78Suburban
1/2 ton status
1985_K5_Silverado said:
No, or things could get really ugly, really quickly everytime you put a pot of water to boil on the stove.
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Guy came up with a way to run an engine on water
- Thread starter Stickseler
- Start date
No, or things could get really ugly, really quickly everytime you put a pot of water to boil on the stove.
two problems with the "it runs on water!" engine theory... a) it takes energy to get the H out of H2O... and it has to come from somewhere and b) even when you do get it out, hydrogen has a pitiful amount of energy in it compared to equal volumes of gasoline, desiel, ethanol or pretty much any other fuel ever used to power something.
I think its fun to sit around talking about perpetual motion machines and magic engines... but at the same time valuable time/resources/energy is being wasted that could be directed towards solutions that would work. Without the mother of all scientific breakthroughs. IMO, every city with a population over 500,000 should have a nuclear complex... I'm talking half a dozen or more reactors. Other than coal, it makes no sense in the US to burn fossil fuels to make electricity. We should be using nuke power to do the heavy lifting and keep our industrial base sound. Wind/dams/solar are good for supplementing the grid, but not for replacing it. Yeah sure, a guy living in the toolies can use it for 100% of his power needs... but massive industrial centers can't. Nuclear power is the solution... it always has been. The only question is how much pain are we going to have to inflict on "mother earth" before the enviro-nazis realize this truth.
Fission is the medium term answer. For the long term, we need a national effort (think manhatten project) to create a viable fusion power plant. If we can pull that off, all our problems would be solved. In the mean time, ethanol, clean coal, more drilling, fission, solar, wind and any/every other means you can come with should be brought to bear.
Another good medium term solution would be charge-at-night hybrid cars. Toyota and others are apparently obsessed with building hybrids that you "don't have to plug in". This is short sighted and results in a very inefficient system. Tell me the Prius is "green" all you want, it still burns gas faster than a geo metro does. At any rate, the big automakers should get together and make a standard charging format. It could be something simple, like a mat in the garage that has a couple of contacts on it. You park your car at night, when the P brake goes on, an arm reached down and hits the contacts. Over night, your cars hybrid battery pack charges. For commuting to and from work, the super-small common rail desiel doesn't come on hardly at all. Runs off battery... if you go on a long trip, it gets used more. A commuter, lightly built car with this kind of charging system could get WELL over 100 mpg.. and the technology isn't new or a breakthrough. Nuke plants support the grid (no oil to buy for it, no emmissions into the atmosphere), and a super efficient desiel backs up the batterys for long trips. MIT guys recently used a virus as a carrier inside a Lithium Ion battery and were able to make 300% more power for an equal weight standard Li battery. Toss in that kind of tech and hell, you might be getting 200mpg.
j
I think its fun to sit around talking about perpetual motion machines and magic engines... but at the same time valuable time/resources/energy is being wasted that could be directed towards solutions that would work. Without the mother of all scientific breakthroughs. IMO, every city with a population over 500,000 should have a nuclear complex... I'm talking half a dozen or more reactors. Other than coal, it makes no sense in the US to burn fossil fuels to make electricity. We should be using nuke power to do the heavy lifting and keep our industrial base sound. Wind/dams/solar are good for supplementing the grid, but not for replacing it. Yeah sure, a guy living in the toolies can use it for 100% of his power needs... but massive industrial centers can't. Nuclear power is the solution... it always has been. The only question is how much pain are we going to have to inflict on "mother earth" before the enviro-nazis realize this truth.
Fission is the medium term answer. For the long term, we need a national effort (think manhatten project) to create a viable fusion power plant. If we can pull that off, all our problems would be solved. In the mean time, ethanol, clean coal, more drilling, fission, solar, wind and any/every other means you can come with should be brought to bear.
