backtop

Gadgets BMW Brings Hydrogen Power to the 7-Series
Brandon Hill (Blog) - September 12, 2006 12:03 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 76 comment(s) - last by mino.. on Sep 13 at 8:35 PM
The "Ultimate Driving Machine" becomes the "Ultimate Hydrogen Machine"

BMW has taken the wraps off its latest addition to the BMW 7-Series model range. The BMW Hydrogen 7 represents the world's first hydrogen-powered luxury performance sedan and is key to BMW's CleanEnergy strategy which strives to use advanced technology to wean customers off fossil fuels.

The BMW Hydrogen 7 features a dual-power, 260HP 12-cylinder engine which allows it to use hydrogen and gasoline power. When running on hydrogen power alone, the range of the BMW Hydrogen 7 is 125 miles. Switching over to gasoline mode brings an additional 300 miles of range. Given the added weight and complexity of the car (as well as the 12-cylinder's power downgrade to 260HP from 438HP on the 760i), performance is also down. The BMW Hydrogen 7 can go from 0-60 in 9.5 seconds (as opposed to 5.4 seconds) and features a top speed of 143MPH (down from 155MPH).

The four-seat BMW Hydrogen 7 may feature a unique powertrain, but it’s still a 7-Series at heart. It features all of the luxury touches and gadgets that make the 7-Series one of the premiere luxury sedans in the world. Features like the AdaptiveDrive anti-roll stability system, automatic climate control, heated seats for all passengers, Park Distance Control, Soft Close automatic doors, night vision and adaptive headlights are all a part of the package.

BMW first showed off the potential of its 6.0 liter V12 hydrogen combustion engine in 2004 with its H2R. That vehicle was able to reach 0-60 in just 6 seconds and had a top speed of 186MPH. The German automaker is expected to put the BMW Hydrogen 7 into production in April of 2007. Pricing hasn't been announced yet, but if you have to ask...

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
hydrogen?
By Grated on 9/12/2006 12:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
OK,
so you have that car, where to get the fuel??




RE: hydrogen?
By double007seven on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/2006 12:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
Then surely You would like to call yourself an "uneducated moron".

I suggest that you go to the patent office BEFORE you explain to us, mere mortals, how you intend to extract chemical energy from the water.

I am also excited to know how do you intend to make the water explode in the combustion engine of that car.
As I expect nuclear fussion will not be involved I am sure your solution is gona be a complete breakthrough in the chemistry.

Best regards.


RE: hydrogen?
By GhandiInstinct on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By Crank the Planet on 9/12/2006 2:56:59 PM , Rating: 3
Everybody has it wrong. Hydrogen is not as efficient in combustion as it is in a fuel cell. Yes there are cars running on water-hydrogen combustion and I was almost going to build one myself but fuel cell technology is better and greener (for all the green earth lovers out there). Combustion engines require oil for the moving parts. In a fuel cell there is an electric motor. No you won't be able to do 0-60 in 5 sec. but you can fill your tank with water which is FREE. Oil companies don't want you to hear that because if the technology becomes mainstream then they will lose a lot of revenue- about $3.00 a gallon where I am.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell is the tech of the future- it's just a little more expensive right now :p

http://www.envbike.com/


RE: hydrogen?
By tigen on 9/12/2006 5:26:18 PM , Rating: 3
Even with fuel cells you still don't fill your tank with water. Fuel cells create electricity from hydrogen. You either fill up with hydrogen or have something like methanol to create hydrogen from, not water.


RE: hydrogen?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/12/2006 6:17:05 PM , Rating: 3
LOL. Hydrogen is just gas. Anyone find it odd that Bush wanted a "hydrogen economy" when hes an oil man? Its because its doesn't exist! A modern hydrogen economy would simply be a shrouded oil market. The hydrogen made for these devices- both combustion and fuel cells needs to be made by cracking fossil fuels, which automatically releases C02, or using generated elctricity to run electrolysis on water. Even though hydrogen burns clean, or runs in a fuel cell cleanly, there is offsite pollution from either the breakdown of fuels, or generation needed to produce it. Unless its backed up by clean generation (hydro, wind, solar), it is in fact dirtier than oil... Also- fuel cells use platinum to catalyse the reaction needed to work. Prices simply will not come down, unless a new catalyst will come about. The same paradox of cleanliness exists with solar, wind, and hydro, and especially ethanol. If you'd like to argue, send me a private message, as I usually don't read old stories for the posts.... The other problems are fuel storage, transportation, and density (not to mention the fact that a fuel-cell car still runs into the same problems for storage of energy as electric: inneficient recovery and battery lifespan+density). Message me- I got lots more to say...


