Liquid Hydrogen fuel cells and EV batteries

[SOL]

Based on this old video which while old seems to contain some interesting info which debunks the myths of hydrogen being as explosive as the media would like individuals to believe. If what they demonstrate is true, then hydrogen fuels cells might be a viable alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFJK5k ... b_err_woyt

Share your thoughts

[Yodean]

Yes, I think there was a thread between a few of us that discussed hydrogen fuel cells, a little bit. Goes along nicely with platinum's emerging bullish trend and technical strength.

There appears to be some issue with playing that posted video.

[Triplethought]

Yes, I think there was a thread between a few of us that discussed hydrogen fuel cells, a little bit. Goes along nicely with platinum's emerging bullish trend and technical strength.

There appears to be some issue with playing that posted video.

My comment is that battery operated trucks going over Donner pass (Mountain between Calf and Nevada) with huge weight just won't happen. I think Musk and anyone else making a battery operated ev truck are on drugs. That's why the Chinese are pursuing hydrogen. Why we aren't (meaning the US) investing in this tech is beyond me.

[SOL]

Yes, I think there was a thread between a few of us that discussed hydrogen fuel cells, a little bit. Goes along nicely with platinum's emerging bullish trend and technical strength.

There appears to be some issue with playing that posted video.

You have to open it up in youtube, the owner does not want it to play on another site, for what reason I don't know. So click on the video several times until it opens up a separate window in YT and it will play. Quite interesting data

[Yodean]

Yes, I think there was a thread between a few of us that discussed hydrogen fuel cells, a little bit. Goes along nicely with platinum's emerging bullish trend and technical strength.

There appears to be some issue with playing that posted video.

You have to open it up in youtube, the owner does not want it to play on another site, for what reason I don't know. So click on the video several times until it opens up a separate window in YT and it will play. Quite interesting data

Ah, yes . . . thanks. YT is kinda getting a bit annoying, with all the censorship and stuff like this. Ah well, gotta go with the flow . . .

[George1010]

A long article on the topic that debunks the notion that hydrogen is as dangerous as it is made to be. Which therefore means that the EV narrative is probably highly flawed


When I tell people I work on hydrogen fuel, they immediately say something very wrong like, “Are you worried about a mushroom cloud over your lab?” — Mushroom clouds are from a nuclear bomb detonation, and I don’t plan on starting thermonuclear fusion anytime soon in my lab, and if I did, it might save the planet. The other statement I often get is, “Wow, don’t want another Hindenberg!” Again, very wrong. Detailed studies from NASA and others have shown that the Hindenburg disaster was likely exacerbated, but not caused, by hydrogen. The Hindenburg’s sister ship, the Graf Zeppelin flew more than a million miles for nearly a decade on hydrogen before being grounded after the Hindenberg disaster. Go in and read the studies for yourself. The Hindenberg cut several corners the Graf Zeppelin did not, and you can’t expect the hydrogen to blow-out a diesel fire. The final one I sometimes get is, “Oh, the Challenger Shuttle!” again very wrong, Challenger was caused by the failure of a solid-oxide rocket booster o-ring.

Sigh…

So really, if I’ve just debunked the three most common misconceptions about hydrogen ‘incidents’ in a single paragraph, how dangerous is hydrogen fuel?

“Tests were devised in which tanks containing liquid hydrogen under pressure were ruptured. In many cases, the hydrogen quickly escaped without ignition. The experimenters then provided a rocket squib (a small powder charge) to ignite the escaping hydrogen. The resulting fireball quickly dissipated because of the rapid flame speed of hydrogen and its low density. Containers of hydrogen and gasoline were placed side by side and ruptured. When the hydrogen can was ruptured and ignited, the flame quickly dissipated, but when the same thing was done with gasoline, the gasoline and flame stayed near the container and did much more damage. The gasoline fire was an order of magnitude more severe than the hydrogen fire. The experimenters tried to induce hydrogen to explode, with limited success. In 61 attempts, only two explosions occurred and in both, they had to mix oxygen with the hydrogen. Their largest explosion was produced by mixing a half liter of liquid oxygen with a similar volume of liquid hydrogen. Johnson and Rich were convinced that, with proper care, liquid hydrogen could be handled quite safely and was a practical fuel — a conclusion that was amply verified by the space program in the 1960s. At the time, however, Johnson and Rich filmed their fire and explosion experiments to convince doubters.” https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch8-6.htm


That was during the 1950’s “Project Suntan” days with Kelly Johnson as project lead (yes that fabled Johnson that started Skunkworks and led the design of the SR-71 Blackbird, among others). For whatever reason, perhaps to remove all doubt, the Air Force Research Labs (AFRL) decided to reproduce Kelly’s experiment in the early 1980’s at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. This experiment involved shooting each container with .50 caliber incendiary rounds and simulating lightning strikes. This time hydrogen (on the top) is being compared with kerosene (on the bottom, aviation fuel or JP-1).

https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so- ... ogen-fuel/

[Eric]

Anyone know what was up with Bob Lazar and his "hydride" hydrogen storage? Was he just a kook? He had me convinced.