Another good medium term solution would be charge-at-night hybrid cars. Toyota and others are apparently obsessed with building hybrids that you "don't have to plug in". This is short sighted and results in a very inefficient system. Tell me the Prius is "green" all you want, it still burns gas faster than a geo metro does. At any rate, the big automakers should get together and make a standard charging format. It could be something simple, like a mat in the garage that has a couple of contacts on it. You park your car at night, when the P brake goes on, an arm reached down and hits the contacts. Over night, your cars hybrid battery pack charges. For commuting to and from work, the super-small common rail desiel doesn't come on hardly at all. Runs off battery... if you go on a long trip, it gets used more. A commuter, lightly built car with this kind of charging system could get WELL over 100 mpg.. and the technology isn't new or a breakthrough. Nuke plants support the grid (no oil to buy for it, no emmissions into the atmosphere), and a super efficient desiel backs up the batterys for long trips. MIT guys recently used a virus as a carrier inside a Lithium Ion battery and were able to make 300% more power for an equal weight standard Li battery. Toss in that kind of tech and hell, you might be getting 200mpg.
j
I love my gasoline, but I can't wait for the day when I poor water into my tank on purpose.
This whole water idea is interesting, but I don't see, based on the current chemistry/math/physics laws that H2O can be rearanged to form another gas using the same elements.
Oxygen needs 2 electrons and hydrogen wants to get rid of 1 electron. Thus oxygen finds 2 hydrogens and they bond together to form H2O. You can't make the chemical bonds any other way. Either I didn't think of something or that video left something out.
This whole water idea is interesting, but I don't see, based on the current chemistry/math/physics laws that H2O can be rearanged to form another gas using the same elements.
Oxygen needs 2 electrons and hydrogen wants to get rid of 1 electron. Thus oxygen finds 2 hydrogens and they bond together to form H2O. You can't make the chemical bonds any other way. Either I didn't think of something or that video left something out.
randy88k5
1/2 ton status
Well, basically, you can make just about any chemical with any atoms, you just need the right conditions to make them. Oxygen is diatomic (o2) but ozone (o3) readilly forms in the upper atmosphere (and on the ground too when the conditions are right). Peroxide is unstable, but it still has a similar formula to water (h2o2). Some molecules arent exactly bonded, they might be drawn together because of polarity and dipoles. Thats one reason why water is so versitile and resilliant when compared to other chalcogen based molecules.
Yes, water (h20) is the most stable, but the forming of a water molecule doesnt happen all at once. You have intermediate steps, and the end result is h2o.
I dont know if he is actually burning the gas though. As others have said, that is a fairly inefficient way of making the power. He just said it breaks the water down into its gas components. He never said how it works. Im curious to see.
Yes, water (h20) is the most stable, but the forming of a water molecule doesnt happen all at once. You have intermediate steps, and the end result is h2o.
I dont know if he is actually burning the gas though. As others have said, that is a fairly inefficient way of making the power. He just said it breaks the water down into its gas components. He never said how it works. Im curious to see.
1985_K5_Silverado
1/2 ton status
OK, can you draw an "HHO" molecule, so we can see how it differs from a water molecule?78Suburban said:
no, it is just pure hydrogen split from the h2o which is a very volatile gas in pure form. The problem up until now was how to harness all the hydrogen from the water with out vast amounts of electricity. I told you it has been done before in canada. They found out if you take a very cheap alloy, I believe it was aluminum but I'm not sure, it has a reaction with the process and boom before you know it pure hydrogen coming up the tube and into the carb then into the little 4 stroke and it ran for 30 min before they shut it off. No mods to the engine. The only problem I see happening is corrosion to the cylinder walls making them brittle. Hydrogen also can burn very hot so engine heat might also be a problem. Hydrogen burns with so much more energy then oil. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800&pl=true1985_K5_Silverado said:
darkshadow
1 ton status
rad this link on the aluminum/water moter
http://members.tripod.com/~anon99/water_engine/#OVERVIEWdarkshadow said:
darkshadow
1 ton status
1985_K5_Silverado said:
did he say there was a HHO molecule? i thought it was just a mixed H/ O2 gas.
NYDIESELDAVE
1/2 ton status
Ok here is one thats been around for a while. Cycclone Magnetic Engines (CME) here is companys page:
http://cycclone.com/welcome/page3.php
http://cycclone.com/welcome/page3.php
1985_K5_Silverado said:
This is the only possiblity that wouldn't be good old water as far as I can figure... Definitely would be volatile though, as that second Hydrogen would badly want to leave, and join the Oxygen molecule rather than remain stuck to the first Hydrogen molecule.
you guys are starting to spew chemist knowledge... I'm gonna have to forward it to my dad to look for inaccuracies. I remember when there was that web page about improving your gas mileage with acetone... and while the page looked like lots of good tech, my dad pretty much laughed his heiny off at all the un-true chemistry-related things posted there.
j
j
uao85
1/2 ton status
Well damn thats a new one to me. I know about the whole ethanol and biodiesel thing since I make the systems, but wow. Definitely making leaps and bounds in the way of alternative fuels. Cool Stuff.
