Electrolysis in a Microwave.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
induced by microwaves will cause electrolysis in water. Yes, it works.
There must be enough salt in the water that it is saturated, and cannot
absorb any more salt. If you would like, you can watch a video here at
this link, where I have already done just that experiment.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/H2O/MWave.html
I will soon be posting another experiment where I will use a plastic
bag to collect the gas, and ignite it.
Scott Nudds
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote
> It is a very simple experiement to determin if the current and voltage
> induced by microwaves will cause electrolysis in water. Yes, it works.
Claptrap.
Avoid the water, just use the candle in your vid.
stupid....
The Flavored Coffee Guy
only that the parafin wax will produce a gas when it gets to it's
evaporation point/temperature, and it burns. In fact, there is little
difference in wax, and lamp oil. Candles suck. Toothpicks have less
chemicals associated to them than matches.
If I just placed water loaded with so much salt in it that it couldn't
hold any more salt, it would spontaneously combust. I already know
this. The salt water splashes, some of the trails of water are too
thin for the current produced by the microwaves inducing voltages, and
there are tiny arcs, and small embers that appear. I can use a
toothpick or paint brush to drag a small enough quantity of salt water
to cause those sparks and embers.
Solar Flare
and no heating action will take place.
If you want to see a nuclear reaction in your microwave, try this.
Place a glass enclosed candle in your microwave and a 1/4" of water on
top. Turn it on with the top open for expansion. I did this about 30
years ago and had to clean the wax out with a propane torch. Good
thing it was an all stainless steel box. It wasn't hydrogen. It was an
atomic reaction. There is no other explanation. Try it and take a
video of it.
LOL..unbelievable!
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1141184836....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
neutr...@gmail.com
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
> It is a very simple experiement to determin if the current and voltage
> induced by microwaves will cause electrolysis in water. Yes, it works.
No, it doesn't. The currents created change direction about every 200
picoseconds; there isn't enough energy there to pull the H+ and O-2 far
enough apart that they won't just recombine.
> There must be enough salt in the water that it is saturated, and cannot
> absorb any more salt. If you would like, you can watch a video here at
> this link, where I have already done just that experiment.
>
> http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/H2O/MWave.html
>
> I will soon be posting another experiment where I will use a plastic
> bag to collect the gas, and ignite it.
You're not making H2 & O2 gas, you're making plasma (which is more fun,
IMHO). Do some googling on "microwave ball lightning".
The Flavored Coffee Guy
your benefit.
Gordon Richmond
expands into a brilliant ball of plasma.
Check out the link I provided in my other post to this thread. There's a lot of
fascinating stuff to be found there. You (nor I) are not the first person to have
discovered this phenomenon.
Gordon Richmond
Me
Well, now, why are you posting this "Revelation in Gasious Hydrogen
Production" here, instead of one of the Chemistry or Physics NewsGroups?
I am sure you know, that over there, you would get "Flamed out so bad"
that even an Asbestos Suit wouldn't protect you. It always amazes "Me"
that some Homespun Tinkerer thinks he has found the "Fountain of Youth..
er... Energy" in his kitchen. As reasonable folks would think...your
experiment, would have been, or should have been discovered years ago,
and applied to Hydrogen Production, commercially in the last century.
Magnitrons have been around since the 1940's. People have been heating
water in them since their inception, as most of the researchers
originally used them to make coffee in their labs back in the MIT
Radiation LAB days. If as you presist on blathering, Gasious Hydrogen
was produced by RF Radiation via S Band MicroWave induced heating, one
would expect a SIGNIFICANTLY Larger number of Microwave explosions
due to said Hydrogen recombining with the also liberated Oxygen,
when folks actually overcook their dinners.
Me one who was a NitroOrganic Chemist, in a pervious life.....
neutr...@gmail.com
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
> your benefit.
Never asked you to...I've done the same experiment. You're pumping
enough energy into the smoke to strip off electrons, but it's still not
H2 gas. If you try and capture the "H2" in a plastic bag, the bag will
melt. The plasma genrated is pretty cool...for a plasma. It's still
hot enough to melt wax and/or most household plastics. Use glass.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
You just want a waxy mess in my microwave that's hard to clean up. Do
it yourself, and post the video.
Scott Nudds
> hold any more salt, it would spontaneously combust. I already know
> this. The salt water splashes, some of the trails of water are too
> thin for the current produced by the microwaves inducing voltages, and
> there are tiny arcs, and small embers that appear. I can use a
> toothpick or paint brush to drag a small enough quantity of salt water
> to cause those sparks and embers.
Well the salt doesn't burn and neither does water, and if it was hydrogen
burning then you would get water back with no "embers". So what are these
"embers" that you are talking about?
What happens is that the water evaporates, you get conduction along some
path where there is water, the salt get's hot enough to vaporize and you
get a little puff of sodium gas lit up by a small electric arc.
Nothing special.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Hurry, take one cup of salt, and mix well with one cup of water, place
in microwave for 5 minutes, and correct yourself before the test!
Scott Nudds
<neutr...@gmail.com> wrote
> You're not making H2 & O2 gas, you're making plasma (which is more fun,
> IMHO). Do some googling on "microwave ball lightning".
I've been unable to convince candle flame plasma to collect at the top of a
glass container inside my microwave oven. Alas....
pete
Coffee Guy <elge...@rock.com> sez:
Read your attributions. The guy who was talking about wax candles
was "solarflare". You've twice assumed it was neutralino.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Scott Nudds
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
> it yourself, and post the video.
I have done it, and what results is steam. Nothing more.
Solar Flare
mely from it.
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:2tuNf.23271$8d1...@read1.cgocable.net...
Scott Nudds
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
news:nbadnQnBjPo455vZ...@golden.net...
> Now we know you are lying. Wax doesn't absorb microwaves and oesn't
> mely from it.
Wax does absorb microwaves as do a variety of substances, but wax does not
do so but not readily.
Do you have a point?
Me
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote:
I have nothing to correct.....you however, show by your posts, that you
have very little knowledge of Chemistry, and even less knowledge of
Physics... If you had spent some quality time in High School Chemistry,
and Physics, you should have learned some of what others have stated, in
this, and other threads, that your blathering has started. You, Sir,
need to take all your self-dellusional Posts on down to the local
Community College, and have the Physics Instructor, explain the
reactions, and results, of this experiment to you, in SIMPLE TERMS that
even the illiterate can understand. Don't even think of going to a
Major, or even a Minor University, as it would take a week, for the Lab
Assistants to pick themselves up off the floor, after laughing their
collective ASS's Off......
Me
dbo...@mindspring.com
experiments (just be careful). I doubt you can separate hydrogen from
oxygen this way but you could do a lot of other cool stuff.
There has been a lot of work on plasma discharges in water and high
frequency discharges in water but so far little practical has emerged
which is surprising. I did some work like this in grad school but used
fast high voltage disharges in the water. The individual microwaves
dont have enough energy to do any chemistry but if you could induce
discharges that are hot you might.
In the right situation, you MIGHT get charging of the salt water
surface which then discharges producing a hot spark.
An experiment I'd suggest would be to put closely spaced wires somehow
on the surface of the water so you get discharges between them. This
WILL produce O2-, H2O2, O3, and O. Such a thing might be useful for
decontaminating water, simialr to what a UV lamp does but perhaps more
efficiently. It might also remove hydrocarbon contaminants by
oxidizing them.
