Solid state hydrogen technology could replace electric vehicles

It is not illegal, it does not exist.

 

You're pinning me down ....

Of course it's hydrogen. I mean the supply is water, which a machine separates the two and then the car uses the hydrogen.

 

I don't know, really. About hydrogen cars. Lazar said he could make his machine run on solar, then it wouldn't cost anything?

You tell me.

 

Did you watch the Lazar video? That is not what he is using,
he is using hydride.

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was illegal to buy it.

According to Lazar, it's okay to make it.

But, hey, I don't know, really.

Hydride does exist. but I don't know what lazar is using, to store hydrogen.

He says he's using hydride, which he makes. What do I know? Not much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride

 

As you said, you do not know. Well, it is not done because it does not work. It takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water than you can get in using the hydrogen as fuel.

Lazar refused to allow his "car" to be inspected by anybody, and amazingly only did it in that one vehicle. It was all a scam.

 

Personally, I don't like memes and I always strip them from reposts, they are annoying, nor do they improve an argument.

Okay,

I've seen hydrogen powered industrial vehicles, buses, etc, San Diego, where I live, what about them?

Are you saying it's not cost effective for private vehicles?

Then what about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Costs

As of 2020 green hydrogen costs between $2.50-6.80 per kilogram and turquoise hydrogen $1.40-2.40/kg or blue hydrogen $1.40-2.40/kg compared with high-carbon grey hydrogen at $1–1.80/kg.[118] Deployment of hydrogen can provide a cost-effective option to displace carbon polluting fossil fuels in applications where emissions reductions would otherwise be impractical and/or expensive.[119] These may include heat for buildings and industry, conversion of natural gas-fired power stations,[120] and fuel for aviation and importantly heavy trucks.[121]

 

First of all, they are not extracting the hydrogen from water as they are operating.

You are talking about cost. That is not the same thing as the power used to extract and power gained from expending it.

The problem here is that you admit you know almost nothing about extraction of hydrogen, yet still insisting that a conman from decades ago is telling the truth. And FYI, I tend to use memes when I find people do not seem to react to actual things like facts, science, and logic and instead only believe their own fantasies without reason.

 

If he thinks he can be price competitive in creating hydrogen, that could be cool, but it is a separate issue.

I'm not looking to discredit him on that - I suspect the "runs on water" claim is mostly media hype, perpetrated either by the media or by him as a way of getting noticed, like most companies do to some extent.

Toyota has sold a hydrogen car for a number of years. They solve the storage problem somehow.

Yes, he does want to use hydride. But, if this were critical to electric vehicle success I think we would hear about it from car manufacturers, those who are interested in EVs for environmental reasons such as city pollution, etc.

I fully agree that we need battery technology to improve, given that's where we're going. Issues of recycling and of turning lithium into the new "blood diamond" issue in some foreign countries is not good.

Being able to plug any of the dozen or so EVs into ones house is tough competition for hydrogen.

One other comment on the vid: I do not want my neighbors building or operating hydrogen factories!

 

They and all others using hydrogen use hydrogen fuel cells. That is something completely different, and does not burn hydrogen in an internal combustion type engine. The exact same process space craft have used for over half a century.

But I do not think the future is electric vehicles but hybrids. Mostly because of the issue with distances. I can drive a hybrid for hundreds of miles, fill the tank in a few minutes, and hit the road again for hundreds of miles more. That is something that electric vehicles just can not do.

As for the "burning hydrogen extracted from water", most suspect that he had a small propane tank hidden in the vehicle which was actually what was being burned. Any that seriously tried to look into it as he was trying to get investors were refused permission to ever inspect the vehicle itself, only parts he allowed him to see. And the investors all backed away as his claims just did not follow what was actually possible.

And there is nothing stopping somebody from filling high pressure containers with hydrogen to use as fuel. But liquid hydrogen costs even more than gasoline or propane, in addition to far harder to obtain for refueling a vehicle. Gasoline is everywhere, and propane can be obtained almost anywhere. And most conversions to propane actually have a port so standard 5 gallon canisters like you get at corner stores can be used.

 

I'm not insisting on anything, I'm just asking questions. I stated numerous times that I don't know about such things.

What, that isn't enough humble for you you got to lay some **** about 'fantasy' on me?

Calm down.

And please, no memes ( to my replies, thank you), they are annoying.

I don't buy the contention that Lazar is a conman, his story is a long and winding twisted road, and there has been some corroboration by credible persons he told the truth about where he worked, though he might have fibbed on his resume to get the gig and might be wrong on the physics.

 

I think you're raising the right issues.

Yes, hydrogen has problems with cost as a fuel if nothing else.

As for EVs, I don't believe anyone wants to drive commuter type cars for hundreds of miles. Plus, EVs are increasing in mileage substantially. If you want a car or truck that covers more than a few hundred miles per charge or has large pulling capacity (like trailers or work rigs) one should look for those capabilities, and the best choice may well not be an EV unless that's just what you really want.

