Converting a petrol car
Jamie Pennington
car to run on hydrogen,
I was wondering if this in possible I have read several ways on the internet
but they don't seem to work as they say they do, I have been experimenting
on the best way to extract the best way to extract the hydrogen from the
water and so far the best way is electrolysis, However this does not produce
anywhere near enough hydrogen to run a car on. I tryed adding a small amount
of H2SO4 and this made it a bit better but still not enough to power a car
on, I also tryed connecting my arc welder to the eletrodes and this produced
alot but also boiled the water as my welder runs at 140 AMPS. If anyone
knows a way that will work and will power a car for sure I would greatly
appreciate it if you could let me know.
Thanks
Jamie
Graham Cowan
You have taken on two hard projects,
producing enough hydrogen to run a car on,
and running a car on it.
You could get around one of them by buying
your hydrogen in cylinders.
Commercial hydrogen is derived from natural gas,
which perhaps you don't want to indirectly use.
But using electricity most places also amounts
to indirect use of natural gas.
If all the electricity where you are is NG-generated,
your hydrogen car will use the most NG
if you get electrolysis working,
less if you buy hydrogen,
less still if it's not a hydrogen car at all,
but one that uses natural gas directly.
I once saw a page at http://www.clean-air.org
about car conversions, I suppose you've read
that already.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
a good way for cars to gain nuclear cachet
Dr. Bob
experiment long enough you will find out why hydrogen is a very unlikely fuel
for transportation, the most important being its dismal energy density.
Furthermore if you are using electricity to make your hydrogen, you are
converting the highest, most expensive form of energy into a lower cheaper form,
fuel. You need to study the economics of this before getting too carried away
with your experiments. There are many posts on this group by Don Lancaster, me
and others that can give you insight into hydrogen and its potential or lack of
it.
Dr. Bob
Don Lancaster
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Harry Conover
> Hello everyone My name is Jamie and I an currently working on converting my
> car to run on hydrogen,
Congratulations, I'm thinking about modifying mine to use a mixture of
water and chicken droppings to yield methane gas that supplies power
either an on-board fuel cell or IC engine. Perhaps we could share
notes?
> I was wondering if this in possible I have read several ways on the internet
> but they don't seem to work as they say they do,
How could that be? Internet rules require everything that is posted to
be totally accurate/correct, don't they?
> I have been experimenting
> on the best way to extract the best way to extract the hydrogen from the
> water and so far the best way is electrolysis, However this does not produce
> anywhere near enough hydrogen to run a car on.
It's also expensive and requires a long extension cord. I think the
obvious solution is to use the engine you are fueling to drigenerate
the small amount of electrictiy required to liberate more fuel from
the water, which in turn can be condensed after combustion and re-used
perpetually. Another approach would be to power the entire vehicle
electrically, using a generator attached to the drive shaft to power
the motor that operates the car. That way, neither hydrogen nor water
is required, hence corrosion problems are minimized.
> I tryed adding a small amount
> of H2SO4 and this made it a bit better but still not enough to power a car
> on, I also tryed connecting my arc welder to the eletrodes and this produced
> alot but also boiled the water as my welder runs at 140 AMPS. If anyone
> knows a way that will work and will power a car for sure I would greatly
> appreciate it if you could let me know.
Try electroplating your cylinder walls and piston tops with sodium
metal. Sodium acts as a catalyst on water to liberate stored hydrogen.
Then, you won't need the electrolysis or any external hydrogen source.
You should be able to make the sodium metal you need (since you won't
need very much) from ordinary table salt using your microwave oven or
even you welver (if it's a d.c. welder), since table salt is
relatively pure sodium chloride.
I have many other creative ideas, but as foreign secret agents have
already begun to tap my phones and follow me, I have to be very
careful. Note that some will even attempt to on-line discredit my
above discoveries and researches. Still, as you notice I am making
this as difficult as possible for them by posting in english. (Foreign
agents neither speak nor can they read english, only French --
although they are showing signs of starting to learn the use of
Babelfish. Important: Ignore any follow-ups to this post written in
French or Babelfish jargon by these clever devils!)
:-)
Harry C.
p.s., We all sometimes take outselves and our beliefs/ideas far more
seriously than any of them deserve. It sometimes helps to pause, if
just for an instant, and attempt to put things into perspective.
Humor, even poor humor, often helps.
Don Lancaster
There are only three tiny problems with your proposal:
First, there's no telling where store bought hydrogen has been, so you
will want to run it through a fuel cell and electrolyzer to make sure it
is both organic and pesticide free.
Also, recycling the water in an onboard auto electrolysis will shortly
be banned in most major cities because of the extreme flooding it causes
in thruway low spots.
Also, sodium only slowly and mildly reacts with water compared to
lithium borohydride.
More at http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
Don Widders
news:7ce4e226.02081...@posting.google.com...
What are you telling us, Harry, that this was a joke and you're not really
building a chicken poop car?
Don W.
Harry Conover
Actually Don, the "chicken poop" powered car was the only real thing
in the entire post, not that I am intending to build one.
They were built and promoted in Germany post WWII. There were photos
of them in issues of 'Popular Science' magazine published during the
early post-war era. Evidently they did run on methane produced from
chicken droppings, which was stored in what appeared to be a large bag
attached to the rear of the cars.
No, here I'm not joking. I believe some early Messerschmitt cars were
fueled by this method. IIRC, they looked somewhat like today's
Chrysler PT Cruiser with a large cloth gas bag attached to its rear.
Harry C.
Jamie Pennington
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamie Pennington" <jamie.pe...@paradise.net.nz>
To: "Harry Conover" <hhc...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Converting a petrol car
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harry Conover" <hhc...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Converting a petrol car
>
>
> > "Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote in message
> news:<ulg9n4s...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "Harry Conover" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7ce4e226.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Jamie Pennington" <jamie.pe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
message
> > > news:<Hg259.541$CD2....@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > > > > Hello everyone My name is Jamie and I an currently working on
> converting
> > > my
> > > > > car to run on hydrogen,
> > > >
> > > > Congratulations, I'm thinking about modifying mine to use a mixture
of
> > > > water and chicken droppings to yield methane gas that supplies power
> > > > either an on-board fuel cell or IC engine. Perhaps we could share
> > > > notes?
> > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if this in possible I have read several ways on
the
> > > internet
> > > > > but they don't seem to work as they say they do,
> > > >
> > > > How could that be? Internet rules require everything that is posted
to
> > > > be totally accurate/correct, don't they?
> Yes but there is also alot of shit on the internet, They were using
> electrolysis to extract the hydrogen from the water but the energy
required
> to do this is inefficient, and would be more cost effictave to run it on
> battery.
> Jamie P
> > > >
> > > > > I have been experimenting
> > > > > on the best way to extract the best way to extract the hydrogen
from
> the
> > > > > water and so far the best way is electrolysis, However this does
not
> > > produce
> > > > > anywhere near enough hydrogen to run a car on.
> > > >
> > > > It's also expensive and requires a long extension cord. I think the
> > > > obvious solution is to use the engine you are fueling to drigenerate
> > > > the small amount of electrictiy required to liberate more fuel from
> > > > the water, which in turn can be condensed after combustion and
re-used
> > > > perpetually. Another approach would be to power the entire vehicle
> > > > electrically, using a generator attached to the drive shaft to power
> > > > the motor that operates the car. That way, neither hydrogen nor
water
> > > > is required, hence corrosion problems are minimized.
> > > >
> > > > > I tryed adding a small amount
> > > > > of H2SO4 and this made it a bit better but still not enough to
power
> a
> > > car
> > > > > on, I also tryed connecting my arc welder to the eletrodes and
this
> > > produced
> > > > > alot but also boiled the water as my welder runs at 140 AMPS. If
> anyone
> > > > > knows a way that will work and will power a car for sure I would
> greatly
> > > > > appreciate it if you could let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Try electroplating your cylinder walls and piston tops with sodium
> > > > metal. Sodium acts as a catalyst on water to liberate stored
hydrogen.
> > > > Then, you won't need the electrolysis or any external hydrogen
source.
> > > > You should be able to make the sodium metal you need (since you
won't
> > > > need very much) from ordinary table salt using your microwave oven
or
> > > > even you welver (if it's a d.c. welder), since table salt is
> > > > relatively pure sodium chloride.
> > > >
> > > > I have many other creative ideas, but as foreign secret agents have
> > > > already begun to tap my phones and follow me, I have to be very
> > > > careful. Note that some will even attempt to on-line discredit my
> > > > above discoveries and researches. Still, as you notice I am making
> > > > this as difficult as possible for them by posting in english.
(Foreign
> > > > agents neither speak nor can they read english, only French --
> > > > although they are showing signs of starting to learn the use of
> > > > Babelfish. Important: Ignore any follow-ups to this post written in
> > > > French or Babelfish jargon by these clever devils!)
> Please tell me more about some of your other ideas and about eletroplating
> my cylinders in sodium metal how would I do that?
>
> Jamie P
Buckleys
True, but it does offer superior wear and lubrication characteristics.
Potassium would be best, but getting enough pot for electrolysis in one
place without your friends stealing it is difficult.
Rob.
Norm Dansereau
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3D55DB35...@tinaja.com...
Jamie Pennington
"Norm Dansereau" <danci...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0Yi69.143083$Ag2.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.zip
I have these plans and built the unit... It didn't work and is floored, It
really annoyed me as the components for the control circuit were rather
expencive
Harry Conover
> "Norm Dansereau" <danci...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:0Yi69.143083$Ag2.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.zip
> I have these plans and built the unit... It didn't work and is floored, It
> really annoyed me as the components for the control circuit were rather
> expencive
You should have read the information on that site provided more
closely. It's obviously pseudo-technical nonsense, and equally
obvious is the weasel wording contained in the documentation.
Thing like the follow should have warned you:
"Will This Work?
These plans were sent to the Spirit of Ma'at anonymously, from someone
who does not want his or her name printed (for obvious reasons).
We have had them checked by an expert who believes that they are real.
We also have talked with another individual who has patented a similar
device, and we know by personal experience that the technology is
sound."
Sure, right! :-(
If this was an expensive lesson for you, hopefully it will teach you
the need to critically investigate anything claiming to give you
something for nothing. (In this case, fuel from water.)
If something seems to be good to be true, it usually is.
Harry C.
Dan Bloomquist
Jamie Pennington wrote:
Stuff concerning hydrogen and offered this link:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/
Here is the deal Jamie. I've looked at a lot of free energy stuff and
what I have found is typical of this site. A lot of talk that it can be
done but no hard science. No fundamental explanations. No reproducible
experimental evidence.
Yes, the universe is still mysterious and who knows if there will be a
paradigm shift in fundamental physics. But most of these free energy
folks are either running a scam or are believers. Science is not about
belief. It is about the observable. If the mechanism of ZPE is real it
is verifiable and no amount of 'conspiracy' could keep a lid on it.
Best, Dan.
Don Lancaster
Mike O'Barr
> "Jamie Pennington" <jamie.pe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<Hg259.541$CD2....@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > Hello everyone My name is Jamie and I an currently working on converting my
> > car to run on hydrogen,
>
> Congratulations, I'm thinking about modifying mine to use a mixture of
> water and chicken droppings to yield methane gas that supplies power
> either an on-board fuel cell or IC engine. Perhaps we could share
> notes?
[snipping the felgercarb nonsense]
> Harry C.
>
> p.s., We all sometimes take outselves and our beliefs/ideas far more
> seriously than any of them deserve. It sometimes helps to pause, if
> just for an instant, and attempt to put things into perspective.
> Humor, even poor humor, often helps.
Humor, yes. Outright ridicule at sincere query never does.
Perhaps your obviously immense intellect can tell us what will
work, economically speaking.
For example, if I had a stirling engine powered generator running
on solar by virtue of a parabolic mirror, would the excess voltage/
wattage be better used in developing hydrogen as a storage medium?
Could it, the hydrogen, be electrically charged into a hydride metal?
Instead of intellectual ridicule how about a little challenge. What
could you think of that might make hydrogen feasible.
'Course, having just found this group about a week ago and having
read as many threads and posts as I have had time for I have been
amazed at the amount of anti-hydrogen people there are here and
how little you all offer, having no real legitimate ideas and offer
only half hidden anger towards those who try to do *Something*.
I'll keep reading though, maybe there are some pearls in all of
this bovine.
Mike
Don Lancaster
>
>
> Humor, yes. Outright ridicule at sincere query never does.
>
>
> For example, if I had a stirling engine powered generator running
> on solar by virtue of a parabolic mirror, would the excess voltage/
> wattage be better used in developing hydrogen as a storage medium?
> Could it, the hydrogen, be electrically charged into a hydride metal?
>
> Instead of intellectual ridicule how about a little challenge. What
> could you think of that might make hydrogen feasible.
>
>.
>
> Mike
Ridicule is an eminently appropriate response for the utterly
ridiculous.
WHY would you want to make hydrogen feasible?
With present or close-in technology, hydrogen is not renewable, it is
not sustainable, it wastes resources, its energy density is ludicrous,
it rots metal, its exergy destruction is absurd, it pollutes, it is
deadly, and it certainly is not storable.
All this for some polluted water (and, of course, deadly nitrogen
oxides) out a tailpipe?
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Don Widders
"Mike O'Barr" <obi...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com...
> hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message
news:<7ce4e226.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Jamie Pennington" <jamie.pe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<Hg259.541$CD2....@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > > Hello everyone My name is Jamie and I an currently working on
converting my
> > > car to run on hydrogen,
> >
> > Congratulations, I'm thinking about modifying mine to use a mixture of
> > water and chicken droppings to yield methane gas that supplies power
> > either an on-board fuel cell or IC engine. Perhaps we could share
> > notes?
>
> [snipping the felgercarb nonsense]
>
> > Harry C.
> >
> > p.s., We all sometimes take outselves and our beliefs/ideas far more
> > seriously than any of them deserve. It sometimes helps to pause, if
> > just for an instant, and attempt to put things into perspective.
> > Humor, even poor humor, often helps.
>
> Humor, yes. Outright ridicule at sincere query never does.
>
> Perhaps your obviously immense intellect can tell us what will
> work, economically speaking.
>
> For example, if I had a stirling engine powered generator running
> on solar by virtue of a parabolic mirror, would the excess voltage/
> wattage be better used in developing hydrogen as a storage medium?
