Kohai_Khaos

700 bar / 50 K = x / 293 K (room temperature) x = 4102 bar. Please, never let this stuff heat up. Ever. Keep your car charged at all times. I will admit to having no idea how much energy you will be spending keeping that heat away, but you will need electricity at all times, that's for sure. Seeing as you seem to know more about this actual field than me though, I'll just assume that whatever they do, the tank will be built strong enough to deal with this. In fact, built to deal with a bit more, at least 4353 bar (what the pressure should be at 100 F if I pretend that hydrogen is an ideal gas again, a lovely summer day in many places). I guess we'll be using that 10x rating tank. Of course, now you're giving people hoses that spray high-pressure hydrogen (since you will need to at least exceed 700 bar to get it to flow into the tank, rather than out, at least as far as I know. Unless there's a way to transfer gas from a low-pressure area to a high-pressure one, and I'd love to hear it) at cryogenic temperatures at the gas station. I mean, sure, I was suggesting 1350 bar hoses, but at least the gas coming out of them wouldn't flash freeze human beings. Unless you intend the user to wait around, slowly putting in gas, reaching 700 bar, and waiting for the gas to cool down via whatever cooling system you use (you do intend to be capable of maintaining this 50 K, right? I can't do the math for how much power is going into that job whatsoever, since it depends on how quickly the heat dissipates from the tank.), filling it up to 700 bar again, and waiting for it to cool again, and so on. I would love to just calculate just how high into the air I can spray hydrogen with a hose at 700 bar. I think it would be the most amazing thing ever to see what kind of stuff we're really dealing with. I mean, will the hydrogen moving through the air break the sound barrier? That'd be the most amazing thing ever. Also, thank you for using the phrase "critical point" because nobody ever bothered to teach me even the goddamn phrase, which makes me rather annoyed. Very nice bit of knowledge there. You did spur me on to go looking and I found a phase diagram, and apparently I was even wrong about what state the hydrogen I was 'anticipating' being at. If this is accurate, and I can't exactly know if it is because I couldn't find anything to really compare it to...the hydrogen at 1350 bar and at room temperature would have been flirting a little close to the line with solid hydrogen, though my eyes can't guesstimate exactly how close. But yeah, it looks like the stuff at around the numbers you're saying is in that critical area. I don't know enough to comment any further on that particular bit of physics. See, if I try to do math outside of my league, it encourages people to come by and actually teach me what the hell I'm doing. Uhm, how about gasoline, with its lovely density of 0.71 kg/L. Specific energy of 12.431 kWh/kg. After efficiency, say, 25%: 3.108 kWh/kg. Hydrogen has a specific energy of about 33.3055556 kWh/kg (I'm too lazy to do this math yet again, feel free to correct my number if I seem off, I just grabbed the number off the web). After efficiency, 19.983 kWh/kg. This means 6.43 kg of gasoline matches 1 kg of hydrogen. You'll need a bit more hydrogen, about 34 kg. Diesel has an ever so slightly lower specific energy than gasoline, but diesel engines can hit efficiencies of 50%, which would mean you'd need about double that amount of hydrogen to match a high-efficiency diesel engine with a 60 gallon tank (plus some more, because diesel's higher density means it holds about 11% more energy per gallon over gasoline). You're still doing better per kg, but how about our 0.081 kg/L? 418.5627 L for that 34 kg of hydrogen. That's a 110.573 gallon tank with our high-density hydrogen. Nearly double the volume of the gasoline tank. Matching the diesel engine, without accounting for its higher energy per gallon, just its efficiency increase, that's at least 220 gallons. That's 3.67 times the volume of our initial tank. I guess it's lucky we're talking about 60 gallon tanks, which you should only really find on "small" big trucks, and bigger models already pack things like 200 and 500 gallon tanks. Then again, Lestat does keep saying that bigger vehicles are what's going to be ideal for hydrogen. So the bigger and bigger the more profitable we get here, right? Overall, tank sizes with hydrogen will about double in the case of gasoline, and will quadruple with diesel. This is without accounting for insulation and cooling that you will probably want to use on a hydrogen tank. Though, I do thank you for showing that a midsized car probably won't be carrying enough hydrogen to kill you or knock you out. Impair you, maybe if all the hydrogen drained into the cabin, which probably means the car's not working anymore. Minor objection: It does add mass. The mass of whatever tank you're storing the water in (as well as the mass of the water you're storing), unless you intend to reroute water out of a radiator to do this. Though, that'd actually be kind of cool. Having the water that would otherwise be completely waste go to the radiator tank, so that at least some of it gets put to good use. In emergencies, this water could be re-electrolyzed with some electricity from a socket or something, and then used to run the car enough to get it going somewhere. Thinking about it, this is a cool idea, though it does add a bit more complexity to the system.