Remington
Remington
danny7139 said:
I should have been more clear.... hydrogen gas has a pitiful amount of juice.
At any rate, I showed my pops this thread, he rolled his eyes at most posts... laughed out loud at others. Suffice it to say, don't invest any money in this guys "business" if you ever want to see it again. I'll post up his comments tomorow when he responds to my email. One thing is for sure.... Sierra's "HHO" molecule is in the "no way in hell" catagory. Ain't happenin... not even with pixie dust.
j
MaxPF
1/2 ton status
Hydrogen has a lot of energy per unit of mass, but not nearly as much as hydrocarbons per unit of volume. Hydrogen is an extremely bulky fuel. NASA has indeed used oil-based fuels for rocket propulsion. The first stages of the Delta, Atlas, Tital I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V all used RP-1 (basically a refined kerosene) as their fuel, due to its much higher density vs LH2. The upper stages used LH2 due to it's greater specific impulse (i.e. greater energy content per unit of mass). While the space shuttle's main engines are powered by LH2, most of the thrust comes from the two SRBs. The SRB's provide 83% of the thrust at liftoff, while the main engines give only 17%. If the shuttle were launched entirely with LH2 rockets, the main tank would need to be something like 4 times it's current size!danny7139 said:
Anyway, that is the problem with a hydrogen powered vehicle (besides the fact the stuff is very explosive). In order to give an acceptable range, the vehicle would need to be a rolling gas can
Finally heard back from my dad. He responded to parts of the thread, not all of it. Here are his thoughts. For the record he has taught college level chemistry and worked as a research chemist (organic and inorganic both) for about 30 years....
This is possible, although sometimes the conditions are rather exotic, have poor productivity, or are incredibly expensive per pound of material produced.
Yes, under conditions of extreme energy input. Lightning is the premier source of lower atmosphere O3 while VERY high intensity UV light is required to create it in the the upper atmosphere. This occurs whenever there is both O2 and sunlight available and provides the mechanism by which a lot of UV light is absorbed by the atmosphere.
This is fortunate, as life evolved on the Earth under low UV light conditions. Without the O2 / O3 interchange, a lot of UV would come through the atmosphere and damage living cells in both plants and animals. :-(
Correct. :-)
There is more than one type of chemical bond. Organic chemists are concerned primarily with hydrocarbon bonding of various types (single, double, triple bonds) but also with delocalized pi electron bonds. Other bonding arrangements are also possible, such as organo-metallic and organo-non-metallic (sulfur, oxygen, halogens, etc.) The hydrogen bonds in water are responsible for its high viscosity and high boiling point. Remember that just about anything else with double water's molecular weight is a gas.
The term chalcogen refers to "ore formers", so compounds such as Fe2O3 and Al2O3 would qualify here. Not sure what you are referring to in this case.
Water forms virtually instantly under the conditions that it requires: 2 H2 + O2 ---> 2 H2O + energy
I can't imagine what "intermediate steps" it might require. Anyone who has mixed H2 with O2 or air and then provided a spark knows that the BOOM! that results doesn't take very long to arrive. ;-)
Hydrogen burns with a very hot flame, which is not visible to the human eye. It's energy content per pound is not great, however, so quite a lot of it is needed to power vehicles. Typically, they have large storage tanks and limited range compared to gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. A gallon of liquid H2 may take a car 10 miles but a gallon of gasoline can take the same car 20+ miles and a gallon of diesel in the diesel equivalent car goes even further.
There was a university research program done several years ago, wherein it was found that a mixed metal iron based catalyst and sunlight could be used to split H2O into H2 and O2. The rate that this occurred at was not great but that it happened at all was pretty amazing. It was hoped that a more efficient catalyst and / or much more intense sunlight (perhaps desert conditions) would result in an efficient process. Have not heard any more about it since then, so it is likely that it did not work as well as is needed for commercial development.
