Not saying it's impossible, BUT, as a friend of mine on this list often used to say to me, I'm from Missouri.
Ya gotta show me.
I do *hope* this is a viable solution, though the reality is (notwithstanding claims from people trying to sell you on the idea of something they want to sell you someday) hydrogen in gaseous form is KNOWN to leak from WHATEVER container it's put in at a somewhat-alarming rate -- and this site doesn't even MENTION anything about leakage, at least not that I found in a quick perusal. Car companies think plugging your car in is too much hassle for Americans? How do they think we'll react, then to letting it sit for 3 days and coming back to find a full tank half-emtpy?
I think if there's a solution to be had, its in storing hydrogen in the vehicle in some chemical form in which its far easier to separate out than it is in water. There's been some progress in research on this front, storing the hydrogen in some sort of solid (?!?) pellets (maybe combined with magnesium somehow? I forget, but you can Google and find it, I'm sure.).
But its still just that ... RESEARCH.
The other problem is that the site doesn't go into how much detail about just how many solar panels you're gonna need to create enough electrical power to electrolyze enough hydrogen to power a SINGLE one-family car, much less to think of doing for hydrogen as some sort of large-scale infrastructural solution. The fact that they're NOT talking about this HUGE stumbling block to their "near-zero-cost" transportation energy solution makes me a bit skeptical of their other claims ... to say the least.
I forget the number, but you can look up the square footage for the Honda FCX one-family pilot project in California -- I think its something like 1700 square feet (!) of solar panels to create enough hydrogen to power that one family's car (they fill up about once a week). This isn't a function of how you store it or any of that crap, its simply that it takes a HUGE amount of electrical power to electrolyze a quantity of hydrogen sufficient for pushing a 2000-pound car around for a week using fuel cells -- power that could be put on the grid and stored in batteries much more efficiently, at least with technology available TODAY. If the tech from the OP greatly reduces the amount of energy required for this process, then maybe we're onto something, though we STILL have the problems of infrastructure (platinum for fuel cells is a biggie) and storage.
The point is, like the saying goes, this stuff has all been 30 years away from being viable for the last 30 years, kinda like computer AI ... except a longer time period.
My opinion is that, in the short-to-near term, our only viable big-ticket-item solution that stands ANY chance of getting us through this go-around of the energy crunch is CONSERVATION, much as we Americans (and our over-inflated senses of entitlement) might not like to think about what that entails.
JOE
On 9/12/07, Geoffrion, Ron P [IT] [email protected] wrote:
And don't even get me STARTED on how impractical hydrogen-as-a-fuel is
in terms of STORAGE losses ...
Umm...from http://unitednuclear.com/ Research and Devlopment site.
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
Quoting the site: May 22nd, 2007:
Our Hydrogen Fuel System is not yet available for sale. There are legal problems with several components of the unit which is preventing its sale. Until the legal proceedings are complete, we won't be moving forward the system. Thank you all for your emails & support. The legal action is due to the actions of the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) attempting to remove the necessary chemicals used in this system from public use.
"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."
-Benjamin FranklinUnquote.
Thanks,
Ron Geoffrion 913.488.7664
Well, if they can reduce the size and energy requirement of the the RF transmitter and somehow increase the energy output of the salt water, such as doping the water with different chemicals, then I could see this as a possible fuel alternative. Imagine filling up your tank with chemically enhanced saltwater and modifying the engine to include an RF transmitter that focuses the frequencies on the pistons. You would have to rust proof the to protect from the corrosive saltwater and test to see what effect the RF has on engines mechanics... I wonder if sugar water would work... There is quite a bit of energy stored in sugar.
Its an interesting idea and I hope they get the grant money to further research this.
On 9/12/07, Jeremy Fowler [email protected] wrote:
Imagine filling up your tank with chemically enhanced saltwater and modifying the engine to include an RF transmitter that focuses the frequencies on the pistons.
The process of separating H from O can't be done with less energy than the process of rejoining them produces. At best, this new process may be more efficient than others, but if you start with salt water and end with water vapor, you can't get energy out of the process.