RE: hydrogen?
By fxnick on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: hydrogen?
By danrien on 9/12/2006 11:59:15 PM , Rating: 1
electric cars are much quicker than "mechanical" combustion engine cars. after all, all you have to do is apply electricity and the motor spins. none of that wierd cylinder crap or whatever you car folks go on about.


RE: hydrogen?
By marvdmartian on 9/13/2006 9:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can fill your tank with water which is FREE


Well, yeah.....unless it's bottled, then it's more expensive than gas!! ;)


RE: hydrogen?
By Hoser McMoose on 9/13/2006 3:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
To quote Homer (Simpson that is)

"In this house we *obey* the laws of Thermodynamics!"

Here's a quick rule to live by:

*EVERY* time you read about someone who takes water, gets power out of it and then has nothing but water as an end-product, they are *ALWAYS* 100% blatently and obviously lying. Simply put, there is NO way anyone will EVER be able to get power from water with the end result being nothing but water. In fact, the same is true for any other type of matter. This is clearly stated in the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

In fact, keeping with the second law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases), you'll have a HELL of a time getting any energy out of water. Sure you can use water to get energy from other sources (ie gravity for hydroelectric dams or heat for any steam generators), but it's not the water itself that is providing this energy. Really the only known method to actually get energy strictly from water is nuclear fusion, and perhaps fission in some extreme and very theoretical situation.

As for fuel cells, they are being widely supported mainly by those with no interest in actually solving anything. Fuel cells are 15-20 years away from market, just like they were 15-20 years ago. And guess what? In 15-20 years time, they will *STILL* be 15-20 years away from market.


RE: hydrogen?
By djm on 9/12/2006 1:08:57 PM , Rating: 1
You use electrolysis to break the covalent bonds to produce 1 part O2 and 2 parts H2. Look it up. Fusion and fission reactions do not apply in this context since they are atomic reactions rather than molecular.

The question that comes out then is if power produced and distributed from a centralized location more efficient and cleaner than burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine.

Peace.


RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By michal1980 on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By elegault on 9/12/2006 1:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
From my understanding, to get a patent you don't have to have a working prototype or process. Just the idea. Having a patent never means it will be marketed.


RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: hydrogen?
By michal1980 on 9/12/2006 2:03:31 PM , Rating: 1
the guy has a working car.

and a hydrogen tourch that cuts metal.


lemme find the link


RE: hydrogen?
By michal1980 on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: hydrogen?
By scabby on 9/12/2006 3:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
This guy's "discovery" has had holes poked through it 100 different ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen_flame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56705

Google tends to find things, ya know? Giving this Klein idiot air-time with his silly "invention" is like passing a chain letter around (or something BAD will happen to you or someone you love!). If he really had the most miraculous invention of all time that would revolutionize the automotive industry, you think he might have put it out to the field by now? How many million-dollar investors would form in a queue outside his front door? And why are there none there?...


RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By michal1980 on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By Calin on 9/13/2006 3:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol is the main component in alcoholic beverages (well, the main component only in beverages having more than 50% alcohol).
But yes, ethanol is much more corrosive than gasoline/diesel/...


RE: hydrogen?
By kkwst2 on 9/12/2006 3:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
But that is exactly the point, some believe that it actually takes more energy to harvest and convert the corn into ethanol than you actually get from the fuel. So net you've lost energy. That makes it NOT a renewable resource.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

The above link sums up the argument pretty well. I'm not saying I know they're right. I have no idea other than what I read. The calculations are certainly complicated and likely somewhat theoretical, since mass production may allow for some increase in process efficiency. However, it is clear than turning corn into ethanol is a highly inefficient use of biomass. Likening it to a solar cell is pretty silly.

I suspect that your opinion on ethanol is indeed quite humble. I think neither ethanol nor H2 are practical long-term solutions, but I would say H2 has more up-side than ethanol.