Metals in general and iron / steel in particular have a BIG problem with H2. It is so small that it penetrates the metal's crystal lattice, is absorbed there, and causes the iron or steel to become brittle. This is not good in a high pressure gas or liquid storage tank since the tank is weakened and may rupture unexpectedly. Additionally, there is some bleed of H2 right through the metal walls of the storage container, so it needs to be vented and grounded to eliminate H2 gas concentration around the tank and a static-induced H2 + air explosion.
I can't think of a single bit of chemistry or physics that supports this configuration. Remember that H2 contains 2 1S electrons or one per H atom. Oxygen contains 6 2P electrons and 2 unshared electrons that are highly electronegative and very attractive to H atoms. When H2O forms, H is happy with a filled 1S electron shell containing 2 electrons and O is happy with a full octet (2 2S + 6 2P) of electrons. No other configuration is possible under non-nuclear reaction scenarios. With the suggested H-H-O configuration, the middle H would have a bizarre electron orbital arrangement of God-only-knows-what symmetry and O would be extremely unsatisfied with only 7 electrons in its outer shell. Sounds like foo-foo dust, smoke, and mirrors to me. ;-/
They did at one time. In the early days of rocketry, there were 2 primary fuels used:
1) liquid oxygen and kerosene (diesel)
2) Hydrazine and red fuming nitric acid
Both of these combos will spontaneously combust upon mixing and produce a lot of energy, so great power was available and no ignition system was needed. Just spray them into the rocket motor combustion chamber at very high speed and at the same time and away it goes.
Both of these fuels are extremely dangerous and toxic or unstable. They have been replaced in large part by solid fueled rockets that are more expensive but much more stable and far less corrosive and volatile. The new solid fuels are even somewhat more powerful than the old iquids.
NASA does still use H2 + O2 as its main booster fuel. Although it is not the most powerful fuel available it is cost effective due to the huge amount that the booster consumes during lift-off. H2 and O2 are made in very large quantities by the US gas industry, so the large amount needed to fuel these boosters is available and not terribly expensive. When a space shuttle launches, the huge white cloud of gas that evolves from the main booster rocket nozzles is the resulting steam. The smaller boosters on the sides of the main booster are solid fueled and do not produce a steam cloud, although their combustion products are also visible.
Final general comments:
1. Water is extremely stable, which is another way of saying that it has a low energy state. This stands to reason because when water is formed from H2 and O2 both water and energy result. In order to disassociate water into H2 and O2, this same amount of energy MUST be put back into it. Traditionally, this has been done with electricity via electrolysis. As has been said here "There is no free lunch", which is also to say that the LAWS of thermodynamics are NOT suggestions. They are absolutes which is why they are laws and not theories. They bind just about everything in their steely grip, and no amount of wiggle, no matter how much it is desired, can change that.
2. Hydrogen is a potential fuel for vehicles but it is in an early stage of development and lots of significant problems remain before it can be commercialized so that Joe Sixpack can use it safely, reliably, and economically.
3. The best way to use H2 now is to use it in a fuel cell. Fuel cells are low temp reactors that are more like atteries than like typical internal combustion engines. They do create heat but not nearly as much as do IC engines. What they make the most is electricity, which is then used to power an electric motor that moves the vehicle. More development is needed to increase their power and reduce their price.
4. Fuel storage is a huge problem with H2. As a gas, we simply can't store enough in a vehicle to get very far. Remember that a typical gas cylinder at 3000 psi only contains a few pounds of H2, so half a dozen tanks would be needed and the several pounds of H2 they contained would be exhausted rather quickly. As a liquid, a LOT more fuel can be stored in the same volume so the fuel quantity problem is solved this way. Unfortunately, H2 liquid must be stored under very high pressure in cryogenic containers at about -423°C, such as a Dewar flask, which is a very expensive Thermos bottle. Even with the best insulation available, there will be heat leakage into the liquid H2. This causes it to vaporize and expand which increases the pressure in the storage tank. If the H2 use rate does not keep up with this evaporation rate, some will have to be vented off to maintain a reasonable tank pressure. Additionally, the tendency for metals to absorb H2 and begin cracking is well known. Ultra small H2 molecules simply penetrate the metal lattice and either escape to atmosphere or embrittle the metal, probably via metal hydride formation.
5. Some alternative H2 storage methods that have been tried and / or discussed include using metal hydrides and perhaps metal-containing polymers to temporarily bind the H2 gas to it in a solid matrix. This presumes that something can be done that causes the H2 gas to be released from its solid phase storage medium when needed for consumption in the engine or fuel cell.