I think the electric Ford F150 will be interesting to watch. For workmen, it could be handy to have a significant 110V capacity always available on the worksite without packing along generators. Plus, car batteries are large enough now to power a home if electric delivery fails - at least if one cuts back usage.

Here's one that breaks 500 miles per charge. Not cheap and I don't know what the charge time is, but ...
https://www.lucidmotors.com/?utm_so...nhWfmNjkwaDdNCkzAbTjQRfuIrLoBlhcaAkt0EALw_wcB

Rivian is manufacturing an electric van besides their electric pickup. You can't buy the van, because Amazon signed a contract for all they can produce for a few years.

I've read that capacitors are being engineered to carry the power that is needed to run an auto. That would mean a HUGE decrease in charging time. Capacitors are already used to rapidly capture brake power for recharging batteries - the capacitor captures the energy rapidly and then feeds that to the battery, which can't charge that fast. This includes hybrids of today.

I, too, thought I saw that the car in the video IS a hybrid - that it burns hydrogen until it runs out, then starts running on something else. I don't see that as detracting from the concept in the video. For one thing, NO real data is presented and the car itself doesn't show the features that a manufacturer would be required to supply.

As I understand it, propane isn't a whole lot cleaner than gas. So, it may not clean up city pollution or reduce climate gasses that much. I don't know what the fuel cost per mile difference would be for a car carefully designed for propane - not just converted from an internal combustion car, as some do today I think.

 

Fine, name one. THen also explain why he had never replicated this in decades, and has allowed nobody to examine how he did it.

 

Whether he is a con man has mostly to do with what his objective is.

I don't believe his resume is the real issue.

 

But the all-electric F150 only has a range of around 300 miles. And as everybody knows, that will decrease as the batteries age. Not many that need to haul a load want to go 150 miles or less from where they start.

However, propane is indeed much cleaner than gasoline as it emits less greenhouse gasses and carbon. It is commonly used on taxis and busses, as it and natural gas are cleaner alternatives, and can be easily filled all across the US. This is actually decades old technology, but the lack of refilling options has largely kept it restricted to commercial fleets.

And propane is so clean, it can be used inside. Most large "industrial forklifts" used in warehouses and "club stores" are actually powered by propane.



However, the downside is once again getting more fuel. There is no "self serve" propane stations, and unless the location has an attendant that can refill the tank after hours is on duty, most places you can only top off at during normal working hours.

 

Electric moving capacity is taking over warehouses. Nobody wants to breath propane exhaust. Propane exhaust includes carbon monoxide, for example. Consider the hundreds of Texans who died last February from propane.

Should you buy a propane or electric fork lift:
https://www.tmhnc.com/blog/buy-propane-lp-forklift-versus-electric-forklift

And, I've never disputed your claims about those who want to drive hundreds of miles per day or who want to haul huge weight or pull trailers.

People need to analyze their usage - just like they already do today, but with another variable.

Today, when gas prices go up car sales move toward more fuel efficient vehicles.

Electricity is a cheaper fuel today. Plus, maintenance costs are lower, because there are far fewer moving parts and precious bodily fluids being pumped around to try to save the engine from itself. Plus, there is a far simpler power train once you don't need a transmission.

 

I don't really care that much about the car, to be honest. But, naming one person to corroborate his employment at area 51 there is:

US Air Force Captain, David Freehof, Area 51/ elite SR 71 pilot, who corroborates Lazar's Area 51/S4 employment. Freehoff
worked at Area 51 for 6 years, from 1979 until 1985, says you had to have a top clearance, 'SBI' ( special background investigation) Clearance to work at area 51. It's a four minute video, and you need to watch the whole thing for context, though the corroborating begins roughly about halfway (1:34) through the video, but watch the whole thing:

 

As I've said in the past, I don't see his resume as any kind of significant issue.

It would be if he lied about it, I suppose. But, NOBODY has claimed that as far as I know.

The issues all involve the claims made and the analysis he proposes in that video.

 

Amazingly enough, I never actually brought that up, but thank you for doing so.

One person, one. Who even admits in interviews that he is more or less a memory that came back fairly recently.

What, is it like working for Area 51 is some sort of secret that is not provable?

And his major in college was graphic arts. At a local Community College in LA. SO what exactly does that do to qualify him to work at Area 51?

Funny, how only one person says he does, but nothing else. Typical conspiracy theory nonsense. Along with all those "secret seals" that claim that their DD0-214 and service records are all classified.

But thank you, for bringing up Area 51. But one thing I have discovered over and over over the decades, is that people who believe in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in multiple conspiracy theories. And tend to believe all kinds of pseudoscientific and nonsensical things because it follows their beliefs in conspiracies.

But once again, I did not mention his self-proclaimed flaky connection to Area 51, you did.

 

Bob Bigelow (the NASA contractor) was impressed by Bob

 

Don't be kneejerker, or a high horse rider, it's not as cool as you think it is.