Guys, how about I just show him every single step, because I don't think he quite gets what the units have to do with it. 500 L/s 10^6 W Watch me do magic here. 1000000 W = 1000000 J/s 1000000 J/s / 500 L/s Okay, take the numbers: 2000 Now take the units: J/s / L/s. Let's simplify. J/s * s/L = J/L 2000 J/L. That's how much energy that is delivered to each liter. This is because the amount of work depends solely on how much water is going through at once, and how much power is supplied, as that determines how much work is supplied to each liter. Notably, this ratio is determined by the size of the hole through which the water exits, however, knowing how big the hole is is not required if you already know the throughput and the power (because then you know their ratio already, and the only thing that matters is that ratio). When you play with infinities, things break down because you hit a mathematically singularity here, and things don't work right at all then. Just know that larger holes require less power to force the same throughput as smaller holes. Moving on, 1 Liter of water is also 1 kg of water, due to its density. So, 2000 J/kg. dU = m * g * h. Or dU/m = g * h Assume 1 kg of water, it doesn't matter, because it instantly simplifies out. 2000J/kg * 1 kg/1 kg = 9.81 * h. h = 203.87.

The first one notes a positive overall change at a certain range of radiation, and you will note that the second one sticks to that range-ish with its radiation dosage. This is because that is just where it happens to be the positive point. I can't tell how big the scale of the first paper is, however, since they don't seem to note it anywhere, so for all I know that could have a depressingly low sample size that has to deal with chance getting in the way (the second study notes that only about 1-5% of the ones they made actually had mutations at all, and not many of those were favorable; it takes a huge amount of corn to get the mutations you want. This is still much faster than non-irradiated breeding.) But I'm not a farmer, so what do I know. Well, I do know that you will need a lot of corn.

Can anyone else double check my 1350+ bars figure (for Boyle's law; logically, it's gonna be a bit higher experimentally because compressibility starts getting in the way) for that 0.081 kg/L number? I don't want to be too scaremongery, but I feel somewhat concerned about the simply insane numbers that that sort of thing bursting brings up (the rest of that post is some of the most frightening numbers I've ever seen). I'd prefer to know that I'm at least semi-accurate on my numbers here. I couldn't find any experimental sources on what the pressure should be, after all.

