<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Fuel of the Future</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065</link>
	<description>examining transformative technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: </title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-855344</link>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-855344</guid>
		<description>&quot;but nano-springs? Are they charged with di-lithium crystals or a zero point generator? Maybe they’re downscale and using a Moray Valve?&quot;

No Mr Snarky, you are wrong, like all springs, nano spings are energized by streching them (or compressing them).

And as far as laying your hands on them, you have been playing with a loosely joined, amorphous network of nanosprings most of your life its called rubber.   With better selection of raw material (say graphene) and much better organization you should be able to store a great deal of energy (but still less than most chemical fuels)

jim moore</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;but nano-springs? Are they charged with di-lithium crystals or a zero point generator? Maybe they’re downscale and using a Moray Valve?&#8221;</p>
<p>No Mr Snarky, you are wrong, like all springs, nano spings are energized by streching them (or compressing them).</p>
<p>And as far as laying your hands on them, you have been playing with a loosely joined, amorphous network of nanosprings most of your life its called rubber.   With better selection of raw material (say graphene) and much better organization you should be able to store a great deal of energy (but still less than most chemical fuels)</p>
<p>jim moore</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: </title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-855322</link>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-855322</guid>
		<description>Lots of non-technical responses here. I&#039;ve laid hands on a working ammonia powered engine, but nano-springs? Are they charged with di-lithium crystals or a zero point generator? Maybe they&#039;re downscale and using a Moray Valve?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lots of non-technical responses here. I&#8217;ve laid hands on a working ammonia powered engine, but nano-springs? Are they charged with di-lithium crystals or a zero point generator? Maybe they&#8217;re downscale and using a Moray Valve?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Storrs Hall</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-855263</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Storrs Hall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-855263</guid>
		<description>Nanosprings (and flywheels) fall under the problem with batteries -- all the potential energy is right there in the device, so at useful energy densities it&#039;s a potential bomb.

Ammonia vs octane: I wouldn&#039;t reccommend breathing either :-) ... ammonia has the &lt;i&gt;advantage&lt;/i&gt; of being very unpleasant in very small doses, meaning people would be more careful with it.  A reasonable distribution system would never expose it to open air...

It&#039;s lighter than air, and thus would dissipate quickly in the case of a spill, and is &lt;i&gt;non-flammable&lt;/i&gt;, a remarkable property for a fuel!

Liquid ammonia has about half the volumetric energy as octane, but given an efficient fuel cell you&#039;d get the same usable energy out of it as you do now with gasoline in an IC engine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nanosprings (and flywheels) fall under the problem with batteries &#8212; all the potential energy is right there in the device, so at useful energy densities it&#8217;s a potential bomb.</p>
<p>Ammonia vs octane: I wouldn&#8217;t reccommend breathing either <img src='http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  &#8230; ammonia has the <i>advantage</i> of being very unpleasant in very small doses, meaning people would be more careful with it.  A reasonable distribution system would never expose it to open air&#8230;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s lighter than air, and thus would dissipate quickly in the case of a spill, and is <i>non-flammable</i>, a remarkable property for a fuel!</p>
<p>Liquid ammonia has about half the volumetric energy as octane, but given an efficient fuel cell you&#8217;d get the same usable energy out of it as you do now with gasoline in an IC engine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Fuel of the Future &#124; howsolarworks.info</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854298</link>
		<dc:creator>The Fuel of the Future &#124; howsolarworks.info</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854298</guid>
		<description>[...] What module your automobile separate on in 2020 or 2030?    See the example post: The Fuel of the Future [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] What module your automobile separate on in 2020 or 2030?    See the example post: The Fuel of the Future [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Fuel of the Future &#124; howsolarworks.info</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854299</link>
		<dc:creator>The Fuel of the Future &#124; howsolarworks.info</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854299</guid>
		<description>[...] What module your automobile separate on in 2020 or 2030? What modify of forcefulness hardware and sending module earmark intermittent forcefulness sources, much as twine and solar, to be a viable signaling to the economy? There’s a beatific chance, of course, that cars module ease separate on fuel — its demise has been predicted primeval and ofttimes — but there are also lots of reasons that oil module not be a good foundation for a rapidly-expanding economy.    See the example post:  The Fuel of the Future [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] What module your automobile separate on in 2020 or 2030? What modify of forcefulness hardware and sending module earmark intermittent forcefulness sources, much as twine and solar, to be a viable signaling to the economy? There’s a beatific chance, of course, that cars module ease separate on fuel — its demise has been predicted primeval and ofttimes — but there are also lots of reasons that oil module not be a good foundation for a rapidly-expanding economy.    See the example post:  The Fuel of the Future [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: </title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854294</link>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854294</guid>
		<description>Actually I should correct my statement above.  It should read &quot;Ammonia is a deadly chemical at fairly low concentrations.  (2,500 PPM is 0.25%)&quot;

Note* , Ammonia has to be treated with a lot of respect.  It is a potentially deadly chemical,  (NOT even close to being the most deadly chemical)  but it should only be handeled by people with the proper equipment AND training. 

jim moore</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually I should correct my statement above.  It should read &#8220;Ammonia is a deadly chemical at fairly low concentrations.  (2,500 PPM is 0.25%)&#8221;</p>
<p>Note* , Ammonia has to be treated with a lot of respect.  It is a potentially deadly chemical,  (NOT even close to being the most deadly chemical)  but it should only be handeled by people with the proper equipment AND training. </p>
<p>jim moore</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: </title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854199</link>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:32:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854199</guid>
		<description>Ammonia is a dangerous (deadly) chemical in high concentrations from the MSDS:

&quot;Anhydrous ammonia gas or liquid is very corrosive to body tissues, reacting with body moisture on contact.

