Talk:Liquid nitrogen engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Liquid nitrogen vehicle)
Jump to: navigation, search

Not again[edit]

This is a duplication of the speculation at Liquid nitrogen economy and we really don't need two articles on this. Although I actually like this title better - I think content from Liquid nitrogen economy should be moved here and that title turned into a redirect. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur in all respects. The article here is completely uncited speculation or original research whereas that more-generally-titled article has cites but is really only about this narrower topic (at least that's what the given ref titles suggest). So that is a viable article for this name. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. Let's just make sure we don't lose sourced information in the process.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirected and merged[edit]

For some of the history behind the former Liquid nitrogen economy article, see Talk:Liquid nitrogen economy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

air vs. oxygen[edit]

Wtshymanski I don't want to get into a fight with you but air is an inaccurate word to be using. first air is a composite material witch is diluted by the release of nitrogen not displaced, next the sentence is talking about asphyxiation so the helium argon CO2 neon methane water etc. in the air are irrelevant. only the oxygen is of substance to the sentence, this is why they use an O2 sensor as a warning device in labs where they make and use liquid N2. further saying it is a theatrical point is flat out false. even given the example here is not current doesn't mean the information isn't accurate. --donhoraldo (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If the nitrogen is just diluting, then it's not "pushing out" the oxygen, it's reducing the concentration of it. If there's rapid release of nitrogen gas, it pushes out the existing atmosphere (you feel the gust out the door) rather than gradually diffusing and diluting down the concentration of oxygen--there's no way it would selectively push out the oxygen component in the mixture. How about wording it for what the actual effect is, regardless of the mechanism, saying it reduces the concentration of oxygen. That way you don't get bogged down in whether the nitrogen blows out the good air or dilutes it in-place. DMacks (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

fine. but I'll point out again that the nitrogen doesn't push out the air as you say. the nitrogen sloly difuses in the air and in enclosed space that can reduce the concentration of oxygen. again the nitrogen pushes nothing.--donhoraldo (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought experiment. Make your garage airtight but for a 1/4 inch tube coming out. Park your Acme N2-powered car in the airtight garage. Let the N2 boil away from the car, and collect the gas coming out of the tube. What will it be? Air, at first...there's no way that the N2 selectively knocks out only oxygen molecules. It's displacing air as a whole, not just oxygen. Not that anyone other than Wile E. Coyote would believe any physics off the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Again, saying "dilute" means the limited case of a slow leak gradually diffusing, rather than a wind/current from rapid boiloff. I doubt you have a very well sealed room--wouldn't adding adding enough N2 to knock the O2 concentration down to dangerous levels purely by dilution would increase the pressure noticeably? Maybe give up and say change from saying "cause asphyxiation" to that nitrogen is an "asphyxiant gas", again getting away from the exact dilution/displacement debate.
Or just rip out almost all of the safety section and add a single sentence pointing to liquid nitrogen#safety, since what's here is really just a clone of that anyway. That is, all liquid nitrogen hazards are by implication hazards associated with this application of LN2, so it's inappropriate to redo that discussion here since there's already an article about it. If there are hazards more specifically related to use as a vehicle propellant, that content would be good here. DMacks (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

quote from for mentioned lN2 safety. "it will reduce the oxygen concentration in the air and might act as an asphyxiant,". the fact is that the boiling (doesn't matter if it is rapid or not) liquid nitrogen wouldn't preferentially remove anything but like I said before there is no reason to worry about the effects of liquid nitrogen boiling on nitrogen (78.084% of air) argon (0.934% of air) carbon dioxide (0.033% of air) or the trace gasses (.002% of air) in a dry atmosphere, all that effects asphyxiation is the concentration of oxygen (20.947% of air). for that matter when talking about air you can basically just look at the 99.031% of air that is nitrogen or oxygen. the nitrogen concentration rises during boiling the oxygen concentration falls. the rest is basically worthless to the discussion. --donhoraldo (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dangers[edit]

The article says "The principal disadvantage is the inefficient use of primary energy".

I think the principal danger is that leakage from any tank in an enclosed space will kill whomever's around by asphyxiation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation

Given the difficulties of ensuring perfect maintenance and operation, I think it would be unlikely to be made legal as a vehicle fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.85.79 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liquid nitrogen engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)