> Could it, the hydrogen, be electrically charged into a hydride metal?
You've just invented the NiMH battery!
>
> Instead of intellectual ridicule how about a little challenge. What
> could you think of that might make hydrogen feasible.
Consider the possibility that hydrogen is fraught with so many 'challenges'
that no amount of thinking will make it feasible. It would be lovely if we
could make a 'battery thingie' about the size of an automobile gas tank that
containing hydrogen in an uncharged state (water). Plug it in and 5 minutes
later it contains hydrogen in a charged stage (hydrogen) with enough energy
to drive (with the same performance as gasoline) 300 miles. Of course, a
'charge' shouldn't cost more than about $22. That just isn't going to
happen -- EVER! Some of us found this group about the same way you found
it, hoping to learn why such a vehicle doesn't exist. Stick around and
you'll learn too.
>
> 'Course, having just found this group about a week ago and having
> read as many threads and posts as I have had time for I have been
> amazed at the amount of anti-hydrogen people there are here and
> how little you all offer, having no real legitimate ideas and offer
> only half hidden anger towards those who try to do *Something*.
>
No one is "anti-hydrogen" and what you see as half hidden anger is probably
an attempt to keep someone from wasting a lot of time (or to keep them from
blowing themselves up!)
> I'll keep reading though, maybe there are some pearls in all of
> this bovine.
What have you found so far that you consider "bovine"? Is it "bovine"
because it's wrong or because it's not what you wanted to hear?
>
> Mike
Don W.
fkasner
What you fail to realize is that most of those who appear to be
anti-hydrogen came here hoping to find something worthwhile that would
improve the efficiency of production of hydrogen so that an improved
efficiency hydrogen fuel cell or ICE would be sufficiently useful so the
reduction in wastes would mean not a disappearance of carbon wastes (not
possible in this time or the near future) but a possible reduction of such
wastes. To date nothing worthwhile - regardless of your dreams - has
appeared. We have disabused many who have similar dreams. Our "opposition"
is not some kind political or moral position but a rational employment of
scientific principles that we understand and refute the dreams of those who
think hydrogen is a panacea.
FK
Harry Conover
> hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message news:<7ce4e226.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Jamie Pennington" <jamie.pe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<Hg259.541$CD2....@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > > Hello everyone My name is Jamie and I an currently working on converting my
> > > car to run on hydrogen,
> >
> > Congratulations, I'm thinking about modifying mine to use a mixture of
> > water and chicken droppings to yield methane gas that supplies power
> > either an on-board fuel cell or IC engine. Perhaps we could share
> > notes?
>
> [snipping the felgercarb nonsense]
>
> > Harry C.
> >
> > p.s., We all sometimes take outselves and our beliefs/ideas far more
> > seriously than any of them deserve. It sometimes helps to pause, if
> > just for an instant, and attempt to put things into perspective.
> > Humor, even poor humor, often helps.
>
> Humor, yes. Outright ridicule at sincere query never does.
>
> Perhaps your obviously immense intellect can tell us what will
> work, economically speaking.
Certainly. The answer is nothing, provided that your objective was
accurately stated. This is no solution for what you wish to
accomplish.
> For example, if I had a stirling engine powered generator running
> on solar by virtue of a parabolic mirror, would the excess voltage/
> wattage be better used in developing hydrogen as a storage medium?
> Could it, the hydrogen, be electrically charged into a hydride metal?
If you're asking if it would be more energy efficient to store solar
generated electricity in a battery or by converting it to hydrogen,
the answer is of course found in the battery. A Google of this
newsgroup's history will reveal why.
> Instead of intellectual ridicule how about a little challenge. What
> could you think of that might make hydrogen feasible.
Quite frankly, as a physicist/engineer I can't think of anything. I no
of no chemist or any professional educated in science and technology
posting here that has claimed method exists that would make energy
storage in the form of hydrogen feasible or viable, although over the
years some sales types and promoters have made such claims.
> 'Course, having just found this group about a week ago and having
> read as many threads and posts as I have had time for I have been
> amazed at the amount of anti-hydrogen people there are here and
> how little you all offer, having no real legitimate ideas and offer
> only half hidden anger towards those who try to do *Something*.
In that case, consider how amazed you will become after you've read
this newsgroup for 5-8 years, as many of us have, and seen no
supportable claims made for hydrogen's feasibility/viability as a fuel
in all those years.
Also, I strongly suggest that there are no "anti-hydrogen" people
posting here. If you still believe there are, I'd urge you to back and
re-read those same posts a bit more closely to learn what actually is
being said by those posters.
Then too, if you believe that someone should be "pro-hydrogen", dwell
on what particular properties of hydrogen would cause anyone to take
such a stance where energy issues are concerned. Realize that
hydrogen has NO properties that would cause it to be considered the
'Silver Bullet' of the energy infrastructure.
If you come here searching for facts, claims, and critical discussion,
welcome.
If you believe that this group should function as some form of
hydrogen support group, you're mistaking the function of a group in
the sci. hierarchy, with someplace else.
Harry C.
Dan Bloomquist
Mike O'Barr wrote:
>
> Perhaps your obviously immense intellect can tell us what will
> work, economically speaking.
>
Harry's answer is quite accurate. There is no reasonable substitute that
caries the banner, 'cheap', like fossil fuel.
> For example, if I had a stirling engine powered generator running
> on solar by virtue of a parabolic mirror, would the excess voltage/
> wattage be better used in developing hydrogen as a storage medium?
> Could it, the hydrogen, be electrically charged into a hydride metal?
>
You would do much better to put that energy into the grid, reduce the
carbon output of power plants and drive a civic.
> Instead of intellectual ridicule how about a little challenge. What
> could you think of that might make hydrogen feasible.
>
One hundred times the nuclear plants we have today. (Mean's recycling
fuel instead of making it waste.) And an incredible paradigm shift in
the way mankind thinks. See, if you look at the hydrogen forest instead
of the hydrogen tree, you will find it huge step backward as far as
changing the world goes.
> 'Course, having just found this group about a week ago and having
> read as many threads and posts as I have had time for I have been
> amazed at the amount of anti-hydrogen people there are here and
> how little you all offer, having no real legitimate ideas and offer
> only half hidden anger towards those who try to do *Something*.
>
It is about getting a calculator, crunching some numbers, and coming to
the objective conclusion that the hydrogen economy would cause more
pollution and cost more energy if implemented right now.
It is easy for you to say there is a bunch of anti-hydrogen people, but
I don't here answers from you. Have you considered they just don't exist
with the given? Let's here your solution if it is so easy.
Best, Dan.
Brent Wegher
>
> Perhaps your obviously immense intellect can tell us what will
> work, economically speaking.
>
> For example, if I had a stirling engine powered generator running
> on solar by virtue of a parabolic mirror, would the excess voltage/
> wattage be better used in developing hydrogen as a storage medium?
> Could it, the hydrogen, be electrically charged into a hydride metal?
>
> Instead of intellectual ridicule how about a little challenge. What
> could you think of that might make hydrogen feasible.
>
> 'Course, having just found this group about a week ago and having
> read as many threads and posts as I have had time for I have been
> amazed at the amount of anti-hydrogen people there are here and
> how little you all offer, having no real legitimate ideas and offer
> only half hidden anger towards those who try to do *Something*.
>
> I'll keep reading though, maybe there are some pearls in all of
> this bovine.
>
> Mike
Mike,
This is a science newsgroup. The resident scientists have the
knowledge you seek but petulance prevents us from sharing with
non-scientists unless you stamp your feet much harder and hold your
breath until we can see if you are blue enough.
Brent Wegher
Brent Wegher
Harry Conover
Careful Brent! You don't want to clue this guy in on the fact that
almost all the posts here discussing real methods used for free energy
and perpetual motion are cleverly encoded in what, to a layman's eye,
appear to be ordinary plain-text messages.
Recall that at the time you received your engineering or science
degree and were given your decoding device (looks like a Eta Kappa Nu
key, but isn't), you took an oath to keep it a secret!
Harry C.
:-)
Don Lancaster
But the Captaion Midnight mirromatic decoder wheel works almost as well.
Mike O'Barr
> > Humor, yes. Outright ridicule at sincere query never does.
[snipping this, that and some other thing]
> Mike,
> This is a science newsgroup. The resident scientists have the
> knowledge you seek but petulance prevents us from sharing with
> non-scientists unless you stamp your feet much harder and hold your
> breath until we can see if you are blue enough.
>
> Brent Wegher
Thank you Brent. Now that's humor.
I was doing the google about hydrogen because of some claims that
I'd heard about and was be-boppin' through different sites and found
this news group. I deal with this kind of *petulance* at work and
find it particularly nauseating.
My own purpose here, the reason I sought out a science group was for
the facts. I just didn't expect to find such irascible cantankerousness.
How can any meaningful discussions take place?
Maybe you or one of your more malevolent contemporaries could answer
a couple of questions.
What is the equivalent BTU's of 1 pound of;
1) Gasoline (regular grade please)
2) Methanol
3) Ethyl Alcohol
How about the gasses;
1) Propane
2) Natural gas
3) Hydrogen
Also, when CNG is compressed does it exhibit the same nasty explosive
behavior as Hydrogen? Are the pressures similar?
Thanks
Mike
Graham Cowan
>
> bwe...@hotmail.com (Brent Wegher) wrote in message news:<7390ad5.02082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > Humor, yes. Outright ridicule at sincere query never does.
>
> [snipping this, that and some other thing]
>
> > Mike,
> > This is a science newsgroup. The resident scientists have the
> > knowledge you seek but petulance prevents us from sharing with
> > non-scientists unless you stamp your feet much harder and hold your
> > breath until we can see if you are blue enough.
> >
> > Brent Wegher
>
> Thank you Brent. Now that's humor.
>
> I was doing the google about hydrogen because of some claims that
> I'd heard about and was be-boppin' through different sites and found
> this news group. I deal with this kind of *petulance* at work and
> find it particularly nauseating.
>
> My own purpose here, the reason I sought out a science group was for
> the facts. I just didn't expect to find such irascible cantankerousness.
> How can any meaningful discussions take place?
>
> Maybe you or one of your more malevolent contemporaries could answer
> a couple of questions.
>
> What is the equivalent BTU's of 1 pound of;
>
> 1) Gasoline (regular grade please)
>
> 2) Methanol
>
> 3) Ethyl Alcohol
I don't do BTUs, but have some of that information
at http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html#BtE
(only I have it as mass per unit energy,
not energy over mass as you ask for,
so on my chart larger numbers are less good).
Higher-grade gasoline has more detonation resistance.
All grades have about the same energy,
so I felt free to represent them by one compound.
>
> How about the gasses;
>
> 1) Propane
>
> 2) Natural gas
>
> 3) Hydrogen
>
> Also, when CNG is compressed does it exhibit
> the same nasty explosive behavior as Hydrogen?
> Are the pressures similar?
Any highly compressed gas is explosive,
but CNG needs only about a third the pressure
for any desired energy concentration.
This is easy to see if you consider a CH4, methane,
molecule as a C (worth two H's), and H2, and an H2.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
how cars could gain nuclear cachet
Mike O'Barr
> obi...@cs.com (Mike O'Barr) wrote in message news:<a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message news:<7ce4e226.02081...@posting.google.com>...
[snipping to save bandwidth]
> > Humor, yes. Outright ridicule at sincere query never does.
> >
> > Perhaps your obviously immense intellect can tell us what will
> > work, economically speaking.
>
> Certainly. The answer is nothing,
Has every stone been turned, every watt tested, every bubble popped?
> provided that your objective was accurately stated.
Why would you assume otherwise?
> This is no solution for what you wish to accomplish.
And just what is it that you assume I'm wanting to accomplish?
> > For example, if I had a stirling engine powered generator running
> > on solar by virtue of a parabolic mirror, would the excess voltage/
> > wattage be better used in developing hydrogen as a storage medium?
> > Could it, the hydrogen, be electrically charged into a hydride metal?
>
> If you're asking if it would be more energy efficient to store solar
> generated electricity in a battery or by converting it to hydrogen,
> the answer is of course found in the battery.
I didn't ask that did I.
Let's do a little fact based scenario. I have a stirling engine'd
generator
of 2000 watts. I have a Photo-Voltaic array of 2000 watts at 24 volts
AND
a Wind-gen at 1500 watts at 24 volts. My battery storage cap is 16800
amps.
I have plenty of battery cap for about a week with no wind and no sun
when fully charged so I'm not going to spend more money on batteries
and since
I'm not intertied to the grid and since they don't allow it anyway I
have
all of this excess electricity goin' to waiste.
> A Google of this newsgroup's history will reveal why.
Been there. Had to cut through to much molevolency to make much sense
of
it all.
> > Instead of intellectual ridicule how about a little challenge. What
> > could you think of that might make hydrogen feasible.
>
> Quite frankly, as a physicist/engineer I can't think of anything.
Calculator said "No way" eh. Come on, you ain't tryin'.
> I no...
I just know you meant "know" now didn't you
> ...of no chemist or any professional educated in science and technology
> posting here that has claimed method exists that would make energy
> storage in the form of hydrogen feasible or viable, although over the
> years some sales types and promoters have made such claims.
When I was in Florida last I looked up a guy named Erryn Bolt who
claimed
to have a working model of a cold fussion generator. His apparatus was
set
up to test for 4He, watt input, fluid temp and case pressure. He had a
geiger counter set up near the case (not sure why). He took a baseline
reading for background helium, fluid temp and case pressure, hooked up
the electric and waited. The only thing that I remember from it was
that
his 4He about doubled, there was two or three little blerps from the
Geiger that made us both jump and he melted his probe after running a
little steam engine for about 2 minutes. He's a simple experimenter/
chemist with an engineering degree from Rice. I'm not a Physicist,
nor was he, so neither one of us are *institutionalized* into thinking
only one way. I think that maybe there is something to cold fussion,
I don't know what but I know that I saw something that should bare
closer scrutiny with open minds, not ones that have been soundly shut
regardless of what the evidence shows.
Oh, and no he wasn't searching or asking for money. We e-mailed a
couple
of time and money was never mentioned.
> > 'Course, having just found this group about a week ago and having
> > read as many threads and posts as I have had time for I have been
> > amazed at the amount of anti-hydrogen people there are here and
> > how little you all offer, having no real legitimate ideas and offer
> > only half hidden anger towards those who try to do *Something*.