As an aside, the number you throw out for energy losses for transport of electricity are pretty off. It's generally less than 10%, and rarely significantly more than 10%. Also, on high voltage lines, where a lot of the losses take place, it's mostly capacitive rather than resistive (ie "heating wires") losses.


RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/13/2006 8:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
a little typpo correction:

"H2 is a resource by definition as a carrier"

should have been:

"H2 is a carrier by definition"


RE: hydrogen?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/12/2006 6:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
it takes tons of coal to distill ehtanol. Its a net loss of energy, not to mention the corrosion it produces- which makes it hard to store. Growing the plants also doesn't recoup the c02 you create when burning it. Also it is slightly cleaner than gasoline (which I personally do not beleive), it is still a net loss of energy, increase in pollution, and costly. In fact, the auto industry and the government had a sneaky agreement about adding e85 capabilities (message me). The e10 blend currently used almost around the whole nation is also sneaky. The refineries seemed to be foreced to add it- but they end getting helped. Ethanol's presence in a gasoline blend makes gasoline burn quicker- meaning less mileage. Also, a gallon of Ethanol has less energy than gasoline- so those two things combined= You buy more gas and get less compared to what was in the pumps 10 years ago.... (message me if you'd like to debate this)


RE: hydrogen?
By NullSubroutine on 9/13/2006 12:42:14 AM , Rating: 1
i live in iowa and sometimes south dakota. there is 10% and 15% blend you can buy. regular gas is 87 octane and costs 2.50ish a gallon. 10% ethanol (known as plus+) is 89.5 octane and costs 2.35. I havent bought 15% in a while (only seen it at few gas stations) it was 91 octane and i dont recall the price.


RE: hydrogen?
By MrDiSante on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: hydrogen?
By elegault on 9/12/2006 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
The hydrogen in the future hydrogen economy will be produced from electrolysis of water. This is not 100% efficiet so the balance of the energy must come from renewable sources like sun/wind and biomass.

Nuclear is not renewable and/or the best option, but there is considerable reserves available that will help bridge the gap.

Producing hydrogen at the small scale of a car will never happen.


RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/2006 2:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
"hydrogen in the future hydrogen economy will be produced from electrolysis of water"
Yes if such an economy will even exist.

However what you do not understand is H2 is NOT an energy SOURCE it is a CARRIER, same as electricity or lithium-ion baterries!

You get NO energy out of electrolysis of water! You just use (i.e.) 100joules of electricity to produce like 95joules of chemical energy stored as an H2. This is just a CONVERSION of energy NOT creation.

"Nuclear is not renewable and/or the best option"
No it is no renewable, but -as of now- the fission is the ONLY energy RESOURCE capable of substituting oil except coal.
In the future poeple HOPE to be able to use fusion as it is far more efficient and far less poluting technology.
Out of these three coal IS the WORST one because it egnerates the biggest amount of polution per the unit of energy produced.

FYI: one coal powerplant produces tens of times more radiatiactive polution to the environment than a simirally big nuclear one.
A sad one, but a fact.


RE: hydrogen?
By freon on 9/12/2006 3:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was:
One cannot get hydrogen out of water(by electrolysis), then use it for other chemical reaction(combustion) AND get any reasonable amount of energy out of the whole process. One cannot get hydrogen out of water(by electrolysis), then use it for other chemical reaction(combustion) AND get any reasonable amount of energy out of the whole process.
In a real model you would actually SPEND energy to do so!


Of course they can. That is exactly how the car operates.

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/index_narrowband.html?co...

"Unlimited, clean, clever.
The hydrogen cycle.
During electrolysis water is split into its components of hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is stored and the oxygen is needed in the vehicle for the combustion of the hydrogen. The combustion process generates energy and water as a waste product, which returns to the natural water cycle. And so with the aid of regenerative energy suppliers, an emission-free fuel is obtained that ensures the pleasure of driving will be retained in the future."


RE: hydrogen?
By rushfan2006 on 9/12/2006 3:43:02 PM , Rating: 3
LOL that was awesome....that guy above your post was running on and on debating about it with someone and then you just went to the BMW site directly and got the real scoop...I love it...


That's why I NEVER take the word of what I call an (I say it "double eye...e") IIE (Instant Internet Expert). Everyone is a friggin subject matter expert on 'net forums....when I'd place a bet more than half the time the case is the person probably saw a special on tv or read a single magazine article and from then on they know more than the real engineers who actually work with the stuff..

