Predict SD Hybrid before 2008
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
You make a good and valid argument. I, and I'm sure so would my father, would love to see bio-diesel available in my area. However, I would like to see hydrogen power (not so much in a fuel cell, but in an engine) available also. The Ford hydrogen truck may only have gotten 150 miles per tank, but it all depends on how much fuel you have. Sure it might have had the entire bed full of tanks, but being a gas, Hydrogen gas can easily compressed to fit in a much smaller tank. It all depends on how much pressure they want to store it under. Being that it should only be Hydrogen gas in the tanks, it can be compressed much more than say if it was a dirty Hydrogen such as Brown's Gas (very interesting, especially for heating/welding purposes) where there is oxygen mixed with it. Keep in mind, it won't combust without oxygen.
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
OK, google found me an article on the hydrogen pickup. It's an F350 with a V-10, and even Ford considers it a transitional technology (to get the fueling infrastructure kickstarted) until fuel cell vehicles are farther along. And it's only got 100 mile range, not 150 like I remembered.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosins...b01-265187.htm
Duncan
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosins...b01-265187.htm
Duncan
Junior User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Saline, MI
Thanks for the article on Hydrogen powered F350 - Very interesting.
I agree that by today's standards, it is lacking HP, Torque and range but I am glad to see that they are working on something.
Funny how my wife and I were just talking about this topic last night. We both agreed that we would pay a premium to drive a vehicle such as the Escape, but are really looking for something like a Freestar or Freestyle as she need to haul around neighorhood kids. Anything to lessen the need for middle east oil.
I was commenting on the fact that I want to trade in my 03F350 for an 05 or 06, but maybe I should wait to see if Ford has any plans on 07/08 for a combo - displacement on demand, battery, etc with the V-10.
Most of my gas is sucked up on take off. When crusing on flat terrain at 70, I don't think I need 10 cylinders...
Anyway how ironic that a conversation with my wife last night turn out to be a response to this post today.
Fish
I agree that by today's standards, it is lacking HP, Torque and range but I am glad to see that they are working on something.
Funny how my wife and I were just talking about this topic last night. We both agreed that we would pay a premium to drive a vehicle such as the Escape, but are really looking for something like a Freestar or Freestyle as she need to haul around neighorhood kids. Anything to lessen the need for middle east oil.
I was commenting on the fact that I want to trade in my 03F350 for an 05 or 06, but maybe I should wait to see if Ford has any plans on 07/08 for a combo - displacement on demand, battery, etc with the V-10.
Most of my gas is sucked up on take off. When crusing on flat terrain at 70, I don't think I need 10 cylinders...
Anyway how ironic that a conversation with my wife last night turn out to be a response to this post today.
Fish
Fleet Owner
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 25,090
Likes: 1,112
From: Rio Rico, AZ.
Has anyone here heard of the "Joe Cell"? I've read where someone has successfully converted four gasoline engines to run on them. It requires some radical thinking, engine modifications, etc. to get it to work, but he claims that he has driven several hundred miles without using any sort of fuel at all, just this "orgone energy" that is extracted out of some stainless steel cylinders. During engine operation the tailpipe gets thoroughly coated with ice and the engine develops more power than with conventional fossil based fuel.
There's books on the subject too.
EDIT: I found a link to the same guy. A lot of what he says is, hmmm, non-scientific. But he does say that it works, and somebody else was able to duplicate his results, so go figure.
http://energy21.freeservers.com/as101.htm
There's books on the subject too.
EDIT: I found a link to the same guy. A lot of what he says is, hmmm, non-scientific. But he does say that it works, and somebody else was able to duplicate his results, so go figure.
http://energy21.freeservers.com/as101.htm
Last edited by Kwikkordead; Apr 3, 2005 at 02:57 PM.
Fleet Owner
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 25,090
Likes: 1,112
From: Rio Rico, AZ.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Orwigsburg, PA.