Your gonna destroy yer wifes microwave but have fun.
dbo...@mindspring.com
somehow separate the effect of the microwave on the wax (is there any?
Shouldnt be but would not surprise me if there were some polar
molecules in the wax) it would be fascinating to see what happened.
Solar Flare
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:eqBNf.21030$d9....@read2.cgocable.net...
Dan Bloomquist
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
> It is a very simple experiement...
If you are going to do something meaningful, do some real science:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1450915772177922792
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Joshua Halpern
> I find his post to be fascinating and strongly encourage such amateur
> experiments (just be careful). I doubt you can separate hydrogen from
> oxygen this way but you could do a lot of other cool stuff.
> There has been a lot of work on plasma discharges in water and high
> frequency discharges in water but so far little practical has emerged
> which is surprising. I did some work like this in grad school but used
> fast high voltage disharges in the water. The individual microwaves
> dont have enough energy to do any chemistry but if you could induce
> discharges that are hot you might.
Using microwave ovens for reactions has become a subspecialty for a lot
of synthetic chemists. Here is a list
http://www.organic-chemistry.org/frames.htm?http://www.organic-chemistry.org/Highlights/microwave.shtm
josh halpern
Scott Nudds
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> You lied and discredited yourself as a bullshitter.
Ho hum.... Go get a candle you pathetic foo.
Then go to your microwave oven, you moron.
Then put it inside with nothing else, you simpleton.
Then turn the microwave oven on for a few minutes, you slack jawed hick.
Watch the candle slowly melt.
Now go fuck off and die.
Jonathan Kirwan
Interesting to read. I help make accurate and precise (20mK)
temperature sensors that can be used in microwave ovens. Looks like
an opportunity!
Re: fun with microwaves generally, see:
http://amasci.com/weird/microwave/voltage1.html
Discharges seem possible to consider:
http://amasci.com/weird/microwave/voltage3.html#tesla
Jon
JoeSP
<neutr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141189836.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Even if it were hydrogen, a better way to produce it is with lye and
aluminium foil in a bottle. Even then, it's a long way from anything
remotely practical for an alternate energy source.
Solar Flare
You are heating the coloring and scents in the candle.
I am sorry you cannot post phoney experiments and fool everybody. It
doesn't work with thinking people.
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:7cQNf.21074$d9.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
Scott Nudds
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
I just melted a parafin candle in my microwave. The bottom melted first
as there was some water/parafin/salt residue from in the peanutbutter lid
left over from yesterday.
But yes, paraphin heats slowly. Still it heats.
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
> You are heating the coloring and scents in the candle.
Or possibly some other contaminent. Or the paraphin.
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
> I am sorry you cannot post phoney experiments and fool everybody. It
> doesn't work with thinking people.
Saddam was responsible for 911? AmeriKKKans can easily be convinced of any
piece of absolute self contradictory shit.
Solar Flare
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:hH6Of.21123$d9....@read2.cgocable.net...
Scott Nudds
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> After 10 minutes mine isn't even warm
Interesting. Maybe my candle isn't 100% paraphin then.
Solar Flare
and colourings in them. This may be the difference.
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:UvrOf.21273$d9.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
The Flavored Coffee Guy
When I searched google, about using a microwave to make candles,
Well, it's all an argument. There are plenty of people telling you not
to do that, and there are plenty of people telling you how to melt the
wax, and make candles in the microwave.
If your's didn't melt, you never turned on the microwave.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=candle+making+in+microwaves
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
Stop and think a minute. Paraffin wax is just a shorter
chain version of polyethylene. Polyethylene is used as a
dielectric in coax because it doesn't absorb RF.
Pure wax does not heat up in a microwave. What does heat up
is any lossy materials added for aroma, mechanical
properties, etc. Water in the bottom of your bottle cap
would also do it, as you posted.
Why don't you repeat the experiment with pure paraffin wax
in a clean, dry glass container and see how long it takes to
melt?
Let us know what you observe.
Regards,
Bill Ward
The Flavored Coffee Guy
why, if you can't even research your own comments, or even support them
do you say anything at all? Instructions on how to melt wax to make
candles, or warning concerning doing just that must be written for one
reason. Some people cannot determin how hot the wax is, once it
reaches a vaporization point, it becomes explosive. Others are writing
in structions on making candles because it does and will melt. Other
than that, and as I have stated before, I will not make such a
difficult mess in my microwave to clean up just because you can type.
Steve Spence
I used a pink candle. After 15 minutes, the paper plate was getting
warm, and I had a little melt where the candle wax touched the paper,
but the rest of the wax wasn't even warm. Coffe guy is putting scotch in
his coffee. Not necessarily a bad thing, but he needs to stay off the
computer for a few hours after.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Solar Flare
You should talk. You just made a complete fool out of yourself again.
Again you have proven you have not melted parafin wax, as you stated,
but have not read one article you posted out of the hundred or so.
None of them melt parafin wax in the microwave and all of them state
that.
Here is the excuses I have read in the first 30 articles.
- using soy wax in the microwave
- using soap in the microwave
- it should melt in the microwave but I haven't tried it.
- don't melt it in the microwave because you won't be able to see it
- don't use the microwave because wax gases are extremely flamable,
use an open flame burner.
- a double boiler in the microwave shoud work.
Don't quote articles you haven't read yourself please.
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1141545566.5...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Solar Flare
Let's see if we can get him to do what I did 25 years ago with the wax
and water on top! What a friggin' mess....LOL
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:440af...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
Look up the different RF loss properties of paraffin wax and
soy wax. Reread your list of links. See if you can figure
out what is going on.
Understanding the problem is usually more convincing than
attempting to insult people.
Regards,
Bill Ward
neutr...@gmail.com
Hydrogen isn't an energy _source_, it's an energy transport
method...and quite a problematic one at that. In the end, it takes
more energy to make H2 gas than you will ever get from it by any
method, except for fusion. Unless you're fusing it, there's better
ways to transport energy.
Scott Nudds
"Bill Ward" <bward...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> Pure wax does not heat up in a microwave. What does heat up
> is any lossy materials added for aroma, mechanical
> properties, etc.
My experience shows that it does, but quite slowly compared to water.
Scott Nudds
<neutr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Hydrogen isn't an energy _source_, it's an energy transport
> method...and quite a problematic one at that. In the end, it takes
> more energy to make H2 gas than you will ever get from it by any
> method, except for fusion. Unless you're fusing it, there's better
> ways to transport energy.
Hydrogen is an element, which combines readily with oxygen releasing
considerable amounts of energy and producing water as the only combustion
product.
As such, Hydrogen offers a high energy density, non-polluting means for
storing energy.
The drawbacks of using Hydrogen for energy storage are similar to the
drawbacks for using any explosive gas, combined with the fact that hydrogen
is a small enough molecule that it can readily migrate through some
materials, including metals.
Some metals like Nickel and Palladium will spontaneously absorb many times
their own volume in Hydrogen Gas.
Don Lancaster
> <neutr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>Hydrogen isn't an energy _source_, it's an energy transport
>>method...and quite a problematic one at that. In the end, it takes
>>more energy to make H2 gas than you will ever get from it by any
>>method, except for fusion. Unless you're fusing it, there's better
>>ways to transport energy.
