| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"habshi" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 05:40:59 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
The problem I think is the hydrogen being a tiny atom gets the
energy to escape the earth . That is why there is no free hydrogen
here. A large scale hydrogen economy will mean our hydrogen and water
escaping into space.
.
|
|
| User: "Don Lancaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
28 Mar 2005 05:42:46 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
The problem I think is the hydrogen being a tiny atom gets the
energy to escape the earth . That is why there is no free hydrogen
here. A large scale hydrogen economy will mean our hydrogen and water
escaping into space.
Even worse would be all the flooding at thruway low spots.
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email:
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 01:11:30 AM |
|
|
Hmm... I went to your link, and yes it isn't an energy source in
itself, but it is on par with other novel transport ideas (eg battery
powered electric vehicles). The point is that it would allow for
efficient transport of energy from the central generation point.
Granted a great deal of development still needs to be done, but it's
just so damned clean, and once we get fusion up and running in 50 years
or so, efficiency shouldn't be nearly as great a problem. But what do
you think Don? Am I right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
30 Mar 2005 09:21:45 AM |
|
|
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3au3vnF6boolrU1@individual.net...
....
And the reason anyone would give a ***** over this is....?
Please Don. ***** has a long and valued history as a resource both for
farming and for research by your friendly local scatologist. Don't denigrate
it just because it smells bad.
#! rnews 1533
Xref: xyzzy sci.energy:127568 sci.energy.hydrogen:79267 sci.environment:388197
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment
Path: xyzzy!nntp
From: "Fred McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet!
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e056750.nw.nos.boeing.com
Message-ID: <IE6834.8Lv@news.boeing.com>
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
Lines: 13
Sender: (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
References: <1109091214.4a204f5776c093cab1186ab5c9630ece@teranews> <Xns9605CC8B320E6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229> <1109102161.3934d52c6929f74a4da18a7523ed9f24@teranews> <Xns9605D69B9453DThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229> <381k0tF5d4au3U2@individual.net> <1109182179.436842.181870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <lNU1e.67809$c72.60874@bignews3.bellsouth.net> <slrnd4g77t.ffv.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net> <4248248F.9D234CB1@lifeform.org> <slrnd4gah3.ffv.The-Central-Scruti
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:23:27 GMT
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:Xvm2e.12547$RM2.7503@read1.cgocable.net...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
Those are efficiencies BEFORE amortization and monthly replatinizatin.
When you consider the cost of amortization, life itself is economically
impossible.
Isn't that why, when the books are balanced, we die?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
01 Apr 2005 09:25:59 AM |
|
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:Pcd3e.12885$RM2.11471@read1.cgocable.net...
....
Once you figure out how to create Methane more energy efficiently than
Hydrogen, and do so without creating CO2, you can give us a call Gisin.
Given H2 and some energy, Rip CO2 out of the air and synthesize (actually
this has been demonstrated with the production of alcohol, but I think it
can be modified to make methane). The energy lost in forcing this process
may be more than made up for by the reduced demands for storage and
transportation (at least this point needs discussion). It is CO2 neutral if
the energy source is CO2 neutral.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Lancaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 09:02:09 AM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
Hmm... I went to your link, and yes it isn't an energy source in
itself, but it is on par with other novel transport ideas (eg battery
powered electric vehicles). The point is that it would allow for
efficient transport of energy from the central generation point.
Granted a great deal of development still needs to be done, but it's
just so damned clean, and once we get fusion up and running in 50 years
or so, efficiency shouldn't be nearly as great a problem. But what do
you think Don? Am I right?
Hydrogen is not remotely on a par with battery powered electric vehicles.
There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon
of liquid hydrogen.
See the resources at http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email:
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 12:37:06 PM |
|
|
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3at8vhF65elnuU1@individual.net...
There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon
of liquid hydrogen.
But not as much as in a gallon of palladium metal at STP.
Snicker....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Lancaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 01:23:09 PM |
|
|
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
"Don Lancaster" < > wrote in message
news:3at8vhF65elnuU1@individual.net...
There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon
of liquid hydrogen.
But not as much as in a gallon of palladium metal at STP.
Snicker....
Please cite a reference for your palladium absurdity.
Especially the contained energy density by weight
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email:
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 02:50:36 PM |
|
|
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3ato8tF6bnbf4U1@individual.net...
Please cite a reference for your palladium absurdity.
At STP, Palladium absorbs without any energy input, 870 times the volume
of hydrogen at STP. Feel free to look up this fact in the Rubber handbook.
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3ato8tF6bnbf4U1@individual.net...
Especially the contained energy density by weight
Changing your story now Don?
Earlier you claimed....
There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon
of liquid hydrogen.
Snicker...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Lancaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 04:43:01 PM |
|
|
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
At STP, Palladium absorbs without any energy input, 870 times the volume
of hydrogen at STP. Feel free to look up this fact in the Rubber handbook.