A horrible try for an April fools joke!!! Everybody knows that an exothermic reaction combined with an endothermic energy release will negate both and the Joe cell will implode after exploding!!! Moreover the heat that's removed from the atmosphere for this to work will cause the next glacial age. My F350 with the VJoe engine (equivalent to a V10) will need studs on my 18 inch Conti's due to the ice thrown out from the VJoe exhaust!?!?!??!? Wow these articles mentioned above are pure garbage. On the other hand Jeff, forget the hybrid I ordered and get me one of these Joe things.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Area
What hydrogen advocates need to realize is that hydrogen is NOT an energy source. Like electricity, you have to make it (more accurately, separate it) by using a real energy source. I've got to wonder how people will feel about using "nukes" to make their hydrogen.
That's actually the problem with bio-diesel as well: you've got to make it, which is a lot more work than just digging it up. But soon that work may be adequately compensated, if the oil producers keep getting more.
Frankly, I feel that near-term, we should apply more of the high output designs like Ford uses on SVT or BMW on their M (high compression, supercharging, direct injection, intelligent variable valve timing, etc.). Then, a small engine could act like a big engine when necessary. It's less fun, but more practical, than 12 second quarters.
That's actually the problem with bio-diesel as well: you've got to make it, which is a lot more work than just digging it up. But soon that work may be adequately compensated, if the oil producers keep getting more.
Frankly, I feel that near-term, we should apply more of the high output designs like Ford uses on SVT or BMW on their M (high compression, supercharging, direct injection, intelligent variable valve timing, etc.). Then, a small engine could act like a big engine when necessary. It's less fun, but more practical, than 12 second quarters.
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by MrBSS
What hydrogen advocates need to realize is that hydrogen is NOT an energy source. Like electricity, you have to make it (more accurately, separate it) by using a real energy source.
Thanks
Robert
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
"That's actually the problem with bio-diesel as well: you've got to make it, which is a lot more work than just digging it up. But soon that work may be adequately compensated, if the oil producers keep getting more.?"
How you figure? You take oil out of the ground and refine it. You take grease out of a frying pan and process it. Sounds about the same to me. Now I know thats simplifying it alot but making biodiesel is no harder than making gasoline.
How you figure? You take oil out of the ground and refine it. You take grease out of a frying pan and process it. Sounds about the same to me. Now I know thats simplifying it alot but making biodiesel is no harder than making gasoline.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
If you ask me i think it is much harder for someone to FIND crude oil in the ground, Dig to get it out, pump it out, refine it, etc, vs getting some materials to make bio diesel from. If people are making biodiesel in their own yards, it must be more practical, less expensive, and more easily done than say, refining diesel themselves. No fossil fuel is available for us to use as is as an energy source. There is always a certain amount of energy we must put into either extracting it or whatever. Coal must be mined, there are no "stock piles" provided by nature. Wood must be cut and split to burn (unless you burn entire trees at once), Gasoline, kero, diesel, propane, natural gas, etc, all have some work required to prepare them for their use.
Oil rigs out on the ocean cost major $$. It takes many months just to build one and put it into operation. Compare all this energy, material, etc. needed just to start drilling for oil, to the simple process of electrolysis. Sure it requires a lot of power to split the water molecules apart, but that is the only major cost of its production. It would not be efficient to burn fossil fuels to create this power, but nuclear power would be ideal for current production of hydrogen. We really have no limit to the amount of power we can create with nuclear plants; it is just the problem with its safety and the disposal of their waste. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; instead it is a type of medium to store it. We must put in some energy to extract it, but then the gas can be stored, transported, and burned when needed. The plants which generates the H2 gas would deal with massive volumes of it and should become rather efficient at it. When compared to all the pollution and current prices of the fossil fuels we use today, we should look to alternatives such as the hydrogen infrastructures which i have suggested in this thread. Again only time will tell which will be the best source for our current times.