>
> In that case, consider how amazed you will become after you've read
> this newsgroup for 5-8 years, as many of us have, and seen no
> supportable claims made for hydrogen's feasibility/viability as a fuel
> in all those years.
After what I've read from you guy's any legitimate researcher would
not
post here. The nit-pickin would just cover up any true science
discovered.
True scientific discovery never comes because some one followed the
current
theory/belief. Most inventors/researchers make their most profound
discoveries being told that they would never succeed. How many
filaments
did Edison go through before he found one that worked?
> Also, I strongly suggest that there are no "anti-hydrogen" people
> posting here.
Strange, that's about all that I've found.
> If you still believe there are, I'd urge you to back and
> re-read those same posts a bit more closely to learn what actually is
> being said by those posters.
Been doin' that. My initial impression stands.
> Then too, if you believe that someone should be "pro-hydrogen", dwell
> on what particular properties of hydrogen would cause anyone to take
> such a stance where energy issues are concerned.
I'm not concerned with "enery issues" at this point. I experiment, I
investigate, I dabble.
> Realize that hydrogen has NO properties that would cause it to be considered > the 'Silver Bullet' of the energy infrastructure.
Why? Because some institution somewhere say's it doesn't or won't?
Don't
missunderstand me or misrepresent my questions, my query. I have a lot
(from a personal perspective) of excess electricity and hydrogen
looked
*interesting* from some things that I've read. I'd like to see what
has
been done and what has worked and not worked. I have not subscribed to
the intellectual quagmire of being either for or against hydrogen. I
do
know that if I woke up one morning and found that there was no
gasoline/
propane/CNG/LNG available for my Excussion I'd find a way to make it
run on something - maybe even hydrogen.
> If you come here searching for facts, claims, and critical discussion,
> welcome.
Thank you.
> If you believe that this group should function as some form of
> hydrogen support group, you're mistaking the function of a group in
> the sci. hierarchy, with someplace else.
I just want some simple answers to some simple inquiries. I thought
the
inquisition was over but evidently it's alive and well here.
Mike
Don Lancaster
>
>
> What is the equivalent BTU's of 1 pound of;
>
> 1) Gasoline (regular grade please)
13,000 watthours per kilogram, but see below
>
> 2) Methanol
around half gasoline
>
> 3) Ethyl Alcohol
Not meaningful -- Ethyl Alcohol from corn is a net energy sink, not an
energy source
Probably around MINUS 3000 or so.
>
> How about the gasses;
>
> 1) Propane
about two-thirds gasoline
>
> 2) Natural gas
about half gasoline
>
> 3) Hydrogen
again, not meaningful. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a net energy
source.
see below -- contained hydrogen is much worse than gasoline.
>
> Also, when CNG is compressed does it exhibit the same nasty explosive
> behavior as Hydrogen? Are the pressures similar?
Not remotely.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
The exact figures you ask for appear at
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energyfun.pdf
These figures are easily verified by using the links at
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
Note that the hydrogen btu/s per pound are utterly meaningless for
terrestral aps, since you have to consider the CONTAINED btu's per
pound. Which, of course, are much worse than gasoline.
It is the volumentric watthours per LITER that dominate terrestral apps.
For instance, replacing gasoline with some similar liquid with triple
the watthours per kilogram would possibly reduce the weight of a vehicle
by 26 pounds or so.
A conversion link in http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energyfun.pdf lets you
get into standard measurement units.
Don Widders
news:<7ce4e226.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > obi...@cs.com (Mike O'Barr) wrote in message
news:<a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message
news:<7ce4e226.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [snipping to save bandwidth]
>
> and hydrogen looked *interesting* from some things that I've read.
If you have a lot of excess electricity and you can't bring it where it's
needed, perhaps you could bring the need to the excess electricity. For
example, set up a foundry with an induction furnace.
> I'd like to see what has been done and what has worked and not
> worked. I have not subscribed to the intellectual quagmire of being
> either for or against hydrogen. I do know that if I woke up one
> morning and found that there was no gasoline/propane/CNG/LNG
> available for my Excussion I'd find a way to make it run on something -
> maybe even hydrogen.
>
> > If you come here searching for facts, claims, and critical discussion,
> > welcome.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > If you believe that this group should function as some form of
> > hydrogen support group, you're mistaking the function of a group in
> > the sci. hierarchy, with someplace else.
>
> I just want some simple answers to some simple inquiries. I thought
> the inquisition was over but evidently it's alive and well here.
>
> Mike
Mike, comparing sci.energy.hydrogen to the inquisition shows you didn't
really come here for answers, but to have your ego stroked. You didn't get
your strokes, and now you're throwing a hissyfit. Science doesn't care
about egos. Enjoy your fun, but don't expect your results to differ from
well understood scientific principles.
Don W.
Tony Wesley
news:a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com...
> I just want some simple answers to some simple inquiries. I thought
> the
> inquisition was over but evidently it's alive and well here.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
--
Tony Wesley
tony (at) tonywesley.com
Listen to "Don't Tread on Me" at: http://mp3.com/DaveAndTracy
Mike O'Barr
> "Mike O'Barr" <obi...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message
> news:<7ce4e226.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > obi...@cs.com (Mike O'Barr) wrote in message
> news:<a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message
> news:<7ce4e226.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > [snipping to save bandwidth]
> >
> > I have a lot (from a personal perspective) of excess electricity
> > and hydrogen looked *interesting* from some things that I've read.
>
> If you have a lot of excess electricity and you can't bring it where it's
> needed, perhaps you could bring the need to the excess electricity. For
> example, set up a foundry with an induction furnace.
Why?
> > I'd like to see what has been done and what has worked and not
> > worked. I have not subscribed to the intellectual quagmire of being
> > either for or against hydrogen. I do know that if I woke up one
> > morning and found that there was no gasoline/propane/CNG/LNG
> > available for my Excussion I'd find a way to make it run on something -
> > maybe even hydrogen.
> >
> > > If you come here searching for facts, claims, and critical discussion,
> > > welcome.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > If you believe that this group should function as some form of
> > > hydrogen support group, you're mistaking the function of a group in
> > > the sci. hierarchy, with someplace else.
> >
> > I just want some simple answers to some simple inquiries. I thought
> > the inquisition was over but evidently it's alive and well here.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Mike, comparing sci.energy.hydrogen to the inquisition shows you didn't
> really come here for answers, but to have your ego stroked.
A tit-for-tat shesh-ba shows how close I came to the truth, but I
digress.
Obviously calling your overinflated ego tirade for what it is shows me
that some people in this place isn't interested in science but
debunking well meaning folk from looking at all angles. Are my ideas
bunk? Maybe, that's
why I'm here - to find out the science done so far and get the
numbers.
So far all I've seen in ridicule and assumption. Your a credit to your
backers - whomever that may be.
> You didn't get your strokes, and now you're throwing a hissyfit.
All I did was point out that we could do without the ridicule and just
tell us where we made our mistakes and you blew your top. The hissy is
your reflection.
> Science doesn't care about egos.
What rock have you been hiding under.
Mike
Brent Wegher
> a couple of questions.
>
> What is the equivalent BTU's of 1 pound of;
>
> 1) Gasoline (regular grade please)
>
> 2) Methanol
>
> 3) Ethyl Alcohol
>
> How about the gasses;
>
> 1) Propane
>
> 2) Natural gas
>
> 3) Hydrogen
>
> Also, when CNG is compressed does it exhibit the same nasty explosive
> behavior as Hydrogen? Are the pressures similar?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
Some hydrogen energy related links for the beginner.
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/alcohols.html
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis/electrolysis.htm
http://www.briggsracing.com/tech_tips/
Comprehensive sites.
http://www.ush2.com/
http://www.eren.doe.gov/
http://www.hydrogen.org/index-e.html
The last site has a decent hydrogen faq. Click on "compendium"
Brent Wegher
Graham Cowan
>
> Maybe, that's why I'm here - to find out the science done
> so far and get the numbers.
It doesn't look as if that's why you are here.
> So far all I've seen in ridicule and assumption.
You must have missed my reply, or actually replies.
I think I replied twice.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
how cars could gain nuclear fission cachet
Buckleys
>
> Let's do a little fact based scenario. I have a stirling engine'd
> generator
> of 2000 watts. I have a Photo-Voltaic array of 2000 watts at 24 volts
> AND
> a Wind-gen at 1500 watts at 24 volts. My battery storage cap is 16800
> amps.
> I have plenty of battery cap for about a week with no wind and no sun
> when fully charged so I'm not going to spend more money on batteries
> and since
> I'm not intertied to the grid and since they don't allow it anyway I
> have
> all of this excess electricity goin' to waiste.
>
OK. What do you want to DO with the 'waste' electricity? If you want to
increase your storage, batteries would be better than hydrogen
storage/fuel cells or H-powered generator. But, you imply that you don't
want to increase your reserve. So, why do you want to make (or are
interested in the feasability of making) hydrogen?
If you are generating more electricity than you use, alternative storage
methods won't stop you from 'wasting' power. If you have another use for
the excess power, tell us what you have in mind.
Rob.
Mike O'Barr
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
[snipping scenario]
> OK. What do you want to DO with the 'waste' electricity?
Well, the wife says another time machine is out of the question so I
decided to surf around to see what else is out there. The Area 51 Sport
Craft is a little pricey and then I happened on this group. The
"IMPOSSIBILITY" of hydrogen being a good fuel for anything intregues
me. Why is it so bad if NASA uses it? An old College Prof told me once
that what we first percieve as improbable usually means that we haven't
explored all avenues yet, or, the technology needed is beyond what we
have currently. Hydrogen as a fuel holds the carrot of "perfect fuel"
out there yet we can't get to that point and I wander why?
I've got a little time on my hands so I'd like to see all of the research
that's been done so I don't try to reinvent the wheel, but, OTOH, maybe
a fresh set of eyes my see something previously overlooked or dismissed
out of hand due to arrogance or disbelief.
> If you want to increase your storage, batteries would be better than
> hydrogen storage/fuel cells or H-powered generator.
Why?
> But, you imply that you don't want to increase your reserve.
No, I said I didn't want to increase Battery capacity.
> So, why do you want to make (or are interested in the feasability of
> making) hydrogen?
Several reasons but the biggest now is because some of you say it can't
be done and I don't believe in "CAN'T". I do believe in technological
limitations and that is something I fairly good at seeing different
angles on. Besides if it can be done I'd like to find out how.
> If you are generating more electricity than you use, alternative storage
> methods won't stop you from 'wasting' power. If you have another use for
> the excess power, tell us what you have in mind.
Powering my go-cart, my Lawn-Boy, maybe my Cessna. 'Course filling up that
moon rocket
out back would be nice <G>. At this point I'd just like to burn a good
quantity out a tube at ever increasing flow rates with the minimum amount
of wattage. Curiousity - I love challenges and it sounds like you guys
have given up on research by virtue of preset ideas.
Mike
Tony Wesley
news:a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > If you are generating more electricity than you use, alternative storage
> > methods won't stop you from 'wasting' power. If you have another use for
> > the excess power, tell us what you have in mind.
>
> Powering my go-cart, my Lawn-Boy, maybe my Cessna. 'Course filling up that
> moon rocket
> out back would be nice <G>. At this point I'd just like to burn a good
> quantity out a tube at ever increasing flow rates with the minimum amount
> of wattage. Curiousity - I love challenges and it sounds like you guys
> have given up on research by virtue of preset ideas.
If you have excess electricity without a way of dumping it back onto
the grid, maybe you can convert it to H2 and do something useful with
it. I suspect the car won't work due to storage limitations alone.
Most people have not necessarily preset ideas but preset conditions.
We don't have surplus electricity.
Don Lancaster
>
> Why is hydrogen so bad if NASA uses it?
Please cite one instance anytime ever of NASA terrestrial
hydrogen-as-bulk-energy use.
In deep space apps where being a monumental energy sink is not
significant and competitive alternates are not obvious, the higher
gravimetric unstored energy density of hydrogen can sometimes be of
advantage.
The benefits of a higher gravimetric energy density on personal vehicles
are utterly negligible.
Possibly reducing the weight of an average vehicle by an average weight
of 26 pounds.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Don Lancaster
>
>
> If you have excess electricity without a way of dumping it back onto
> the grid, maybe you can convert it to H2 and do something useful with
> it.
The way to convert it to H2, of course, is to sell the electricity, buy
some methane, and then reform the methane.
The staggering loss of exergy makes electrolysis laughingly useless
here.
Even it you did not have an energy sink to start with, electrolysis
~guarantess~ you will end up with one.
Dan Bloomquist
Mike O'Barr wrote:
> Buckleys <the_bu...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3D6643...@optusnet.com.au>...
>
>>Mike O'Barr wrote:
>>
> Why is it so bad if NASA uses it?
Because it is has the highest specific impulse known.
> An old College Prof told me once
> that what we first percieve as improbable usually means that we haven't
> explored all avenues yet, or, the technology needed is beyond what we
> have currently. Hydrogen as a fuel holds the carrot of "perfect fuel"
> out there yet we can't get to that point and I wander why?
>
Because there is no known physics to make it work.
> I've got a little time on my hands so I'd like to see all of the research
> that's been done so I don't try to reinvent the wheel, but, OTOH, maybe
> a fresh set of eyes my see something previously overlooked or dismissed
> out of hand due to arrogance or disbelief.
>
If you want to believe it is about arrogance, so be it. If you think you
will discover something overlooked by thousands of scientist that have
spent thousands of hours on the subject, wow.
>
>>If you want to increase your storage, batteries would be better than
>>hydrogen storage/fuel cells or H-powered generator.
>>
>
> Why?
>
Because it will cost you a magnitude more and at less efficiency.
>
>>But, you imply that you don't want to increase your reserve.
>>
>
> No, I said I didn't want to increase Battery capacity.
>
>
>>So, why do you want to make (or are interested in the feasability of
>>making) hydrogen?
>>
>
> Several reasons but the biggest now is because some of you say it can't
> be done and I don't believe in "CAN'T". I do believe in technological
> limitations and that is something I fairly good at seeing different
> angles on. Besides if it can be done I'd like to find out how.
>
It can be done. But for much less money and a much greater range for the
given energy, you could charge an electric vehicle and drive that around.
>
>>If you are generating more electricity than you use, alternative storage
>>methods won't stop you from 'wasting' power. If you have another use for
>>the excess power, tell us what you have in mind.
