hey.. maybe arnold should ahnd out some of this

C20+H25+N3+O

that is effen hilarious! i love it.

Is arnold still going to be the govenator in 2010?

Never trust a politician who promises you something more than 5 years down the road.

I guess the important question is what will arnold do in this term to improve the energy plight of the california populace.

Troy,

The point of my alternative isolation methods post was merely to suggest just that...there are alternatives. Perhaps not feasible for the
the volume/type needed but there may be many ways to skin this cat.

As has been pointed out current methods do not appear to be efficient enough. I don't expect to get energy for free but if more effort is invested perhaps those efficiencies can be realized...both for the production of the "fuel" and process/mechanism that consumes.

Rick, I'm just one of those people trained to draw a box around a process and account for the inputs and outputs. I like hydrogen as a fuel for engines. It just is not the magic bullet some think it is.

Troy

Troy, I appreciate where you're coming from.......Now what do you think about one of the biggest silent, never talked about polluters....tire wear pollutants? :)

Rick,
I don't think about it!
troy

Billy - it would've crashed a lot sooner if it was filled with gasoline.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread before Cramer posts more of his private stash of autoerotica.

JP

gasoline *is* hydrogen. . . .well, sort of. An octane molecule (gasoline) is 18 hydrogens attached along a string of 8 carbons.
So, kinda like the gasoline molecule hold hydrogen atoms, like eggs in an egg-carton (bakers, dozen ;) ready to be sacrificed, with a twitch of your left foot.

So as it is, we have all this potential "hydrogen" fuel, being pumped out of the ground for our advantage. We even have an infrastructure inplace to make good use of this "hydrogen" fuel.

So what is the big woop?
All this "new hydrogen" fuel. . .the sub-text I read is " this "hydrogen" fuel is new technology. . "new" is progressive, "new" is better. -- therefore, proponents must be progressive, better people."

The way I see it, this "new hydrogen" fuel will become better, only when the costs of obtaining oil substantionally rises, wrt other energy sources.

The gap is closing. . .but it is still tough to beat the energy/cost density of oil.

Island,

I agree with you in that hydrocarbons are plentiful and we have a existing distribution system. They are packed full of energy too. Hydrogen is a good fuel too but just too energy intensive right now to make on the kind of scale we would need to replace our fossil fuels. The cool thing about biofuels is that unlike hydrogen, we can use our current distribution system and most cars can be easily modified (or like diesels, not require modification to burn biodiesel) to use biofuels.

As far as combustibility of hydrocarbons versus hydrogen gas; hydrogen gas is combustible in a wider range of fuel/air ratios. In other words, you can have a mixture of gasoline and air that is both too lean or too rich to ignite. With hydrogen, this fuel/air ratio is much wider, making it in a way, more ignitable over a wider range of conditions.

That's about all I know. Good discussion though.
Troy

Would Biofuels include Methane gas or variants?

Yeah, biofuels are a different approach to the same end; hydrocarbons. (practical stuff)

Here's the cool thing about hydrocarbons. . .they are scalable.

Hopefully this will help. This graphic shows the relationship between the the hydrocarbons. (Perhaps sammyg can chime in on the chem/processing details to go from one "gas" to another)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1082669919.jpg

??????

Island,

That looks like its straight out of a high school chemistry book. Are you a teacher?

Troy