It was open in 1906 when Amundsen traversed it and the Franklin expedition passed through the northernmost part in the 1840's. The rumor of an open passage goes way back to 1497.
Why did the Franklin crew bury their first dead in such difficult frozen, rocky ground? Or was it clear and dry then?
I don't really follow the subject, but ISTR that one of the problems with using hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is on-board storage. Google turns up some data suggesting that H2 has 3x the btu/lb of gasoline but I suspect that each lb of H2 takes a lot more volume than a lb of gasoline. That could be wrong - maybe someone else will pop up with a more in-depth analysis.
I don't know anything about these "ultra-capacitors" BUT I have had lots of experience with various electrolytics and if the construction is suitable for high energy output and a failure, such as a major penetration were to occur there would be a VERY LARGE release of energy. :-) ...lew...
Electric motors of that size also run around 90% efficient. After that, the electric drives have far less driveline complexity and thus much lower friction losses.
Overall efficiency, from energy capacity of fuel to drive at the wheels, supposedly is something like 4 - 6 times better with all-electric systems of good design.
The voltage is extremely low, however. It's often less than 2 volts per cap. That's how they get such enormous capacity; the plate gap is infinitesimal.
Then there is the generation of Hydrogen or whatever the fuel cell is based upon.
It costs money to generate the source material and storage and sales... Not all that easy nor cheap. If you generate H2 via solar cell there is some help - but the impact on the earth is there.
I couldn't tell ya how many times I've seen the film of the Hindenberg airship, and I've never once heard it described as an explosion.. it burned, and the airfield and the town were still there after the fire was put out. No mushroom cloud, no deafening boom.. you could hear the reporter describing the devastating umm, fire.
A science/aeronautics show on PBS indicated that the most recent research had proved that the fabric skin burned the way it did, because the formula of the paint was essentially.. Thermite. Iron oxide, aluminum powder and the flammable binder of resins that made up the paint. The researcher was well experienced and well educated in what he was analyzing, and he had an actual sample of the ship's fabric.
I'd prefer not to be trapped in a burning vehicle, but hydrogen fueled vehicles probably won't be designed with 1930's technology. Or Ford's Pinto design, for that matter. Other than that, I don't know much about the present technology.
Mighta had something to do with the hydrogen being inside a fabric skin, as opposed to a steel tank, don'tcha suppose? By way of illustration, consider that when gunpowder tightly wrapped in paper (i.e. a firecracker) is ignited, it goes "bang!" -- but when a match is touched to even a much larger quantity of gunpowder simply in a loose pile on the ground, it just goes "whoof".
Journalists mostly cannot understand science. The part of the brain that intuitively roots out perpetual motion hoaxes is just not there.
Look at the crazy crap going on with them believing in global warming and light rail. It is enough to destroy society.
cavelamb himself wrote: You may have heard about "burning Sea Water"?
"This could be a possible breakthrough, depending on how much energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the water compared to how much hydrogen can be extracted."
"There have been a flurry of new articles this week on John Kanzius RF device for burning saltwater. None suggest, that the process creates more energy than it consumes."
"Saltwater as the ultimate clean fuel source"
This one got it right, and then threw in some BS
"though practical applications of the technology remain uncertain and it's unlikely to be a source of cheap energy."
"Water can also be split into hydrogen using electricity, in a process known as hydrolysis. But this is inefficient and requires large amounts of power.
So researchers would like to find ways to isolate hydrogen with minimal energy and no fossil fuels, Kammen said. (Related: "New Process Could Help Make Hydrogen Fuel Affordable" [August 27, 2004].) "
formatting link
"They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency, which would mean that the system is somehow harnessing environmental energy such as from the zero point or some other yet-to-be discovered phenomenon."
Unka' George [George McDuffee] ============ Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.
Having read a lot of the "news" and discussions about this, and watched several of teh video reports, it looks like something interesting is happening here.
175 watts on the demo set up.
But no info about frequency. If it's truly a molecular resonance thing then
1) the power level might make sense.
2) the right frequency may be even more impressive (unless it's already at the correst frequency)
All in all, it does look like something fun going on here.
No way we can know that for sure at this time, Ed.
All I'm saying is that it does indeed looks like something interesting is going down here.
Skepticism I appreciate, as long as it is scientific skepticism.
It's simply too simple of an experiment to set up.
Anyone with a couple hundred watt RF source and a bottle of salt water can try it for themselves.
And they are.
That's what tripped up Fleischmann and Pons (Cold fusion gag).
Nobody else could recreate the experiment and get similar results. And the fact that the amount of heat they thought they detected was down several decimal places.
This setup exhibits a real live hydrogen flame - from salt water. Just because there is an RF source near.
I do NOT think there are any laws of thermodynamics being broken here.
If you believe that the system produces more energy than you put into it, then yes, you are re-inventing the laws of thermodynamics.
Here are the things that struck me in following a couple of your links. First, the National Geographic article incorrectly says that hydrolysis of water is inefficient, or something like that. It isn't true. Actual commercial processes have efficiencies ranging up to 90%. These are processes that are currently in use.
Second, you said something about cheaper fuel-cell electric cars. I can't see how. You still would have to carry around the energy to power the RF generator. Why not just burn the fuel directly to power the car?
Third, the article in NG says that the efficiency of the RF-powered water cracking system hasn't been determined. So where is all the speculation coming from? Somebody at NG *must* have studied enough physics to recognize what the limits are, and probably (or should) know that existing processes are already pretty damned close to the limits as it is. Again, cracking water into hydrogen can be *very* efficient, using good, existing technology.
Finally, I think you'll find that the cost of the platinum electrodes in a conventional hydrolysis rig is a small cost of the total system, and declines to almost nothing vs. energy consumed over time.
Oh, it's interesting all right. So is cold fusion. And that one has been on simmer for a couple of decades now. d8-)
Well, it is. The question is where you think the efficiencies would come from in this technology. It would be competing with technologies that are already very efficient. It doesn't seem to offer anything special, which probably is the source of the rather strong caution expressed by the other scientists asked to comment.
Only if you're trying to get more energy out of the system than you put in, which is a big no-no. And if you aren't, then the technology, while interesting, seems to have little to offer.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.