>>
>
> Powering my go-cart, my Lawn-Boy, maybe my Cessna. 'Course filling up that
> moon rocket
> out back would be nice <G>. At this point I'd just like to burn a good
> quantity out a tube at ever increasing flow rates with the minimum amount
> of wattage. Curiousity - I love challenges and it sounds like you guys
> have given up on research by virtue of preset ideas.
>
It is not about giving up. It is about getting a calculator out and
crunching some numbers.
Best, Dan.
Harry Conover
Good question.
Here in New England there are quite a few people fortunate enough to
have a fast flowing stream with a good head running through their
property, hence micro-hydro-electric is big, and the only technology
that I've yet seen where there is typically an ongoing surplus of
energy.
Every system that I am personally familiar with or have read about
stores this excess as BTUs by resistively adding heat to a thermal
mass that is later tapped during the cold months. (It gets cold
here.) Some of these installations have been documented in "Home
Power" magazine. In fact, this is the only method of energy excess
energy storage from a hydro-electric source that I've ever seen
documented. I would guess that, unless you live in a tropcial climate,
the same energy storage scenario would be equally adapatable to any
source.
There is a 'dream' installation of hydro within the Old Grist Mill
located directly opposite "Longfellow's Wayside Inn" just off Route 20
in Sudbury, Massachusetts. (You can normally go in an explore the mill
on most days during the summer months, without charge.) It's a small
mill with I'd guess a 16' drop wheel supplied by a small stream fed by
a fairly large mill pond. Inside the lower level of the mill (bring a
flashlight) you can observe the gearing arrangement that both drives
the mill plus optionally two medium sized alternators that I'd guess
from their size would be about 30-50 KW each. They're still on
location, but for some reason not in use. (The miller, who does
demonstrations of the grist mill operation for the tourists, told he
that they had been installed by Henry Ford shortely after he had
acqired and begun to restore this historic site, but except during
portions of WWII had never been used. Evidently, Ford had at one time
considered use of the mill as an environmentally responsible method of
supplying electrical power to the Wayside Inn and surrounding farm.
While I have no need for a 16' overshot wheel and 100-KW in generation
capacity, this site does provide inspiration for a scaled down
version.
Harry C.
Don Widders
No one said you "CAN'T" do it -- only that it doesn't make very good sense.
Here are the reasons:
1. Electrolyzers are expensive to buy and expensive to maintain because
good, efficient electrode that doesn't react with the electrolyte and
require replacement very frequently would be made of platinum. Electrolysis
is also very inefficient. Half the 'excess' electrical energy will be lost
in heat. This may seem like no loss to you if the energy is 'free', but
there certainly is a lost opportunity cost. Electricity is an extremely
high value form of energy because it's very useful. You can run your
computer or watch TV with electricity, but not with heat from a fire (unless
you convert the heat to electricty; you lose some of the energy in every
conversion.) That is why in a previous post I suggested a foundry with an
induction furnace. It would put your 'free' energy to good, productive use!
2. Hydrogen is big and light with a very high energy density by weight and
a low energy density buy volume. To store enough energy for bulk energy
apps requires a very BIG fuel tank. To get more hydtrogen in the tank
you'll be losing more energy during compression or refridgeration
(liquifacation). Or you'll spent a lot of money on hydrogen storage alloys
which will require temperature control devices and which weigh much more
than the hydrogen.
3. There are safety issues. Hydrogen is explosive in a wide range of air
mixtures and it is extremely easy to ignite. If you're using liquid
nitrogen and you don't use any for a few days, some will have to be vented.
The garage can become a bomb! If you're using high pressure hydrogen there
are safety issues with storage and use of highly explosive high pressure
gasses.
4. Equipment for generating, compressing, refrigerating, storing,
transfering and using hydrogen are very expensive. Have you found a price
for a fuel cell or hydrogen engine? If so, it was probably not cheap.
5. Hydrogen 'embrittles' metal.
Some of the greatest scientific and engineering minds in the world are
working to develop solutions to these problems. While it's not impossible
you will discover a solution they have missed, they are way ahead of you in
that they already recognize the problems and they already have knowledge on
the subject.
>
> > If you are generating more electricity than you use, alternative storage
> > methods won't stop you from 'wasting' power. If you have another use for
> > the excess power, tell us what you have in mind.
>
> Powering my go-cart, my Lawn-Boy, maybe my Cessna. 'Course filling up that
> moon rocket
> out back would be nice <G>. At this point I'd just like to burn a good
> quantity out a tube at ever increasing flow rates with the minimum amount
> of wattage. Curiousity - I love challenges and it sounds like you guys
> have given up on research by virtue of preset ideas.
>
> Mike
Time, energy and money are valuable resources that should be managed
prudently. No one has "given up" -- only applied our time and resources
where it makes the most sense. Powering a go-cart or Lawn-Boy with hydrogen
or a Cessna or a moon rocket doesn't seem like a very productive use of
resources.
To those with knowledge about the problems of using hydrogen for bulk energy
storage, pursuit of those applications is just a way to squander resources.
Don Widders
Mike O'Barr
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
>
> > Buckleys <the_bu...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3D6643...@optusnet.com.au>...
> >
> >>Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >>
> > Why is it so bad if NASA uses it?
>
> Because it is has the highest specific impulse known.
>
Oh, that's right, in rocket engines specific impulse is important.
Plus, in space you don't have to worry about heat as much either. Hum,
good point.
Question then. How can *highest specific impulse known* (HSIK) be used
to our
advantage here on Tera-Firma?
Can HSIK be used to an advantage in internal combustion engines?
1) Gasoline?
2) Diesel?
3) Wankle?
4) Dyna-cam?
5) Turbine?
6) Pulse-jet?
7) Constant Pressure (Gluharrif type) jet?
As a side note one of the posters said something about how only
atomized
liquid fuel is used in modern jet engines. This is not correct. The
Solar
T-1000 and T-1500 engines use vaporized - not atomized - fuel to run
on.
I know that Garret/Allied Signal/Honeywell Aerospace has an ongoing
engine
program that vaporizes it's fuel in an engine to run it on. It's part
of the heat recovery and is being tested in different configurations
of turbines.
> > An old College Prof told me once
> > that what we first percieve as improbable usually means that we haven't
> > explored all avenues yet, or, the technology needed is beyond what we
> > have currently. Hydrogen as a fuel holds the carrot of "perfect fuel"
> > out there yet we can't get to that point and I wander why?
>
> Because there is no known physics to make it work.
So it's current physics that's holding you back. What's wrong with
developing new physics. Did current physics hold Einstien back?
Mike
Tony Wesley
news:3D6797B8...@tinaja.com...
> Tony Wesley wrote:
> > If you have excess electricity without a way of dumping it back onto
> > the grid, maybe you can convert it to H2 and do something useful with
> > it.
>
> The way to convert it to H2, of course, is to sell the electricity, buy
> some methane, and then reform the methane.
If he's off the grid, how does he sell the electricity?
Don Lancaster
There is no carrot. It is all smoke and mirrors.
Terrestral hydrogen is only an energy carrier. It is incapable of
delivering net BTU's of energy to the on-the-books economy. It is also a
"pollution amplifier" that MAGNIFIES the pollution of its underlying
sources.
Replacing gasoline with a liquid that has the gravimetric density of
hydrogen might possibly reduce the weight of an average vehicle by an
average of 26 pounds. And might possibly improve the MPG by a fraction
of a percent. It would have no other obvious benefit that I can think
of.
The cost/benefit ratio would, of course, be outrageous.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun for a detailed analysis.
The problem with developing new physics is that it takes time and money
to do so.
And that individuals with the necessary tools and skills have much more
worthwhile things to do.
And that the probability of success is utterly negligible.
Don Lancaster
There are zillions of possibilities for using the electricity that would
have less of an energy drop than electrolysis.
Smelting his own aluminum would be better.
Actually, the odds are utterly overwhelming that he does not have any
electricity to start with.
When fully, properly, and correctly full burden accounted for, he really
has a net energy sink that is simply destroying gasoline.
The longer he runs it, the more it wastes.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Brent Wegher
> > If he's off the grid, how does he sell the electricity?
>
> There are zillions of possibilities for using the electricity that would
> have less of an energy drop than electrolysis.
>
> Smelting his own aluminum would be better.
>
Or install some electric baseboard heat. That would put a dent in his
"excess volts/watts" for sure. Smelt aluminum in the summer.
Come to think of it, install a water tower. Pump water up tower.
Some day you might find you don't have any excess. Now you drain the
water through a turbin-generator. More battery cap would be easier.
Brent Wegher
Brent Wegher
>
> So it's current physics that's holding you back. What's wrong with
> developing new physics. Did current physics hold Einstien back?
>
> Mike
You have the right attitude but you haven't learned any science. You
would have been better served by taking that high-school physics class
instead of marketing.
Physics is the human based systematic study of reality. Human
understanding of reality is not physics. Physics is just a "language"
to tell other humans what was observed. There is only one reality, so
we see only one result in a well designed test.
Observe Predict Test Reject
Observe Predict Test Reject
Observe Predict Test Reject
etc. about 100 times.
Observe Predict Test Accept.... Publish.
Go home and have a pizza.
Find a 1 gram steel ball bearing. Make a test stand 10 meters tall.
Rig a timer to measure the time it takes the ball to fall. I predict
the ball will take exactly ??? seconds to fall 10 meters. you figure
it out. It won't change ever. Don't give me any crap about
relativity. Start with newton.
Find some metal, wire and a battery. Make a small electric motor.
Predict how fast it will turn.
Find a transistor, plot its most basic function with an ammeter.
Do you believe that the speed of sound is the same for you and me??
Measure the fundamental charge of an electron.
Carefully weigh a two liter soda bottle you get from Walmart. Drink
it and weigh the "empty". Record your results. For extra credit, put
a vacuum pump on the bottle and weigh it once again.
Find some clear tubing. connect between syringes of two different
diameters fill with water. Get your bathroom scale and use it to push
on one syringe for one centimeter. measure the distance traveled by
the other syringe.
etc.
Go to your local public library. Ask the librarian for a scientific
encyclopedia, volume "H" read the hydrogen part.
Learn physics yourself. Don't criticize existing physics, its
imperfect but we will continue to work on it.
Brent Wegher
rat race emeritus
Don Lancaster
>
> Snips
>
> > > If he's off the grid, how does he sell the electricity?
> >
> > There are zillions of possibilities for using the electricity that would
> >
> > Smelting his own aluminum would be better.
> >
>
> Or install some electric baseboard heat. That would put a dent in his
> "excess volts/watts" for sure. Smelt aluminum in the summer.
>
> Come to think of it, install a water tower. Pump water up tower.
> Some day you might find you don't have any excess. Now you drain the
> water through a turbin-generator. More battery cap would be easier.
>
> Brent Wegher
I don't think there has been one instance ever of a sanely sized pv
installation providing "enough" electricity, let alone excess.
Even if the "excess" did in fact represent a net energy source (it
almost certainly does not, being amortized gasoline in disguise),
electrolysis would be virtually certain to convert it back down into a
net energy sink.
Do the math!
Mike O'Barr
> Tony Wesley wrote:
> >
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D6797B8...@tinaja.com...
> > > Tony Wesley wrote:
>
> > > > If you have excess electricity without a way of dumping it back onto
> > > > the grid, maybe you can convert it to H2 and do something useful with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > The way to convert it to H2, of course, is to sell the electricity, buy
> > > some methane, and then reform the methane.
> >
> > If he's off the grid, how does he sell the electricity?
>
> There are zillions of possibilities for using the electricity that would
> have less of an energy drop than electrolysis.
>
> Smelting his own aluminum would be better.
>
> Actually, the odds are utterly overwhelming that he does not have any
> electricity to start with.
>
> When fully, properly, and correctly full burden accounted for, he really
> has a net energy sink that is simply destroying gasoline.
>
> The longer he runs it, the more it wastes.
Absolutely incredible, not only have you relegated me to non-entity
status but have taken away my ability to live and move about.
Just as a point of interest I did download some of your files from your
guru regurgitant website and found more hate and venom than you spew here.
It makes going through your stuff pretty tough when someone tries to get to
the actual information. Your commentary clearly points out that you are
as anti-hydrogen as any human can get. Obviously you were, at some point,
either a very pro-hydrogen advicate that got a nasty bite by from some
corporate goon or you are an oil industry hack. I don't know which and
I hope you find some peace in your life.
My first impulse after reading this was to file what I had downloaded
from your site in the trash file but then I thought that maybe, through
all of your venomous bile, you might actualy have information I can use.
It's just that its going to be very distastfull to filter through it all.
By my own estimation I figure that, when all loads are accounted for I have
about 2500 watt/hrs available per day during the summer and close to 3000
during the winter. The white LED's have really cut down on the power usage.
Mike
PS, why would I want to smelt aluminum? Do you have a need?
Mike O'Barr
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >
> > Dan Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> wrote in message news:<3D67C83A...@spam.net>...
> > > Mike O'Barr wrote:
> > >
> > > > Buckleys <the_bu...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3D6643...@optusnet.com.au>...
> > > >
> > > >>Mike O'Barr wrote:
> > > >>
> > > > Why is it so bad if NASA uses it?
> > >
> > > Because it is has the highest specific impulse known.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, that's right, in rocket engines specific impulse is important.
> > Plus, in space you don't have to worry about heat as much either. Hum,
> > good point.
> > Question then. How can *highest specific impulse known* (HSIK) be used
> > to our advantage here on Tera-Firma?
> >
> > Can HSIK be used to an advantage in internal combustion engines?
> > 1) Gasoline?
> > 2) Diesel?
> > 3) Wankle?
> > 4) Dyna-cam?
> > 5) Turbine?
> > 6) Pulse-jet?
> > 7) Constant Pressure (Gluharrif type) jet?
[snip]
> > > > An old College Prof told me once
> > > > that what we first percieve as improbable usually means that we haven't
> > > > explored all avenues yet, or, the technology needed is beyond what we
> > > > have currently. Hydrogen as a fuel holds the carrot of "perfect fuel"
> > > > out there yet we can't get to that point and I wander why?
> > >
> > > Because there is no known physics to make it work.
> >
> > So it's current physics that's holding you back. What's wrong with
> > developing new physics. Did current physics hold Einstien back?
>
> There is no carrot. It is all smoke and mirrors.
Why?