--- "Monty J. Harder" [email protected] wrote:
On 9/12/07, Jeremy Fowler [email protected] wrote:
Imagine filling up your tank with chemically
enhanced saltwater and
modifying the engine to include an RF transmitter
that focuses the
frequencies on the pistons.
The process of separating H from O can't be done with less energy than the process of rejoining them produces. At best, this new process may be more efficient than others, but if you start with salt water and end with water vapor, you can't get energy out of the process.
Definitely, but you can expend the fuel to travel someplace and back again. But you would want to use an electric motor and use the extracted H in a fuel cell. However, if your going to do it all on board, you'd better be driving a BIG truck or bus. You'd need to "scrub" the H and O before feeding it into the fuel cell. There's a lot of other technical things you need to do, but let's just say if you're using water you can't do it in a vehicle the size of a VW or something. PS some of these things aren't exactly what you would call ummm ... quiet.
--- Joe Fish [email protected] wrote:
Not saying it's impossible, BUT, as a friend of mine on this list often used to say to me, I'm from Missouri.
Ya gotta show me.
I do *hope* this is a viable solution, though the reality is
It is a viable solution today, albeit expensive.
hydrogen in gaseous form is KNOWN to leak from WHATEVER container it's put in at a somewhat-alarming rate --
Says who? What's your source on this? I don't buy it. Hydrogen in a sealed tank isn't going anywhere.
Car companies think plugging your car in is too much hassle for Americans?
Although there are lots of people doing it today. Lot's of people are converting gas-guzzlers into EVs. Google "Battery Box" to see some of the hits.
storing hydrogen in the vehicle in some chemical form in which its far easier to separate out than it is in water. There's been some progress in research on this front,
Well easier is a relative term. Yes, there are some avenues along here. There are many avenues unexplored also. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fanboy of Hydrogen Fuel cells. It's a plausible technology, but I think better batteries are a better solution. I'd rather go with a simpler solution. Fuel cells will never be simple. Although I am trying to design one (don't holde your breath though).
But its still just that ... RESEARCH.
With prototypes. There is a difference.
The other problem is that the site doesn't go into how much detail about just how many solar panels you're gonna need to create enough electrical power to electrolyze enough hydrogen to power a
It takes about 1KW of electricity to produce 6 cu ft of H/hr. It also make about 3 cu ft of O, which you could sell to welders, etc. It can be done cheaper, but I don't think any of you have access to commercial power plants.
SINGLE one-family car, much
You can produce Hydorgen for about $3 per gasoline gallon equivalent today. You meaning anyone with electricity in they're house.
Mercedes Benz is gearing up to produce a car in 2010 that "The new B-Class car's electric engine will generate top output of 136 horsepower and perform on par with a two-litre petrol engine, the company said. It will consume the equivalent of 2.9 litres of diesel fuel per 100 kilometres driven." Impressive.
Although it probably is using some metal hydride and converting the hydrogen from solid pellets. Problem is most of those solutions produce some toxic waste. Lovely.
less to think of doing for hydrogen as some sort of large-scale infrastructural solution. The fact that they're
Pepperidge Farms Bloomfield, Conn plant runs on a 1.2MW Fuel Cell. Before that thay've been using fuel cells since 2006. When someone tells you it can't be done because it's prohibitive. Don't believe it. There are other examples I could find for you.
Hydrogen Fuel cells? A reality today. THe brass ring? I don't think so.
I forget the number, but you can look up the square footage for the Honda FCX one-family pilot project in California -- I think its something like 1700 square feet (!) of solar panels to create enough hydrogen to power that one family's car (they fill up about once a week).
And powering the house too. Right? That number sounds about right for So Cal, for complete freedom from the grid. Probably also pumping occasional power back into the grid.
You do know they have entire cities in the SW running on Solar energy? Right?
Don't try it in MO.
that it takes a HUGE amount of electrical power to electrolyze a quantity of
No it doesn't.
hydrogen sufficient for pushing a 2000-pound car around for a week using fuel cells -- power that could be put on the grid and stored in batteries much more efficiently, at
No it can't. H produces 52,000 BTU/lb 3 time the energy of gasoline. It has the highest energy content of ****ALL**** fuels.
The point is, like the saying goes, this stuff has all been 30 years away
Except it's here today. Now.
