Cars can't run on grit that would be at home on sandpaper, right? They need something that's easy to light and can be sprayed into a combustion chamber. If a crash by the truck delivering it can't result in a huge fireball, it's not fuel. A relevant free download: Cowan, G.R.L., How fire can be tamed, Int. J. Nuclear Hydrogen Production and Applications, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.235–248, DOI: 10.1504/IJNHPA.2008.019452.

Were you once a young driver? Perhaps just by being here, having been that driver, you represent a suspension of cosmic justice that your parents, with grandchildren and great-grandchildren in mind, are glad of.

Meanwhile, clean high-energy motor fuel that burns only where it should is a new idea. It is less at risk of being stolen than of not being rammed down enough throats, soon enough, to improve the odds that you will be similarly glad.

     
Stray kitten
 
What is it like to be you?
 
 
     

Therefore please help me persist ...

Help me download non-free scientific papers (typically about $30), or make the day's rent ($20), or just buy me a beer*. Thank you.

Perhaps my prescriptions for the world's problems would be more quickly filled if they were not free. One of these problems is airliners' stratospheric emissions of kerosene-derived oxides: carbon dioxide and water vapour.

The CO2 emissions are a smallish part of total fossil-fuel-derived CO2 emissions, but developing a new generation of airliners fuelled with straight hydrogen wouldn't just solve that relatively small problem. It would also allow faster flights and/or farther ones, because an airliner that, as it takes off, is 40 percent liquid hydrogen by mass has as much energy as one that is 100 percent kerosene. The tanks are larger, but this could be made into an advantage: they could occupy the upper part of the fuselage, so that their contents would shield passengers and crew from cosmic radiation.

None of that is new, and it doesn't solve the problem of high-up water vapour emissions. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. When our fossil fuel burners emit it, this usually doesn't matter, because they emit it in the troposphere, down where water always promptly rains or snows out, no matter whether it evaporated naturally or was put there by us. It is about as hard to humidify the troposphere by burning hydrocarbons as to make the Zambezi River deeper, just upstream of Victoria Falls, by stationing a firetruck at the base of the cataract and having it drive the flow back up. Stratospheric emissions, though, do not immediately fall back out, and airliners can and do make a lasting difference.

A online auction of an idea for a good solution closed after seven days with no bids. The solution would enable an airliner to take off and land on pure hydrogen, leaving a trail of briefly increased humidity, but once up in the stratosphere, if it flew a route that is already well-travelled, its trail would be one of reduced wetness.

Maybe it's obvious enough that someone else who can work out the details will do so, and disclose them freely. If you want or need to know them, but are not certain that will happen, let me know what opening bid you will put in if I reinstate the auction.


More free stuff: a short 2001 conference paper, and the original web page on boron for surface vehicles, occasionally updated over the past ten years, for instance to discuss related subjects such as VB2-air batteries.

Recently read and remarked

* beer prices may be accumulated for paper downloads.