Jump to content

agg221

Member
  • Posts

    818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by agg221

  1. A pint with George Harrison, a cup of tea with David Jason. (I have also had a pizza with Matt Hancock but that was in a professional capacity rather than for pleasure). Alec
  2. We managed to get comprehensive insurance on the basis of the vendor's hull survey from a year before we bought. This was specifically because he had the hull surveyed to identify the necessary remedial work, then confirmation from the original surveyor that the work had been completed to the required standard and then used this to get comprehensive insurance. The insurance company agreed that if we re-insured with them, they could accept the survey for the remainder of their normal interval. Personally, I would be wanting to pull that boat out and see whether the lower readings (4.2mm) were due to local pitting or general loss of section. Grit blasting prior to epoxy coating will uncover any pitting, so I would plan for welding up the pits if present. If it's due to loss of section that might get me questioning the ongoing cost of ownership as substantial work could be pulled up as a requirement with only a fairly minor additional loss, perhaps even when grit blasting. Alec
  3. Pauline: https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/775760507312896/?ref=browse_tab&referral_code=marketplace_general&referral_story_type=general&tracking={"qid"%3A"-2624037547947347613"%2C"mf_story_key"%3A"4215910954900222129"%2C"commerce_rank_obj"%3A"{\"target_id\"%3A4215910954900222129%2C\"target_type\"%3A6%2C\"primary_position\"%3A2%2C\"ranking_signature\"%3A5648487320393877178%2C\"commerce_channel\"%3A501%2C\"value\"%3A0.00042040998882077%2C\"upsell_type\"%3A129%2C\"candidate_retrieval_source_map\"%3A{\"6293849277371080\"%3A3001%2C\"7046266732077483\"%3A3001%2C\"7789888724374370\"%3A3001%2C\"7483267355035712\"%3A701%2C\"7122591061193804\"%3A3001%2C\"7019599428120937\"%3A3130}%2C\"grouping_info\"%3Anull}"%2C"lightning_feed_qid"%3A"-2624037960392400368"%2C"lightning_feed_ranking_signature"%3A"3970507543898385152"%2C"ftmd_400706"%3A"111112l"}
  4. Not necessarily. Our house came with a folder full of paperwork, covering everything from manorial rights to wayleaves. Only a few parts of this appear on the Land Registry record, the rest having been retained when the house was first registered. When I bought the field next to the house it was unregistered and I did the conveyancing. Registering it was simple in principle but the paper trail created to do it was considerable. It required over an inch high stack of papers to comprehensively address the questions, which I still have, including copies of records dating back to the 1500s. BW is relatively modern! Alec
  5. Martin Fuller's boat 'Cutter' shows just how far you can take this idea - some good photos if you scroll down on this page: https://nbalbert.blogspot.com/2013/04/blake-mere-ellesmere.html Alec
  6. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  7. I generally agree with you, with a couple of caveats. 1. Richard Parry is one man at the top of a large organisation. We focus on boating but there are a whole load of other aspects to the business - the property business, other assets, safety, HR etc. I can well believe that there may be some points of weakness within the business structure, things which are not working, and that he may not be aware of them. 2. There are always potential improvements to be made. Sometimes something which worked fine previously may no longer be the best option - there are changes in financial circumstances but also in relative costs; sometimes new technology can make something cheaper etc. and when people on the ground are getting on with the job, they may not be aware of potential improvements. Sometimes things go wrong because people are human and they make the wrong call based on the limitations of their knowledge, often because they do not know that better information is available, let alone where to look for it. It's no bad thing to flag issues when they arise, in the spirit of constructive criticism. Alec
  8. There may well be some of this already happening - I must admit, living in Essex my options for offering practical support are limited so I don't check adverts for volunteers that often. However, I was thinking of the specific opportunity for getting people involved who live near/walk along a canal but have no other connection, in a way which is genuinely useful and also ticks some boxes. They aren't going to see an online advert. On the other point of discussion around best use of resources, it is clear that there are questionable decisions being made, with the bridges on the Oxford and the bridge repainting discussed by @Francis Herne as prime examples. I feel it is important not to pre-judge the thinking that leads to these decisions, but there should certainly be a route to challenging it, ideally in advance but if not then definitely in the context of lessons learned. One point which is often overlooked is that you can email Richard Parry directly and get a personal answer - that is a pretty rare thing in a CEO and I would not presume that the same would be true of his successor. However, it would be better if there was a less nuclear option available. The relationship between CRT and its users is far more symbiotic than the average business/customer/shareholder relationship and there appear to be some good grounds to build on here. Alec