Wait a minute...that last one. Hydrogen at 700 bar has a density of a measly 0.042 kg/L. That thing quotes new tanks at 0.081 kg/L...by Boyle's law, this stuff is at 1350 bar. And you're going to tell me that it's safe. Notably, this is about 10 g/L more dense than liquid hydrogen. Now, I won't say this is impossible, since we're dealing with extremely high pressures that cause some deviations form ideal gas laws like Boyle's, but it's rather important to note that at such pressures, we should expect the compressibility factor to generally exceed 1, so you generally need even more pressure to achieve the desired density. About 10 g/L before you hit this density, however, the hydrogen should liquify simply due to the pressure. At that point, raising the density becomes extremely challenging; compressing liquids is an insane task, between 1 and 681 atm, water has gone from 1 kg/L to 1.03319089 kg / L. a 3% change. Meanwhile, the numbers I'm seeing are people pulling at a lovely 14% compression *after* liquifying it. That's on top of the insane pressure it took to get it liquid. This isn't some scuba tank exploding. You want a lightweight tank, fine. 1/10 of a meter of steel, with a fine density of 8,050 kg/m3. That's 805 kg/m2 of tank. If a 1 meter by 1 meter section of tank blew off, and had only a tenth of a second's acceleration from the original pressure of our lovely 1350+ bar gas (135000000 N/m2), then our piece will be flying off at quite a lovely speed. How lovely? a = F/m; a = 135000000/805 = 167701.86335403726708074534161491 m/s2 In a tenth of a second, that thing's up at 16,770 m/s. How about 1/100 of a second? Still moving at nearly mach 5 here. 1/1000 of a second gets us down to 167.7 m/s, but let's not forget that this chunk of tank weighs over half a ton. Anything in the way is dying. Everything gets the same kinetic energy off of this, so lighter things fly off faster, heavier things fly off slower. Well let's say you just got hit head on by the airwave. A human being is about 1.75 m, width, I'll give you, say, about 0.254 m (10 in). If you were a rectangle, that'd be about 0.4445 m2, of surface area. I can relate force with the inverse square law here (since it's a pressure wave propagating from what is assumed to be a point source), so F/A at any point = P/r2, thanks to how pressure waves work. F = PA/r2 = (135000000 N/m2)(0.4445 m2)/r2 F = 60007500 N / r2, say, 100 meters away (r2 = 10000), you get struck with 6000.75 N. This is just the pressure wave's force on you if you're facing the explosion when it happens and nothing happens to get in the way (so you get a bit less because there is, in fact, air in the way, but this is a scary number, seeing as it's enough to send an average human, at 62 kg, flying off with just under 10 Gs, at a lovely 96.79 m/s2) A tank of any size exploding is going to be catastrophic. You don't need a big explosion because the pressure is just that damn high, and you've got people REALLY close to this thing. It's basically a bomb you've got in your car, ready to go off whenever it wants, that's hard to access and assess any damage on. You're probably lucky that at the point you've got these things working, there's basically no way for changes in temperature to cause any more compression than their already is, because otherwise these things would explode all the time due to their pressure exceeding their limits when large temperature changes occur. Do we even have mechanical seals capable of dealing with this? Do we really? Actually, the hydrogen will not be diffuse. You're carrying enough in the car to drive around with, after all; a simply massive amount. "diffuse" doesn't even mean what you think it means, it means that something is spread out over a large area. Hydrogen is diffuse if you have it at 0.5 bar, because there's not much of it in a large volume. But hydrogen at 1 bar is no more diffuse than air at 1 bar, though they have different masses. The problem is also not extracting the O2 from the car, but the fact that the H2 increases the amount of gas in the car, resulting in a lower concentration of O2. Say I've got 100 kg of air in a container (for those at home, that's 81.63 m3, a midsized car only has an interior area of about 3.37 m3). The concentration of O2 is about 20.9%, so I've got 20.9 kg of O2 in there. If I add 25 kg of pure hydrogen to it, I've got 125 kg of stuff in, and only 20.9 kg of O2, I've now got 16.72% concentration. At that concentration, your mental state is impaired. This is a very bad thing for someone driving a car. Say I add 100 kg of pure hydrogen instead though. That brings concentration down to 10.45%, people start getting nauseous and losing consciousness around there. For the midsized car, by the way, the division factor is like, 24.2. So 2 kg of pure hydrogen getting into the cabin is more than enough to impair the driver, and 5 kg is enough to knock people out. You really, really don't want a leak into the cabin. I like the "An explosion cannot occur in a tank or any contained location that contains only hydrogen." blatant lie. Take a 100 bar tank at 0 C. This is what the tank's rated for, and it will burst at 20% over that. Heat the tank to 100 C. Watch the tank burst well before that because the pressure at 100 C is 136.61 bar. It doesn't matter what was in the tank in the least bit. You exceeded its pressure rating just through basic ideal gas laws.

A fine enough intention, but there are some issues here. 1. Show me some studies. 2. The reason ionizing radiation causes changes to the biochemistry of living things on a real scale, such as cancer, is because it causes mutations. Every one of the issues caused by radiation is due to negative mutations. It's entirely possible for radiation to cause positive mutations, though it's comparatively uncommon, which is why you do this with large amounts of plants to set off a trait you want, and then try to breed out any negative side effects from the population. People already do this, actually. They've been doing this far longer than GMOs were a thing. Since the 1920s, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

Okay, I figured out why some of my numbers felt really off, especially when looking at places giving numbers for the energy density of hydrogen; all the stupid sources in the world can't bother to label as g/mol when I ask for molar masses. I want standard units, and that means a kg. 0.00201588 kg/mol, so my energy density math in regards to how much hydrogen you need is off by 1000. I'll admit that much.

