| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| $3 fills Your Tank on this Motorcycle |
| 2005-06-16 |
| Posted by:RG |
| #10 Amen. So let's take the perfected SRBs and put a Taxi on it! Yes! It'll be fun. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-16 19:48 |
| #9 Cheddarhead pretty much has the situation nailed; the shuttle Challenger broke apart because it exceeded the maximum safe angle of attack for its speed and broke up. Well, except for the part about the SRB's being the worst possible design. The worst possible design for a large SRB is "any." |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-06-16 18:26 |
| #8 How explosive is Natural Gas? Yesterday, the local news had some spectacular footage of a Liquid NG powered car blowing up when the driver lit a cigarette. However, the driver survived with only moderate burns. Unlike petrol, NG doesn't stick to the skin. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-16 18:09 |
| #7 How explosive is Natural Gas? How explosive is hydrogen? I think the crew of the shuttle Challenger can answer the second question and I haven't seen anyone talking about making it safer when rammed into cars. Oh, and there is the freezing aspect to your gas tank when you're using liquid hydrogen. Don't slip forward on your seat. Ouch. There is a common misconception that the loss of the Challenger was due to the launch stack exploding. Thsi as been fostered by the media IMO simply because they saw a large cloud generated at the time of the accident. What really led to the Challenger's loss was when the SRB suffered the exhaust gas plume at the field joint where the SRB segments were joined it happend at one of the worst possible places. At the rear attachment strut holding the SRB to the External Tank. The gasses playing on the strt either weakened it to the failure point or cut it. When the strut failed the SRB was able to rotate outward at the rear causing the whole launch stack to Jaw severly to one side. This placed stresses on the orbiter and External tank that they were not designed to take and as a consequence they came apart like a cheap suit. The large cloud was simply the LH2 and LO2 being released into the atmosphere. If the LH2 and LO2 had combined chemically in an explosion I doubt that they would of been able to recover pieces of wreckage the size they did. Of course the real culprit IMO in the loss of Challenger was a Congress that forced NASA to accept the bid from Morton Thiokol for the SRB because they were the cheapest when they had the worst design offered for the SRB. But we didn't hear a word about that did we. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-06-16 15:14 |
| #6 Hydrogen can be explosive (but usually just burns), but NG is really nasty stuff. Empty NG tanks have exploded, causing huge fires and killing firemen. Car and Driver has an article on a hydrogen-powered car. The fuel is stored as a room-temperature gas (under very high pressure), not as a liquid. Hydrogen can a pretty decent fuel, if generated by water dissociation powered by nuclear plants. Still, right now, nothing is as convient and powerful as gasoline, though diesel comes close. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-06-16 12:40 |
| #5 How explosive is Natural Gas? How explosive is hydrogen? I think the crew of the shuttle Challenger can answer the second question and I haven't seen anyone talking about making it safer when rammed into cars. Oh, and there is the freezing aspect to your gas tank when you're using liquid hydrogen. Don't slip forward on your seat. Ouch. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-06-16 10:56 |
| #4 Natural gas powered vehicles are common here in Western Australia. Pretty much every taxi in town uses it. Phil F is right, it makes no sense to turn NG into electricity, distribute it, store in fuel cells before using it to power a vehicle (and lose 80% of the energy) when you just as easily power the vehicle directly from NG. More Kyoto inspired lunacy. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-16 10:46 |
| #3 Probably good for an in-city commute, but nothing would replace my high-powered scooter for the real rides. :) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-16 09:49 |
| #2 I haven't clicked through. It runs on hydrogen? Do they know that most hydrogen on the market today is manufactured FROM natural gas? You'd be better off skipping the conversion process and just using the natural gas. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-06-16 08:59 |
| #1 Don't think for a moment this is an energy saver. Compared to a 50cc motorcycle which have been around for many years, it will require 2 to 5 times as much energy due to the large inefficiences of the 'hydrogen economy'. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-16 07:47 |