> I would also like to experiment with on-board electrolyzers
> for vehicles but I don't think there is much public interest
> there. For example, since I had gotten an invite to the
> DARPA/Army power sources conference this year I emailed
> the head of the U.S. Army lab about on board electrolyzers
> and asked if they had ever looked at them or might be
> interested in the concept.
>
> Seeing as a 30% boost in mileage would equate a 30%
> increase in range for vehicles in the field. That was 3 weeks
> ago and so far no response. That same guy answered me
> in 2 days when I wrote to him previously regarding the cost
> of attending the conference.
>
>
> MJ
MJ,
People don't believe that 'free energy' crazy talk. I know, I've tried it.
But don't think that the idea of onboard eletrolosys is publicly unacceptable. You're just going to find it very difficult to engineer a system for which the size of the fuel cell and a tank in a production vehicle conveniently fills all the available space. They won't give you an inch. Better you design both the fuel cell and the electrolyser from scratch to retrofit a new system onto the mounting brackets (too bad the news designs are going to be integrated skateboards).
As always responding to the gaps in the market is the best way to approach market viability. If you can squeeze 30 per cent more out of it and extend range by onboard eletrolosys there will be people to buy it. Just don't expect the government not to feel cheated out of revenue on the fuel they are 'missing' out on.
Sincerely,
tim
-- the pearls of discussion are beaded on the string of wisdom --
No comments:
Post a Comment