wgargan

Right on!

all i have heard form people is " i dont want to ride around with a hydrogen bomb. What if i got into a wreck" you have to admit that in the states many people are confused when it comes to words that are used in many different topics

yes i have heard of it. alternative to current fuel. no. supplement to curent fuel yes. it is promissing. however, when we finally realize how much energy is wasted in "producing" animlals maybey we will stop that and not be in an energy crisis? for others here are some links to get you started on the topic: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829 ( that is a great forum by the way) http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/ ( i have never actually looked at this site but you can!)

i get the feeling from what most are saying is that to produce hydrogen from electricity, electrolytes and water is not efficient. How about producing hydrogen with NaOH, Al and H2O. Lets forget about Fuel cell cars, batteries and electric motors etc... ( think about all that waste) lets think of an adaptable technology. One that i could buy in the form of a kit install it in my Gasoline powered car, dump in some Lye some old beer cans and fill up my tank with the hose and be on my with hydrogen. IMHO, internal combustion engines is the only way to really get the public familiar with H2 technology. For the most part, people think of hiroshima when the word hydrogen is mentioned. As mentioned above this is not even close to a hydrogen burn. Hydrogen burn is quick, hot and will go straight up in the air. petrolium burns, well lets just say, you do not want to be trapped in the car if your gas tank catches fire. will

You dont indicate what you think is wrong with it. I beleive the first one is sound for beginers. The wikepedia ( f-wikepedia please use a different source) definition just uses different words to say the same thing. Wikepedia uses "key" and "characteristics" instead of a "set of rules". i think they are fine.