>
>
> Hydrogen is an element, which combines readily with oxygen releasing
> considerable amounts of energy and producing water as the only combustion
> product.
And the hydrogen comes from where?
>
> As such, Hydrogen offers a high energy density, non-polluting means for
> storing energy.
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that hydrogen is non polluting as
hydrogen is a POLLUTION AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of the
required underlying net energy sources.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun for a tutorial.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
> Scott Nudds wrote:
>>
>> As such, Hydrogen offers a high energy density, ... means for
>> storing energy.
>
Not even wrong.
The energy density of hydrogen is ludicrously low.
STP hydrogen is 1/3000th that of gasoline
Attempts at raising the energy density of hydrogen such as compression
or liquifaction still do not remotely approach conventional fuels, even
when done at considerable energy and infrastructure expense. They also
introduce EXTREME safety issues that remain unresolved.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial
daestrom
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:473avkF...@individual.net...
> Scott Nudds wrote:
>> <neutr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>Hydrogen isn't an energy _source_, it's an energy transport
>>>method...and quite a problematic one at that. In the end, it takes
>>>more energy to make H2 gas than you will ever get from it by any
>>>method, except for fusion. Unless you're fusing it, there's better
>>>ways to transport energy.
>>
>>
>> Hydrogen is an element, which combines readily with oxygen releasing
>> considerable amounts of energy and producing water as the only combustion
>> product.
>
> And the hydrogen comes from where?
>
>>
>> As such, Hydrogen offers a high energy density, non-polluting means for
>> storing energy.
>
> It is utterly ludicrous to claim that hydrogen is non polluting as
> hydrogen is a POLLUTION AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of the
> required underlying net energy sources.
>
"POLLUTION AMPLIFIER"?? Made up term to confuse people??
By that reckoning, so are batteries, compressed air, and pumped storage.
daestrom
Don Lancaster
None of which, of course, are remotely as bad a pollution amplifier as
hydrogen.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Don Lancaster
Actually, compressed air is also a mesmerizingly awful pollution amplifier.
Scott Nudds
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> > Hydrogen is an element, which combines readily with oxygen releasing
> > considerable amounts of energy and producing water as the only
combustion
> > product.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> And the hydrogen comes from where?
It depends on how you define time. It appears to have come from the
earliest moments of the universe's existance when gluons condensed out of
the background quantum field to produce protons.
Protons are of course ionized hydrogen.
> > As such, Hydrogen offers a high energy density, non-polluting means for
> > storing energy.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> It is utterly ludicrous to claim that hydrogen is non polluting as
> hydrogen is a POLLUTION AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of the
> required underlying net energy sources.
Now that depends on how the hydrogen is produced now doesn't it?
Producing hydrogen via solar, particularly biological means, is completely
pollution free of course. Plants do it all the time, and then they use the
hydrogen for other purposes.
Them smart little plants them is. Much smarter than Mr. Lancaster.
Scott Nudds
> > Scott Nudds wrote:
> >> As such, Hydrogen offers a high energy density, ... means for
> >> storing energy.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> Not even wrong.
>
> The energy density of hydrogen is ludicrously low.
> STP hydrogen is 1/3000th that of gasoline
At STP, gasoline is a vapour, with a lower energy density than Hydrogen.
What you are comparing is gasious Hydrogen with Liquid gasoline.
What thinking people compare is energy per mole of material.
Stupid... Stupid... Lancaster...
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> Attempts at raising the energy density of hydrogen such as compression
> or liquifaction still do not remotely approach conventional fuels, even
> when done at considerable energy and infrastructure expense. They also
> introduce EXTREME safety issues that remain unresolved.
Extreme are they? Hahahahahaha.... Hydrogen is not significantly less
easy to controll than natural gas. Compression is indeed one method of
storage, but ntot the best. Higher densities than liquification can be had
via surface adsorption in various porus materials and in some metal/alloy
crystals.
Stupid... Stupid... Lancaster.
Scott Nudds
> hydrogen.
Now that depends on the method of production. Only a moron would presume
the production method would be steam/coal reduction. But you do....
hahahahahahahaah...
Scott Nudds
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> Actually, compressed air is also a mesmerizingly awful pollution
amplifier.
Now that is quite impossible to conclude unless one knows how the air is
being compressed now doesn't it?
Stupid... Stupid... Lancaster....
Gordon Richmond
Scott, you are dumber than a sack of reject Chinese cheap-ass hammers.
If you'd spent ANY time reading Don's posts, you would realize that when he states that
compressed air, or hydrogen is a pollution amplifier, he means that any scheme to use
these as a means of bulk energy storage results in an increase in pollution since the
losses entailed require that the prime mover use MORE fuel than if it were supplying the
demand directly.
And the last time I looked, gasoline is a liquid at STP; there is a small amount of the
vapor phase present in equilibrium with the liquid phase. But you evidently don't
understand the concept of equilibrium, probably since yours has long gone.
Plonk.
Gordon Richmond
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed
just out of curiosity: Do you have any idea what STP means?
FYI, at STP gasoline is a liquid, Hydrogen is a gas.
one mole of Hydrogen occupies 22.4 liters
one mole of gasoline(assuming C8H18)(114 gms) and density of 0.8
occupies approximately 100 ml. (note: the 100 ml of gasoline contains
18 grams of Hydrogen, or the equivalent of 9 moles Hydrogen gas)
I leave it to Don L. or others to calculate the energy contained in the
respective volumes.
j.
PS, As my mother often said, "there is one thing worse than being
ignorant, and that is knowing something that just ain't so."
Scott Nudds
"You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote
> just out of curiosity: Do you have any idea what STP means?
Standard Temperature and Pressure. 1 Atmosphere, 22.4'C.
"You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote
> FYI, at STP gasoline is a liquid, Hydrogen is a gas.
At STP gasoline is a volitile liquid that would prefer to be a gas and
will become one with sufficient time. To check why not hold an open match
to the opening of your gas tank.
> one mole of Hydrogen occupies 22.4 liters
Yes, at STP.
> one mole of gasoline(assuming C8H18)(114 gms) and density of 0.8
> occupies approximately 100 ml. (note: the 100 ml of gasoline contains
> 18 grams of Hydrogen, or the equivalent of 9 moles Hydrogen gas)
Ah, comparing energy densitiy by volume again? Even after being corrected
for it?
Stupid.
Here in the real world we measure energy density per mole.
You are a moron.
Bill Ward
<vo...@void.com> wrote:
>
>"You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote
>> just out of curiosity: Do you have any idea what STP means?
>
> Standard Temperature and Pressure. 1 Atmosphere, 22.4'C.
That's NTP. STP is 0C, 1 bar
>
>
>"You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote
>> FYI, at STP gasoline is a liquid, Hydrogen is a gas.
>
> At STP gasoline is a volitile liquid that would prefer to be a gas and
>will become one with sufficient time. To check why not hold an open match
>to the opening of your gas tank.
No, to determine state at STP, you _fill_ a closed container
with the substance at 1 bar. You are confusing it with
vapor pressure and evaporation into a gas..