;)

Oh well at least its entertaining...


RE: hydrogen?
By msva124 on 9/12/2006 4:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
It certainly is, but you are the punchline.


RE: hydrogen?
By rushfan2006 on 9/13/2006 12:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It certainly is, but you are the punchline.


Well now I'm just laughing even harder knowing how much you gut your panties in a wad over a few comments on an Internet board..your type cracks me up to no end...THANKS! ;)



RE: hydrogen?
By tigen on 9/12/2006 5:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
hint 1: the electrolysis they mention isn't done in the car
hint 2: electrolysis costs energy


RE: hydrogen?
By freon on 9/12/2006 6:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Right.. They have a fueling station for hydrogen, created by electrolysis of water, used for combustion in the engine, and it certainly results in some form of reasonable energy in the end.

Electrolysis obviously costs energy, but the amount of energy required to generate hydrogen is so minimal you can do it in your kitchen with a battery.

In theory, electricity could be generated with the same water being used to get the hydrogen.


RE: hydrogen?
By mindless1 on 9/12/2006 9:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
As already mentioned, no. Merely being able to get a little hydrogren from a battery in your kitchen is not sufficient quantity to sustain conversion let alone power a car. If it were, the energy crisis would be over already.


RE: hydrogen?
By djm on 9/13/2006 1:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, I think my point got lost. YES, it takes energy to create hydrogen from water through electrolysis. And yes, you don't recuperate all the energy from the hydrogen compared to what it took for electrolysis. The original question was where to get hydrogen from, and the answer was to use water as its source. The hydrogen (probably stored in a fuel cell) to produce electrical energy (probably through a catalyst membrane to produce a flow of electrons, similar to simply burning the hydrogen). Thus, water is not your fuel. Your fuel is whatever the power station uses (hydro, fossil fuel, fission, wind, geothermal, etc...). The water is simply part of the energy distribution from the station to your car. Hence, for this hybrid car to be beneficial, the inefficiency in producing the power and delivering it to your car (station, electrolysis, electricity from H2) has to be lower than that of an internal combustion engine as well of the overall pollution (car vs power station).

As for nuclear reactions, I'm merely pointing out that getting H2 from H20 is a chemical reaction so your use of the terms 'fission' and 'fusion' do not apply. You would need to get an entirely different element, such as the case of a deuterium-tritium fusion reaction: 2H + 3H -> (n + 14.1MeV) + (4He + 3.5MeV)

Hope that clears things up. Peace bro.


RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/13/2006 8:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, as mine sarcastic tone did.

My first reply to the double007seven post was PURELY theorethical just to prove the stupidity of the reasoning in his post.

Peace too, I knew we had the same view on the physics involved from the start.
I just tried to make clear your reaction to my intentionally purely theorethical claims by resoning of real world was off. At least in my view.

The firstly used unclear term "fussion" was also just a typpo from fusion. I'm not a native EN so an unintentional typpo slips by more often.

The double007seven post was stating one would have just another tank for water in the car as a source of hydrogen - and that was the claim I reacted to.

On H2 and Fusion:
This IS possible. (H2 --> H+H --> He [too lazy to digg the eV number])
It happens in the stars all the time ... IMO U know that.
In practice, of course, your reaction would be used.

I used the requirement of a practically impossible use of a chain H2O --> H2 --> 2H --> He (hence fusion) on such a small scale to prove the double007seven's statement wrong.

The original intention was to point out the stupidity of a claim "a car could use H2O as a fuel".

Best regards.


RE: hydrogen?
By danrien on 9/12/2006 11:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
theres so much irony in that statement..... nah i wont touch it.


RE: hydrogen?
By Fenixgoon on 9/12/2006 12:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
i was just about to ask about where to buy fueld =P

and how to store it? liquid hydrogen exists at -243C, IIRC


RE: hydrogen?
By Madellga on 9/12/2006 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 1
This is a very valid question and nobody is addressing this today (as far as I know).

I'm not talking about the H2 stations to fill your car, but the key question is: where do you get the energy needed to produce H2 that will replace the fossil fuels?

These "demonstration cars" show us what the technology can do, but the biggest challenge of all is to produce H2 in the quantities we need. Sure, there is plenty of water in the planet, but you need eletricity to make H2 from it. And where is the eletricity coming from? Sure not from solar, wind or any other "clean" alternative - you just can't get enough of it (at least with today's technology). In the short term, we would need a lot of nuclear powerplants (to produce the electricity).