So, a liter of palladium weighing 12 kilograms and costing over $84,648
is capable of holding 2.4 x 870 = 2088 watthours of hydrogen per
liter, or one about fifth the energy density by volume of one liter of
gasoline.
Or at about one-hundredth the energy density by weight of a liter of
gasoline.
And the reason anyone would give a ***** over this is....?
See my energy fundamentals tutorial at
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email:
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 06:44:15 PM |
|
|
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3au3vnF6boolrU1@individual.net...
So, a liter of palladium weighing 12 kilograms and costing over $84,648
is capable of holding 2.4 x 870 = 2088 watthours of hydrogen per
liter, or one about fifth the energy density by volume of one liter of
gasoline.
Changing your story Don? Initially you incorrectly claimed...
"There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon
of liquid hydrogen." - Don Lancaster.
Snicker....
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3au3vnF6boolrU1@individual.net...
Or at about one-hundredth the energy density by weight of a liter of
gasoline.
When you manage to figure out how to manufacture a litre of gasoline more
efficiently then get back to us DonnieBoy.
Bahahahahahahahah......
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3au3vnF6boolrU1@individual.net...
And the reason anyone would give a ***** over this is....?
Personally I don't like liars.
I suppose that's ultimately my point....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisin" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 08:24:56 PM |
|
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:oum2e.9800$If1.2170769@read2.cgocable.net...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3au3vnF6boolrU1@individual.net...
So, a liter of palladium weighing 12 kilograms and costing over $84,648
is capable of holding 2.4 x 870 = 2088 watthours of hydrogen per
liter, or one about fifth the energy density by volume of one liter of
gasoline.
Changing your story Don? Initially you incorrectly claimed...
"There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon
of liquid hydrogen." - Don Lancaster.
No, he is talking about the hydrogen in a liter of pallidium.
Snicker....
What drugs you on this time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 09:05:59 PM |
|
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:oum2e.9800$If1.2170769@read2.cgocable.net...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3au3vnF6boolrU1@individual.net...
So, a liter of palladium weighing 12 kilograms and costing over
$84,648
is capable of holding 2.4 x 870 = 2088 watthours of hydrogen per
liter, or one about fifth the energy density by volume of one liter of
gasoline.
Changing your story Don? Initially you incorrectly claimed...
"There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a
gallon
of liquid hydrogen." - Don Lancaster.
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2d2ni02ua9@enews4.newsguy.com...
No, he is talking about the hydrogen in a liter of pallidium.
He didn't mention palladium. His claim was that there was more hydrogen
in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
That isn't true if the liquid hydrogen is stored in a mettal lattice like
Palladium.
Having realized his failure, he tries to change the subject to energy
content.
Snicker... A complete failure...
Get with the program Gisin.
Snicker....
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2d2ni02ua9@enews4.newsguy.com...
What drugs you on this time?
It's an amusing state of affairs when AmeriKKKans are so intellectually
polluted they find themselves completely incapable of recognizing simple and
pure logic. So utterly confused by it that it is unrecognizable to them.
And that Eric is why AmeriKKKa is a rotting corpse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Vader" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
30 Mar 2005 12:54:41 PM |
|
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> writes:
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3au3vnF6boolrU1@individual.net...
So, a liter of palladium weighing 12 kilograms and costing over $84,648
He didn't mention palladium. His claim was that there was more hydrogen
in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
See that word up there in Don's quoted text? The one spelled
p-a-l-l-a-d-i-u-m? You're, very disingenuously I might add, acting like
there was any ambiguity in what Don said. There isn't, and he isn't wrong.
That isn't true if the liquid hydrogen is stored in a mettal lattice like
Palladium.
Ah, I see, you're a kook. Thanks for clearing that up. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
04 Apr 2005 02:16:32 AM |
|
|
"Paul Vader" <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:114ltfhg6n1v3e2@news.supernews.com...
See that word up there in Don's quoted text? The one spelled
p-a-l-l-a-d-i-u-m? You're, very disingenuously I might add, acting like
there was any ambiguity in what Don said. There isn't, and he isn't wrong.
Yes, I introduced the word into the conversation to illustrate why Don was
so very wrong in his assertions.
You might try and keep up with the conversation Paulie.
Then again, I doubt if you have the capacity....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisin" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
30 Mar 2005 10:32:59 AM |
|
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:ezo2e.12571$RM2.2075@read1.cgocable.net...
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2d2ni02ua9@enews4.newsguy.com...
No, he is talking about the hydrogen in a liter of pallidium.
He didn't mention palladium. His claim was that there was more hydrogen
in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
That isn't true if the liquid hydrogen is stored in a mettal lattice like
Palladium.