>
>> one mole of Hydrogen occupies 22.4 liters
>
> Yes, at STP.
>
>
>> one mole of gasoline(assuming C8H18)(114 gms) and density of 0.8
>> occupies approximately 100 ml. (note: the 100 ml of gasoline contains
>> 18 grams of Hydrogen, or the equivalent of 9 moles Hydrogen gas)
>
> Ah, comparing energy densitiy by volume again? Even after being corrected
>for it?
>
> Stupid.
>
> Here in the real world we measure energy density per mole.
Off the top of your head, how many miles (or km) per mole
does your car get?
>
> You are a moron.
Being obnoxious is a sure way to convince readers you don't
know much about what you are talking about.
>
Paul Vader
>> The energy density of hydrogen is ludicrously low.
>> STP hydrogen is 1/3000th that of gasoline
>
> At STP, gasoline is a vapour, with a lower energy density than Hydrogen.
Gee, the last time I used a gas station, liquid gasoline came out of the
pump, and it was 32 degrees outside at the time. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Paul Vader
> Now that is quite impossible to conclude unless one knows how the air is
>being compressed now doesn't it?
So how is air compressed on your planet, pixie dust? *
Don Lancaster
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> writes:
>
>> Now that is quite impossible to conclude unless one knows how the air is
>>being compressed now doesn't it?
>
>
> So how is air compressed on your planet, pixie dust? *
No means is known to efficiently compress air without going to
exceptionally elaborate multi stages and complex heat exchangers.
Thermal losses are typically in the twenty percent range.
A seond big problem is the uncompression.
Most air motors are insanely inefficient.
An efficient air motor would have to be totally silent and have to
exhaust room temperature air at zero velocity for all speeds, loads, and
operating conditions.
Compressed air has one and only one thing going for it: shop floor
convenience.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed
hey, you got a turd in your pocket? we my ass.
kindly tell me where you buy gasoline by the mole?
come teo think of it the last time I ordered Hydrogen it was in a
cylinder whose volume was in cubie feet, and pressure in pounds per
square inch.
In the real world, moles live underground.
I am not so generous as Bill W. I don't think you know any chemistry or
physics.
if you work at it you could be a graduate of the Institute of IJAS.
BTW, I am glad to see that you are in agreement with Don L. He has been
telling you for years that messing with hydrogen is worthless due to
extremely low energy density.
Keep on listening to Don, you might learn something, if you pay attention.
j.
daestrom
>
> "You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote
>> just out of curiosity: Do you have any idea what STP means?
>
> Standard Temperature and Pressure. 1 Atmosphere, 22.4'C.
>
No, STP is 0C.
>
> "You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote
>> FYI, at STP gasoline is a liquid, Hydrogen is a gas.
>
> At STP gasoline is a volitile liquid that would prefer to be a gas and
> will become one with sufficient time. To check why not hold an open match
> to the opening of your gas tank.
>
Now you're confusing evaporation caused by the vapor pressure of gasoline in
air being far, far, far below 1 atmosphere. Put it in a container with a
lid that is vented to allow pressure to remain at 1 atmosphere, but prevents
significant diffusion of the gasoline vapors away from the surface. A tiny
amount will vaporize and raise the partial pressure of the gasoline to above
the boiling pressure for the current temperature. As long as that vapor
concentration is maintained, no further gasoline will evaporate.
daestrom
daestrom
>
> "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
>> Actually, compressed air is also a mesmerizingly awful pollution
> amplifier.
>
> Now that is quite impossible to conclude unless one knows how the air is
> being compressed now doesn't it?
>
Obviously you haven't gotten to that chapter yet huh Scott??
Regardless of the process line followed to get from state 1 to state 2, it
is easy to calculate the amount of energy put into the gas to compress it.
While some processes may be less efficient than others (requiring more than
the ideal amount of work to compress the gas), no process can compress it
with less energy.
Now, even when approximating air as an ideal gas, since the ratio of its
specific heats (specific heat capacity at constant pressure versus specific
heat capacity at constant volume) is greater than 1.0, said compression will
also raise the temperature. This will cause the compressed gas to lose
energy to the environment unless perfectly insulated. This guarantees an
upper limit on energy storage efficiency. You could improve on this by
using a gas other than air that has a lower ratio of specific heats (such as
argon), but then there is the complications of using a different gas than
air.
Considering real world efficiencies of compressors, the energy lost to the
environment in the form of heat, and the real world efficiencies of
turbines, Don is quite correct in that compressed air is a poor way to store
energy.
> Stupid... Stupid... Lancaster....
You on the other hand, are just ignorant, rude, stubborn and ignorant (yes,
I mentioned that trait twice).
daestrom
LongmuirG
>> Standard Temperature and Pressure. 1 Atmosphere, 22.4'C.
> No, STP is 0C.
Would that things were so simple! There are a number of different
definitions in common use for STP or Standard Conditions -- different
industries, different states. Not uncommon to see 60 deg F used as the
reference temperature for natural gas, for example. Reputedly, there
have even been cases where a gas purchaser agreed reluctantly to the
seller's price per Standard Cubic Foot -- and then slipped an
offsetting definition of standard conditions into the contract.
Moral of the tale is that STP means whatever people agree it means, and
it is always a good idea to check what the agreed values are.
LongmuirG
>> Standard Temperature and Pressure. 1 Atmosphere, 22.4'C.
> No, STP is 0C.
Would that things were so simple! There are a number of different
Scott Nudds
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote
> Gee, the last time I used a gas station, liquid gasoline came out of the
> pump, and it was 32 degrees outside at the time. *
And it went into your engine as a gas. Imagine that.
Scott Nudds
"You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" wrote:
>kindly tell me where you buy gasoline by the mole?
I really don't care because it doesn't matter. When you are comparing
energy density of a chemical, that is the most logical unit since it
directly relates to the amount of chemical required.
"You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" wrote:
> come teo think of it the last time I ordered Hydrogen it was in a
> cylinder whose volume was in cubie feet, and pressure in pounds per
> square inch.
You can purchase it in grains per stone ferlong squared if you like. You
can be as irrational as you care to be.
"You smiled, you spoke, and I believed" wrote:
> I am not so generous as Bill W. I don't think you know any chemistry or
> physics.
Snicker. You might be right. But how often are fools right?
Scott Nudds
> Previous discussion:
> >> Standard Temperature and Pressure. 1 Atmosphere, 22.4'C.
> > No, STP is 0C.
"LongmuirG" <Long...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Would that things were so simple! There are a number of different
> definitions in common use for STP or Standard Conditions -- different
> industries, different states. Not uncommon to see 60 deg F used as the
> reference temperature for natural gas, for example. Reputedly, there
> have even been cases where a gas purchaser agreed reluctantly to the
> seller's price per Standard Cubic Foot -- and then slipped an
> offsetting definition of standard conditions into the contract.
No contest. I'm content I made a mistake here. STP = 0'C. I just
consulted the source for my memory of the temperature and I am
misrememberign 22.4'C for some reason.
Oh well.
Scott Nudds
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> >> Actually, compressed air is also a mesmerizingly awful pollution
> > amplifier.
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
> > Now that is quite impossible to conclude unless one knows how the air
is
> > being compressed now doesn't it?
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
> Obviously you haven't gotten to that chapter yet huh Scott??