  9. Ian, You probably have the best insight of anyone on here into the framework within which CRT is constrained to work and also (unfortunately) following the recent elections, less ability to influence that which can be changed within the bounds of the possible. I did have a few thoughts which I would welcome your views on around volunteers. I am aware of the concurrent thread on the subject, but your post on this thread seems more aligned as a jumping off point. If you take as a starting premise that there is not enough money to do all that needs to be done, and that there is no realistic route by which the funding will be significantly be increased, the conclusion becomes that it will either not be done, or it will have to be done without money (or at least with a lot less money) since, as @Grassman discussed, there are costs and allowances for volunteers). However, in parallel, there are things which if done now are a lot cheaper and a lot less disruptive than if done later, but the challenge is to identify them without that carrying a significant cost. So here are a couple of thoughts. 1. Volunteer lengthspeople. There is no realistic prospect of paid lengthsmen returning, but much of the network is used by people on foot - in fact this is actually one of the key indentified values of the system as an open space/linear park/pedestrian and cycle route away from traffic. What if people who walk a length on a daily basis were able to volunteer as a 'lengthsperson' whose job was simply to spot potential issues. The difference between this and a layperson would be a) some basic training on what type of thing to look out for and report and b) sharing the map/plan with them for the length they have volunteered for so that they know specifically what to keep an eye on - culverts etc. I'm not talking about proper inspections but if you walk the dog daily and one day you see water running and you know there is a culvert there, that could be a whole lot less costly to sort out than a full breach and at least it could pinpoint where to send inspection teams. It has the added advantage of not actually taking any time that is not already spent, so increasing the number of volunteer hours against KPIs. 2. Anecdotally, I hear of a mismatch arising at times - there is a list of minor issues that need resolving but with a triage approach they never make it to the top of the list. Simultaneously, there are times when the on the ground CRT maintenance teams are sent to a job but the materials don't turn up, or it takes less time than expected. It does appear that there is potential resource available to address some of these minor issues if the operational side was coordinated - some with volunteer labour (filling in holes behind piling so people don't break their ankle does not require specialist training for example), some with formalised volunteer labour through canal society work parties where slightly more specialist skills may be required (there would appear to be things which the teams @Grassman mentioned would be well placed to tackle) and partly by an approach of 'the CRT team will be on the ground at this location today - priority 1 is the job they are going there to do, but if they get done early or a problem arises, these are the things to put on the van so that the team can go on and deal with these minor issues'. The number mentioned last summer was 8000 outstanding minor jobs so the backlog will not get dealt with quickly, but there could be a way to at least stop it growing? I would welcome your thoughts on the above. Am I heading down a sensible thought line here or are there good reasons I am not aware of why it is not practical? Any other areas which from your experience there may be ways to tackle within the current, and ongoing, constraints? Alec
  10. We moor less than a mile from there so go past it every time we move the boat. The photos do not do it any favours but it definitely has potential, but of the sort which a freehold owner/occupier would realise, not a renter. It has been used in the past as a convenient site for boat repair as you can get a crane right alongside. Coincidentally another place I have a connection to, having gone to school just up the road. If the industrial estate right next to it hadn't obliterated the link to the canal, which was in water just beyond the estate, then it would have a lot of potential. Alec
  11. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  12. Totally OT but this reminded me of something. We were once working on a project related to a new type of high efficiency cable. There were various companies involved - the company developing it, a cable manufacturer and a utility. Our job was working out how to join it. To understand the requirements, the utility arranged for us to attend a splicing job where a buried 11kV line was being cut and extended into a new substation; I attended with my project engineer and lead technician and all the other companies involved also sent a couple of people so that we could all go away understanding what needed to be done to make this work. The cable was buried along the side of a minor country road so there was traffic control in place and we stood along the closed side of the road behind the barriers, all in hi-viz provided by the utility company, wearing hard hats. Towards the end of the day, we realised that all day long anyone passing would have seen this this highly visible line of nine people all wearing the utility's logo on their hi-viz, staring into a trench, while two people were actually doing any work, and probably concluded that the ratio of supervisors to workers was why their electricity bills were so high! Alec