My opinion is that, in the short-to-near term, our only viable big-ticket-item solution that stands ANY chance of getting us through this go-around of the energy crunch is CONSERVATION, much
Wrong. The best short term solution for now, is convert one of your gas guzzlers to EV. It'll cost you $3000-$10,000 and pay for itself in 2-4 years. With a vehicle lifetime of 15-50 years (excepting body failure).
On 9/13/07, Jack [email protected] wrote:
No it can't. H produces 52,000 BTU/lb 3 time the energy of gasoline. It has the highest energy content of ****ALL**** fuels.
But energy density can also be measured in terms of volume, in which case Hydrogen has one of the worst energy contents. Hydrogen either takes up too much volume or must be massively compressed/refrigerated. Good old gasoline is the reigning king of energy density per unit volume for uncompressed liquids (at normal human temperature). Biodiesel is a very close second, which is very encouraging, provided that we make it from waste products, instead of the corn that poor Mexicans would like to feed their kids, running up their cost of living and making them want to support the terrorists who just blew up a half-dozen Pemex pipelines.
I was watching Mythbusters last night, and they were doing all kinds of explosive experiments. In one experiment, they made a Pringles can explode using hydrogen and leaving the chips fairly intact. One thing they pointed out was that Hydrogen, when it burns, has a clear, nearly invisible white flame. This got me thinking about the burning saltwater, which was an orange-yellow flame. So, its probably not the Hydrogen burning. So that got me wondering what was burning in that saltwater. Well, maybe its the salt I thought. Salt, Sodium chloride, is fairly inert. However, Sodium by itself is really active and quite explosive when it comes into contact with water. Here's a great site with a guy doing sodium experiments, including throwing it into water and burning it:
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/
If you look at the sodium flame, its a similar orange-yellow flame in the saltwater experiments. So, it highly probable the RF is making the sodium in the water burn. So, what to you amateur chemists and physicists have to say about this? Is it still a possible fuel source if its only burning the sodium?
On Thursday 13 September 2007 09:41:56 am Jeremy Fowler wrote:
This got me thinking about the burning saltwater, which was an orange-yellow flame.
Did you miss the sodium in salt water?
So, its probably not the Hydrogen burning.
Or it's the hydrogen burning hot enough to excite the sodium, just like doing a loop test in a bunsen burner.
Did you _all_ sleep through chemistry?
Yes, H2 has a blue white flame, and sodium orange. Chlorine burns vomit green. The burning saltwater is the sodium burning. Of course anything that burns will cause explosions if you contain the fire like in a stick of dynamite , a grenade, or a pringles can. I used to make cannons with rubbing alcohol, tennis balls and soda cans. Very effective. Sadly, Mythbusters sometimes promote myths rather than bust them, like making it seem like H2 is explosive. I've seen H2 fuel cells burn in crashes. The Hydrogen burns straight up like a candle. Sodium and Potassium are highly volatile. Potassium burns on contact with air (no need for any ignition). Hence it is used in incendiary bombs. Potassium is very dangerous stuff. Almost impossible to put out. You have to remove all the oxygen, hence you can't use water to put it out (well there is ONE way), it just burns the water releasing hydrogen which then burns also. Nice hunh?
--- Jeremy Fowler [email protected] wrote:
I was watching Mythbusters last night, and they were doing all kinds of explosive experiments. In one experiment, they made a Pringles can explode using hydrogen and leaving the chips fairly intact. One thing they pointed out was that Hydrogen, when it burns, has a clear, nearly invisible white flame. This got me thinking about the burning saltwater, which was an orange-yellow flame. So, its probably not the Hydrogen burning. So that got me wondering what was burning in that saltwater. Well, maybe its the salt I thought. Salt, Sodium chloride, is fairly inert. However, Sodium by itself is really active and quite explosive when it comes into contact with water. Here's a great site with a guy doing sodium experiments, including throwing it into water and burning it:
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/
If you look at the sodium flame, its a similar orange-yellow flame in the saltwater experiments. So, it highly probable the RF is making the sodium in the water burn. So, what to you amateur chemists and physicists have to say about this? Is it still a possible fuel source if its only burning the sodium?
-
Jack -
Jeremy Fowler -
Joe Fish -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Monty J. Harder