Solar panels are indeed heavy (and expensive, those 46% panels I quoted haven't gotten out of being experimental things yet, because so very expensive to make), in the 10 kg/m2 range for ones put on houses, but how about I be nice, and give you the ~77 W/kg that we get in the ones we send to space. That's about 6 kg/m2, assuming the ones going to space even had the efficiency we're talking about here, which has only been demonstrated in the lab. On the Aeroscraft, that's 64.008 * 35.9664 * 6 = 13,812.8239872 kg of solar panels for the power numbers I had up earlier, if it was a large rectangle in the sky. This is that 1 MW of power generation at some of the higher loads you can expect. You're going to want a fuel cell to store 1/3 of the 1,058,983.172352 * 16 = 16,943,730.757632 Wh you'll be producing with 16 hours of daylight so that you can keep the same speeds and such during the 8 hours of night (unless you intend to not be useful at nighttime). So we're storing 5,647,910.252544 Wh at minimum. That's 20,332,476.909158 kJ, and the enthalpy of formation for water is -285.8 kJ/mol, which is all I need because H2 and O2 have enthalpies of formation of 0. The mass of H2, which is needed on a 1 mol:1 mol ratio with the water produced, is 2.01588 kg/mol Time for some crazy math: 20,332,476.909158 kJ / -285.8 kJ/mol * 2.01588 kg/mol = 142,284.652968 kg of hydrogen need to be kept in some kind of storage to do this. If you were crazy enough to put it in the balloon, it would need to stretch an extra 116,150.737117 m3 as the day went on to remain neutrally buoyant at sea level. Which will be entertaining for a balloon that's only 64.008 * 35.9664 * 17.0688 m in size (39,294.7217 m3, yes, the hydrogen would triple the size of the airbag, I doubt that the aircraft would work if you did this, at least not realistically). Additionally, even if you did store the hydrogen in the balloon (and therefore avoid having to deal with it literally weighing you down and taking up a chunk of payload), you still have to deal with the water when you make it. If you plan to attempt to electrolyze it back during the day, that'll be 1,281,648.93146 kg of water you need to store in the interim. This is why you don't do the electrolysis in an aircraft: the water is stupidly heavy. I'm not even accounting for the mass of whatever tankage is holding this, or anything else. This is just your fuel. Unless you intend to be grounded at night, you cannot expect to do this so easily. To contrast, a Boeing 747, because might as well stick with one plane today, generally carries 144,870.2 kg of fuel. Oh, sure, it's 4 engines weigh up at 15,620 kg, somewhat more than all of the solar panels...but those engines also produce anywhere from 60 to 200 times as much power, depending on velocity. The mass of the solar panels is directly related to the amount of power they produce, so it's not exactly like there's some cutoff point where the panels start outstripping these combustion engines on a pound-for-pound bases, except maybe for really, really small things. You do not save any real amount of fuel weight, and unless you are dumping the water (and therefore no longer need solar panels anyway), you actually end up weighing a lot more than a Boeing. If you dump the water, however, you lose your ability to just stay in the air with no need for anything like refueling, and you're back to "Might as well use jet fuel or diesel again because it would give us more horsepower anyway and the infrastructure for its supply is already there". Let me put it this way: Filling up the Boeing with a full load of fuel costs $77,996.45. This is enough fuel to fly 9,800 km (its maximum range), and the jet's maximum speed is 955 km/h. Do a little math, the minimum amount of time that the plane can stay in the air with that fuel is ~10.26 hours. Filling up your lovely little airship with enough hydrogen to run for 8 hours at about 333.3 kW is gonna be costly, especially right now, with the supply as low as it is. There's no real current price set on hydrogen (not much of a market, after all), however, the Worldwide Aero Corporation is not an energy company or in the business of making hydrogen. This leaves them to likely be purchasing their hydrogen from someone else, at prices ranging from $2.20/kg to $3.08/kg: $313,026.24 to $438,236.73. If produced on-site, for about $0.70/kg, $99,599.26. For not even enough fuel to last as long in the air as the Boeing, while running with somewhere along the lines of 180 to 300 times less power. Its range is also, I might add, significantly less than the Boeing's, which means it isn't even getting farther out than the Boeing for that money. It's slower than the Boeing, with even the quoted 120 knots (which is for the engines with a lot more horsepower than what you're offering in the solar situation), so much so that in the time it takes for the Aeroscraft to get somewhere, the 747 can fly there, fly back, fly there again, and already be home again when the Aeroscraft finally gets to the destination (Boeing cruising speed is a respectable 481 knots). So the per-mile cost of fuel is higher for the Aeroscraft, while it's still so slow that a plane can fly back and forth enough times that any difference in payload is back in the plane's favor. So tell me, should we go with the full fuel cell cycle, trying to recycle hydrogen into water and back again? Or should we just pump in hydrogen? Because neither one is economical. That's kinda why the people running the company aren't pushing for a hydrogen-powered Aeroscraft, but one powered by traditional fuel. "There's something wrong with your math, but I won't bother checking right now. Pushing you off works fine to get you to go away."