Oil rigs out on the ocean cost major $$. It takes many months just to build one and put it into operation. Compare all this energy, material, etc. needed just to start drilling for oil, to the simple process of electrolysis. Sure it requires a lot of power to split the water molecules apart, but that is the only major cost of its production. It would not be efficient to burn fossil fuels to create this power, but nuclear power would be ideal for current production of hydrogen. We really have no limit to the amount of power we can create with nuclear plants; it is just the problem with its safety and the disposal of their waste. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; instead it is a type of medium to store it. We must put in some energy to extract it, but then the gas can be stored, transported, and burned when needed. The plants which generates the H2 gas would deal with massive volumes of it and should become rather efficient at it. When compared to all the pollution and current prices of the fossil fuels we use today, we should look to alternatives such as the hydrogen infrastructures which i have suggested in this thread. Again only time will tell which will be the best source for our current times.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Orwigsburg, PA.
I don't mean to be condescending to you, but in all honesty being a chemical engineer I cannot accept this theory that you are referring to. If this were true, and I don't know why I am even addressing it here except for the fact I don't want other readers to think this is possible, then this Joe guy would have applied for a patent, and the patent office in Washington DC would have granted one. Patents are issued for novelty, but the disclosure would have had needed some scientific merit. If there was none, then it would have been rejected. That's probably why he never applied! Please don't get caught up in this type of science fiction. Hydrogen and oxygen can be derived from water directly by using the electrolysis reaction. Gobs, of electrical energy created from hydroelectric, solar, nuclear or heat energy is needed in order to effect this. Otherwise it simply can't be done. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Originally Posted by Kwikkordead
I wasn't joking at all. If this is really true it's the next "big thing"
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Orwigsburg, PA.
Originally Posted by ATVer1992
If you ask me i think it is much harder for someone to FIND crude oil in the ground, Dig to get it out, pump it out, refine it, etc, vs getting some materials to make bio diesel from. If people are making biodiesel in their own yards, it must be more practical, less expensive, and more easily done than say, refining diesel themselves. No fossil fuel is available for us to use as is as an energy source. There is always a certain amount of energy we must put into either extracting it or whatever. Coal must be mined, there are no "stock piles" provided by nature. Wood must be cut and split to burn (unless you burn entire trees at once), Gasoline, kero, diesel, propane, natural gas, etc, all have some work required to prepare them for their use.
Oil rigs out on the ocean cost major $$. It takes many months just to build one and put it into operation. Compare all this energy, material, etc. needed just to start drilling for oil, to the simple process of electrolysis. Sure it requires a lot of power to split the water molecules apart, but that is the only major cost of its production. It would not be efficient to burn fossil fuels to create this power, but nuclear power would be ideal for current production of hydrogen. We really have no limit to the amount of power we can create with nuclear plants; it is just the problem with its safety and the disposal of their waste. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; instead it is a type of medium to store it. We must put in some energy to extract it, but then the gas can be stored, transported, and burned when needed. The plants which generates the H2 gas would deal with massive volumes of it and should become rather efficient at it. When compared to all the pollution and current prices of the fossil fuels we use today, we should look to alternatives such as the hydrogen infrastructures which i have suggested in this thread. Again only time will tell which will be the best source for our current times.
Oil rigs out on the ocean cost major $$. It takes many months just to build one and put it into operation. Compare all this energy, material, etc. needed just to start drilling for oil, to the simple process of electrolysis. Sure it requires a lot of power to split the water molecules apart, but that is the only major cost of its production. It would not be efficient to burn fossil fuels to create this power, but nuclear power would be ideal for current production of hydrogen. We really have no limit to the amount of power we can create with nuclear plants; it is just the problem with its safety and the disposal of their waste. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; instead it is a type of medium to store it. We must put in some energy to extract it, but then the gas can be stored, transported, and burned when needed. The plants which generates the H2 gas would deal with massive volumes of it and should become rather efficient at it. When compared to all the pollution and current prices of the fossil fuels we use today, we should look to alternatives such as the hydrogen infrastructures which i have suggested in this thread. Again only time will tell which will be the best source for our current times.
Last edited by howardlj; Apr 5, 2005 at 01:26 AM.