  13. The big challenge with battery (and any other energy) storage is energy density. Performance is measured as Wh/kg which is a direct measure for most transport applications but is also an indicator for £/Wh, although the two are not directly linked. Agreed that LFP is now developing fast (partly due to certain patents ending) but at the moment it only achieves half the Wh/kg. In a car that roughly equates to half the range, which fits with the Chinese model of car ownership for local travel but less well in the West where longer ranges are expected and range anxiety is a real problem. When you are less driven (if you will excuse the pun) by range and more by price then it comes down to whether using twice as many batteries is cost-effective. You hit a different problem when you go the opposite way and increase energy density, which is BoP and battery management systems . When a cell fails in a lead acid battery it can get hot and release hydrogen but there is very rarely severe damage beyond the battery itself hence relatively limited BoP and no BMS. When a lithium cell fails it can catch fire. The intensity is low enough that the design of the battery is allowed to be such that the fire can propagate but the probability is high enough that a BMS is required. If you increase the energy density further with sodium cells then I am not yet sure what level of control will be mandated. If it requires reasonable prevention of flame spread between cells then the net energy density may not increase significantly when you factor in the volume and weight of containment, and the cost will also inevitably be negatively impacted. I can’t yet estimate what the net effect will be. I should perhaps mention that I am not a fanatical zealot with regard to hydrogen, or any other technology for that matter. I have worked on parts of many different energy technologies, including batteries, and have no vested interest other than a potential consumer wanting a cost-effective source of energy for personal applications. I just prefer to work from facts rather than personal prejudices. Alec
  14. There are certainly some places where green hydrogen from electrolysis of water looks to be a viable option. In the short term, the worked out Rough gas field is being developed as a hydrogen storage facility to use the surplus power from the North Sea offshore wind turbines. The facility can store around 54 billion cubic feet of gas which equates to around 10TWh of hydrogen. With a production efficiency of around 33%, that handles about half the 60TWh of annual production potential which is currently not generated from offshore turbines because it falls out of sync. with demand (2021 figures). There are other potential sources too. So called blue hydrogen is controversial, but if energy demand/cost goes high enough then the Liverpool Bay fracking projects may get progressed (currently under exploratory development under the name HyNET). The plan would be to extract gas and convert it to hydrogen through methane steam reforming, then separate the CO2 and pump it back into the field. This is nominally 'zero emissions' as the CO2 is not released into the atmosphere. The UK has invested heavily in nuclear, with Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C sequenced for construction in quick succession. Nuclear fission does not like being ramped up and down to meet demand, so again there will be surplus electricity within the daily cycle. Storage of surplus electricity as electricity is nearly 3x as efficient as using it to electrolyse water to hydrogen. However, for that to be viable you need a storage medium which is scalable and lithium batteries simply aren't due to lack of cobalt. For context, annual production of cobalt is around 200,000 tons, most of which comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo which is morally difficult to say the least. New reserves have been discovered in less controversial locations which currently produce around 50,000 tons of that total. These are stated to be scalable but best estimates indicate that they could achieve around 300,000 tons annually, taking the total to 450,000 tons. The cobalt which is currently produced isn't sitting around doing nothing - it is being used, so you would reckon on an optimistic 300,000 tons annually available for battery manufacture. For context on what that would achieve, it isn't even enough to meet the 350,000 tons needed annually to switch global car production to EVs. To match the Rough field alone as electrical storage you would need 100,000 tons of cobalt to make the batteries. On a different point, @MtB, something I was going to address from early on in this thread is the idea that hydrogen is difficult to contain because it is very small. Surprisingly, it isn't that small. The misconception arises because hydrogen is the smallest, lightest element but it is found as a molecule H2 rather than a single atom and because of the difference in the bond structure the bond between the atoms is long compared to that between carbon and hydrogen, making the molecule larger. The kinetic diameter of a hydrogen molecule is around 290picometres (pm) whereas methane is 380pm. Water is only 265pm. What that means in practice is that keeping hydrogen from leaking out of most domestic gas plumbing is no more difficult than it is for natural gas. There is a mechanism by which hydrogen can travel through metals in a way that methane can't, but it is not very quick and certainly would not create a detectable leak rate at domestic pressures. Alec
  15. Rather later than the requested 8am, but our experience is the same - we took Oates through a couple of miles of 4” thick ice last year with no issues on the epoxy - less effect than rubbing on a lock wall. Alec
  16. You are correct, I have not addressed this. I have started by trying to address misconceptions and questions where the answer is a clear-cut fact. I do not find these posts particularly easy to write for various reasons and I also do not overly enjoy it when there is either no interest in reasoned discussion or pointless sniping from the sidelines as some posters seem to want to do. Bluntly, it's my time spent typing them and I find myself thinking I would be better off spending the time doing something more worthwhile like working on bits of my boat. However, then there is polite, reasoned engagement and I find myself pulled back in to engaging with it because that is actually an enjoyable way to spend my evening. The simple answer to the energy cost question is that today, building a hydrogen powered narrowboat as a commercial proposition doesn't add up, but there are a lot of things which don't add up to start with, although they are technically feasible. But if you break down the top level challenge into individual steps, you can sometimes attack costs in one part of the chain that brings the cost down to the point where it meets a niche need. That provides a commercial return, so you move from something which is purely investment to something which can sustain an amount of commercial re-investment, and slowly you chip away at the barriers and it snowballs as each cost reduction unlocks some more niche applications until sometimes there is a breakthrough and the whole thing adds up for mass application. Two specific examples, one well known, the other very niche but I know it very well from the inside. The first is solar power. Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect in 1839 and the first patented cell design was in 1888. The first commercial cells were launched in 1955 but it was too expensive for general use so pretty much the only application was in space. They first became generally available in the 1980s but only in ultra-low power devices such as calculators and later watches because they were so expensive per W and as late as 2006 photovoltaics were regarded as too expensive for domestic installation and people installed solar thermal on their rooves instead. Then there was a step change with dedicated PV silicon foundries, cutting the cost and some significant changes in efficiency of low cost cadmium-free materials and suddenly the average boat owner can cost effectively install a few hundred watts of solar just to top up the batteries. The second is much less visible to most people as it does not have a domestic application but it relates to a particular welding technology invented in 1992 at the place where I currently work. It worked really well for aluminium, was good for copper but not cost-effective for steel because the equipment could only make a metre of weld before a very expensive component had to be changed. We worked at this around the edges through various research grants to find out why. They would generally be titled 'investigation into welding of X' and would often fail, but we would know more at the end of each grant - sometimes what not to do, sometimes which direction to go with the next project. Eventually we established what a suitable material to make the component from would be, but there was nobody who could actually make it. Roll on a decade of no activity because there was no route forward and a company built some equipment to make parts for the mining industry that happened to be in the right material and the right size. That was game-changing. We engaged with them about making the component and they agreed to have a go (around a heads of terms for a commercial licencing agreement which I was involved in thrashing out). The first ones we tested achieved over 50metres and we can now regularly do 100metres. That is game-changing for the shipbuilding industry and probably within a decade there will be a saving of years of time and tens of millions of pounds in building a large ship, which will also be more energy-efficient into the bargain. I am sure some people will feel inclined to snipe at the above examples. What has that got to do with a hydrogen narrowboat? The point is, sometimes when you break the question down, you find there are good reasons why something is fundamentally not possible - it would break the laws of physics, in which case don't waste your time trying, but sometimes you find it is a matter of cost, as it is with hydrogen, and often those costs come down over time, sometimes through deliberate work on the problem, sometimes through developments in other fields which can be transferred in. It can sometimes be a chicken and egg question and public funding is part of getting over that phase, known as the 'valley of death', though often not in a single step. I am happy to offer thoughts on where the gaps for hydrogen currently are, what is currently going on to address them and what that might mean if anyone is interested, but I do recognise that these would be predictions and may well not turn out that way so equally happy to go back to building my under-counter storage locker instead. Alec
  17. Yes, although that one was originally horse-drawn so if you revert it to original propulsion you need a rather different form of fuel! Spey is a good one to look up for an example. Kevin Kendall at Birmingham ran a very active group on hydrogen transport. Rex Harris was working on hydrogen storage at the same time, although the route he went down was not very scalable. Kevin has retired and Rex has died, so whilst the publications stand, most of the know-how has been lost. Fuel cells have been under development for well over a century. Early in my career I clearing out a lab before a move and found a poster from 1953 showing a fuel cell powered tractor. One of my sardonic colleagues said 'Fuel cells, the power of the future. Always have been, always will be' but they kept him gainfully employed until he retired. One option under serious consideration is liquid ammonia as a source of hydrogen for use on ships. It has the advantage of being relatively easy to transport (no more difficult than LNG) but it does have a limitation in that it produces NOx emissions in use. There is a piece of political signposting to watch - what does 'net zero' get suffixed with (because at the moment the answer is nothing). If it becomes 'net zero emissions' which is the ultimate aspiration then that is a very hard target but there is an intermediate of 'net zero carbon' which is a much less aggressive target. This allows NOx emissions, which allows the use of liquid ammonia and also hydrogen combustion which is far less expensive to implement. None of the above addresses the question of where the hydrogen comes from, but there are several answers to that, some more palatable than others; some short-term, some medium, some long to the point of being nothing more than aspirations at this point. Alec
