Hydriogen Cars SOON!

"Joe S" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Steve W. wrote:
> > There are countries that use Coal and Wood to power their cars.
>
>
> Please address this statement only. Don't obfuscate with information
> about days gone by and antique resotrations and "off-the-grid" power
> generation. I want to know about whole countries that use Coal and
Wood
> to power their cars.
>
> Are there, or are there not, entire countries that use Coal and Wood
to
> power their cars. If so, what are the countries and who makes the cars
>
>
> Joe
>
Since it is REAL obvious YOU have a problem believing that this is
CURRENT technology and won't even bother to look online because it
threatens your hydrogen is the future MYTH. Here is some more info.


Entire countries NO, But major populations who do use coal or wood
producer gas vehicles YES.
Take a trip to the interior of China or the former USSR and you will
find them in use by the thousands. They sell the producer units as well
as install them into standard automobiles., busses, tractors. The ONLY
modification to a carbureted vehicle is to install a gas regulator and
mixer unit. Nothing else. Newer vehicles are converted the same way as
ones using Natural gas. As to who makes the cars ANY internal
combustion engine can run on producer gas, including diesels and
turbines.

The Auto that I have is NOT some antique it was built BY ME in 1998. Oh
and FYI it is the folks who have already proven the technology and
developed ways to live off grid that are the reason ANYONE is even
looking at alternative fuel sources.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steve W. wrote:
> "Joe S" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Steve W. wrote:
>>
>>>There are countries that use Coal and Wood to power their cars.
>>
>>
>>Please address this statement only. Don't obfuscate with information
>>about days gone by and antique resotrations and "off-the-grid" power
>>generation. I want to know about whole countries that use Coal and
>
> Wood
>
>>to power their cars.
>>
>>Are there, or are there not, entire countries that use Coal and Wood
>
> to
>
>>power their cars. If so, what are the countries and who makes the cars
>>
>>
>>Joe
>>
>
> Since it is REAL obvious YOU have a problem believing that this is
> CURRENT technology and won't even bother to look online because it
> threatens your hydrogen is the future MYTH. Here is some more info.
>
>
> Entire countries NO, But major populations who do use coal or wood
> producer gas vehicles YES.

Major populations? Not likely.


> Take a trip to the interior of China or the former USSR and you will
> find them in use by the thousands. They sell the producer units as well
> as install them into standard automobiles., busses, tractors. The ONLY
> modification to a carbureted vehicle is to install a gas regulator and
> mixer unit. Nothing else. Newer vehicles are converted the same way as
> ones using Natural gas. As to who makes the cars ANY internal
> combustion engine can run on producer gas, including diesels and
> turbines.


A wood gasifier takes wood chips, sawdust, charcoal, coal or similar
materials as fuel and burns these incompletely in a fire box, producing
solid ashes and soot (which have to be removed periodically from the
gasifier and constantly from the gas) and wood gas. The wood gas can
then be filtered for tars and soot/ash particles, cooled and directed to
e.g. an internal combustion engine, gas turbine, stirling engine or fuel
cell to produce electricity.

Most of these devices have SEVERE requirements to the purity of the wood
gas, so the gas often has to pass through EXTENSIVE gas cleaning in
order to remove or convert ("crack") tars and particles. If you plan to
run wood gas in an internal combustion engine, GET TO KNOW your local
cylinder head repair shops.


> The Auto that I have is NOT some antique it was built BY ME in 1998. Oh
> and FYI it is the folks who have already proven the technology and
> developed ways to live off grid that are the reason ANYONE is even
> looking at alternative fuel sources.

Sure, sure. Got it.

Sounds very promising! Good luck with that.


--
Joe

Joe S wrote:
> You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
> energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine burning
> wood or coal.
>
> What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for energy
> that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have to be
> spent to create it.
>

Ah, but the source of energy is the real problem. We still need a
reasonably inexpensive and environmentally benign source. That is a
bigger problem then the delivery system.

BTW, many people did configure cars to burn coal and wood during
shortages of WW2. And, gasoline can be made from coal for sure, and I
suspect it can be made from wood also. However, in both cases I suspect
the environmental problems are severe. I'd like to see folks working at
this, however. I'd like to see R & D funding to develop a way to
produce synthetic gasoline in such a way as to create minimal harm to
environment. I suspect that will be easier and more near term than an
efficient method of generating hydrogen. The later research should be
done once the former system is up and running.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:34:58 -0600, Don Stauffer
> wrote:

>Joe S wrote:
>> You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
>> energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine burning
>> wood or coal.
>>
>> What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for energy
>> that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have to be
>> spent to create it.
>>
>
>Ah, but the source of energy is the real problem. We still need a
>reasonably inexpensive and environmentally benign source. That is a
>bigger problem then the delivery system.
>
>BTW, many people did configure cars to burn coal and wood during
>shortages of WW2. And, gasoline can be made from coal for sure, and I
>suspect it can be made from wood also. However, in both cases I suspect
>the environmental problems are severe. I'd like to see folks working at
>this, however. I'd like to see R & D funding to develop a way to
>produce synthetic gasoline in such a way as to create minimal harm to
>environment. I suspect that will be easier and more near term than an
>efficient method of generating hydrogen. The later research should be
>done once the former system is up and running.