It's obvious to me that using a wind turbine to compress air results in
zero pollution and hence no pollution amplification.
I'm sorry that this isn't obvious to you. A personal failure on your part
quite obviously.
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
> Regardless of the process line followed to get from state 1 to state 2, it
> is easy to calculate the amount of energy put into the gas to compress it.
Ho, Hum.... When the energy comes from a non-polluting source there is no
pollution.
Feh!
The Flavored Coffee Guy
moles, jules. boy, if there's something you don't know about
electricity, you could really be screwin' yourself hard.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
compress the gas, or store it? Burn on demand, implies an electrical
system that governs electrolysis in some form, and provides fuel as you
need it.
Any circuit that changes this ratio, screws you.
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/
Don Lancaster
>
> Any circuit that changes this ratio, screws you.
> http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/
>
Obviously bogus.
Faraday's Law ain't broke.
Only the dc component of any complex waveform contributes to electrolysis.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
Also http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
Don Lancaster
> The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
>
>>
>> Any circuit that changes this ratio, screws you.
>> http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/
>>
>
> Obviously bogus.
>
> Faraday's Law ain't broke.
>
> Only the dc component of any complex waveform contributes to electrolysis.
>
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
>
> Also http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
>
>
>
>
The usual fuckup in any pulse electrolysis scheme is beginning E.E.
student fundamental measurement error boo-boo #001-A. That of confusing
average and rms current or power.
An older or cheaper meter will lie like a rug when measuring any pulse
waveform.
UNDERSTATING by as much as a factor of five or more.
There is not the slightest doubt that their ludicrosity is not even wrong.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse112.pdf and
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse113.pdf.
Paul Vader
Actually, it went into the engine as a mist, which evaporates. Gasoline is
a liquid at STP, there is no getting around it. *
Paul Vader
> It's obvious to me that using a wind turbine to compress air results in
>zero pollution and hence no pollution amplification.
Um, what? That simply makes no sense at all. *
Tim Ward
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1141817992.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
If you have the electricity and the load in the same place at the same time,
why not apply the electricity directly?
Tim (Captain Obvious) Ward
Don Lancaster
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> writes:
>
>>"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>>>Gee, the last time I used a gas station, liquid gasoline came out of the
>>>pump, and it was 32 degrees outside at the time. *
>>
>> And it went into your engine as a gas. Imagine that.
>
>
> Actually, it went into the engine as a mist, which evaporates. Gasoline is
> a liquid at STP, there is no getting around it. *
A common myth.
Normal ICE gasoline engine injection or carburation should be around 65
percent liquid, 35 percent vapor.
Total vapor injection does not deliver enough energy per load and does
not properly cool the cylinders.
Charlie Edmondson
Ok, lets try and make it simple.
You have a wind turbine, and you get 10KWH of electricity from it. You can:
1. Use that electricity to add to the grid, and offset 10KWH of coal
production, thereby reducing pollution by X and getting 10KWH of usable
power. Additional infrastructure cost - none.
2. You can use that 10KWH to pump water to a higher location, and use
that water to generate electricity at a later, perhaps higher cost time
of day and offset coal generated electricity at that time - Reduces
pollution by X*80%, provides 8 KWH of usable power. Additional
infrastructure cost - moderate
3. You could rectify the 10KWHs of electricity, and store it in
batteries. Since there is a good chance your primary source was DC, you
can probably save the rectification step even. Take power from the
batteries later to offset coal generation. Reduces pollution by 50%,
and provides 5-7KWHs of electricity. Infrastructure cost - moderate.
Of course, every 5-10 years, you need to recycle the batteries.
4. You can use that 10KWH to compress air, and then use that compressed
air later to generate electricity - Pollution reduced by 5%, and you get
500 watt hours of usable electricity. Additional infrastructure cost -
moderate. After all, the compression/expansion of air is grossly
inefficient!
5. You could elctrolyse some water, and store the hydrogen, which you
would use later in a fuel cell. Reduces overall pollution by 20%, as
long as you don't figure in the costs of recycling the membranes of the
electrolyzer/fuel cell twice a year. Provides 2-5 KWHs of usable
electricity (depending on which overestimated efficiencies you use...)
and a huge infrastructure cost.
So, if you have electricity, use it. If you want to store it, use
pumped storage or batteries. If you want to power shop tools, use
compressed air... 8-)
Charlie
daestrom
Perhaps that one mole of any gas at STP occupies 22.4 liters? That's the
only '22.4' that comes to mind.
daestrom
daestrom
>
>> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
>> >> Actually, compressed air is also a mesmerizingly awful pollution
>> > amplifier.
>
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
>> > Now that is quite impossible to conclude unless one knows how the air
> is
>> > being compressed now doesn't it?
>
>
> "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
>> Obviously you haven't gotten to that chapter yet huh Scott??
>
> It's obvious to me that using a wind turbine to compress air results in
> zero pollution and hence no pollution amplification.
>
So, you've completely missed the point of this sidebar.
We are talking about energy storage mechanisms.
Wind turbines do not *store* energy. Have you *any* demonstrable proof that
a wind turbine compresses air?
> I'm sorry that this isn't obvious to you. A personal failure on your
> part
> quite obviously.
Hardly. More like you don't understand the concept of 'energy storage'.
And you haven't a clue how to compress air or you wouldn't have made the
ridiculous statements about "using a wind turbine to compress air..."
daestrom
neutr...@gmail.com
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
> compress the gas, or store it? Burn on demand, implies an electrical
> system that governs electrolysis in some form, and provides fuel as you
> need it.
Then why not just use the electricity to directly run a motor? Don't
tell me you think that you'll actually get more power out of cracking
water and burning the resultant gas....
Unless you're fusing it, hydrogen-as-fuel is just energy storage and
transport, not an energy source.
Don Kelly
or any form of electrolysis? Cut out the intermediate stages which simply
add losses,costs and complexity . KISS is a good principle to follow.
I fail to see the logic of, for example, using electricity to produce
hydrogen, and then using the hydrogen in a thermal engine, to produce
mechanical power, at an overall efficiency of , say, 10% (electric to
mechanical) , when the the efficiency of an electric motor is in the order
of 85-95% and its cost and complexity is far less.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1141817992.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Scott Nudds
> > At STP gasoline is a volitile liquid that would prefer to be a gas and
> > will become one with sufficient time. To check why not hold an open
match
> > to the opening of your gas tank.
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
> Now you're confusing evaporation caused by the vapor pressure of gasoline
in
> air being far, far, far below 1 atmosphere. Put it in a container with a
> lid that is vented to allow pressure to remain at 1 atmosphere, but
prevents
> significant diffusion of the gasoline vapors away from the surface. A
tiny
> amount will vaporize and raise the partial pressure of the gasoline to
above
> the boiling pressure for the current temperature. As long as that vapor
> concentration is maintained, no further gasoline will evaporate.
I am confusing nothing. It is only the increased pressure of the vapour
above the gasoline in a closed container that allows an equilibrium
condition to be had where the number of gasoline "molecules" leaving the
liquid equals the number re-entering.
The same can be had with hydrogen at higher pressures, or lower
temperatures.
To compare the energy density of fuels, you compare per mole, not per unit
volume.
Stupid....
