Quantcast

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,899
5,560
The old timey times
That's called "Barking".
I have a 1 liter dog that often drinks 2 liters of water and then shares what he collected about 2 seconds later out of the bark hole, not the fucking hardwoods of course, absolutely HAS to go over to some carpet and let loose. Not sure that's either barking or shitting but it's definitely something.
 
Last edited:

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,849
10,497
Sleazattle
I have a 1 liter dog that often drinks 2 liters of water and then shares what he collected, not the fucking hardwoods of course, absolutely HAS to go over to some carpet and let loose. Not sure that's either barking or shitting but it's definitely something.

I have a 75lb dog that goes through 2 gallons of water a day. He's never gone in the house but everything he pisses on dies within 24 hours, my yard looks like death valley. I just need to train him to piss on certain people.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,899
5,560
The old timey times
Well I'm glad someone has infinite faith in engineers, concept prototypes, and the production, shipping and maintenance lines that will eventually be responsible for manufacturing dangerous things.

nothing ever goes wrong with anything at the design phase you'll notice :rofl:
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,899
5,560
The old timey times
That’s a production car, you realise?
:rofl:




also


and just generally
 
Last edited:

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,849
10,497
Sleazattle
That’s a production car, you realise?

Yes. A $50K Toyota Avalon that costs more to operate than the gas equivalent. I could never use one outside the City because despite good range as there is nowhere else where I could fill up within its range.

The latest generation of electric cars have similar range with 1/10th the energy costs. They are only going to get better with upcoming battery technology. I don't know too much about fuel cells but current technology seems to be close to the maximum theoretical efficiency. Solid state batteries appear to be close on the horizon and when they hit the market it will be a game changer.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,899
5,560
The old timey times
2021

It's oklahoma

It's 1am

You haven't recharged your hydrogen cell in 13 hours

there's a faint glow on the horizon

Your flickering gps indicates Tulsa is 30 miles ahead

You toyota sputters.

You have one option.

You've located the hydrogen cell vent........

You fucking go for it

 
Last edited:

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,722
977
Hypernormality
Yes, I too think BEV will win for cars for the foreseeable, but the point was really to demonstrate we can / already have made Hydrogen safe for everyday use. It is actually safer than gasoline leaks in most situations as it is lighter than air and simply disperses if it leaks. It’s hard to ignite unless it reaches higher concentrations, whereas gasoline itself and gasoline vapour pools in standard conditions and thus self-concentrates. Thousands of people die in gasoline fires every year but we are ‘used’ to it, or actually we’re not because it is very infrequently reported.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,849
10,497
Sleazattle
Yes, I too think BEV will win for cars for the foreseeable, but the point was really to demonstrate we can / already have made Hydrogen safe for everyday use. It is actually safer than gasoline leaks in most situations as it is lighter than air and simply disperses if it leaks. It’s hard to ignite unless it reaches higher concentrations, whereas gasoline itself and gasoline vapour pools in standard conditions and thus self-concentrates. Thousands of people die in gasoline fires every year but we are ‘used’ to it, or actually we’re not because it is very infrequently reported.
I don't think you understand what is necessary to make an airplane safe. If a car catches on fire you stop and get out. On a plane you die. If your car stops running you get stuck, on an airplane there is a good chance you will die. Runaway is the solution to a lot of failures on a car. An airplane requires failsafes and triple redundancy.

The fuel system in car generally runs in the open air underneath. Fuel can't fit into the wings of a plane so now you have to actively vent sections of the fuselage. Not a huge deal for say a General Aviation aircraft but that becomes a big issue with anything that flies at altitude with a pressurized fuselage.
 
Last edited:

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,722
977
Hypernormality
I don't think you understand what is necessary to make an airplane safe. If a car catches on fire you stop and get out. On a plane you die. If your car stops running you get stuck, on an airplane there is a good chance you will die. Runaway is the solution to a lot of failures on a car. An airplane requires failsafes and triple redundancy.
You should tell Boeing that. :D

Anyway, I think in general you’re being a bit Old Man about this stuff. Hydrogen isn’t magik, it’s just another gas that happens to be a great energy carrier. As I said before the best cases for it are heavy transport; ships, trains, busses, coaches etc. Especially when you have some space to engineer a solution to reuse waste heat.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,899
5,560
The old timey times
Especially when you have some space
LOTS of space

Lots of uninhabited, desert, preferably devoid of any lifeform space. And then more space a little outside of that.






Comparing the safety of petrol to any potentially new energy source as a way to minimize the already happening explosions and damage is dumb. The point is we've done dumb for a really long time now. We need to not do dumb going forward. And H2 is kinda dumb to take the place of everyday petroleum consumption. It doesn't matter how much engineering, safety and idiot proofing you do. You put a potentially dangerous system in the hands of publicly traded companies and they are going to kill people with their corner cutting. It happens with electric transmission lines, nuclear power, even hydro power. We don't need to make things fire proof as much as we need to make it capitalist proof. When a windmill fails it just sits there. When a solar panel fails it just sits there. We need more of that kind of stuff.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,849
10,497
Sleazattle
You should tell Boeing that. :D

Anyway, I think in general you’re being a bit Old Man about this stuff. Hydrogen isn’t magik, it’s just another gas that happens to be a great energy carrier. As I said before the best cases for it are heavy transport; ships, trains, busses, coaches etc. Especially when you have some space to engineer a solution to reuse waste heat.
Actually I am trying to be an engineer and thinking of how I could make that work and I only run into problem after problem. All solvable but all end up with an economically unviable solution.