Palladium is known for its ability to store H2 gas in large amount. Unfortunately, Pd is expensive ($375 or so per oz.) and at least several pounds of it would be needed using the current technology to store a useful amount of H2 fuel. Newer fuel cells use methanol or CH3OH as the source of H2. As a liquid at normal pressure and temperature, a pound of CH3OH takes up a much smaller
volume than a pound of H2 gas. It is also easily converted via low temp catalytic combustion via:
2 CH3OH + 3 O2 ---> 2 CO2 + 4 H2O
Note that this reaction also produces CO2, so it is not as clean an engine reaction as is the H2 + O2 reaction. But using it does resolve the H2 storage problems of low mass, high pressure, extreme low storage temp, off-gassing, and metal fatigue. Methanol is cheap and made in large industrial quantities, so a lot of the required infrastructure is already in place.
6. Hydrogen has incredible power when we start talking about nuclear fusion. In this ultra-hot reaction, deuterium and tritium are fused into helium. In this process, mass is lost from the feed materials via total energy conversion of the "lost" H atom. Since that is a significant fraction of the initial feed mass and it is a nuclear reaction, huge amounts of energy are released (remember E = MC^2?). Thousands, if not millions, of times more energy results from this than during a simple H2 chemical combustion reaction. Although some initial work has been done
on commercial fusion power, MUCH more remains to be done, particularly in the areas of stabilizing and strengthening the magnetic containment field and optical pumping / cooling of the laser system used to generate the plasma that ignites the fusion reaction. Enough success has been achieved, however, to show that, unlike cold fusion, hot fusion is a viable scientific process. The science is pretty well understood but the creation of the necessary technology / hardware to make it commercially viable remains. Once achieved, however, commercial fusion power will pretty much resolve all human energy needs for at least the next several thousand years.
7. One final word for all you folks who still think that water can power vehicles. Use your Internet connection and look up the "Joe cell". Now, there's a real scream. It's absolute bunk, mind you, but people seem ready to buy into anything these days no matter how far fetched or absolutely unscientific it is. Hmmm... kind of reminds me of something seen around here lately. LOL!
Best regards to all,
Edward E. Brown
Sr. R&D Chemist, ret.
This is possible, although sometimes the conditions are rather exotic, have poor productivity, or are incredibly expensive per pound of material produced.
Yes, under conditions of extreme energy input. Lightning is the premier source of lower atmosphere O3 while VERY high intensity UV light is required to create it in the the upper atmosphere. This occurs whenever there is both O2 and sunlight available and provides the mechanism by which a lot of UV light is absorbed by the atmosphere.
This is fortunate, as life evolved on the Earth under low UV light conditions. Without the O2 / O3 interchange, a lot of UV would come through the atmosphere and damage living cells in both plants and animals. :-(
Correct. :-)
There is more than one type of chemical bond. Organic chemists are concerned primarily with hydrocarbon bonding of various types (single, double, triple bonds) but also with delocalized pi electron bonds. Other bonding arrangements are also possible, such as organo-metallic and organo-non-metallic (sulfur, oxygen, halogens, etc.) The hydrogen bonds in water are responsible for its high viscosity and high boiling point. Remember that just about anything else with double water's molecular weight is a gas.
The term chalcogen refers to "ore formers", so compounds such as Fe2O3 and Al2O3 would qualify here. Not sure what you are referring to in this case.
Water forms virtually instantly under the conditions that it requires: 2 H2 + O2 ---> 2 H2O + energy
I can't imagine what "intermediate steps" it might require. Anyone who has mixed H2 with O2 or air and then provided a spark knows that the BOOM! that results doesn't take very long to arrive. ;-)
Hydrogen burns with a very hot flame, which is not visible to the human eye. It's energy content per pound is not great, however, so quite a lot of it is needed to power vehicles. Typically, they have large storage tanks and limited range compared to gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. A gallon of liquid H2 may take a car 10 miles but a gallon of gasoline can take the same car 20+ miles and a gallon of diesel in the diesel equivalent car goes even further.