Scott Nudds
> compress the gas, or store it? Burn on demand, implies an electrical
> system that governs electrolysis in some form, and provides fuel as you
> need it.
Better to just use the raw energy needed to produce the hydrogen to power
the car directly.
Gadord....
Scott Nudds
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> writes:
> >"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote
> >> Gee, the last time I used a gas station, liquid gasoline came out of
the
> >> pump, and it was 32 degrees outside at the time. *
> >
> > And it went into your engine as a gas. Imagine that.
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote
> Actually, it went into the engine as a mist, which evaporates. Gasoline is
> a liquid at STP, there is no getting around it. *
Nope, it's a vapour by the time it enters the engine. The surface area of
those mist particles is minute and they evaporate in an instant.
But be my guest to compare the energy density of hydrogen and gasoline per
mole, or per unit volume of gas at STP.
Snicker.
Scott Nudds
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> writes:
> > It's obvious to me that using a wind turbine to compress air results in
> >zero pollution and hence no pollution amplification.
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote
> Um, what? That simply makes no sense at all. *
A wind turbine has no emissions and hence compressing gas with a wind
turbine results in a compressed gas with no emissions and hence no
pollution.
Only the truly mindless are confused by such matters.
Scott Nudds
It was claimed that compression of gas is polluting.
This is not necessarily the case as I have illustrated.
Your claim now is that the energy is not used optimally.
That is a matter of what is defined as optimal.
Please try and keep up Charlie...
"Charlie Edmondson" <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote
Scott Nudds
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
> Perhaps that one mole of any gas at STP occupies 22.4 liters? That's the
> only '22.4' that comes to mind.
That's undoubtedly where it comes from. But I still wonder what the cross
connection is.
Scott Nudds
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> Wind turbines do not *store* energy. Have you *any* demonstrable proof
that
> a wind turbine compresses air?
I need only attach one to a compressor for proof. Do you have any proof
that it can not be done?
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> Hardly. More like you don't understand the concept of 'energy storage'.
> And you haven't a clue how to compress air or you wouldn't have made the
> ridiculous statements about "using a wind turbine to compress air..."
Ah, so you do think it's impossible.
How childishly foolish of you.
Charlie Edmondson
> Now you are altering the conditions of the assertion.
>
> It was claimed that compression of gas is polluting.
>
> This is not necessarily the case as I have illustrated.
>
> Your claim now is that the energy is not used optimally.
>
> That is a matter of what is defined as optimal.
>
> Please try and keep up Charlie...
>
>
>
And you have no grasp of logic, have you? What we are pointing out to
you is that lack of efficiency is pollution in and of itself. If I am
going to go to all the trouble and expense of putting up a wind
generator (which required a certain amount of pollution to create and
install...) and then waste all its output in needlessly heating the
atmosphere, then I have created thermal pollution at the least, as well
as never 'recovering' or compensating for the original pollution reqired
in the first place.
Your assertion of "Its my resource to waste as I see fit!" puts you
right in with the rest of the oil and auto companies!
Charlie
Scott Nudds
"Charlie Edmondson" <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote
> And you have no grasp of logic, have you? What we are pointing out to
> you is that lack of efficiency is pollution in and of itself.
The sun is horribly inefficient, pouring all of it's energy into space for
nothing.
Yes, all that sunlight is horrible, horrible pollution.
Sorry Charlie. Your just not good enough to be star kissed.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
> > > Scott Nudds wrote:
> > >> As such, Hydrogen offers a high energy density, ... means for
> > >> storing energy.
>
> "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> > Not even wrong.
> >
> > The energy density of hydrogen is ludicrously low.
> > STP hydrogen is 1/3000th that of gasoline
>
> At STP, gasoline is a vapour, . . .
Not exactly. I live in New Mexico, where it's fairly warm a good part of
the year, and the 5200 foot elevation contour runs up the gutters of the
street within a hundred feet of my house. If gasoline were a vapor at STP,
the contents of my fuel tank would be vaporous most of the year when the T
is significantly above S and the P is significantly below it.
But that doesn't happen. Gasoline _will_ evaporate at STP from an open
dish, but that's a thermodynamic equilibrium thing, and requires circulating
air. A real test is simple: Pour a bit of gasoline -- half an inch or
so -- into the bottom of a glass jar. Put the lid on. Come back later, and
check the temperature. Has the gasoline all evaporated? No. Has the
pressure risen in the jar? Very, VERY slightly . . . maybe. It won't have
risen to a full atmosphere, at least not around here. And most of the
gasoline will not have vaporized, except to saturate the air in the jar with
some of its lighter fractions.
> . . . with a lower energy density than Hydrogen.
Not at all. Gasoline vapor has a considerably higher energy density than
hydrogen gas at similar temperature and pressure. An equal volume of the
two gases at the same temp and press will have an equal number of molecules.
I don't know offhand what the average molecular weight of gasoline vapor is,
but it's molecules certainly average above five carbons, so pentane probably
is a good, conservative, first approximation. A molecule of pentane (C_5
H_12) has a whole lot more energy available under oxidation than does
hydrogen. Come to think of it, I'm reasonably sure that the hydrogen atoms
alone in pentane (12 of 'em) have quite a bit more energy available than do
the two atoms in hydrogen gas.
> What you are comparing is gasious Hydrogen with Liquid gasoline.
You bet he is. He's talking about the problems of storing hydrogen for
vehicular fuel. You either have to compress the hydrogen (takes a lot of
energy, a little of which you MIGHT get back, and therefore contributes to
hydrogen's already problematical efficiency) or you have to liquify the
hydrogen (takes even more energy, a little of which you MIGHT get back, and
therefore contributes even more to hydrogen's already problematical
efficiency).
OR, you can store the hydrogen at something approaching STP, and accept the
huge tank size or the uselessly short range of the vehicle.
Gasoline, you pour into a tank and pump it in the liquid state to the
engine.
And if you use compressed or even liquid hydrogen, that still occupies a
substantially larger volume than the gasoline needed to move your vehicle an
equivalent distance.
> What thinking people compare is energy per mole of material.
Depends on what they're thinking about. If it's the size of the storage
tank you're discussing, then molar energy density isn't the primary issue.
If the topic is the weight of fuel, then certainly energy per mole is of
prime interest.
Don was talking about the former.
> Stupid... Stupid... Lancaster...
What's the point of that remark? Demonstrating immature behavior -- whether
you're actually immature or not -- makes people much less likely to take you
seriously, or give you respect that you might deserve.
> "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> > Attempts at raising the energy density of hydrogen such as compression
> > or liquifaction still do not remotely approach conventional fuels, even
> > when done at considerable energy and infrastructure expense. They also
> > introduce EXTREME safety issues that remain unresolved.
>
> Extreme are they? Hahahahahaha.... Hydrogen is not significantly less
> easy to controll than natural gas.
Sorry -- it IS significantly harder. Not impossible, of course, but natgas
doesn't cause any notable metal embrittlement (of which I'm aware), it's
dense enough that odorants work effectively, It has a considerably greater
energy density within the same phases, has a much narrower explosive range
in air mixes, and -- of course -- it's available without having to pump more
energy into it that it gives you back.