Been watching this for a while, saw this, felt like it was worth my time. Okay, so let's see what happens if I do the math, and show everyone each step and each assumption made. For a truly massive airship, 1 km by 300 m, you have a total area when looked at from above of something less than 300,000, dependent on just how you curve the shape of the balloon. Since I can't predict this, I'll be generous and give you the full rectangular area. I'll be even more generous, I'll give you some of the best solar panels on the market right now, to cover the entire roof of the thing. ~46% efficiency. I'll be even more generous, I'll give you 1000 W/m2 of solar insolation, despite your likely location and the fact that you only get that much energy per square meter at around noontime on a clear day in equatorial regions during the warmest part of the year. 300000 * 0.46 * 1000 = 138,000,000 W Okay, I had to go through some work for a comparison, but I'm going to compare this thing's engine to a Boeing 747's, a plane with a maximum payload of 154 tons, sadly not quite as much a heavy lifter as our little airship, but no matter. Here's the annoying thing about jet engines, they measure their output via thrust, in kN. I want watts. So let's take a Boeing's 4 JT9D engines (193,000 N), and see what we get right after takeoff, and at cruising speed. Power = Force * velocity Minimum takeoff speed for a fully loaded Boeing is about 180 km/h, so 80.5556 m/s. 80.5556 * 193000 * 4 = 62,188,923.2 W Okay, so we've respectfully doubled it's wattage at takeoff, but what about when we're at cruising speed? Cruising: 893 km/h, so 248.056 m/s. 248.056 * 193000 * 4 = 191,499,232 W Oh. Well, now it's gotten a lot better than the absolute best we could hope for with this blimp... Oh, and don't forget: This blimp has a lot more drag than that Boeing. Having that much less power is a big issue for it in the speed game. The simple fact of the matter is that you are not going to be running for free off your little fuel cell and some solar panels. If you even tried it, this thing would never keep up; you have to cut its power supply by more than half to account for the fact that no only are you charging its power storage so that it can continue flying in a controlled fashion overnight, but also to account for the fact that the shape of the blimp will *not* allow for that full area of power collection, both due to loss of area and poor angles on the part of the power cells, but also the fact that you will not always have a noontime sun directly overhead, and you're not going to always be flying in equatorial regions in the summer. Your average numbers are in the range of 300-400 W/m2, bringing you down to not even the takeoff power of a Boeing. Then I remember I should bother calculating the Aeroscraft's power supply, so with it's lovely 64.008 x 35.9664 m size, it gets an amazing 1,058,983.172352 W. With solar power, we have turned this airship into a 1 MW engine. A P51-Mustang is stronger than a solar-powered Aeroscraft under more than ideal conditions. You're not going solar, and you're not going self-sufficient on this thing. So stop pretending that this thing is going to be powered by anything other than an actual fuel supply.

Oblers' Paradox is basically the argument that all the people arguing against the possibility of an infinite universe are referring back to; I referred to it as the "starlight paradox" in my post above, and pointed out how it's irrelevant to the discussion of a universe with infinite space.