But, you like memes, so, that says something about you.

First off, I'm not going to claim something "I believe" in as a 'fact'. I make distinctions.

Maybe he's con, maybe he isn't.

George Knapp, journalist winner of 5 Peabodies likes him.

Bob Bigelow ( the NASA contractor ) thinks he's interesting



Bob, maybe loose with the truth, but he's really not a bad fellow, you should lighten up on him.

One thing though, he took John Lear ( the pilot, licensed to pilot just about all commercial aircraft of one kind or another, a somewhat kooky but likeable son of the founder of the Lear Jet company )
out to area 51, he knew when they would test pilot the 'ufo' ( he claimed they had there).

They would test fly it on wednesdays at a certain time, and he knew when when that was.

This was confirmed by George Knapp and John Lear, who accompanied him out there.

So, how did Lazar know this if he wasn't privy ( by having worked there ) to such info?



But WTF do I know?

Here's a quip someone posted somewhere, I forget where, about Bob, but I saved it because I agree with the sentiment, overall.

Much of his detractors have made a fuss about his credentials. I don't know if he lied about his degrees, but the job in question he applied to must have been such a desirable job for a guy like Bob, is it realistic to suggest that he lied in order to get the job? (the counter to that is that Los Alamos would check his credentials, though I do not know that that happened in 1968, perhaps it was his maverick nature, his ability to dazzle the potential employer with answers to complex questions, his being in local papers with his jet car and jet bike, his referral by the father of the hydrogen bomb, that got him through to the finish line, and that they needed someone like that, someone who would 'think outside of the box', that kind of person who could reverse engineer an advanced alien propulsion system, someone who, if he got into trouble, they could easily discredit him, is the why of how he got the job) I ask, because it is not important to me if he lied to get the job, all that matters is whether or not he worked on Alien Space craft propulsion. Both the pay stubs and the phone directory, and, more importantly, US Air Force Captain/ SR 71 pilot at area 51 David Freehoff, corroborates that he saw Lazar on "Janet Airlines" whereby he, when exiting the Area 51 airline, got on the bus that went to S4 , whose testimony can be viewed here:

https://youtu.be/LxtUVd49g3Q

which, at the minimum, proves that Lazar had a very high security clearance, and I believe that he was, indeed, referred to Los Alamos by Dr. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb, ( more on that here: https://www.otherhand.org/home-page...fire/the-bob-lazar-corner/the-lazar-synopsis/ ) so I do believe Lazar and there is evidence his claim that he was at S4 is true, and whether or not he lied about his credentials to get a coveted job or not doesn't matter, all that matters is did he, in fact, work on alien spacecraft? That is the only question. I believe he did and the government is engaged in a massive cover up. If he did, then that's proof to one of the greatest discoveries in history, that 'we are not alone' and all the guys at SETI are wasting their time.


Is any of that true? I don't know.

But I like Bob, that's all I know. He's cool. It's okay to like someone, as long as you don't take them seriously

I wanna believe but, but there is no proof, just sorta proof, you know? Not solid.

 

To me, is no proof at all. And the more that stacks up, the more I discount and completely discredit it.

To start with, any time the "proof" becomes stacks of conspiracy theorists all trying to confirm that each other is real and credible, to me they dismisses them. It is like going into an insane asylum, and taking the word that one patient is God because all the other patients affirm that they are indeed God. And your continuing to add in even more only removes more and more credibility. As well as even trying to bring up things like Area 51, which I did not.

Add in that he only did this decades ago, and it has never been repeated. That alone is the final nail in the coffin. Because the first rule of being credible is that your "experiment" must be repeatable. If nobody else can ever repeat it, it is either faulty, or a scam. Otherwise, he or others could repeat it.

And the more you delve into CT nonsense, the less seriously I take you. When I have to accept Area 51, conspiracies' and coverups, and a ton of other nonsense then it is nothing but a scam. And you can scream at me all you want, fine. Want myself or anybody to believe him, have him repeat this amazing breakthrough. In a controlled setting. Or give somebody else instructions on how to repeat it.

That is science. Anything else is a scam, or a neat parlor trick.

As for putting in memes, I mostly do it when a thread gets to be silly and is no longer on the actual track of the original intent. And this descent into CT and other nonsense is the perfect setting for me to leaven things a bit with memes. Don't like them, not my problem.

 

You're probably right.

I see Lazar as a guy who started what he thought was a small fake story to get funding for a project from Robert Bigelow, who was known for funding far our projects..

It just got out of hand.

But, as I listened to him being interviewed on Joe Rogan, I find him a likeably guy, and he seems sincere, though, that doesn't prove anything.

btw, not that you care and I know you don't, but if you continue shoving memes at me I am placing you on ignore. You know my request, and you have not honored it.

 

Most con men are. Otherwise people like Charles Ponzi, Barry Minkow, Bernie Madoff, or Elron Musk would not get people to give them money.

 

Yes, and no.

Bob filed for bankruptcy.