> Terrestral hydrogen is only an energy carrier. It is incapable of
> delivering net BTU's of energy to the on-the-books economy. It is also a
> "pollution amplifier" that MAGNIFIES the pollution of its underlying
> sources.
Got to admit that this response was much better mannered than another
one in which you said I had no electricity at all. So I'll ask a few
questions.
Aside from your focus on *on-the-books* economics why are there no
net BTU's available in hydrogen? Or is it the money issue?
When you state that it is a pollution magnifier what draws you to that
conclusion? How can a fuel whose byproduct is water with slight traces
of Nitrogen based particles be considered a magnifier? Especially
since
mine - if I decide to do some experimentation - would be coming from
solar based sources. I'm not interested in the economics just yet.
> Replacing gasoline with a liquid that has the gravimetric density of
> hydrogen might possibly reduce the weight of an average vehicle by an
> average of 26 pounds. And might possibly improve the MPG by a fraction
> of a percent. It would have no other obvious benefit that I can think
> of.
I have heard that power output in a gasoline engine suffers about a 40
to 60% loss. Is that also correct?
> The cost/benefit ratio would, of course, be outrageous.
How outrageous? Explain please. Define first what you may see as the
benefit that the cost is being compared to.
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun for a detailed analysis.
>
> The problem with developing new physics is that it takes time and money
> to do so.
I agree. But if there is someone out there who may have a little of
both
and would like to give it the *Old College Try* why discourage them?
Why not instead say "Look, there is a bunch of us who have been down
this
road before and could find no real use for what you're attempting to
do.
However, if you are going to do this anyway (and I am) here is what we
did and this what we found. Maybe you can see something we didn't."
Not only would that give an individual a head start it would also keep
them from reinventing the wheel.
My God that would be an incredible change from the "You're waisting
your
time because you're too stupid, uneducated, you don't understand, your
lying, your a flim-flam, scam, pie-in-the-sky, artist with no
understanding
of fundimental physics and engineering, (there's a few other nice
things
some of you people have put in your posts and e-mails to me that I
won't
repeat here), Idiot" that you have been able to push my way.
> And that individuals with the necessary tools and skills have much more
> worthwhile things to do.
Like see to it that the honest inquisitor is shamed into quiting?
> And that the probability of success is utterly negligible.
But it's my time isn't it? So either be a help or get out of the way.
If you want to help start by answering the questions I asked before
that
I left in. Also one more How many BTU's does hydrogen have per cubic
foot?
Don Lancaster
>
> By my own estimation I figure that, when all loads are accounted for I have
> about 2500 watt/hrs available per day during the summer and close to 3000
> during the winter. The white LED's have really cut down on the power usage.
>
>
> Mike
>
Or about twenty five to thirty cents a day.
How are you going to distribute this twenty five cents between the
amortization of the electrolysis gear and the maintenence labor?
At what interest rate?
At what labor rate?
Over what payback time?
For what percentage net return?
Do the numbers.
Electrolysis conversion to hydrogen makes no sense whatsoever in your
situation.
Don Lancaster
>
> Aside from your focus on *on-the-books* economics why are there no
> net BTU's available in hydrogen? Or is it the money issue?
>
You have to fill terrestral hydrogen with energy before you can empty
it.
The cost of the filling involves three factors: feedstock, equipment
cost, and amortization.
The feedstock is usually a small to negligible factor. Thus, a solar
source rarely has any benefit and usually costs ridiculously more than
industry standard methods.
> When you state that it is a pollution magnifier what draws you to that
> conclusion? How can a fuel whose byproduct is water with slight traces
> of Nitrogen based particles be considered a magnifier? Especially
> since
> mine - if I decide to do some experimentation - would be coming from
> solar based sources. I'm not interested in the economics just yet.
>
If you are not interested in the economics, you ignore that you clearly
do not have a solar based source.
Look carefully at the economics and you will find you really have a
gasoline based source.
>
> > The cost/benefit ratio would, of course, be outrageous.
>
> How outrageous? Explain please. Define first what you may see as the
> benefit that the cost is being compared to.
the benefit is negligible.
the cost is very high.
hence the cost benefit ratio is outrageous.
there is no point whatsoever in seeking out higher gravimetric densities
for personal vehicle use unless it can be done at utterly negligible
costs.
>
>
But if there is someone out there who may have a little of
> both
> and would like to give it the *Old College Try* why discourage them?
Because the "college try" should first and foremost instead involve
taking a college thermodynamics course. Followed, of course, by a
college economics course.
> Also one more How many BTU's does hydrogen have per cubic
> foot?
2.7 watt hours per STP liter in standard units and terminology.
Compared to 9000 for gasoline.
The answer to this question should, of course, have been found long
before you even began your hydrogen fantasy.
Don Widders
> How many BTU's does hydrogen have per cubic
> foot?
270 BTU/cu.ft.
http://www.hionsolar.com/n-heq1.html
Mike, when you discover the answers you've received here are true, will you
post a message to that effect? If someone else comes asking the same
questions will you try to save them time, energy and money? Will that make
you "anti-hydrogen"? Facts are facts and providing honest facts doesn't
make a person pro- or anti- anything.
This is from a hydrogen information page of the US DOE
(http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/a109.html):
"Currently the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen is steam
reforming. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, in 1995 the cost was
$7.39 per million Btu ($7.00 per gigajoule) in large plant production. This
assumes a cost for natural gas of $2.43 per million Btu ($2.30 per
gigajoule). This is the equivalent of $0.93 per gallon ($0.24 per liter) of
gasoline. The production of hydrogen by electrolysis using hydroelectricity
at off peak rates costs between $10.55 to $21.10 per million Btu ($10.00 to
$20.00 per gigajoule)."
If you're buying BTUs, you get about 412,000 BTUs in $1.00 of natural gas.
Convert the natural gas to hydrogen and you will be left with about 135,000
BTUs. If you make your hydrogen from electricity, $1.00 worth of
electricity will make about 70,000 BTU of hydrogen (assuming just 3¢/kWh for
electricity.) At 10¢/kWh, $1.00 worth of electricity will make about 21,000
BTU of hydrogen.
So... $1.00 buys you:
412,000 Btu in the form of natural gas
135,000 Btu in the form of hydrogen from natural gas
(not counting the cost of reformer)
70,000 Btu in the form of hydrogen from 33 kWh of electricity
(@ 3¢/kWh, not counting the cost of electrolyzer)
21,000 Btu in the form of hydrogen from 10 kWh or electricity
(@ 10¢/kWh, not counting the cost of electrolyzer)
A decent electrolyzer will cost you some pretty big bucks (unless you also
have a source of 'free' platinum). You can forget about liquefaction. A
good hydrogen compressor and some high pressure tanks will also set you back
and will suck up some more of your 'free' electricity (about a third or a
fourth of it -- depending on how high the pressure.)
Once you have a high pressure tank full of hydrogen, you'll need to modify
your lawnmower or car or spaceship to run on hydrogen. That may cost some
money and create a safety hazard.
Are you beginning to see why Home Depot doesn't carry electrolyzers,
hydrogen compressors and high pressure hydrogen storage tanks?
Don W.
Dan Bloomquist
Mike O'Barr wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> wrote in message news:<3D67C83A...@spam.net>...
>
>>Mike O'Barr wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Buckleys <the_bu...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3D6643...@optusnet.com.au>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mike O'Barr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why is it so bad if NASA uses it?
>>>
>>Because it is has the highest specific impulse known.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, that's right, in rocket engines specific impulse is important.
> Plus, in space you don't have to worry about heat as much either. Hum,
> good point.
> Question then. How can *highest specific impulse known* (HSIK) be used
> to our
> advantage here on Tera-Firma?
>
Here on earth economics is the dominant factor so it is to our advantage
to us fossils.
>>>An old College Prof told me once
>>>that what we first percieve as improbable usually means that we haven't
>>>explored all avenues yet, or, the technology needed is beyond what we
>>>have currently. Hydrogen as a fuel holds the carrot of "perfect fuel"
>>>out there yet we can't get to that point and I wander why?
>>>
>>Because there is no known physics to make it work.
>>
>
> So it's current physics that's holding you back. What's wrong with
> developing new physics. Did current physics hold Einstien back?
>
Everyone and their relatives have been trying to improve on previous
physics. I'm all for it. But wish'n for it ain't going to make it
happen. When it comes to applications, you'll do best using what you
already know.
Best, Dan.
Don Widders
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >>Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >>>>Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Why is it so bad if NASA uses it?
> >>>
> >>Because it is has the highest specific impulse known.
> >>
> > Oh, that's right, in rocket engines specific impulse is important.
> > Plus, in space you don't have to worry about heat as much either. Hum,
> > good point.
> > Question then. How can *highest specific impulse known* (HSIK) be used
> > to our advantage here on Tera-Firma?
Mike sort of answered his own question before he asked it when he said "in
rocket engines specific impulse is important". On Earth this is not the
case. Since a vehicle without fuel usually weighs between 2500 and 5000
pounds it's more important that the fuel to take me 450 miles can fit inside
an ordinary 15 gallon gas tank than the fact it weighs 80 lbs vs. 0 lbs.
> >
>
>
> Here on earth economics is the dominant factor so it is to our advantage
> to us fossils.
Well, yes, money economics as well as energy economics as well as safety as
well as trunk space.
Don W.
Tony Wesley
> Tony Wesley wrote:
> >
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D6797B8...@tinaja.com...
> > > Tony Wesley wrote:
>
> > > > If you have excess electricity without a way of dumping it back onto
> > > > the grid, maybe you can convert it to H2 and do something useful with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > The way to convert it to H2, of course, is to sell the electricity, buy
> > > some methane, and then reform the methane.
> >
> > If he's off the grid, how does he sell the electricity?
>
> There are zillions of possibilities for using the electricity that would
> have less of an energy drop than electrolysis.
>
> Smelting his own aluminum would be better.
>
> Actually, the odds are utterly overwhelming that he does not have any
> electricity to start with.
>
> When fully, properly, and correctly full burden accounted for, he really
> has a net energy sink that is simply destroying gasoline.
>
> The longer he runs it, the more it wastes.
If (and it's a big if) the PV cells are already there in excess capacity,
the energy cost is already sunk. As I mentioned in another thread a while
back, an off-grid PV system is going to have lots of over-capacity (unless
the user plans on firing up the generator frequently).
Mike O'Barr
> Mike O'Barr included:
> >
> > Maybe, that's why I'm here - to find out the science done
> > so far and get the numbers.
>
> It doesn't look as if that's why you are here.
Well, so far I've haven't seen anything except the debunking ridicule,
so appearances would be decieving. I am, in fact, interested in the
facts.
> > So far all I've seen in ridicule and assumption.
>
> You must have missed my reply, or actually replies.
> I think I replied twice.
Yes I did miss your replies. I was the recipient of
several nasty e-mail's that I'm dealing since that post
so I appologize.
> --- Graham Cowan
> http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
> how cars could gain nuclear fission cachet
For some reason that site won't come up on my server.
Checking it out though. Thanks.
Mike
Mike O'Barr
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >
> > By my own estimation I figure that, when all loads are accounted for I have
> > about 2500 watt/hrs available per day during the summer and close to 3000
> > during the winter. The white LED's have really cut down on the power usage.
Ok, lets see. According to your reasoning that 25 to 30 cents is what,
profit? Savings? I have no grid intertie and I don't share with anyone
so by my reasoning that would be waiste. I waiste 25 to 30 cents a day
at maximum power usage on a still day.
> How are you going to distribute this twenty five cents between the
> amortization of the electrolysis gear and the maintenence labor?
Since I'm not making said 25 cents there is no profit to distribute.
Since my electrolysis gear is just laying around the shop there is no
cost on the gear and, therefore, no amortorization.
Since I'm doing all of this myself the maintenance labor is?
- you guessed it -
Zero!!!!
> At what interest rate?
0.0%
> At what labor rate?
$0.00/hr
> Over what payback time?
Oh, I don't know. How about immediately. Since I'm not looking at
profits that should happen pretty quick.
> For what percentage net return?
Dear Father in Heaven above. Do you think that I'm in this for
the money? or a business?
> Do the numbers.
I did. Everything I need is here in the shop. I have carbon electrodes,
lots of wire, several water tanks, tubing, pipes, gages that measure in
PSIG, PSIA, In/Hg, In/H20, Ohm Meters, Amp Meters, Volt Meters, Multi
Meters with Temp. adapters, etc, etc, ad nausium. Initial start up
cost = $0.00 + a little of my time (falls under the volunteer catagory
meaning *for free*). I even have some old catalytic converters laying
around that I can tear into if needed.
AND
Since I don't pay for the electricity my whole - total - out of pocket
expenses = $00.00.
> Electrolysis conversion to hydrogen makes no sense whatsoever in your
> situation.
Why? If I produce so much as 1 penny worth of hydrogen I've made money,
or, rather, in *my situation* I've saved money. Producing Hydrogen in
*my situation* has just become a net producer - according to the numbers.
Mike
Mike O'Barr
> > > Because there is no known physics to make it work.
> >
> > So it's current physics that's holding you back. What's wrong with
> > developing new physics. Did current physics hold Einstien back?
> >
> > Mike
>
>
> You have the right attitude but you haven't learned any science.
Before I launch into my tirade I want to thank you for your post on
August 23rd with all of the links. I do research well and learned
quite a bit about what I'm about to do.
Let me explain something Brent. I took High School Physics and up to
Physics 421 at Embry-Riddle. I have a problem with arrogant people who
assume too much and who tout their own web sites as if they were some
kind of genuine guru. I also
am bugged by people who just have a nasty attitude about themselves
and others around them and I do take exception to them and will debate
them. Especially when they make erroneous claims about something they
are suppose to know (by their own admission) and which they tout as
truth.
You are correct about a certain aspect about the science and that's
why I initially came here - to learn, not get slapped around by Don L.
because he's
got a wild hair up his posterior. Don B., Don W and yourself has been
helpful
with providing links to other web sites other than their/your own. Don
B has been a little critical and discouraging at times (can't blame
him either, I've been a little harsh as well) but I appreciate his
candor. Don W. likewise. The web sites have presented a frank and open
resource base. Not once were these sites disparaging, AND, they
offered both sides of the debate.
> You would have been better served by taking that high-school physics class
> instead of marketing.
Didn't take marketing.