I love how the people in this thread talking about the starlight paradox here are arguing that the universe must be finite in space because it cannot be both infinite in space and backwards in time, while the people honestly asking if the universe could possibly be infinite are questioning purely about whether or not the universe can be infinite in space, without any question in regards to time, and in fact some of them have mentioned accepting that the universe had a beginning a finite amount of time in the past. The starlight paradox is only a paradox if space is infinite, the amount of matter in the universe is infinite, and one of the following is true: 1, that light travels at an infinite speed, going from source to destination with 0 time elapsing. This one is patently and demonstrably false, so it's not a concern. Or 2, that the universe extends infinitely backwards in time; this is a minority belief in modern times, and goes directly against even the layman's idea of the big bang theory. Oh, and by the way, even if the universe were infinite in size and extended infinitely back into time and light moved instantaneously from source to destination, that alone would not make the starlight paradox matter. Because you also need an infinite amount of matter to make up your infinite number of stars. It is not impossible for the universe to not be homogenous overall, nor does the lack of matter's presence make space stop being space. The assumption that the universe is homogenous in composition on large scales is just that: an assumption. If anyone here can bother to explain how the universe cannot be infinite in space while having a finite amount of time in its past, feel free to do so. But the starlight paradox has zero relevance to the given situation. I would love to hear this explanation, but I've never heard anyone actually give one. Yes, the observable universe is finite. This is because time extends back finitely, therefore limiting the distance we can see into space (or everything past that is redshifted out of our view, of course, or there's just no matter out past that point). But that's not the question being asked, now is it? EDIT: And yes, I understand that the universe might be curved, rather than flat, and that would allow for a finite universe with no boundaries, but that's also not the question. Since we don't know whether or not it's curved, flat, or some other shape, or if there are any boundaries at the "edge", we can't exactly go "No, it's not possible to be infinite." just because it is possible for it to be finite.

You forgot to account for the fact that at a dedicated electrolysis facility, which is what you'd want for this perfectly "ideal" hydrogen supply for your fuel, you'd also be dealing with the same 6.6% transmission loss and, the same loss from the renewable plants, and the same pollution from fossil fuel plants, as you would from a battery-charging source. If the renewable plants are storing their energy in hydrogen fuel cells and this is more efficient than gigantic batteries, then your stated efficiencies for their storage losses for electrical energy are clearly flawed. Their storage losses are going to be identical, because they are the same facility whether they send out the power as a hydrogen-oxygen mix or as electrical energy. Then we can realize something else: the price of getting the fuel mixture to the fuel station is not simply the cost of electrolyzing the water. This is why accounting for the cost of electrolysis and temporary storage for the hydrogen car, while caring for the transmission losses for the electric one, is truly nonsensical. When you deliver the hydrogen to the station, it is either by direct pipeline or by a truck with a large, pressurized tank. This tank has a limited size, and as others have pointed out, hydrogen, while being very energy-dense when it comes to mass, has a rather low volumetric energy density (you need a much larger volume to contain an equal amount of energy, basically, and the main limitation on these tank sizes is volume at this point). Both of these introduce further losses to the system, because you are either constantly building these expensive, insulated pipelines that aren't even economical on this scale with high-density fuel that doesn't have issues with boiloff, or you're delivering it by a truck that, by the way, needs to be fueled, which means it needs an extra-large fuel tank, further cutting into the volume of hydrogen that you can transport. Your transport, and distribution losses for hydrogen, just in the form of it boiling off into the air, account for an estimated 10% losses eventually, when we master the art of it. Electrical transport and distribution losses, as you've said, are 6.6%, right now. Tell me again, how is 10% better than 6.6% loss? Then again, you do ridiculous things like here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...=1#post1799538 The article, http://www.nature.com/news/1998/030609/full/news030609-14.html that you link here literally confirms that it's an ozone-depleting chemical that will worsen ozone depletion if we move to it. I don't know if you just don't know how to read, but can you try reading the things you post before posting them? It even says that your transportation and storage leaks alone are estimated to reach 10%...right now, they're a lot higher in this regard. There are other losses involved here too, of course. Which means, no, it's not a good choice right now. And the entire issue is about right now. Then, let's do something else to all of this, something fun and annoying: Let's add in that the maximum theoretical efficiency of a fuel cell is 83%. That is essentially equivalent to the "charge-discharge" efficiency of a battery. This is the best your fuel cell will ever get, without even caring at all for all other losses, this is where you can get at max, without any losses to transportation, storage, or production. Most modern fuel cells, however, only have an efficiency of 40 to 60%. You yourself have already stated that modern, in-use batteries have 80% efficiency from charge to discharge, others here have given higher numbers, higher than the maximum efficiency of a fuel cell. Before any other losses have even been calculated, the battery has already won. For the battery, we already have the infrastructure, we already have the ability to make the batteries, and we already know the technology very well. Right now, the batteries are better than the fuel cells. Twenty, fifty years from now, who knows what will be the ideal choice. This also comes back to bite you about the comparative losses, by the way. I'll be nice and use your loss numbers here, just to show you what the issue is. Let's start with some electricity, since both systems need electricity at the beginning. The hydrogen needs it to electrolyze the water, after all. Since I haven't seen any numbers for loss of hydrogen over time in storage or for electrical losses in storage, I won't use them. Loss just from making hydrogen from electricity: 5% 95 Estimated loss from transporting and distributing hydrogen once we've gotten very good at it: 10% Loss from using a fuel cell to produce electricity, ignoring hydrogen leakage from storage over time: >17%, current tech generally has 60-40% losses. Best case total loss when we master this: 29.035% Loss from making electricity from electricity: 0% Loss from transporting and distributing electricity: 6.6% Loss from using a battery to store and then produce electricity, ignoring discharge over time: 20% Best case total loss right now: 25.28% Even when we have absolutely mastered hydrogen fuel cells and gotten them to somehow reach maximum efficiency (something that we've never succeeded at doing at with any system, I might add), the electricity we have right now is already better. Batteries are already a better way of doing this than fuel cells are predicted to ever be.