  18. What you really need is a converted TCO tar boat with hydrogen in the tanks...
  19. @Tony Brooks I didn't overlook your question regarding the issues experienced in Germany. I am aware of some of them but this is a live trial so I wanted to update myself before replying. As identified, the issue is that filling slows right down at very low temperatures (below -10degC). However, this is not an inherent problem with hydrogen transfer - it is actually beneficial to fill with the hydrogen at -40degC (something which came out of the Birmingham trial) as the fuel transfer rate is significantly increased. The issue is that the filling equipment itself was not designed to cope with the temperature, which was not very clever. What this illustrates quite nicely is why it is often better to run small demonstrator trial projects where you invest a million to learn, before you invest tens of millions in a fleet of trains and then have to spend further time and money fixing the problem. Imagine for example you were considering a hydrogen powered local ferry, as a commercial vessel. It might be quite a good idea to try out various of the technologies needed in a small boat, e.g. a canal boat, to see what happens before spending the whole lot. This is actually what a lot of these demonstrator projects are about - filling in the knowledge gaps in a scaled down fashion at reduced cost. Research projects come in two basic types. Academic projects are about establishing fundamental principles. The way academics have their performance measured is a combination of funding grants won and work published, so they are actively encouraged to publish what they learn from their work but they score more points for publications the higher the quality of the journal. That means they are unlikely to publish 'know how' as it doesn't help their ranking, so this gets retained within research groups and is not easy to access unless you bring someone on board to support your own project, for which you need to give them funding. The other type is pre-competitive industrial funding. This is designed to offset the costs of a development project, typically around half the cost. The second boat would have been build under this type of project. That means the companies involved put in half the money and the other half would have been a grant, so they had to put their money where their mouth was to get the funding. Bear in mind that writing the bids for these grants is also a major exercise (ie expensive) and you don't waste your time on vanity projects - you do them because there is something you want to learn so that you can commercially exploit the knowledge. However, because it is commercial, it is also confidential between you and the funding body what you are trying to establish and what the outcomes are. As such, what the aims of the project were and whether they were met is a matter of pure speculation for anyone not involved. Alec
  20. This is a good question, which has been partially answered with good answers but there is a bit more to add, because the answer is you could do this, but there are techno-economic challenges to address alongside a practical issue. Composite tanks which are reasonably lightweight can handle 350bar. This is the approach being used for vehicle tanks. There are other options, including high strength steel wall cylinders which can handle up to 700bar. The pressure is not an issue (quite common in some industries) but they are rather heavy to move about and there would be safety concerns in a consumer setting. Metal hydride storage is a reasonable option as it allows a low operating pressure within the tank (50psi, so not much more than a car tyre) so the cylinder is intrinsically fairly safe and perhaps surprisingly the weight is not increased when you factor in the cylinder plus contents. However, there are some significant engineering challenges to manage discharge effectively. The fundamental problem becomes apparent when you consider weight vs. range. The figures are not quite correct, but roughly you would need the same weight per range as if it was diesel, so if you have a 100l tank (like we do) then you would need to lug 10 10kg cylinders on board to get the same sort of range, which would be somewhat of a pain, as well as a bit of a storage challenge. Alec
  21. The pressure difference is potentially a major component as you have identified. It's worth breaking this down though. The grid divides into three main components, National Transmission System (NTS), Local Transmission System (LTS) and the low pressure network. Most of the low pressure network has now been replaced with the familiar yellow polyethylene pipe but there are still some sections in cast iron. Within the working pressure of a few mbar positive pressure the permeation rate through the polyethylene is not notably different for a given pressure between hydrogen and methane, so the changes to that part of the network do not present an issue. The issue of mechanical joints drying out has been mentioned above but this has been addressed pragmatically for use in methane by sloshing buckets of ethylene glycol into the network which lie in pools at the lowest point and the vapour is transported in the gas stream, keeping the hemp fibres swollen. The same approach works for hydrogen. There is however a technical issue with