> Physics is the human based systematic study of reality. Human
> understanding of reality is not physics. Physics is just a "language"
> to tell other humans what was observed. There is only one reality, so
> we see only one result in a well designed test.
By your very words you indict the physics. Since it is human based it
also means that it is subject to vagaries of human understanding.
Probably why theories are always in flux. When one person tells
another person what was observed, using the language of Physics, it is
considered by that other person based on that persons own
understanding, beliefs and preset Ideas. If you want to talk about
what has been termed *Forbidden Physics* or *Forbidden Archeology* via
e-mail I'm game.
I agree that there is only one reality but if you stick 10 PhD's in
seperate rooms and have them observe some *well designed* test without
giving them a pre-determined hoped for outcome you will probably get 5
to 10 different explanations and conclusions. I disagree with your
premise in that the result is a speculative effort by the observers.
Having said that I do understand your point and generally agree - with
that caveat.
> Observe Predict Test Reject
> Observe Predict Test Reject
> Observe Predict Test Reject
>
> etc. about 100 times.
Agreed
> Observe Predict Test Accept.... Publish.
> Go home and have a pizza.
What, no beer?
[snipping the stuff I did in Jr. High]
[snipping the stuff I did in High school]
> Go to your local public library. Ask the librarian for a scientific
> encyclopedia, volume "H" read the hydrogen part.
Thanks to you I did it on the web. Much Graz.
> Learn physics yourself.
Been there, wrecked that.
> Don't criticize existing physics, its imperfect but we will continue to work
> on it.
It was not my intent to do that, really. I'm sorry professor.
> Brent Wegher
> rat race emeritus
Naw, just human. Thanks for your help.
Mike O'Barr
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
You know, Don, there are reasons why people like
you really bother me. They cloud the issues with
nonsense, half-truths and obfuscations.
> > What is the equivalent BTU's of 1 pound of;
> > 1) Gasoline (regular grade please)
>
> 13,000 watthours per kilogram, but see below
>
18,000 to 20,000 BTU/Lb per the DOE
> > 2) Methanol
>
> around half gasoline
8570 to 9750 BTU/Lb. A little more than half I'd say.
> > 3) Ethyl Alcohol (Ethanol)
>
> Not meaningful -- Ethyl Alcohol from corn is a net energy sink, not an
> energy source. Probably around MINUS 3000 or so.
11,500 to 12,800 BTU/Lb. UHHH, missed by a long shot.
> > How about the gasses;
> >
> > 1) Propane
>
> about two-thirds gasoline
19,800 to 21,600 BTU/Lb. Let's see, that's slightly more than
gasoline. HUMMM
> > 2) Natural gas (CNG)
>
> about half gasoline
21,200 to 23,600 BTU/Lb. How'd you get half?
> > 3) Hydrogen
>
> again, not meaningful. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a net energy
> source.
Only the facts mam'! 51,532 to 61,002 BTU/Lb.
All of these figure come from the DOE. Thanks to those who turned me
on to those neat web sites. There was a lot of reading.
> see below -- contained hydrogen is much worse than gasoline.
Because of what I've read I wander.
> > Also, when CNG is compressed does it exhibit the same nasty explosive
> > behavior as Hydrogen? Are the pressures similar?
>
> Not remotely.
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mike
>
> The exact figures you ask for appear at
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energyfun.pdf
> These figures are easily verified by using the links at
> http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
I don't know if I can trust your sites Don. You have made claims that
other websites not only disprove but actually go the distance and
provide the numbers on. They don't dismiss it by a wave of the hand
and give no reason or numbers.
> Note that the hydrogen btu/s per pound are utterly meaningless for
> terrestral aps, since you have to consider the CONTAINED btu's per
> pound. Which, of course, are much worse than gasoline.
Is this an outright lie? According to the DOE the BTU's/Lb for
Hydrogen is nearly 3 times that of gasoline.
I'm still working on what this all means but as for now I don't think
I can trust you.
Mike
Graham Cowan
By "CONTAINED btu's per pound" he means btu's per pound of
(fuel plus container). Hydrogen's large volume and preference
for special containers makes the sum in the round brackets big
even though the number for just the fuel is small.
So for instance we have the recent number from Magna-Steyr
quoted in Peter Hoffmann's newsletter for July
(http://www.hfcletter.com/letter/July02/features.html).
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
a good way for cars to gain nuclear cachet
Don Lancaster
>
>
> Is this an outright lie? According to the DOE the BTU's/Lb for
> Hydrogen is nearly 3 times that of gasoline.
>
Yes, the DOE is telling an outright lie.
Their obscenely misleading figure is only useful for deep space apps.
The CONTAINED BTU's/Lb for hydrogen is worse than gasoline, because
there is no way in hell to hold 13 pounds of hydrogen in a 26 pound
container.
Mike O'Barr
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is this an outright lie? According to the DOE the BTU's/Lb for
> > Hydrogen is nearly 3 times that of gasoline.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Yes, the DOE is telling an outright lie.
I don't think so. Remember that I asked for BTU's per pound. I didn't
ask for adjustments or containment, just btus and that's what they gave.
> Their obscenely misleading figure is only useful for deep space apps.
Just to review I went back to the site to see if they were speaking of
contained or highly pressurized or at ambient pressure. It didn't specify
but it did specify CNG at 2600psi so since there were no such numbers
associated with the Hydrogen numbers I must assume it meant ambient
pressures
> The CONTAINED BTU's/Lb for hydrogen is worse than gasoline, because
> there is no way in hell to hold 13 pounds of hydrogen in a 26 pound
> container.
I don't get your point here. I suppose your are assuming gasoline
replacement which I am not. But I am curious what you think the
actual *contained* BTU's/Lb of Hydrogen is, before *adjustments*.
Mike
Don Lancaster
>
>
> I don't get your point here. I suppose your are assuming gasoline
> replacement which I am not. But I am curious what you think the
> actual *contained* BTU's/Lb of Hydrogen is, before *adjustments*.
>
> Mike
Per another post link, about 145 kg of container for 9 kg of hydrogen
seems to be state of the art.
Thus less than one fifth gasoline.
But that's before 30% or worse liquification losses, so around
one-seventh gasoline.
Thus the contained energy density by weight of hydrogen is slightly
better than lithium batteries.
The Technical Manager
> Mike O'Barr wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't get your point here. I suppose your are assuming gasoline
> > replacement which I am not. But I am curious what you think the
> > actual *contained* BTU's/Lb of Hydrogen is, before *adjustments*.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Per another post link, about 145 kg of container for 9 kg of hydrogen
> seems to be state of the art.
>
> Thus less than one fifth gasoline.
>
> But that's before 30% or worse liquification losses, so around
> one-seventh gasoline.
Also bear in mind the total inefficiency of hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.
Think of all the energy used in extracting the oil from the wells,
transporting it to the refineries, refining it into fuels, and
transporting the fuels to where they are to be used. This coupled with
engine and drivetrain inefficiency of the vehicle and wind drag will
probably account to a system that averages only 1% efficiency.
Providing a more efficient means of storing hydrogen than liquefying or
hydride absorption is developed and the hydrogen extracted from water
using a renewable energy source then hydrogen could replace hydrocarbon
fuels for most vehicle applications.
Graham Cowan
>
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> > Mike O'Barr wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't get your point here. I suppose your are assuming gasoline
> > > replacement which I am not. But I am curious what you think the
> > > actual *contained* BTU's/Lb of Hydrogen is, before *adjustments*.
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > Per another post link, about 145 kg of container for 9 kg of hydrogen
> > seems to be state of the art.
> >
> > Thus less than one fifth gasoline.
> >
> > But that's before 30% or worse liquification losses, so around
> > one-seventh gasoline.
>
> Also bear in mind the total inefficiency of hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.
> Think of all the energy used in extracting the oil from the wells,
> transporting it to the refineries, refining it into fuels, and
> transporting the fuels to where they are to be used.
I have thought about that, or at least,
the transport part. 10,000 km by dedicated bulk carrier
costs no more than 3.6 percent of petroleum's energy,
assuming 30 percent efficiency in the ship motors
(http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html#SaltW).
I have recently learned marine motor efficiency
is likely closer to 40 percent,
so the true loss probably is around 2.7 percent.
The four above-mentioned losses, all together,
are very unlikely to exceed ten percent.
Not all petroleum becomes gasoline,
but the other parts' energy is not lost.
> This coupled with engine and drivetrain inefficiency
> of the vehicle and wind drag will probably account
> to a system that averages only 1% efficiency.
Stupid. All the energy used by a vehicle
on a round trip from A to B and back again
becomes heat, and yet the efficiency is not zero percent,
nor is it 1 percent.
At http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/bsfc.html
gives numbers that work out to a range
from 27 to 32 percent
for fuel injected four-stroke gasoline automobile engines .
(I guess this does not include drivetrain losses?)
>
> Providing a more efficient means of storing hydrogen ...
What's really wanted is to store energy ...
hydrogen is just a means,
and one that the motoring public,
smarter than most hydrogen enthusiasts,
has never taken to,
despite prototypes' having existed
from multiple sources since 1978.
Mike O'Barr
> "Mike O'Barr" <obi...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> > How many BTU's does hydrogen have per cubic
> > foot?
>
> 270 BTU/cu.ft.
The latest figure I got from the DOE was 1220 BTU/cu.ft.
> http://www.hionsolar.com/n-heq1.html
>
> Mike, when you discover the answers you've received here are true, will you
> post a message to that effect?
Thanks to all of the web sites that I've been directed to I just don't
see
that happening. I don't know where the truth is yet but the numbers
and
figures you guys have been giving me just don't seem to match the DOE,
Shell
Hydrogen, and several other national and nations sites where info on
Hydrogen energy is discussed and debated. Seeing the equivalent energy
figures for Hydrogen made me scratch my head at first until some of
the
sites stated some of the obvious things that I was missing due to my
focus on just trying to get some good, consistant figures. The costs,
"right now" are nearly prohibitive because of initial costs associated
with catalysts, electrolizers, purifiers, etc.
Several sites stated that those costs would be dramatically reduced
through economies of scale. IOW, an electrolizer that might cost
$30,000 now would
be reduced to $300.00 through economies of scale. Things like that.
Are they correct? Inquiring minds want to know.
[snip]
> A decent electrolyzer will cost you some pretty big bucks (unless you also
> have a source of 'free' platinum). You can forget about liquefaction. A
> good hydrogen compressor and some high pressure tanks will also set you back
> and will suck up some more of your 'free' electricity (about a third or a
> fourth of it -- depending on how high the pressure.)
>
> Once you have a high pressure tank full of hydrogen, you'll need to modify
> your lawnmower or car or spaceship to run on hydrogen. That may cost some
> money and create a safety hazard.
>
> Are you beginning to see why Home Depot doesn't carry electrolyzers,
> hydrogen compressors and high pressure hydrogen storage tanks?
These are all excellent points but won't they be addressed by the
sheer
scale of it all if what shell oil/hydrogen is envisioning happens.
Mike
Don Lancaster
>
>
> >
> > 270 BTU/cu.ft.
>
> The latest figure I got from the DOE was 1220 BTU/cu.ft.
The correct value is 2.7 watt hours per STP liter.
> Several sites stated that those costs would be dramatically reduced
> through economies of scale. IOW, an electrolizer that might cost
> $30,000 now would
> be reduced to $300.00 through economies of scale. Things like that.
>
> Are they correct? Inquiring minds want to know.
Only if (A) you find a free source of platinum, and (B) you can somehow
get around the outrageous loss of exergy in electrolysis that GUARANTEES
it will remain UTTERLY useless as a source of bulk hydrogen.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
>
> Mike
Graham Cowan
The centralized production of hydrogen already
benefits from economies of scale.
Plants exist that produce hundreds of megawatts of H2.
They do not use electrolysis, because if electrolysis
were done on that scale the produced hydrogen's unit cost
would be several times more.
It is hard to get hydrogen from central plants to houses,
and that means a higher delivered price
than if you drove your hydrogen tanker truck to the plant.
So much higher that not only the use of electrolysis,
but its use on a household scale*,
can ever be comparatively affordable?
I don't think so. Rather,
I expect cheap centralized production of boron,
clean at point of use, like hydrogen,
plus easy to distribute and gather in again.
270 BTU/ft^3 is at 1 atmosphere pressure,
i.e. if you had a 1.1-cubic-foot plastic bag in your had
with 1 ft^3 of hydrogen in it.
But it is a compresible gas,
so if you saw a higher figure somewhere,
it doesn't necessarily disagree. What was the pressure?
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
a good way for cars to gain nuclear cachet
* Multiply the unit cost by several to reflect
going from more efficient methods to electrolysis,
then by several again to reflect household scale
rather than hundreds-of-megawatts scale.
Don Widders
> "Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote in message
news:<umkpmko...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Mike O'Barr" <obi...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > news:a67c3034.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > <snip>
> > > How many BTU's does hydrogen have per cubic
> > > foot?
> >
> > 270 BTU/cu.ft.
>
> The latest figure I got from the DOE was 1220 BTU/cu.ft.
>
> > http://www.hionsolar.com/n-heq1.html
> >
> > Mike, when you discover the answers you've received here
> > are true, will you post a message to that effect?
>
> Thanks to all of the web sites that I've been directed to I just
> don't see that happening. I don't know where the truth is yet but
> the numbers and figures you guys have been giving me just
> don't seem to match the DOE, Shell Hydrogen, and several
> other national and nations sites where info on Hydrogen
> energy is discussed and debated.
Reference the numbers we have been giving you and the ones that don't match
and perhaps we can explain the difference. 270 BTU/cu.ft. is the correct
figure for thermal energy potential of hydrogen at STP. Differences in
temperature and pressure will dramatically affect the figure. What are the
conditions of the DOE figure? I often use DOE figures, so even though I'm
in disagreement with their editorial message with regard to a "hydrogen
economy", they are a good source for reliable data (even if it doesn't favor
their cause.) You'll notice they compare the mass energy density of
hydrogen with that of gasoline, but not the volume energy density. In
terrestrial applications, one typically isn't interested in the weight of
fuel in the gas tank, but tripling the size of the fuel tank in order to get
decent range is a bit more of a problem. Give me a link to your 1220
BTU/cu.ft. figure so that I can see what temperature and pressure conditions
were used. You might have been looking at the figure for liquid hydrogen.