If you choose to liquefy natural gas (predominately methane), it's a great
deal easier than hydrogen. Some natgas versions (notably propane and
butane) can be liquified at standard temperature, eliminating the insulation
problem faced with liquid hydrogen.
> Compression is indeed one method of
> storage, but ntot the best. Higher densities than liquification can be
had
> via surface adsorption in various porus materials and in some metal/alloy
> crystals.
Certainly, chemical adsorption or combination (as hydrides) can store
hydrogen, but the economics tend to be dismal. Neither am I aware that any
such storage (to date) can give higher energy density than liquifaction.
Could you provide me with a couple of pointers to info on that?
> Stupid... Stupid... Lancaster.
Uh . . . see above. Or are you just trolling?
d
--
When it comes to making up numbers, you're only limited by your odds of
getting caught. -- Scott Adams
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Even the best textbooks screw this one up, and using the equations can
bring about the right answers as to what voltage or current are found
within 2 decimal places. Break out your books, pick out a transistor,
use the hfe, re, from a transistor you have laying around. Then work
out the series of text book equations that are required to solve the
problem. Then check your results against the circuit.
http://www.mitedu.freeserve.co.uk/Design/cct/rbstabbias.gif
If you work the equations, you most likely won't get the right answer,
and not 2 decimal places accurate. But, if you keep the base current
from the first time you work the equation, the work the whole series of
equations again, you will come within 2 places. The same series of
equations do work to resolve the problem. But, like with using a load
on a transformer coupled parallel tank circuit, you will have to rework
those equations, and maybe several times before it's resonant, and
stable.
Talk talk talk, but until you look at the simple BJT biasing problem,
and list of equations you've been given in your text book, and see how
far off those calculations can typically be, Grobb, Payne, authors of
the literature I studied, then you won't come within 2 decimal places.
Same is true for this circuit, once it is loaded. You may need to
rework the equations several times to get the desired output, and you
won't have a choice on any given resonant frequency. You'll have to
accept what you get, and typically it falls in the range of 100KHz to
1Mhz before it is stable. But, I've done this without fail, and you
keep acting, and that's just it, ACTING, and not doing a damn thing,
not building one circuit, not running any simultions, and you could
care less when I tell you it must be precision tuned.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
I know why your circuit wouldn't work if the parts configuration was
right, wrong capacitor values. You didn't use a parallel
configurations, there's an arc in a variable tuning capacitor, and it's
shorting because it can't handle more than 20 Volts. I'm sure if I
seen your list of components, and values, I would find the problem with
the schematic of your work.
H2-PV NOW
Hydrogen Storage in Wind Turbine Towers-- Cost Analysis and Conceptual
Design 34851.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34851.pdf
You know, compressed Hydrogen has a lot of similarities to other
compressed gases produced by renewable energy of solar or wind or
others...
Hydrogen produced by electrolysis has to be then COMPRESSED. It has
been well studied. Compression of gases using electric power from every
means is well known.
A Preliminary Analysis and Case Study of Transmission Constraints and
Wind Energy in the West 2005 38152.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38152.pdf
Blending Wind And Solar Into The Diesel Generator Market diesel.pdf
http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/pdf/diesel.pdf
Electrolysis Production of Hydrogen from Wind and Hydropower
chalk_doe.ppt
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/docs/chalk_doe.ppt
Geographic Information Systems in Support of Wind Energy Activities at
NREL gis_nrel.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/gis_nrel.pdf
Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind -
Electrolysis 35404.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35404.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 38451.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/38451.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 2005 38138.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38138.pdf
Modeling Utility-Scale Wind Power Plants Part 1-- Economics 2000
27514.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27514.pdf
Modeling Wind Energy Integration Costs coatney.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/seattlefiles/coatney.pdf
Modular System for Hydrogen Generation & Oxygen Recovery
pdp_43_balachov.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_43_balachov.pdf
Multi-Sourced Electricity for Electrolytic Hydrogen 2004
euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
Optimized Hydrogen and Electricity Generation from Wind 2003 34364.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34364.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen From Wind In California 2005 UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2005/UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
The Long-Term Potential Of Wind Power In The United States 34871.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy04/34871.pdf
Compressed and Liquefied Hydrogen Storage Workshop 2002
comp_liq_h2_stor_work_proceedings.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/comp_liq_h2_stor_work_proceedings.pdf
Compressed and Liquefied Hydrogen Storage Workshop 2003
H2-LCA_EHEC_Schindler_03SEP2003.pdf
http://www.hyweb.de/Wissen/pdf/H2-LCA_EHEC_Schindler_03SEP2003.pdf
Development Of A Pem Electrolyzer Enabling Seasonal Storage Of
Renewable Energy 2005 CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-085/CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
Development of Reversible Hydrogen Storage Alane 2005 stp_20_zidan.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/stp_20_zidan.pdf
h2_storage_think_tank.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_storage_think_tank.pdf
Hydrogen Storage 2003 milliken_ee_storage.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/milliken_ee_storage.pdf
Hydrogen Storage -Overview 2003 bulk_hydrogen_stor_pres_sandia.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/bulk_hydrogen_stor_pres_sandia.
pdf
Hydrogen Storage State-Of-The-Art And Future Perspective 2003
P2003-181=EUR20995EN.pdf
http://www.jrc.nl/publications/2003/P2003-181=EUR20995EN.pdf
Hydrogen Storage Sub-Program Overview iii_storage_intro.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iii_storage_intro.pdf
Hydrogen Storage Using Lightweight Tanks 2003
46_llnl_andrew_weisberg.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/merit03/46_llnl_andrew_weisberg.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency Reversible Fuel Cell (And Electrolyzer)
Systems 30535aw.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535aw.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency, High Pressure Hydrogen Storage 2004
st_2_newell.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/st_2_newell.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency, High Pressure Hydrogen Storage 2005
04_warner_quantum.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/04_warner_quantum.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency, High Pressure Hydrogen Storage st15_ko.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/st15_ko.pdf
Next Generation Physical Hydrogen Storage 2004 st_p1_weisberg_04.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/st_p1_weisberg_04.pdf
Next Generation Hydrogen Storage Containers stp_1_weisberg.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/stp_1_weisberg.pdf
Next-Generation Physical Hydrogen Storage iiia3_weisberg.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iiia3_weisberg.pdf
Summary of DOE Hydrogen Storage Workshop 2002 workshop_summary.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/workshop_summary.pdf
Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production 36734.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36734.pdf
Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production 2004 35948.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/35948.pdf
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.uss/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Never say anything. When the psychiatrist asks questions, keep it to
yes, and no. Never act like there's a conspiracy, or that any form of
circuit does or does not work. In fact, never even mention your field
of study, major, research. Never ever mention, you bills, even if they
wind up late, that is considered paranoid schizophrinia. Refuse drugs.
Wait patiently.
If arrested by the police, and you have no knowledge why you are being
arrested, say nothing.
If enough people work with these circuits, the system will be
overwhelmed with innocent people. That for every single individual who
refuses to talk, or chooses to wait patiently, and places no urgency on
the technology, or even better never mentions any of it until after
your release, is better.
Do not become a part of any aspect of any criminal activity, and the
above should work. Wait for your attorney, and ask him or her why you
are there. Do not speak to detectives, do not speak to the police, do
not worry, just walk, follow, and wait. Do not attempt to convince
anyone anything is going on, or that there is any reason for what is
happening when you know there is not one, except the circuits. Do not
talk, and wait.
