Horace Heffner wrote:
On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:37 AM, thomas malloy wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote :
Unless I missed something, there is insufficient information on
this site to make any kind of determination of the economic
viability of the technology.
For your edification, here is a paper on fuel cells that I alluded
to previously, http://apolloenergysystems.com/_pdfs/
alkaline_FC_manuscript.pdf
The introductory page is interesting, then jump to page 13 which is
a discussion of Apollo's fuel cell
Again, there is no information that permits determination of the
economic viability or even the safety of the technology in the
proposed mode of use.
It's perfectly safe if : the fueling station and the vehicles are
garaged in a fenced yard, attended to by qualified personal, and aren't
involved in an accident, or a terrorist event.
There is no indication whatsoever that the technology is or can be
economically and safely packaged such that ordinary consumers can
operate it safely in a residential area. Further, there is no
analysis or even indication it is competitive with alternative
technologies.
I saw a mention of how many miles the vehicle could get from a gallon of
it, but I haven't noticed it again. I can get the amount of energy
required to make a pound of it.
I consider the note "Poisoning by Inhalation completely reversible"
to be ludicrous. Dead is dead. Burned lungs don't become unburned.
I'm reminded of the time that I generated a test tube of NH3 in
chemistry lab. The instructions said to take a wiff, I took a big nose
full. It felt like someone had pushed two red hot knitting needles up my
nose and through my head. The back of my head itched. I bent over double
in pain. Some asked the teacher, will he die? His responce was, no, I
think that he'll survive this one two. I had previously gassed myself
with SO2.
Anhydrous ammonia, which is the kind used for cracking, must be
stored under pressure, and is much more dangerous than the household
type ammonia containing chemicals. Anhydrous ammonia handling is
relatively safe when done industrially by trained personnel with
appropriate safety equipment. It is not the kind of thing that should
be considered safe for general consumer use without extensive testing.
I've been told that the operators will have to have hasmat licenses.
Even then, passing underwriter's tests, getting their approval, might
be nearly impossible. Going from engineer supervised operation in a
small population to operation by a vast consumer public is precisely
what Murphy invented his law to describe.
I'm going to mention the potential for release in the case of :
accidents, terrorism, and methamphetamine manufacture, too. Home Land
Security insists on a chain of custody certificates on it. I've
contacted both them and Dept of Transportation, inquiring about
regulations on such a vehicle
Also, I haven't seen any prior reference by you to:
http://apolloenergysystems.com/_pdfs/alkaline_FC_manuscript.pdf
I looked at both papers and they seemed identical.
--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! --
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