There was a university research program done several years ago, wherein it was found that a mixed metal iron based catalyst and sunlight could be used to split H2O into H2 and O2. The rate that this occurred at was not great but that it happened at all was pretty amazing. It was hoped that a more efficient catalyst and / or much more intense sunlight (perhaps desert conditions) would result in an efficient process. Have not heard any more about it since then, so it is likely that it did not work as well as is needed for commercial development.
Metals in general and iron / steel in particular have a BIG problem with H2. It is so small that it penetrates the metal's crystal lattice, is absorbed there, and causes the iron or steel to become brittle. This is not good in a high pressure gas or liquid storage tank since the tank is weakened and may rupture unexpectedly. Additionally, there is some bleed of H2 right through the metal walls of the storage container, so it needs to be vented and grounded to eliminate H2 gas concentration around the tank and a static-induced H2 + air explosion.
I can't think of a single bit of chemistry or physics that supports this configuration. Remember that H2 contains 2 1S electrons or one per H atom. Oxygen contains 6 2P electrons and 2 unshared electrons that are highly electronegative and very attractive to H atoms. When H2O forms, H is happy with a filled 1S electron shell containing 2 electrons and O is happy with a full octet (2 2S + 6 2P) of electrons. No other configuration is possible under non-nuclear reaction scenarios. With the suggested H-H-O configuration, the middle H would have a bizarre electron orbital arrangement of God-only-knows-what symmetry and O would be extremely unsatisfied with only 7 electrons in its outer shell. Sounds like foo-foo dust, smoke, and mirrors to me. ;-/
They did at one time. In the early days of rocketry, there were 2 primary fuels used:
1) liquid oxygen and kerosene (diesel)
2) Hydrazine and red fuming nitric acid
Both of these combos will spontaneously combust upon mixing and produce a lot of energy, so great power was available and no ignition system was needed. Just spray them into the rocket motor combustion chamber at very high speed and at the same time and away it goes.
Both of these fuels are extremely dangerous and toxic or unstable. They have been replaced in large part by solid fueled rockets that are more expensive but much more stable and far less corrosive and volatile. The new solid fuels are even somewhat more powerful than the old iquids.
NASA does still use H2 + O2 as its main booster fuel. Although it is not the most powerful fuel available it is cost effective due to the huge amount that the booster consumes during lift-off. H2 and O2 are made in very large quantities by the US gas industry, so the large amount needed to fuel these boosters is available and not terribly expensive. When a space shuttle launches, the huge white cloud of gas that evolves from the main booster rocket nozzles is the resulting steam. The smaller boosters on the sides of the main booster are solid fueled and do not produce a steam cloud, although their combustion products are also visible.
Final general comments:
1. Water is extremely stable, which is another way of saying that it has a low energy state. This stands to reason because when water is formed from H2 and O2 both water and energy result. In order to disassociate water into H2 and O2, this same amount of energy MUST be put back into it. Traditionally, this has been done with electricity via electrolysis. As has been said here "There is no free lunch", which is also to say that the LAWS of thermodynamics are NOT suggestions. They are absolutes which is why they are laws and not theories. They bind just about everything in their steely grip, and no amount of wiggle, no matter how much it is desired, can change that.
2. Hydrogen is a potential fuel for vehicles but it is in an early stage of development and lots of significant problems remain before it can be commercialized so that Joe Sixpack can use it safely, reliably, and economically.
3. The best way to use H2 now is to use it in a fuel cell. Fuel cells are low temp reactors that are more like atteries than like typical internal combustion engines. They do create heat but not nearly as much as do IC engines. What they make the most is electricity, which is then used to power an electric motor that moves the vehicle. More development is needed to increase their power and reduce their price.
4. Fuel storage is a huge problem with H2. As a gas, we simply can't store enough in a vehicle to get very far. Remember that a typical gas cylinder at 3000 psi only contains a few pounds of H2, so half a dozen tanks would be needed and the several pounds of H2 they contained would be exhausted rather quickly. As a liquid, a LOT more fuel can be stored in the same volume so the fuel quantity problem is solved this way. Unfortunately, H2 liquid must be stored under very high pressure in cryogenic containers at about -423°C, such as a Dewar flask, which is a very expensive Thermos bottle. Even with the best insulation available, there will be heat leakage into the liquid H2. This causes it to vaporize and expand which increases the pressure in the storage tank. If the H2 use rate does not keep up with this evaporation rate, some will have to be vented off to maintain a reasonable tank pressure. Additionally, the tendency for metals to absorb H2 and begin cracking is well known. Ultra small H2 molecules simply penetrate the metal lattice and either escape to atmosphere or embrittle the metal, probably via metal hydride formation.
5. Some alternative H2 storage methods that have been tried and / or discussed include using metal hydrides and perhaps metal-containing polymers to temporarily bind the H2 gas to it in a solid matrix. This presumes that something can be done that causes the H2 gas to be released from its solid phase storage medium when needed for consumption in the engine or fuel cell.
Palladium is known for its ability to store H2 gas in large amount. Unfortunately, Pd is expensive ($375 or so per oz.) and at least several pounds of it would be needed using the current technology to store a useful amount of H2 fuel. Newer fuel cells use methanol or CH3OH as the source of H2. As a liquid at normal pressure and temperature, a pound of CH3OH takes up a much smaller
volume than a pound of H2 gas. It is also easily converted via low temp catalytic combustion via:
2 CH3OH + 3 O2 ---> 2 CO2 + 4 H2O
Note that this reaction also produces CO2, so it is not as clean an engine reaction as is the H2 + O2 reaction. But using it does resolve the H2 storage problems of low mass, high pressure, extreme low storage temp, off-gassing, and metal fatigue. Methanol is cheap and made in large industrial quantities, so a lot of the required infrastructure is already in place.
6. Hydrogen has incredible power when we start talking about nuclear fusion. In this ultra-hot reaction, deuterium and tritium are fused into helium. In this process, mass is lost from the feed materials via total energy conversion of the "lost" H atom. Since that is a significant fraction of the initial feed mass and it is a nuclear reaction, huge amounts of energy are released (remember E = MC^2?). Thousands, if not millions, of times more energy results from this than during a simple H2 chemical combustion reaction. Although some initial work has been done
on commercial fusion power, MUCH more remains to be done, particularly in the areas of stabilizing and strengthening the magnetic containment field and optical pumping / cooling of the laser system used to generate the plasma that ignites the fusion reaction. Enough success has been achieved, however, to show that, unlike cold fusion, hot fusion is a viable scientific process. The science is pretty well understood but the creation of the necessary technology / hardware to make it commercially viable remains. Once achieved, however, commercial fusion power will pretty much resolve all human energy needs for at least the next several thousand years.
7. One final word for all you folks who still think that water can power vehicles. Use your Internet connection and look up the "Joe cell". Now, there's a real scream. It's absolute bunk, mind you, but people seem ready to buy into anything these days no matter how far fetched or absolutely unscientific it is. Hmmm... kind of reminds me of something seen around here lately. LOL!
Best regards to all,
Edward E. Brown
Sr. R&D Chemist, ret.
MaxPF
1/2 ton status
A couple of corrections to the above. First, kerosene and liquid oxygen are not hypergolic (hypergolic means they combust spontaneously upon being mixed). That fuel mix, like LH2/LO2, requires an ignition source. Second, LH2/LO2 is more powerful than kerosene/LO2. It would probably be cheaper to use kerosene rather than LH2, but LH2 gives a higher specific impulse (change in momentum per mass of fuel consumed), so less mass in fuel needs to be carried.
randy88k5
1/2 ton status
randy88k5 said:
jekbrown said:
Yes, sorry about that. I meant hydrogen bonds, not solely on shape. I means to say the shape of the water molecule and its components let hydrogen bonds form
Sorry, we used the term chalcogen to mean any of the elements in that group. It may not be used in the field in the same manner. I meant in contrast to H2S and the like... (which is a gas)jekbrown said:
jekbrown said:
I've gotta disagree here, taking this thread off on another tangent. Everyone on the planet realizes the problem with nuclear power, so I won't go into that.
Germany generates a large share of their power from nuclear. By 2020 EVERY single one of them will be shut down. They already have enough wind and solar feeding the grid to take reactors offline, (first one went down in 1998 apparently) and the funding is in place to clean up the former nuclear facilities.
Somewhat interesting article on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4357238.stm
You see tons of houses over here with solar panels on their roofs, and the giant wind turbines are pretty prevalent in some areas. And yet lots of reactors over here from what I have seen so far based on the countries physical size.
wow my head is spinning, but I guess what I said before was true. Even though it was not that technical sounding because my last chemistry coarse was last year.