737 MAX is the perfect example of what happens without that redundancy.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
13,251
5,003
AK
Hydrogen isn’t magik, it’s just another gas that happens to be a great energy carrier.
Only when it's liquid hydrogen, which is the hardest to contain. You can't store the fuel in the wings, so you take up valuable fuselage space. Structurally, kerosene fuel and even batteries are far better.

The problem is, like you say, it's a gas, and to be useful, has to be compressed under incredible pressure, and then that pressure has to be maintained. It's not just energy in terms of the ability to break carbon bonds, but the incredible pressures that it has to be stored under. I just don't see this making sense except for very limited applications.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,722
977
Hypernormality
Only when it's liquid hydrogen, which is the hardest to contain.
Not really??
You can't store the fuel in the wings, so you take up valuable fuselage space.
Uhhh... Why not? You can store it anywhere you can fit a tank. The tanks are light too.

The problem is, like you say, it's a gas, and to be useful, has to be compressed under incredible pressure, and then that pressure has to be maintained. It's not just energy in terms of the ability to break carbon bonds, but the incredible pressures that it has to be stored under. I just don't see this making sense except for very limited applications.
As per Airbus, trillion dollar investments across the planet, many people seem to disagree. The major point is we have to decarbonise or we all perish, so we have to solve some fairly minor engineering problems. We will/are doing so.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,722
977
Hypernormality
Avgas isn't used on any large modern aircraft for many reasons, safety being a significant one.

Avgas also isn't pressurized when stored nor is it the smallest known stable molecule.
That was a reply to Kidwoo’s crazy English jet car. (Is a Pratt and Whitney).
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,849
10,497
Sleazattle
Rockets use hydrogen. However a rocket isn't as sensitive to COG shift and only the pointy bit is pressurized and holds cargo. The real issue is trying to segregate the fuel storage from the pressurized cargo volume. Flying wing planforms could get around that, but flying wing planforms have been around longer than jet aviation has and there are reasons they haven't been adopted for commercial aircraft.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
13,251
5,003
AK
Not really??
Yes really. Other fuels are way higher energy by volume, like kerosene, but if you can squeeze hydrogen into liquid form, it starts to make sense...except it requires tons of pressure. If you use it as a fuel cell, your total output is much more limited, energy density much lower.

Uhhh... Why not? You can store it anywhere you can fit a tank. The tanks are light too.

As per Airbus, trillion dollar investments across the planet, many people seem to disagree. The major point is we have to decarbonise or we all perish, so we have to solve some fairly minor engineering problems. We will/are doing so.
Airbus (and boeing) patent all kinds of wild shit that would never fly...not literally (well, sometimes), but practically, they do it anyway, to cover their bases. That wild lifting wing design has also been done by boeing too and no matter what fuel is used, it's a more efficient design, except it won't work with airports, terminals, etc. Ok, lots of re-engineering, etc. But to store the high pressure H2 you require immensely strong tanks, certificated for flight. This kind of reliability and engineering are beyond our capabilities. The X-33 program failed primarily due to the realities of trying to use hydrogen for a propellant other than a rocket.

What's the solution? For short hop stuff, well probably freaking trains for one, but apart from that, probably some sort of battery or hybrid solution that climbs to a max altitude and *mostly* glides back to the destination. This would probably work decent for 300 miles or so, maybe more. Most lift Cds allow for a glide of around 3 miles for every 1000, so when you are at FL35, it takes you 35*3 to get down at flight-idle, which is a decent amount of range at ~280kts. Battery energy density has a long way to go for this, but hybrid stuff probably gets us closer in the short term.

Going towards hydrogen before these inherent issues are worked out though doesn't seem to be a good use of resources, like it would be better to convert much more over to battery/electricity that can be converted, leaving less and less running on fossil fuel and those things that run on it to be highly regulated, like large bypass turbofans.
 
Last edited:

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,899
5,560
The old timey times
Farts are funny?
while yes...

it was a joke about your hydrogen car running low in a remote area, building on westys point about recharging infrastructure being only available in cities. I was pointing out the ability to light a leak and turn it into a rocket car to make the last few miles on fumes in a last ditch effort. It had nothing to do with the minutia regarding a fucking pratt and whitney turbine.

I was pointing out the positive aspect of hydrogen in being able to light it like a fart.



christ, you're never gonna make it to tulsa with that kind of obstinance. Gotta learn to look at the upsides of hydrogen like I do.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,722
977
Hypernormality
while yes...

it was a joke about your hydrogen car running low in a remote area, building on westys point about recharging infrastructure being only available in cities. I was pointing out the ability to light a leak and turn it into a rocket car to make the last few miles on fumes in a last ditch effort. It had nothing to do with the minutia regarding a fucking pratt and whitney turbine.

I was pointing out the positive aspect of hydrogen in being able to light it like a fart.



christ, you're never gonna make it to tulsa with that kind of obstinance. Gotta learn to look at the upsides of hydrogen like I do.
:rolleyes: :cheers: :D
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
34,451
8,789
Riding the baggage carousel.
I like this:

I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would even chose to fly if they had access to euro-style rail network. I found it to be absolutely glorious when compared to the fresh hell that is air travel these days.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,849
10,497
Sleazattle
I generally refuse to fly for any trip that would be under 12 hours of driving. That 2 hour flight takes at least 7 hours door to door with a solid possibility of taking 2-3 times that amount.