogenic (as many organics are).
I have read some on "solid storage" in which the hydrogen is stored in a metal honeycomb kind of tank (hydrogen goes in the pores of the metal, just like how oil is in the pores of bedrock). And it only takes a small amount of electrical shock to remove the hydrogen from the storage matrix, that way if the tank is pierced the hydrogen is still safe. The problem with this system is cost and weight as the metal storage matrix would add several hundred more pounds (these things aren't light).
Right now, the biggest problem with fuel cells is the cost of platinum. With current technologies there is between $1000 to $5000 in platinum in each fuel cell car. If they can increase efficiencies, or throughput of the fuel cell that will go down. Mind you that is just raw material cost, this stuff needs to be processed, coated, assembled, ect.
|
I figured there would be some limitations like that. Do the same rules apply for individuals as for manufacturers? I figured those rules were more for liability reasons, but I'm not gonna sue myself if I crash.
Ok then, I'll make it go 29.99mph and/or only have three wheels. A reverse trike (2 wheels in ront, 1 in back) might be better for stability. I just gotta get off my butt and research a little more. But it's kind of a moot point if I don't have the funds to finance my dream.
Here is a different method to use sunlight (along with TiSi2) as a catalyst:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i41/8541notw4.html
I found out the catalyst I had read about; it was salt and RF waves. After more reading (
this article and resulting comments in particular) it seems that burning water is similar to changing lead into gold. Despite the suspected potential, it just isn't going to happen. The article linked above basically says that there is little energy "stored" in water. Even when broken down through electrolysis, that energy does not get bigger just because we're talking about hydrogen. The problem is that the energy we put in is larger than we get out. Period.
Now, if we could harness "free" energy like sunlight (yeah, I know it's not technically free, but I don't pay for it) for the electrolsis, then the energy we get is free as well. but then, why not cut out the middle man and get the energy from the sun directly? More R&D needs to be done to harness all the energy from the sun IMO.
Or, what about harnessing lightning? The pulse isn't very big, but there's a LOT of energy everytime a bolt strikes! And since each bolt is up to 200,000,000V and between 30,000A and 300,000A, that's as high as 60
trillion watts, or only 80
billion HP.
Too bad there isn't a way to store that kind of power. According to
this, lightning strikes US soil about 25-30 million times a year!!