running pure hydrogen through cast iron which did not arise with towns gas and means that either cast iron sections would need to be replaced or there would need to be a deliberate addition made to prevent the issue arising. These would have different cost implications. The question mark lies over the NTS and LTS. These are not only used for transport; they are also used for storage by pressure cycling. Parts of the LTS do date back to towns gas in areas where gasworks were remote from centres of population (notably there is one between the outskirts of Edinburgh and the centre). This does give some data about behaviour but there are knowledge gaps, particularly around pure hydrogen. It is not that the LTS and NTS pipelines cannot be used for transmission of hydrogen, more that the limits of concentration vs. pressure have not been quantified yet. This is a major exercise because the testing has to generate fatigue curves which is slow (and the better it performs the longer it takes), there are limits to acceleration factors and there are only about 10 machines in the UK which can do it (there are also a few in the US). The machines have to run in a representative environment which means high pressure hydrogen and the HSE has recently placed significant additional restrictions on operation which means the machines are very challenging to design and build. A particular issue is that one of the restrictions is allowable volume, but for test specimens to be valid they have to be of a certain size and getting the two to be mutually compatible is a huge challenge, although it has been achieved for everything asked of it so far. Once the first pass data has been generated it will define allowable operational pressure on the LTS and NTS, which will feed into use-cases. The data will have a major bearing on the financial viability of certain use-cases as if the existing grid cannot support any reasonable level of distribution that would place a further major financial barrier in the way of adoption since an entire new distribution network would be needed, whereas if it can operate at something near current pressures with no ill effects that this barrier will not arise. There is a possible intermediate position where transmission is not an issue but achieving the higher pressures needed for storage is a problem, in which case there would be a cost associated with local storage (bring back the gasometers...?) and another possible solution is to operate at a safe percentage during a transition period, but that opens a whole other can of worms around the way the other gas(es) in the mix work to achieve safe operation and are also acceptable in the context of safety. Ironically, on purely technical grounds, the best gas to mix with hydrogen to avoid issues with pipelines would be carbon monoxide, which coincidentally is why the original cast iron pipes were fine in towns gas. Alec
  22. Tony, I am not trying to be argumentative, explicitly the opposite, but Ian has decided to argue despite clearly not understanding the fundamental basis on which some aspects of the relevant technology are dependent and I am not prepared to be drawn into a pointless argument which is not based on fact. I probably feel about it in rather the same way as you do about the Liquid Moly poster. Alec
  23. I disagree. The thread above makes several erroneous statements about the difficulty and cost associated with hydrogen. It is extremely easy to take the 'it will never work' path, supported by false evidence. What actually matters is whether if you strip away the falsehoods, misconceptions etc you have a viable technology, and where that technology would then be viable. If you leave all the false barriers in place you end up with an inevitable conclusion; if you remove them, you may or may not. I have deliberately tested whether the route this thread would go down is to argue even without the facts in place. The answer is yes. Therefore there is no point that I can see in providing facts, since this is an argument based on preconceptions rather than rational logic. Alec
  24. I have quoted you directly. Not wishing to be rude, but this indicates that you fundamentally do not understand hydrogen transport. I am happy to comment on it, but not to have an argument about it - it has to start from facts. To illustrate my point, when towns gas was in use, why did both the hydrogen and the carbon monoxide reach intended destination, rather than the hydrogen being lost en-route? Why is bottled hydrogen supplied by the likes of BOC and Air Products transported in conventional steel gas cylinders, using conventional valves and fittings, without issues arising? Alec
  25. Ian, the question below is not meant as a 'mine's bigger than yours' contest, or to pick holes, but try this: Describe the mechanism of transport of hydrogen through materials, with particular reference to common pipeline materials. I can do this - I would be interested to see your answer. What I am getting at here is that the devil is in the detail, and I know the detail. Do you? If not, I would assert that the gaps in your knowledge will mean you are not sufficiently aware of the issues to avoid making invalid assumptions, particularly with regard to weighting of factors, which leads to incorrect conclusions. Alec
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.