PesWiki.com

Menu

Talk:PowerPedia:United Nuclear:Hydrogen Fuel System Kit

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:34 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Comments

post here

(Just click on the "There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1].)

Hydrogen Fuel System Kit

Comment by Peter from Cheap used cars

It is Amazing, I’m just wondering how will this technology affect and transform the car industry.My point of view “conversion” means converting a car from fuel injection to carburetor before installing the gadgets.Now people can stop worrying emitting harmful carbon monoxide into the air as they drive! I’m just wondering how much this technology would cost an average car owner.

thanks for sharing…..........

NEC Comments

The following comments were made by members of the New Energy Congress.

Claims Grossly Exaggerated

On Aug. 28, 2007, NEC member, Congress:Member:Tai Robinson, who runs a Intergalactic Hydrogen, a business that modifies vehicles to run on alternate fuels, including hydrogen, wrote:

: Nothing they have is real. The tanks required to go as far as they say their vehicles go would be many times the volume of what they show. The elecrolyzer alone to make as much hydrogen they talk about being made from their home solar hydrogen refueler would be much larger than the entire unit they show.

: I think [United Nuclear is] only distributing [regardless of intention] miss-information and doing more harm to the clean fuel industry than they are helping.

: We have real hydrogen vehicles that are actually on the road every day. We can also install a home hydrogen refueler, but it starts at $250,000 and takes up the space of 2 parked vehicles.

Not Suppressed

On Aug. 29, 2007, NEC member, Congress:Member:Richard George wrote:

: I would not included United Nuclear on the Directory:Suppression page. The regulatory issue with the storage tanks is not about access to hydrides but crash testing for automotive applications to ensure the system is safe. This is very expensive and something that BMW, GM, Ford, etc can afford to do but that a little company doing after market retrofits could not (CPSC probably would require testing for each car model making retrofits uneconomic).

: The entire system is not economical. Electrolysis is an extremely inefficient method of converting water to hydrogen.

: Finally, a 400 watt solar array would only give on average 1.6 KWH per day of DC power - this is not enough electricity for this application - it might generate enough hydrogen to run 1 KW for one hour whereas a typical car needs 80+ KW (742 watts per HP).

Too complex to be practical

On Aug. 28, 2007, NEC member, Congress:Member:Robert A. Nelson of http://RexResearch.com wrote:

: It's too complex to be practical except for DIY types.

Not superior to plug-in electric vehicles

On Aug. 29, 2007, NEC member, Congress:Member:Francis Giroux wrote:

: In my book any technology that is less efficient and more complicated and less practical that using the electricity to charge present day batteries in an electric car, is not worthy of a top 100 technology rating. Not even hydrogen fuel cell vehicles deserve T100. Maybe a methane fuel cell vehicle could get on my list if it shows good enough efficiency. At least methane is readily available. But I don’t even see any horizon for getting methane fuel cell efficiency high enough to consider.

: PV or wind generated electricity is most efficiently used for transportation by battery electric/hybrid.

Rebuttal

: On Aug. 29, 2007, NEC member, Congress:Advisor:Kenneth M. Rauen wrote:

:: As long as electrochemical storage batteries are as bad as they are (having so few charge cycles before replacement and cold weather issues), I will consider other technologies and encourage everyone to remain open.

Lazar a Competent Technician

On Aug. 27, 2007, Mark DeBarbieri wrote:

: I am familiar with United Nuclear, Bob Lazar's hydrogen car. I had dinner with him and his wife a few times and also had some informal conversations about what he has been doing. He is an extremely competent technician. The hydride he uses is a material from the dismatling of nuclear missiles. They soon cut off his supply and then he built his own nuclear laboratory to produce the material himself. He has in the rear of his Corvette Stingray was looks like four scuba tanks containing the hydride. The hydrogen is produced from a solar panel to a solid-polymer electrolite to break down the water. It takes about 2-3 days to produce enough hydrogen to fill the 4 hydride tanks. He boasts that he gets about 450 miles from one charge of hydrogen. From what I understood about 4 years ago UPS was to be his first fleet of vehicles to be converted.

From United Nuclear

United Nuclear DIY Hydrogen Fuel System Kit Confiscated by the CPSC

On Nov. 30, 2006, User:Beth Heatongrindel wrote the following:

Switch To Hydrogen!

The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit converts your existing vehicle to run on Hydrogen.

Complete kits will soon be available for various late-model cars & trucks as well as individual system components for those who choose to assemble their own kits.

Included in the kits (and also available separately) is our solar powered Hydrogen Generator that manufactures the Hydrogen fuel for your vehicle at virtually zero cost.

Simply put, you never have to buy Gasoline again.

Since there are no major changes made to your engine, you can still run your vehicle on Gasoline at any time.

We now have over 50,000 trouble-free miles on our prototype vehicles. We are currently fleet-testing our systems and are in final preparation for sales to the general public.

Reference:

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

http://www.unitednuclear.com/legalactionletters.htm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry.html

http://roguestatesmen.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-wants-free-energy-anyway.html

Conservative comment: http://nextconservatism.com/2006/11/14/

Currently, the CPSC is focusing on common chemical Oxidizers (such as Perchlorate Compounds, Nitrate Compounds, Permanganate Compounds, Chlorate Compounds, etc., along with a wide variety of other common chemicals & metals such as: Sulfur, Aluminum, Magnesium, Titanium, Zirconium, Zinc, Magnailim, Benzoate Compounds, Salicylate compounds, Antimony and antimony compounds, etc.

The CPSC now claims this action is to stop the manufacture of illegal explosive fireworks.

If their true intention is to attempt to curtail the construction of these devices, there are only two chemicals which should be of concern: Potassium Perchlorate & German Aluminum.

For those unfamiliar with exploding fireworks, they are all made from one material: Flash Powder.

Flash Powder is a mixture of Potassium Perchlorate, and a special ultra-fine aluminum powder known as German Aluminum. These have been the only 2 chemicals used in the manufacture of every single exploding firework from firecrackers to M-80s from the 1960s to present times.

: "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." --Benjamin Franklin

Comments