One better and more viable alternative is alcohol. You can use as fuel (as some countries already do), it is "green" because it is made from plants (it is a closed cycle, the CO2 produce in the combustion is going to be used by growing back the plants to produce it) and you can get it anywhere (without nuclear waste) using current infrastructure.

Alcohol can be also the "body" that will bring H2 into those hydrogen based cars, this is the concept behind fuel cells.


RE: hydrogen?
By cgrecu77 on 9/12/2006 1:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
ethanol also requires electricity (or some other energy form). Short of natural resources any fuel requires energy to create. The advantage of H2 over oil is it doesn't pollute and it's virtually unlimited as opposed to oil which is approaching the end of the line ...


RE: hydrogen?
By mino on 9/12/2006 1:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
>"Short of natural resources any fuel requires energy to create."
Ethanol produced from plants is a renewable NATURAL resource.

In case of a use of C2H5O as an energy carrier:
to paraphrase:
>The advantage of ETHANOL over oil is it doesn't pollute and it's virtually unlimited as
>opposed to oil which is approaching the end of the line ...

Your whole point is kinda screwed because you compared H2-(energy CARRIER) to oil(energy SOURCE).


Why not
By therealnickdanger on 9/12/2006 12:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
Keep the existing engine and toss in those 160HP-per-wheel electric motors off the new hybrid Mini... I know it's no where near that simple, but you get my point.

Paying over 80K for a super slow, underpowered vehicle that probably gets only marginally better MPG? LOL




RE: Why not
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/12/2006 12:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
The 760i starts at $111,500. This is sure to be well north of that.


RE: Why not
By double007seven on 9/12/2006 12:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Can't put a price on technology. If nobody ever invested $$ into new technology where would we be today?


RE: Why not
By mino on 9/12/2006 1:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
H2 combustion engine - if it indeeed uses one - is not the technology of the future.
It is the technology of the past as someone allready pointed out.


RE: Why not
By rushfan2006 on 9/12/2006 12:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly...I wouldn't be surprised if its 150k.

Which leads to my second point....the folks who make up the market that can actually afford $120,000 - $150,000 vehicles, trust me they have plenty of money to throw around. So I wouldn't be shocked to actually see them sell well. After all millionaries rarely own just one or two vehicles.

I guess once you get so rich its like what else fun do you spend your money on ...especially if you are a guy......cars!



I guess I must be the only one
By Burning Bridges on 9/12/2006 1:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
who thinks the word "sedan" just sounds sooo stupid.

Saloon ftw!!

heh




RE: I guess I must be the only one
By tigen on 9/12/2006 5:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
saloon? you mean those places in western movies with the swinging doors where they drink whiskey and play poker?

[F. salon, from French salle a large room, a hall, of German or Dutch origin; cf. OHG. sal house... L. solum ground. cf. sole of the foot, soil ground, earth]

n. a room or establishment where alcoholic drinks are served over a counter

At least "sedan" has roots in a form of transportation!


rich people
By indoteenz on 9/12/2006 8:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
If i can afford a 7 series, why would i care getting a lower performance car. I would stick to the traditional way.




RE: rich people
By mindless1 on 9/12/2006 9:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the obscenely rich actually have a conscience, though it is insufficient, can be distracted by token destures like a greener car.


Hydrogen vs. Ethanol
By casket on 9/13/2006 12:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
"You use electrolysis to break the covalent bonds to produce 1 part O2 and 2 parts H2. Look it up."

"One cannot get hydrogen out of water(by electrolysis), then use it for other chemical reaction(combustion) AND get any reasonable amount of energy out of the whole process."
-- The problem with Electrolysis, is that the energy used to create hydrogen is greater than the energy created by burning the H2 that you just created. This reduction in energy means you actually have to burn more fossil fuels by using hydrogen. Yuck.

I don't see Hydrogen as the answer, until the process of Photosynthesis is completely understood.
*************

Ethanol is nice. Sugar Ethanol(Brazil) is supposedly 8x more efficent than corn ethanol.

E85 isn't as bad as some here have said. In brazil Ethanol has a better Mile/Dollar ratio than Gas.