I've redownloaded the file, tested again, and then I noticed something, glancing through the code. You confirmed for me that the code I want is in the FNRefinery.cs file in the source code, fine enough. Then I compared it tothe InterstellarRefinery.cs file. And then I stared at the refinery code for 2 seconds and I know what the problem is. All those little refineries, at least in my game, had MODULE { name = InterstellarRefinery } When it should have been MODULE { name = FNRefinery } I don't know why my modules were set up wrong, especially since I cleaned and redid a bunch of my mods recently, but that's why I didn't have a haber process (I made this change and it readded a haber process to my test refinery that at least made a bit of ammonia to see if it worked). If it's supposed to be using InterstellarRefinery and therefore the GUI Fractal made, the InterstellarRefinery.cs file does not have the Haber process referenced anywhere as far as I can tell, which would be why the GUI doesn't display it. EDIT: I can confirm that the ratio is definitely off for its production, though: I just tested and I gain bunches of mass outside of atmosphere, draining from radial nitrogen tanks. Unless the thing can pick up nitrogen from over 100,000 meters above Kerbin, it's off. EDIT: Okay, this is getting too in-depth and mathematical for me to want to waste your thread with, I'm going to go to PMs.

Okay, so I checked back and KSPI says it implemented the Haber process a few versions ago, but I just played around a bit with the refineries it with Extended here and I found no Haber process in them. I don't see a note here of it being removed, or on Boris's thread, or Fractal's... So I went code-diving, basically, found the source code (very educational to someone who's never even touched the modding scene. I think I went insane for a bit), I went even deeper, and I'm guessing either the math's being redone or the process is broken or something? Did it not play nicely with the addition of nitrogen tanks? Welp, I guess I'll just force the game to let me do it by using Regolith... EDIT: Okay, I'm most certainly a crazy person, but after a little bit of testing, I have as close a ratio will get to the right values, or at least as much as my tiny calculator will get me. 6574.3405275779376498800959232614 units of Nitrogen 0.3551 units of LiquidFuel 14.684287812041116005873715124816 units of Ammonia. I've done a very tiny bit of testing, but the little KER readout that tells me the mass of my ship says the mass doesn't change by a single kilogram after making 10,881 units of ammonia.