> Seeing the equivalent energy
> figures for Hydrogen made me scratch my head at first until
> some of the sites stated some of the obvious things that I was
> missing due to my focus on just trying to get some good,
> consistant figures. The costs, "right now" are nearly prohibitive
> because of initial costs associated with catalysts, electrolizers,
> purifiers, etc.
>
> Several sites stated that those costs would be dramatically
> reduced through economies of scale. IOW, an electrolizer
> that might cost $30,000 now would be reduced to $300.00
> through economies of scale. Things like that.
>
> Are they correct? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> [snip]
I would say no, they are not correct. Already, bulk hydrogen is available
and in heavy use by NASA and in refinery operations as well as fertilizer
manufacturing. Many electrolyzers are used for filling weather balloons,
producing hydrogen for use in the food industry and producing hydrogen for
applications requiring small amounts of hydrogen on a regular or continuous
basis. In these electrolyzer applications, the cost of the electrolyzer and
the electric power is offset by not needing to handle/transport small
amounts of hydrogen.
Platinum is already an industrial metal. The catalytic converter
requirement on automobiles has not reduced the price of platinum. In fact,
if anything the use of platinum in catalytic converters has increased the
price of platinum.
>
> > A decent electrolyzer will cost you some pretty big bucks
> > (unless you also have a source of 'free' platinum). You can
> > forget about liquefaction. A good hydrogen compressor and
> > some high pressure tanks will also set you back and will suck
> > up some more of your 'free' electricity (about a third or a
> > fourth of it -- depending on how high the pressure.)
> >
> > Once you have a high pressure tank full of hydrogen, you'll
> > need to modify your lawnmower or car or spaceship to run
> > on hydrogen. That may cost some money and create a safety
> > hazard.
> >
> > Are you beginning to see why Home Depot doesn't carry
> > electrolyzers, hydrogen compressors and high pressure
> > hydrogen storage tanks?
>
> These are all excellent points but won't they be addressed by the
> sheer scale of it all if what shell oil/hydrogen is envisioning happens.
>
> Mike
Shell and BMW and others know very well that hydrogen as hydrogen is not the
answer to energy and pollution problems. The 'research' they are doing is
just a show to appease environmentalists who haven't yet figured out where
all the energy will come from. The U.S. uses more than 26 quadrillion BTUs
of energy on transportation each year. The energy requirement will
approximately triple if we first convert it to hydrogen by electrolysis and
then compress the hydrogen to a usable density.
26 quadrillion BTUs X 3 = 78 quadrillion BTUs/year = 2,970,000,000,000
BTU/hour
= 870,000,000,000 watts
Any idea where the extra 870 gigawatts of power will come from? This is
just the energy requirement to replace gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel in
transportation! It doesn't count any of the infrastructure costs which, all
by themselves would kill the idea. I doubt if there is enough platinum in
the world to make enough electrodes to make that much hydrogen.
Let's assume the power will come from solar panels. How many solar panels
will we need? Or a better question might be "how much energy will be
required to build the solar panels we need?" Recent studies have shown that
a solar panel can produce the amount of energy required to build the solar
panel in about 4 years. So now you have a much bigger problem because now
you're not looking for a mere 78 quadrillion BTU of energy -- now you're
looking for 312 quadrillion BTU to produce enough solar panels to create
enough hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in transportation.
Since full sunlight is not always illuminating a solar panel, about
8,700,000,000,000 watts (of solar panels) will be needed to produce the
necessary hydrogen for transportation. Today such a system will cost about
$5/watt not counting installation and all the necessary control electronics
for interfacing to the electrolyzers we haven't yet paid for. So, for only
$43,500,000,000,000 dollars we can buy the solar panels. That's about
$161,000 for each and every man, woman and child in this country, and that's
only for the panels without installation and without regard to where all
those panels will be located. Also keep in mind that this is only for
transportation energy -- energy for stationary applications will not be
serviced by these panels. Even if the cost drops in half, the cost to a
family of four just for the solar panels would be $322,000. Sorry, but my
family will continue to burn gasoline for a while!
Of course once you solve the problems of getting enough platinum for the
electrolyzers and enough energy to produce the panels and enough money to
buy the panels, you're still faced with safety issues and the problem of
getting enough fuel in the tank for reasonable range.
Don W.
P.S. -- I'm not all that good at working with numbers, but if I'm WAY off,
someone will surely correct me as always. Pursue this project and let us
know what you find. I love fun stuff like hydrogen powered lawnmowers. I'm
just not willing to pay the price.
Graham Cowan
>
>
> Shell and BMW and others know very well that
> hydrogen as hydrogen is not the answer
> to energy and pollution problems.
> The 'research' they are doing is just a show
> to appease environmentalists who haven't yet figured out
> where all the energy will come from.
I don't think that's true of BMW.
There are some important design details
that watermelon-environmentalists,
or as I see them, petrogreens,
like to see decided one way,
and BMW goes the other on these:
combustion heat engine versus fuel cell electric,
liquid hydrogen versus less compact forms.
> The U.S. uses more than 26 quadrillion BTUs of energy
> on transportation each year.
> The energy requirement will approximately triple
> if we first convert it to hydrogen by electrolysis and
> then compress the hydrogen to a usable density.
>
> 26 quadrillion BTUs X 3 = 78 quadrillion BTUs/year
> = 2,970,000,000,000 BTU/hour
> = 870,000,000,000 watts
That's the chemically delivered power.
You didn't do the times-three.
> Any idea where the extra 870 gigawatts of power will come from?
2.6 terawatts, actually.
> and enough money to buy the panels ...
Supposing the estimate of four-year energy payback
on PV powerplants to be valid,
I'm still not sure that translates
simply into a quadrupling of the necessary PV fleet size.
But you left out a tripling,
so let's say those doubtful steps cancel.
So: the hydrogen economy idea, as it currently is touted
by persons dependent on the public exchequer,
you have refuted pretty well.
But isn't that its purpose, to be refutable?
I think their version is a phony,
deliberately hobbled.
The genuine idea is central hydrogen generation
using intense heat from solar concentrators,
central liquefaction, distribution as low-pressure liquid
in insulated conveyances, transfer to insulated LP tanks
in the user's devices, and to power those devices,
*combustion*.
It's still a refutable idea,
but at least now that's not the intent.
Graham Cowan
>
>
> Shell and BMW and others know very well that
> hydrogen as hydrogen is not the answer
> to energy and pollution problems.
> The 'research' they are doing is just a show
> to appease environmentalists who haven't yet figured out
> where all the energy will come from.
I don't think that's true of BMW.
There are some important design details
that watermelon-environmentalists,
or as I see them, petrogreens,
like to see decided one way,
and BMW goes the other on these:
combustion heat engine versus fuel cell electric,
liquid hydrogen versus less compact forms.
> The U.S. uses more than 26 quadrillion BTUs of energy
> on transportation each year.
> The energy requirement will approximately triple
> if we first convert it to hydrogen by electrolysis and
> then compress the hydrogen to a usable density.
>
> 26 quadrillion BTUs X 3 = 78 quadrillion BTUs/year
> = 2,970,000,000,000 BTU/hour
> = 870,000,000,000 watts
That's the chemically delivered power.
You didn't do the times-three.
> Any idea where the extra 870 gigawatts of power will come from?
2.6 terawatts, actually.
The Technical Manager
As fossil fuels can only ever increase in price in the long term the hydrogen produced by electrolysis with the
electricity coming from renewable sources like wind and wave power will become a more attractive proposition.
>
> It is hard to get hydrogen from central plants to houses,
> and that means a higher delivered price
> than if you drove your hydrogen tanker truck to the plant.
Wind turbines could produce hydrogen more locally to its point of consumption. Also some countries including the
UK have extensive pipeline networks used to transport oil and natural gas. They could be used.
>
> So much higher that not only the use of electrolysis,
> but its use on a household scale*,
> can ever be comparatively affordable?
> I don't think so. Rather,
> I expect cheap centralized production of boron,
> clean at point of use, like hydrogen,
> plus easy to distribute and gather in again.
Do any functional "boron burning" appliances exist ?
Don Widders
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3D7790B5...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> Graham Cowan wrote:
>
<snip>
> > The centralized production of hydrogen already
> > benefits from economies of scale.
> > Plants exist that produce hundreds of megawatts of H2.
> >
> > They do not use electrolysis, because if electrolysis
> > were done on that scale the produced hydrogen's unit
> > cost would be several times more.
>
> As fossil fuels can only ever increase in price in the long
> term the hydrogen produced by electrolysis with the
> electricity coming from renewable sources like wind and
> wave power will become a more attractive proposition.
As the price of fossil fuels rises, so rises the price of electricity.
Electricity is too precious to use for electrolytic generation of hydrogen
today and it will remain too precious for generating hydrogen by
electrolysis in the future. The principle is simple -- hydrogen is a less
desirable, lower quality, harder to handle, harder to use form of energy
than electricity, so no matter what the value of electricity, the value of
the hydrogen you can make from that electricity will be less than the value
of the electricity.
Normally when you make something, you make that thing because the value of
the thing is greater than the value of the raw materials that went into
making it. If the value is LESS than the value of the raw materials, why
make it?
It would make more sense to electrify the roadway than to electrolytically
produce hycrogen for vehicles.
>
> >
> > It is hard to get hydrogen from central plants to houses,
> > and that means a higher delivered price
> > than if you drove your hydrogen tanker truck to the plant.
>
> Wind turbines could produce hydrogen more locally to its
> point of consumption. Also some countries including the
> UK have extensive pipeline networks used to transport oil
> and natural gas. They could be used.
>
Check again. Oil and natural gas have substantially higher energy densities
than hydrogen. Those pipes could not stand the pressure of hydrogen flowing
at an equivalent energy rate. Hydrogen is an escape artist, so pipes
intended to be used for oil are useless for hydrogen. The same is likely
true of natural gas pipes. Hydrogen embrittles metal.
It's easy to SAY you can just use existing pipeline networks -- have you
actually researched this?
> >
> > So much higher that not only the use of electrolysis,
> > but its use on a household scale*,
> > can ever be comparatively affordable?
> > I don't think so. Rather,
> > I expect cheap centralized production of boron,
> > clean at point of use, like hydrogen,
> > plus easy to distribute and gather in again.
>
> Do any functional "boron burning" appliances exist ?
>
Your implication is silly. "Hydrogen burning" appliances certainly don't
exist in any meaningful number. You're obviously implying that "boron
burning" appliances CAN'T exist and that's baloney.
"Boron burning" appliances are different enough from fossil fuel burning
appliances that I would expect this to be a tough sell at first. Still,
it's a lot harder to find fault with Graham's work than with the work of the
hydrogen cheerleaders.
Don W.
al
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >
> > Jamie Pennington wrote:
> >
> > Stuff concerning hydrogen and offered this link:
> > http://www.spiritofmaat.com/
> >
> > Here is the deal Jamie. I've looked at a lot of free energy stuff and
> > what I have found is typical of this site. A lot of talk that it can be
> > done but no hard science. No fundamental explanations. No reproducible
> > experimental evidence.
> > Best, Dan.
>
Don,
how the design of a "water capacitor" (in Jamie's "project")
effects Maxwll's displacment current?
Al
al
Who can help?
I can not follow a tutorial at
http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Maxwell_Eq.html
Thank's Al.
Harry Conover
Al, don't feel bad. I'm a physicist with an original specialization
in electromagnetic fields, and I can't follow it either. Everything is
fine until the author get into what he calls a "Current Sheet." From
that point on it appears to make no sense at all.
Harry C.
al
1. Water resistors, gradually change conductivity of the water due to
ions from the electrodes and they heat-up. Circulating the water
through the system continuously deionize and cools it.
2. The resistivity of water is practically zero for DC as it gradually
polarizes and electrolyzes.
3. Pulse forming capacitors that only remain charged for a
milliseconds use Distilled Water. They stay cool as the high
dielectric constant of water (80) is exploited in this application and
what else is happaning?
Thanks, Al.
Harry Conover
Nonsense. First of all pure water is not a conductor at normal
voltages, hence if current is passing through a liquid, unless that
liquid is molten metal or mercury, we're discussion an electrolyte.
Obviously when a current passes through an electolyte, since it has
resistive loss, it become heated. Circuilating the liquid without
cooling it does nothing but redistribute the heat, and obviously does
nothing to de-ionize it. To de-ionize an electrolyte, you have to
remove the ions from solution -- generally this is done by
distillation, reverse osmosis, or passing the electrolyte though a
de-ionizing resin column.
> 2. The resistivity of water is practically zero for DC as it gradually
> polarizes and electrolyzes.
The resistivity of pure water extremely high, in fact many megohms.
Hence, it is nearly impossible to palarize or electrolyze at
conventional electric field intensities. In fact, this is why pure
water was (and still is) commonly used for the cooling the plates of
high-voltage transmitting tubes operating at thousands of volts, with
no significant current leakage though the water so long as it remained
pure.
> 3. Pulse forming capacitors that only remain charged for a
> milliseconds use Distilled Water.
Again, total nonsense or fantasy, your call. I'm pretty familiar with
pulse forming capacitors, and I've never seen one that that employs
any water for any purpose. The only non-solid material I've ever seen
any capacitor employ for a dielectic is, air, vacuum, or dielectric
oil. Never water. Most of the pulse forming capacitors I've run in on
large radar systems used oil as their dielectric, although many today
employ plastic films of one type or another.
I suppose you could use very pure water for the dielectric in a
capacitor, since it is a reasonalbe dielectric, just in over 40 years
of experience, I've never seen it done. I suspect that this is due to
the fact that other mediums with equivalent dielectric constants are
superior in other ways for such use.
> They stay cool as the high
> dielectric constant of water (80) is exploited in this application and
> what else is happaning?
Actually Al, the dielectric constant of a material has very little to
do with it staying cool, since this is determined by the dissipation
factor. The dielectric constant involves the charge to potential
ratio, and has no direct connection with dissipation of the device.
It should be noted that while the dielectric constant of air and
vacuum are zero, and water 70-80 or so, the materials used in high
capacitance electrolytic capacitors have a dielectric constant that
is typically the 8,000-10,000 or more range. In practice, a dielectric
constant of 80 has comparatively little advangage over a more suitable
material with a dielectric constant of 1.0 for most applications.
> Thanks, Al.
Hope this helps.
Harry C.
