On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:37 AM, thomas malloy wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote :
Unless I missed something, there is insufficient information on
this site to make any kind of determination of the economic
viability of the technology.
For your edification, here is a paper on fuel cells that I alluded
to previously, http://apolloenergysystems.com/_pdfs/
alkaline_FC_manuscript.pdf
The introductory page is interesting, then jump to page 13 which is
a discussion of Apollo's fuel cell
Again, there is no information that permits determination of the
economic viability or even the safety of the technology in the
proposed mode of use. There is no indication whatsoever that the
technology is or can be economically and safely packaged such that
ordinary consumers can operate it safely in a residential area.
Further, there is no analysis or even indication it is competitive
with alternative technologies.
I consider the note "Poisoning by Inhalation completely reversible"
to be ludicrous. Dead is dead. Burned lungs don't become unburned.
Anhydrous ammonia, which is the kind used for cracking, must be
stored under pressure, and is much more dangerous than the household
type ammonia containing chemicals. Anhydrous ammonia handling is
relatively safe when done industrially by trained personnel with
appropriate safety equipment. It is not the kind of thing that should
be considered safe for general consumer use without extensive
testing. Even then, passing underwriter's tests, getting their
approval, might be nearly impossible. Going from engineer supervised
operation in a small population to operation by a vast consumer
public is precisely what Murphy invented his law to describe.
Also, I haven't seen any prior reference by you to:
http://apolloenergysystems.com/_pdfs/alkaline_FC_manuscript.pdf
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
