Well the BTU thing relates to conventional chemistry. And if you base the comparison on weight instead of volume, then we have
Gasoline: 17,500 BTU per pound Hydrogen: 61,100 BTU per pound Weight is most important for flight, so the best choice for a UAV is not in doubt - since cost of fuel is no problem, even before the other gains. Aside from the mundane considerations of higher flame speed with H2, far higher octane, more complete burn, the ability to go "ultra lean" ... there are the more speculative reactions such as f/H, hydrinos, or spillover, LENR reactions or even Casimir reactions (if porosity is engineered) - any of which could happen in a proper design. Now onto the Rossi E-Cat, modified for an ICE. A reasonable suggestion is that if one were to simply use lean hydrogen in place of gasoline, with no more of an alternation that plating the piston crowns with nickel, plus Rossi's secret catalyst, then there would be both the mundane gain and an additional gain from "supra-chemistry" or LENR or whatever he is doing. But you know all of that, so were you just wanting someone to spell it out for the record, or is there a catch-22 ? -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton Per US galloon: Gasoline = 115,000 BTU Liquid H2 = 35,000 BTU Yeah, other than being "green" I see no advantage to using liquid hydrogen in a combustion engine. T