Wind works.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
shortest period of time. Typically, there are only 1, 2 or 3 people
steering the situation, and putting you through it. The rest of people
are only doing what they normally do, and the office appears to be
running as usual. So, they will miss what's going on, and you will
seem crazy.
Typically, everything operates without them. They step in, and run the
situation around you. If you don't say anything, they can't do
anything. They hope, you will incriminate yourself. Do not talk to
detectives. Do talk about your opinion of life, politics, late bills,
or people with any psychiatrists, and always act as if everything is
perfectly fine, and you are just waiting, and just waiting.
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
Is that the voice of experience?
The Flavored Coffee Guy
There's a few demo's that could really help you....
The Flavored Coffee Guy
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
The map is not the territory, and the simulation is not the
circuit. Dream on.
When you're done dreaming, you should be able to prove your
assumptions false in less than a day with some real circuit
components and a bit of skill in measuring AC power in and
out.
That's _power_, not voltage. They're different.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
electronics is beyond me.
I can sit here with a model of a parallel tank circuit with just one
coil, and one capacitor, and from the signal source only use 0.017
Amps, or 17 milliamperes to drive the circuit. Meanwhile, between the
coil, and the capcitor measure 14.133 Amperes. So, the input is 240
milliwatts, and the power bucking back and forth between the capcitor
and coil is 200 Watts.
Signal source 10 volts peak AC 159.2KHz .
Capacitor value 1 uf
Inductor value 1 uH
If you have an inductance meter, and a transformer of any kind power
transformer, household whatever, and a 10K ohm potentiometer. Connect
the potentiometer to the secondary so that you can vary the resistance
across the output, and the inductance meter to primary. Now, watch
your inductance meter, and slowly turn down the resistance until it
reaches 0 ohms. Then slowly turn up the resistance until it reaches
10K . Take the potentiometer off, short the secondary wires, and
measure the inductance of the primary. Leave the secondary open, and
write down that reading. Open is very close to the same value of
inductance you will see when the potentiometer is at it highest
resistance, and shorted, is the same when the potentiometer has the
lowest resistance through it.
So, all that will ever change is L in henrys.
Is there anything wrong with this equation?
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/freq.jpg
Reference material, check bottom of page for credentials.
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_6.html
Therefore, only the center frequency will change. But, if you operate
a resonant power circuit that is driven by a single frequency that
doesn't vary or keep up with a changing value of inductance, there will
be a significant power loss. As for any resistive load, it can operate
over unity indefinately, if designed properly.
The model of the simple parallel tank cirucit, proves everything.
Using a tranformer instead of an isolated coil, changes nothing, and
that 200 Watts becomes available, but proper tuning and impedance
matching is required.
That is actual second year LC circuits. I've argued with many
teachers. But, you know what I did, instead of arguing, I built the
circuit to see for myself, if it would work. They do, and just was
well as the single coil, and single capacitor in parallel.
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
>What College, or University would pass you through second year
>electronics is beyond me.
As are many other things, apparently.
>
>I can sit here with a model of a parallel tank circuit with just one
>coil, and one capacitor, and from the signal source only use 0.017
>Amps, or 17 milliamperes to drive the circuit. Meanwhile, between the
>coil, and the capcitor measure 14.133 Amperes. So, the input is 240
>milliwatts, and the power bucking back and forth between the capcitor
>and coil is 200 Watts.
The 200 watts is not "real" power, it's reactive or
imaginary power. It's stored energy. It all came from the
input, and must be resupplied if it is removed to drive a
load. Another way of saying that is that the Q is reduced
when you apply a resistive (real) load.
Read my previous post for an explanation with examples.
>
>Signal source 10 volts peak AC 159.2KHz .
>Capacitor value 1 uf
>Inductor value 1 uH
>
>If you have an inductance meter, and a transformer of any kind power
>transformer, household whatever, and a 10K ohm potentiometer. Connect
>the potentiometer to the secondary so that you can vary the resistance
>across the output, and the inductance meter to primary. Now, watch
>your inductance meter, and slowly turn down the resistance until it
>reaches 0 ohms. Then slowly turn up the resistance until it reaches
>10K . Take the potentiometer off, short the secondary wires, and
>measure the inductance of the primary. Leave the secondary open, and
>write down that reading. Open is very close to the same value of
>inductance you will see when the potentiometer is at it highest
>resistance, and shorted, is the same when the potentiometer has the
>lowest resistance through it.
>
>So, all that will ever change is L in henrys.
You need to understand complex impedance to see why that is
"not even wrong", as some would say. The impedance has an
reactive (imaginary) and a resistive (real) component.
Sounds like you are only reading the inductive part.
Also, you should keep in mind that spice models of
transformers are a bit tricky.
>
>Is there anything wrong with this equation?
>http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/freq.jpg
As an approximation, assuming no resistance.
>
>Reference material, check bottom of page for credentials.
>http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_6.html
Oddly enough, had you continued reading in that link you
would have found the following text and table describing
what happens when you take resistance into account:
"However, as soon as significant levels of resistance are
introduced into most LC circuits, this simple calculation
for resonance becomes invalid. We'll take a look at several
LC circuits with added resistance, using the same values for
capacitance and inductance as before: 10 µF and 100 mH,
respectively. According to our simple equation, the resonant
frequency should be 159.155 Hz. Watch, though, where current
reaches maximum or minimum in the following SPICE analyses:"
[...]
"* Parallel ("tank") LC circuit:
* R in series with L: resonant frequency shifted down
* R in series with C: resonant frequency shifted up
* Series LC circuit:
* R in parallel with L: resonant frequency shifted up
* R in parallel with C: resonant frequency shifted down"
Hopefully that may help clear up your misconceptions.
>
>Therefore, only the center frequency will change. But, if you operate
>a resonant power circuit that is driven by a single frequency that
>doesn't vary or keep up with a changing value of inductance, there will
>be a significant power loss. As for any resistive load, it can operate
>over unity indefinately, if designed properly.
Not if you consider the effect of the load resistance on the
Q of the circuit.
>
>The model of the simple parallel tank cirucit, proves everything.
>Using a tranformer instead of an isolated coil, changes nothing, and
>that 200 Watts becomes available, but proper tuning and impedance
>matching is required.
The 200 watts is reactive power, not "available" on a
continuous basis. Every joule that comes out originally
went in the input.
There may be voltage gain (resonant rise), but there is no
power gain in a passive circuit.
Your simulations are leading you astray. A power saw
doesn't make you a better carpenter, it just lets you make
sawdust faster.
>
>That is actual second year LC circuits. I've argued with many
>teachers. But, you know what I did, instead of arguing, I built the
>circuit to see for myself, if it would work. They do, and just was
>well as the single coil, and single capacitor in parallel.
You did not get more energy out of the circuit than you put
in. If your measurements showed that, they are in error.
Among other things, you must take into account the phase
angle between the I and V. They're 90 degrees apart.
If you actually had any science background, you would know
the first thing you do with a wondrous new theory is to
attempt to prove it wrong before you embarrass and discredit
yourself by going public prematurely.
Too late.
Bill Ward