Info from the brains at Stanford U:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p.../hydrogen.html

searn wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:34:58 -0600, Don Stauffer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Joe S wrote:
>>
>>>You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
>>>energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine burning
>>>wood or coal.
>>>
>>>What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for energy
>>>that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have to be
>>>spent to create it.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, but the source of energy is the real problem. We still need a
>>reasonably inexpensive and environmentally benign source. That is a
>>bigger problem then the delivery system.
>>
>>BTW, many people did configure cars to burn coal and wood during
>>shortages of WW2. And, gasoline can be made from coal for sure, and I
>>suspect it can be made from wood also. However, in both cases I suspect
>>the environmental problems are severe. I'd like to see folks working at
>>this, however. I'd like to see R & D funding to develop a way to
>>produce synthetic gasoline in such a way as to create minimal harm to
>>environment. I suspect that will be easier and more near term than an
>>efficient method of generating hydrogen. The later research should be
>>done once the former system is up and running.
>
>
> Info from the brains at Stanford U:
>
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p.../hydrogen.html


"It has to be made, usually by splitting water H2O to get the hydrogen."
Natural gas reformation is the most usual method I have gleaned from
this group.
So I stopped right there.
School doesn't equate to knowledge.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:23:07 -0500, "Steve W." >
wrote:

>
>"Joe S" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Steve W. wrote:
>> > "Joe S" > wrote in message
>> > news:hXd2e.36045$oa6.12296@trnddc07...
>> > > Don Stauffer wrote:
>> > > > Chad Michael Mallett wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Steve W works for petroleum-related company, another BS artcle.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Pleas go back in this forum and read other articles on
>Hydrogen,
>> i
>> > > >> finally got tired of expolaing why it is the future aND WHY
>> > yoiu';re
>> > > >> wrong in blasting hydrogen. you better blast your guzzler soon
>> > > >>
>> > > > I agree with Steve a lot on this issue. I don't work for an oil
>> > company
>> > > > (I am in fact retired now). I don't own a guzzler- my
>subcompact
>> > gets
>> > > > 37-38 mpg on highway. I still will definitely consider a hybrid
>> as
>> > my
>> > > > next car.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, hydrogen on Earth is not a significant SOURCE of
>energy.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
>> > > energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine
>> burning
>> > > wood or coal.
>> > >
>> > > What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for
>> > energy
>> > > that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have
>> to
>> > be
>> > > spent to create it.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Joe
>> >
>> > Then you don't know how a producer gas system works. There are
>> countries
>> > that use Coal and Wood to power their cars. By burning the fuel and
>> > processing the gasses that come off of it they have fuel.
>>
>> <snicker> I know <snicker> that you *could*, but who does use wood and
>> coal for cars? What makes have wood-burning engines? Care to name a
>> few? I'd like to <snicker> buy one.
>>
>>
>> > Been around MUCH longer than just about every other fuel source.
>>
>> Yes...in the olden days when your great grandpappy was a youngin'. How
>> many have you owned?
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe
>
>You think it's funny... Maybe you should learn about technology that has
>been in use for over 100 years before you think it's funny.
>
>Actually I own a 1986 GM product that has a gas producer I built in it.
>Uses wood in the burner and the producer feeds into the carb. It is just
>like running a vehicle on Hydrogen or Propane or Natural gas. The
>difference is it carries it's own gas plant with it, and it burns wood
>OR coal. Oh and the way it uses it's fuel the emmisions out of it are
>only ash. The "smoke" is what is converted into the fuel.
>
>http://www.heritageresearch.com/manufactured_gas_P.htm
>http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/ref...m1/p01264a.htm
>http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks4/mathot/
>http://members.tripod.com/cturare/his.htm
>http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.htm
>http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/producer/
>http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/g...il/004081.html
>http://www.ch2bc.org/Tech_Corner.htm
>http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/history/history_30s.htm
>http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/kg_eng.html
>
>I also have a few other items in the shop that are laughable according
>to you. Namely a 1941 made water turbine. I am restoring it for use as a
>power generator for a friend who is living off the grid.


>There is an
>acetylene generator in there as well. That works using calcium carbide
>and water to create useable acetylene.
>

A good thing "rock gas" was fairly short lived in cars and homes, it
was freakin dangerous.

wws wrote:
> searn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:34:58 -0600, Don Stauffer
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Joe S wrote:
>>>
>>>> You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
>>>> energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine
>>>> burning wood or coal.
>>>>
>>>> What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for
>>>> energy that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will
>>>> have to be spent to create it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, but the source of energy is the real problem. We still need a
>>> reasonably inexpensive and environmentally benign source. That is a
>>> bigger problem then the delivery system.
>>>
>>> BTW, many people did configure cars to burn coal and wood during
>>> shortages of WW2. And, gasoline can be made from coal for sure, and
>>> I suspect it can be made from wood also. However, in both cases I
>>> suspect the environmental problems are severe. I'd like to see folks
>>> working at this, however. I'd like to see R & D funding to develop a
>>> way to produce synthetic gasoline in such a way as to create minimal
>>> harm to environment. I suspect that will be easier and more near
>>> term than an efficient method of generating hydrogen. The later
>>> research should be done once the former system is up and running.
>>
>>
>>
>> Info from the brains at Stanford U:
>>
>> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p.../hydrogen.html
>
>
>
> "It has to be made, usually by splitting water H2O to get the hydrogen."
> Natural gas reformation is the most usual method I have gleaned from
> this group.
> So I stopped right there.
> School doesn't equate to knowledge.
It can also be made from coal and water, but it is a very dirty process.

BTW, there are two ways to burn coal in automobiles (soft coal, anyway).
First is a variant of the wood burning method- if you heat coal in
absense of oxygen, a "coal gas" is created, which IS burnable in an IC
engine.

The other method is to create synthetic gasoline. Kerosene was made
from coal (hence term "coal oil" sometimes used for kerosene). With
reformating as used in modern refineries, and cracking, one can also get
gasoline. Creates lots of nasty waste products, but with our current
capability to change the nature of many chemicals, maybe those
byproducts could be made into something useful (pavement or something).
I'd like to see some federal bucks spent on R& D for this.