RE: Hydrogen vs. Ethanol
By mino on 9/13/2006 8:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Just to back up a bit the wording used in this sentence quoted by you:
"AND get any reasonable amount of energy out of the whole process."

This wording could be wrongly interpreted as if I stated "one could get a little energy out of the pure cycle of electrolysis->combustion". Of course, one cannot.

I reffered to "the whole process" which included the thermal energy and the phase energy. Like if the fuel is gas hot water and a waste liquid cold water, one gets some energy out of the whole process - the difference in thermal energy of reactants and products.

The wording in my sentence was just a safeguard to somebody's calculations claiming that in his (camouflagued) hot->cold situation one gets some energy.

An overly complicated, inappropriatelly used and purely hypotetical one, indeed.


Eh...
By GhandiInstinct on 9/12/2006 12:33:10 PM , Rating: 1
Where's the MPG? Where's their price? A bit of important detail missing perhaps?

Also, I don't see a reason why any of the 7 series consumers(mostly wealthy males) would be appealed by this, it's nothing short of a scam for them.




RE: Eh...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/12/2006 12:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's not supposed to be released until April. BMW has plenty of time to work out the details/pricing.


Why not use a gun engine?
By Engine of End on 9/12/2006 2:54:45 PM , Rating: 3
http://pesn.com/2006/05/02/9500266_Gun_Engine/

Yeah, a 200+ MPG engine capable of using any fuel. Wonder why no one is jumping on that bandwagon...




.
By semo on 9/12/2006 6:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "Ultimate Driving Machine" becomes the "Ultimate Hydrogen Machine"
what does that mean? perhaps now that hydrogen is involved in powering this car instead of petrol/diesel/whatever, you hydrogen it instead of drive it?

why do people care what propels their vehicles so much and if they care so much why are fossil fuels the preference. the only advantage i can think of is the capacity of the reservoirs because with a 60 litre tank you can go for 300-700 miles without refueling but a 60 litre battery can't compete (especially in weight). and let's not talk about costs because internal combustion engines using fossil fuels have been in development for more than a century... of course it's the cheapest option today.

electric cars have been around for at least 50 years but they haven't taken off yet. too bad these days electric cars are made by morons that make them too small, too cute, too ugly or paint them all green. i don't care about electric cars' "green" credentials; i'm more interested in their technical specs. for example electric motors have more power at low rmp than internal combustion engines which makes them a lot better suited for city commuting.




BMW rules
By Randum on 9/13/2006 12:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think we can all agree, I'd rather be driving this car than a civic hybrid....end of story.




Could this be vaporware?
By Unibrow on 9/13/2006 5:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Could it? Could it?




.
By JaredExtreme on 9/12/2006 12:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure this will be very reliable.




RE: .
By jskirwin on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
First Post !
By shady3005 on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: First Post !
By shady3005 on 9/12/2006 1:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
oopsie .. i though inverse order wud show my post at top !
i am a daam fool ...


RE: First Post !
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: First Post !
By mino on 9/13/2006 8:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
And most of my posts on the comments system positioning are far more of a mess than the system itself ;)


The comment system
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: The comment system
By mino on 9/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: The comment system
By mino on 9/12/2006 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 1
Well at least I thought I did.

As of now, I do have no idea on the system which determines the positioning of the posts.

Just a mess, as I wrote above.


RE: The comment system
By mino on 9/12/2006 1:45:48 PM , Rating: 1
I GOT IT!

IMHO the time used to position the post is (somehow)derived form a local time on poster's PC => if someone posted on 12.13 BUT its time was 1hr skewed, the script allocates the position of 13.13 but DISPLAYS the original time of 12.13.

IMHO is the reason for the screwup.


RE: The comment system
By mino on 9/12/2006 2:20:01 PM , Rating: 1
IMHO the system is screwed up. End of debate.
No logic in here,
Spoc would be embarrased :)


RE: The comment system
RE: The comment system
By mino on 9/13/2006 7:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm kinda daily reader here.

Even so, didn't spot that article at all. My shame.

To finish that off - the new system is a too complex one and thus a reader cannot easily calculate the positioning. I like simple and transparent systems so I do not like this one (from the complexity side).
Otherwise the change is a clearly progresive one, so let the time tell.

I'm sorry for a bit harsh commnets above, I got a bit too frustrated at the time from my inability to understand the system.

Best regards.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki