Talk:Hydrogen vehicle

hydrogen fuel that runs on existing cars

I'm a first time poster so forgive me if I don't do it right. I'm fairly disappointed in this article. Yes it has plenty of great information on hydrogen in a generalized way and it was helpful, but I was really looking for particulars on hydrogen in an internal combustion engine.. There was only a bit of information on this subject and that was really discussing it's impact on the economy and briefly mentions forklifts... how about some more on the internal combustion engine? Also, any ideas on the status of the Penn State file hydrogen production cell? Will the spaces be realeasd to the public? Does it net produce energy? Thanks! 01:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)01:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.173.232 (talk)

Is this worth incorporating into this article ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1351341/Relief-pumps-Revolutionary-hydrogen-fuel-cost-just-90p-GALLON-run-existing-cars.html

--Penbat (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

About as worthy as all those Nigerian millionaires. If it's a top-secret laboratory, why is there an article in the paper about it? Do you think this story has the slightest credibility? Or is it just some bored editor plugging the newshole? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesnt look top secret at all. Explains developed by Cella energy at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxford and info on their website http://www.cellaenergy.com Maybe they need the publicity to get more funding. --Penbat (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This technology is not available yet for real cars. See WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the right website for inventors to try to raise funding for their projects, so we must wait until this technology is working in real cars before it is ready to be explained in the encyclopedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

rhetorical question from a newspaper article

Under the Criticism heading of this article:

The Washington Post asked in November 2009, "But why would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries...?"

Rhetorical questions do not seem encyclopedic. No doubt design engineers have their reasons for having produced stored hydrogen prototype vehicles. The quote from the Washington Post makes it seem that the stored hydrogen concept is absurd and neglects to acknowledge the fact that that electric batteries have their own limitations. While the article in the Post may be more balanced, the quote itself is unbalanced and contributes no substantial factual content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broiyan (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be removed on the grounds that it is stupid criticism. How exactly do they expect the electricity to get from the wall sockets to the car? The whole point to hydrogen is that you don't have to leave your car on charge overnight, and you're only limited by the amount of fuel you can replenish rather than batteries you can keep charged... 193.132.145.151 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Quality

The flow and general quality of the grammar used in this article are poor. Could anyone please advise me as to how to place one of those banners at the top of the article asking for assistance fixing it up?

Sentences such as:

"The challenges facing the use of hydrogen in vehicles include production, storage, transport and distribution. The well-to-wheel efficiency for hydrogen, because of all these challenges will not exceed 25%."

read badly, and are quite confusing. What factors are considered when calculating well-to-wheel efficiency? Why is it important? In short, what the hell does this mean? HappyGod (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-to-wheel efficiency is a way to compare apples to apples when measuring the efficiency of different kinds of fuel for vehicles. If you see a way way to improve the grammar of any sentences in the article, go ahead and do so, and other editors can then review your work. I agree that this article is not well-written, but the first sentence you have chosen to quote above is IMO, perfectly alright. I have now clarified the second. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:21 am, Today (UTC−4)

See above for my low opinion of tags. Writing by committee invariably produces a disjointed, confused, dull, and unfocussed style. I would encourage you to just fix the confusing bits instead of putting tags in that no-one will act on either.Be Bold!, as we used to say around here. You can't hurt anything and you might well help. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it Wtshymanski, tags are part of the way Wikipedia works, and I happen to like them. Further more if you note the time I wrote my comment, it was 12:47am Perth time, and I was just browsing the wiki before heading off to bed. I wanted a reminder for myself as well as others that the article needs attention.

I contribute as much as my free time allows to fix up articles in Wikipedia and don't need any prompting to 'be bold', thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rockets section

I tried to rewrite most of the section, because it just made me cringe. My English may not be perfect, but I think this still is an improvement over pseudo-intellectual style coupled with spelling errors and complete lack of understanding of rocket engines. The rest of the article could also use some attention regarding the language IMHO. Dasdingonesin (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Like". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogen from water

I am no expert but I think the existence of technology for producing hydrogen from water through a physical reaction developed in the former SU it is worth mentioning. I am sorry I cannot give further details as I do not remember the name of the Russian scientist who developed it. The method would be simple and inexpensive as the hydrogen would be produced directly on each car, i.e. refuelling would be done with water.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. No, that "technology" is a hoax. See Water-fuelled car. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)