Don Lancaster
>
> It should be noted that while the dielectric constant of air and
> vacuum are zero,
>
>
> Harry C.
wanna bet?
al
> Harry Conover wrote:
> >
> > It should be noted that while the dielectric constant of air and
> > vacuum are zero,
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Harry C.
>
> wanna bet?
Harry thanks for your input.
The above facts scrutinized by you I have taken from
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/rwater.htm
Jim, like you, has also impressive work experience, see his
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/jimwork.htm
Thus, whose point of view is believable?
If Jim is right than "Maxwell's displacement current" is probably a
key to hydrogen/oxygen production in many patents utilizing "water
capacitor" and pulse signal/voltage.
Al.
Harry Conover
> Harry Conover wrote:
> >
> > It should be noted that while the dielectric constant of air and
> > vacuum are zero,
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Harry C.
>
> wanna bet?
Don, you win! Obviously, that should have said 1.
Oh well, since you're the only one that caught it...or at least
called it to attention... One has to wonder about the other readers.
:-)
Harry C.
Duncan Wood
"al" <alj...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:2c1e4b1a.02091...@posting.google.com...
Reading the rest of that page I think that's a typo anyway.
Don Widders
Al, I'm interested to know what leads you to believe that hydrogen/oxygen
production in many patents utilizing "water capacitor and pulse
signal/voltage HAS a key? Your posts over the years seem to show that you
believe these devices can generate hydrogen more efficiently than standard
electrolysis. If any of these devices can truly generate hydrogen more
efficiently than standard electrolysis, why do you suppose no one is
manufacturing and selling these devices?
Don W.
Don Lancaster
It is exceptionally easy to undermeasure the true current of a pulse.
Plain old "not even wrong" bad labwork easily explains the dead wrong
claims.
Faraday's Law ain't broke.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse123.pdf
Don Widders
I took a look at the 'Jim' web pages that you offered. No where on the
water resistor page does Jim Lux mention anything about "hydrogen/oxygen
production in many patents utilizing 'water capacitor' and pulse
displacement current" are mentioned anywhere in either page.
If Jim Lux is truly knowledgeable about these things (I have no reason to
doubt that he is) then he probably intended to say "Another problem with
high resistance water resistors is that the [conductivity] of water, itself
is zero for DC". This may be wrong because I don't know what he meant by
"...that is, it gradually polarizes and electrolyzes." What's the
difference between polarized water and non-polarized water? I would
consider 'electrolyzed' water to be hydrogen and oxygen. What significance
do you see in this statement?
The page is about water resistors and only about water resistors.
Don W.
Dan Bloomquist
Don Widders wrote:
Hi Don,
Long time no see. I've had a good day getting my funds to distribute
properly in different models. Gads I hate business math. I've been
working hard to get version one out to our client. Forget I still have
to optimize some code. The component funding model takes a few seconds
if you have many several assets.
As far as Jim's pages. Keep in mind that conductivity is the reciprocal
of resistively. Zero conductivity is an open circuit. Also, at very high
voltages, current is very low, so electrolysis is not a major issue for
him. Water polarizes. That is what gives it such a high dielectric
constant. Now, I'm reaching, but energy will go into polarizing water
before conduction will occur. I thing that is what he is referring to
when working with pulses in the microsecond region. But his voltage
divider on a vanDeGraff generator will cause electrolysis.
As for Mr. Lancaster's gibe at the third derivative, jerk is the third
of motion. But I do have contentions about those numbers between the ICE
and fuel cells.
Best, Dan.
None of Your Business
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> writes:
>Al, I'm interested to know what leads you to believe that hydrogen/oxygen
>production in many patents utilizing "water capacitor and pulse
>signal/voltage HAS a key? Your posts over the years seem to show that you
>believe these devices can generate hydrogen more efficiently than standard
>electrolysis. If any of these devices can truly generate hydrogen more
>efficiently than standard electrolysis, why do you suppose no one is
>manufacturing and selling these devices?
>
>Don W.
Because the man with the patents on the mode of operability is dead.
JW
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly,
while bad people will find a way around the laws."
- Plato (427-347 B.C.)
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--- George Washington
"That's all very nice Mr. Tesla but where do we put the meter?"
J.P. Morgan
Dan Bloomquist
Don Widders wrote:
> However, I still don't see how anything in Mr. Lux's page relates to the
> infamous 'water fuel cell' or the related scam devices. What drives a
> person to want so much to believe in magic? Is it just too boring to invest
> one's time and money in creating a boron oxidizer or a scheme to harvest
> massive quantities of algae with less energy investment than harvesting
> plants? There's a lot of work to be done in areas that promise results, so
> why will some people ignore promising technologies and ponder the impossible
> ones? If I could buy one of the impossible devices in my home town and hold
> it in my hands and see that it really works, it would be a different matter.
> Everyone would ponder a technology that WORKS and appears to defy the laws
> of nature. There is just no reason to consider for an instant that these
> devices actually work because if they DID work, they WOULD be available for
> sale through large distribution channels!
>
> Oh well... why ask 'why'?
>
> Don W.
>
Yes, I'm sure that if the phenomena of pulsed dielectric electrolysis
where so it would be commonly repeatable in any simple lab and everyone
would be talking about it.
Same goes for the Muller/Adams/Tilley stuff. So far the stuff has only
made fast talkers rich rather than extra energy. I don't know if there
would be anything to ever come from ZPE but you know me, I'm not
interested in believing one way or the other, just the observations
please. :)
X-nay on the optimization. Once I switched out the tracing and even in
the debug version, three hundred records over thirty years where a blink.
Best, Dan.
Harry Conover
> In article <uofkrvd...@corp.supernews.com>, "Don Widders"
> <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> writes:
>
> >Al, I'm interested to know what leads you to believe that hydrogen/oxygen
> >production in many patents utilizing "water capacitor and pulse
> >signal/voltage HAS a key? Your posts over the years seem to show that you
> >believe these devices can generate hydrogen more efficiently than standard
> >electrolysis. If any of these devices can truly generate hydrogen more
> >efficiently than standard electrolysis, why do you suppose no one is
> >manufacturing and selling these devices?
> >
> >Don W.
>
> Because the man with the patents on the mode of operability is dead.
It seems pretty obvious that, since no one has utilized the patented
information to produce results justifyin purchase of a patent from the
current license owner, the patents themselves contain worthless
information.
Is there a flaw in this logic?
Patents containing no useful information sell for nothing more than
their scrap paper value on the open market.
I find it sad that no one has had sufficient interest in Stan Meyer
and his life's work, to write a biography. I'd buy a copy, if only to
find out which one of the many possible methods of decemption he
employed to produce his demonstrations. By contrast, methods of
better scam artist of an earlier era are well documented.
It would be an interesting read to learn if he actually did
demonstrate his "water powered car" to an audience of spectators
outside his immediately circle of friends, and how he 'gimmicked' it
as he obviously must have done.
Harry C.
Harry Conover
>
> As far as Jim's pages. Keep in mind that conductivity is the reciprocal
> of resistively. Zero conductivity is an open circuit. Also, at very high
> voltages, current is very low, so electrolysis is not a major issue for
> him. Water polarizes.
Be carefuly here Dan, because you are treading on one of the 'slippery
slopes' that is frequently twisted into something other than reality
by the quack con artists, who most often know less about science than
you do.
Think as fact as being limited to things you can look up in any
standard library reference (or some even today on the net).
It it a fact that water is a polar solvent. (Seek help from a
reference on physical chemistry if you don't immediately understand
what this means.)
A second fact that you can easily veryify, is that pure water is an
extremely good insulator, which is why make a very excellent coolant
for devices operating at extremely high voltages. Radio and radar
transmitters, for examples, insulating voltages measure in thousands
of volts.
Consider you statement that "water polarizes". I have no idea what
this is supposed to mean in your context, and I would challenge you to
find a legitimate reference that makes such a general statement. The
term is almost without meaning, unless you are speaking of the polar
properties of water as a solvent compared with a non-polar solvent
such as (Fred, correct me if I am wrong on this) Acetone or Perhaps
Xylene.
With regards to passing a current though a liquid, one must depend on
the presence of charg carriers for this to take place. Ordinarily,
pure water offers none, hence it is highly resistive. You can alter
this situation by adding a salt of any kind to the liquid, since salts
become, in accordance with basic ionic concepts, totally disassociated
on entering a solution. This simply means, if I assume the salt (or
acid) in question to be common sodium chloride, that the liquid not
contrains free positiviely charged sodium ions and fee negitively
charge chlorine ions. So, if you past a current through a salt
solution, which since it now is resistive, you are free to do so. As
a result, the sodium ions will migrate to the negarive electrode and
though a seondary reaction become sodium hydroxide, and the chlorine
will migrate to the positive electrode and be liberated into the air
as chlorine gas.
The amount of each liberated is proportional to the current (charge)
passed though the solution as is quantified by Faraday's Law of
Electrlysis. This is another readily verifiable fact.
Getting back to the "water polarizes" statement, if you check a
physical chemistry text which addresses at ad nausium subjects like
this, you'll find youself in the middle of about a 40 page conundrum
that to me implies that physical chemists themselves don't fully
understand the fundamental nature of polarization, hence quacks
haven't a clue. In fact, there are two types of polarization or ionic
conduction, the first of which I have done my best to describe above.
What Glasstone & Lewis (Elements of Physical Chemistry) describe as
the second type, involves the decomposition of water.
On page 497, they describe the process which, is summary says that:
"The second type of polarization is due to a SLOW STEP in the actual
process of discharege of the ion on the electrode It is expecially
apparent in the discharge of hydrogen ions to yield hydrogen gas at a
cathode and of hydroxyl ions to produce oxygen gas at an anode."
Unfortunately, I have yet to find a text that describes any mechanism
for the electrolytic decomposition of water into its constituent
elements that (1) does not water being chemically converted to an
electrolyte, or (2) specifically addresses how the energy required to
break the hydrogen bond is transferred, and (3) which does not involve
a transfer of charge in accordance with Faraday's Law of Electrolysis
to neutralize the charges of the individual ions created when the
hydrogen-oxygen bond in water is broken.
Finally realize that any quack can come up with a claim or theory, but
real science unlike quackery is defined by reproducible experimental
results.
> That is what gives it such a high dielectric
> constant.
Again, think about how you came to this conclusion, then question it.
Time for bed...so I'll cut it off here. (Thank God I think I heard
someone say.)
Cutting to the chase, believe about as much about scientific claims
made by questionable sources as you do about the credibility of the
books of a questonable company without first conducting an an audit!
(The financial world has it Enrons, the techological community has its
Statn Meyers, Tilleys, and the list goes on! :-)
Things like these are fun to discuss, but only as long as you keep
your checkbook safely locked in your desk drawer.
Harry C.
None of Your Business
(Harry Conover) writes:
He demonstrated it for a TV News channel in Ohio. I have a copy of the original
newscast. He however had primed the system with an on board electrical
generator. He never closed the loop and never demonstrated a closed loop system
to anyone as I am aware.
You do not know of anyone who replicated his process. That doesn't mean it has
not happened. You do not know how he produced the gas wih his cell in the
amounts shown on his video without generating any heat using only a permanently
magnetized automotive generator. I know he did it. I witnessed it numerous
times with numerous witnesses. Not one of the lackys in this group has ever
tried to or met my challenge to get the $1,000 I said I would give to anyone
who produced the amount of gas he did with approxamately 144 sq/in of steel and
the automotive generator AND no HEAT. What he did was NOT standard
electrolysis as he used no elecrolyte and produced NO HEAT.
JW
Buckleys
Acetone is polar.
Since water has a permanent dipole, the molecules will tend to align in
an electric field. This is how water solvates ions. Whether this is what
is meant by polarisation, I don't know.
> With regards to passing a current though a liquid, one must depend on
> the presence of charg carriers for this to take place. Ordinarily,
> pure water offers none, hence it is highly resistive.
Not strictly true. There are low levels of hydrogen and hydroxide ions
in pure water due to autodissociation. 10^-7 molar at 20 deg. C.
> You can alter
> this situation by adding a salt of any kind to the liquid, since salts
> become, in accordance with basic ionic concepts, totally disassociated
> on entering a solution.
For simple salts, on entering water solution, generally yes.
Rob.
al
Is Maxwell's Displacement Current a key to Hydrogen and Oxygen
production?
1. Several patents (Mayer was not the first) use:
a) electrodes resembling air capacitor,
b) pulses of electricity and
c) back EMF (free additional pulses) to produce hydrogen/oxygen
mixture,
see
http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsvieweCY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=EP0055134&ID=EP+++0055134A1+I+
http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewerCY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US4702894&ID=US+++4702894A1+I+
US05632870,
US04936961,
US6126794,
US4599158
and many more inventors killed their time or did they?
2. The stainless steel electrodes or rather the plates in these
patents are spaced millimeters a part, see also;
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/muller/hydrogen.htm
3. What happens to a dielectric in an electric field, like between the
plates of capacitor?
The positive charges are displaced as long as the ELECTRIC FIELD is
present and these charges are moving.
http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Maxwell_Eq.html
4. "Distilled water has been used in pulse forming capacitors and
transmission lines that only remain charged for a microsecond or so
quite successfully" In addition, "A water resistor can also be used as
a high power load resistor" see
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/rwater.htm
5. Water in Pulse Forming Capacitors does not heat up and neither
Mayer's Water Fuel Cell, or those it.
Since water is not hot "Maxwell's displacement current" probably is
"braking down" the water.
Note, a CIRCUIT with a capacitor supports a current even thou physical
current does not pass through the capacitor. Maxwell's answer to the
phenomena was that a current did flow through the capacitor, a current
he called a "displacement current".
Don Lancaster
The main problem with water as a dielectric is that small amounts of
contaminents dramatically change its conductivity and dielectric
properties.
Just about anything dissolves in water at least a little bit.
Don Lancaster
Very simply, it is trivially easy to undermesure pulse energy, often by
a factor of three or more.
More details on my website.
Faraday's laws ain't broke.
Electrolysis is normally a double integration and thus a very strong low
pass filter that pays attention primarily to the the DC current term. At
the same time it is a highly nonlinear rectifier that converts higher
frequency Fourier voltage components back down into DC currents where it
does a plain old electrolysis.
More at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse123.pdf
Don Lancaster
>
> To All readers
>
> Is Maxwell's Displacement Current a key to Hydrogen and Oxygen
> production?
>
No.
Now that was easy enough, wasn't it?