The odour threshold for ammonia is on average 17 PPM although the range of sensitivity ranges from 0.7 PPM to 50 PPM for acclimatized individuals. Generally, concentrations of up to 25 PPM are tolerated although unpleasant and pungent. Above this concentration, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat may begin. The extent of irritation increases with increasing ammonia concentration.

Eye and throat irritation is more pronounced between 100 and 400 PPM. Above 400 PPM, skin irritation is noticeable and immediate throat irritation and coughing will result. NIOSH has established 500 PPM as the concentration immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH), which is defined as the concentration above which self-rescue may be difficult or impossible due to physiological effects. At concentrations between 1000 and 2500 PPM increasing chest tightness, brochospasm and severe eye and skin irritation will result. Delayed effects such as chemical pneumonitis and pulmonary edema may develop several hours after exposure. At concentrations above 2500 PPM, laryngeal spasm may occur resulting in rapid asphyxia. Effects may be more pronounced at lower concentrations in children, the elderly, and persons with impaired lung function.&quot;

The PPE needed 

Respiratory Protection:
Use a NIOSH approved chemical cartridge respirator with full facepiece for ammonia concentrations up to 300 PPM. Use a positive pressure (pressure demand) SCBA for concentrations above 300 PPM, for emergency response, or for entry into unknown concentrations.

Eye Protection:
Contact lenses should not be worn when handling anhydrous ammonia. Use chemical goggles and a face shield or full facepiece air purifying or air supplied respirator.

Skin Proection:
Where chemical contact is unlikely, wear butyl rubber, nitrile, or polyvinyl chloride boots, gloves, rain jacket and pants. 

The short answer is anhydrous ammonia is too dangerous of a chemical for daily use by non trained individuals.


As far as energy storage technology what about diamond or graphene springs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ammonia is a dangerous (deadly) chemical in high concentrations from the MSDS:</p>
<p>&#8220;Anhydrous ammonia gas or liquid is very corrosive to body tissues, reacting with body moisture on contact.</p>
<p>The odour threshold for ammonia is on average 17 PPM although the range of sensitivity ranges from 0.7 PPM to 50 PPM for acclimatized individuals. Generally, concentrations of up to 25 PPM are tolerated although unpleasant and pungent. Above this concentration, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat may begin. The extent of irritation increases with increasing ammonia concentration.</p>
<p>Eye and throat irritation is more pronounced between 100 and 400 PPM. Above 400 PPM, skin irritation is noticeable and immediate throat irritation and coughing will result. NIOSH has established 500 PPM as the concentration immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH), which is defined as the concentration above which self-rescue may be difficult or impossible due to physiological effects. At concentrations between 1000 and 2500 PPM increasing chest tightness, brochospasm and severe eye and skin irritation will result. Delayed effects such as chemical pneumonitis and pulmonary edema may develop several hours after exposure. At concentrations above 2500 PPM, laryngeal spasm may occur resulting in rapid asphyxia. Effects may be more pronounced at lower concentrations in children, the elderly, and persons with impaired lung function.&#8221;</p>
<p>The PPE needed </p>
<p>Respiratory Protection:<br />
Use a NIOSH approved chemical cartridge respirator with full facepiece for ammonia concentrations up to 300 PPM. Use a positive pressure (pressure demand) SCBA for concentrations above 300 PPM, for emergency response, or for entry into unknown concentrations.</p>
<p>Eye Protection:<br />
Contact lenses should not be worn when handling anhydrous ammonia. Use chemical goggles and a face shield or full facepiece air purifying or air supplied respirator.</p>
<p>Skin Proection:<br />
Where chemical contact is unlikely, wear butyl rubber, nitrile, or polyvinyl chloride boots, gloves, rain jacket and pants. </p>
<p>The short answer is anhydrous ammonia is too dangerous of a chemical for daily use by non trained individuals.</p>
<p>As far as energy storage technology what about diamond or graphene springs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: </title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854189</link>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3065#comment-854189</guid>
		<description>Not sure I entirely agree. Synthesizing octane should be pretty efficient, and octane has far higher power density than methane, pure hydrogen, or ammonia. Why not run octane + atmospheric oxygen in nanomechanical direct power generators? The cell does something quite similar in the krebs cycle of course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure I entirely agree. Synthesizing octane should be pretty efficient, and octane has far higher power density than methane, pure hydrogen, or ammonia. Why not run octane + atmospheric oxygen in nanomechanical direct power generators? The cell does something quite similar in the krebs cycle of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>