Having realized his failure, he tries to change the subject to energy
content.
Snicker... A complete failure...
Get with the program Gisin.
Another psychotic episode, Vendi? It's pretty obvious who said what.
Methane is a better hydrogen carrier than hydrogen, whether they are liquid
or gas. Same goes for all hydrocarbons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
01 Apr 2005 09:00:02 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Methane is a better hydrogen carrier than hydrogen, whether they are
liquid
or gas. Same goes for all hydrocarbons.
Once you figure out how to create Methane more energy efficiently than
Hydrogen, and do so without creating CO2, you can give us a call Gisin.
Until then, you remain dumber than a sack of door knockers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Spence" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
01 Apr 2005 09:56:55 AM |
|
|
A biodigester creates methane quite efficiently compared to hydrogen,
and has no net gain in CO2 emissions.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Methane is a better hydrogen carrier than hydrogen, whether they are
liquid
or gas. Same goes for all hydrocarbons.
Once you figure out how to create Methane more energy efficiently than
Hydrogen, and do so without creating CO2, you can give us a call Gisin.
Until then, you remain dumber than a sack of door knockers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
04 Apr 2005 02:14:46 AM |
|
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:bbe3e.8730$kC3.6793@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
A biodigester creates methane quite efficiently compared to hydrogen,
and has no net gain in CO2 emissions.
Really? Then all of that rotting biomass just get's magically changed to
methane?
And here I was under the foolish impression that the metabolic oxydation
of the hydrocarbons that constitute the bulk of biological material
necessarily produced CO2.
Silly me....
Snicker....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
04 Apr 2005 09:01:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 03:14:46 -0400, "Vendicar Decarian"
<VD@Pyro.net> wrote:
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:bbe3e.8730$kC3.6793@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
A biodigester creates methane quite efficiently compared to hydrogen,
and has no net gain in CO2 emissions.
Really? Then all of that rotting biomass just get's magically changed to
methane?
And here I was under the foolish impression that the metabolic oxydation
of the hydrocarbons that constitute the bulk of biological material
necessarily produced CO2.
Silly me....
Snicker....
It's not magic, Vinny. In the absence of oxygen, some
organisms do indeed make methane in useful quantities.
Chemistry beats sarcasm every time.
Bill Ward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
05 Apr 2005 10:31:39 AM |
|
|
Really? Then all of that rotting biomass just get's magically changed
to
methane?
And here I was under the foolish impression that the metabolic
oxydation
of the hydrocarbons that constitute the bulk of biological material
necessarily produced CO2.
Silly me....
Snicker....
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4251efad.31654782@localhost...
It's not magic, Vinny. In the absence of oxygen, some
organisms do indeed make methane in useful quantities.
Chemistry beats sarcasm every time.
And loads of Co2 as well. That's the primary point BillieBoy. It seems to
have flown over your head as usual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
06 Apr 2005 08:06:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:31:39 -0400, "Vendicar Decarian"
<VD@Pyro.net> wrote:
Really? Then all of that rotting biomass just get's magically changed
to
methane?
And here I was under the foolish impression that the metabolic
oxydation
of the hydrocarbons that constitute the bulk of biological material
necessarily produced CO2.
Silly me....
Snicker....
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4251efad.31654782@localhost...
It's not magic, Vinny. In the absence of oxygen, some
organisms do indeed make methane in useful quantities.
Chemistry beats sarcasm every time.
And loads of Co2 as well. That's the primary point BillieBoy. It seems to
have flown over your head as usual.
And the C in that CO2 was already in the biosphere. Are you
really that dim, or just a troll? Never mind, I don't care.
Bill Ward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
09 Apr 2005 06:34:50 PM |
|
|
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:42548693.5926458@localhost...
And the C in that CO2 was already in the biosphere. Are you
really that dim, or just a troll? Never mind, I don't care.
But not in the atmosphere. And that's the issue now isn't it? Excess Co2
in the atmosphere.
Stupid.... Stupid... Republican Billy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Lancaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
01 Apr 2005 09:20:20 AM |
|
|
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
Once you figure out how to create Methane more energy efficiently than
Hydrogen, and do so without creating CO2, you can give us a call Gisin.
"Carbon free" is ludicrously absurd because carbon contributes
significantly to a fuel's energy and because carbon seems essential to
produce a convenient and safe room temperature liquid.
"Carbon neutral" is the only route that makes any sense.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email:
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
01 Apr 2005 12:00:12 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Don Lancaster
<don@tinaja.com>
wrote
on Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:20:20 -0700
<3b575lF6e4ha2U1@individual.net>:
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
Once you figure out how to create Methane more energy efficiently than
Hydrogen, and do so without creating CO2, you can give us a call Gisin.
"Carbon free" is ludicrously absurd because carbon contributes
significantly to a fuel's energy and because carbon seems essential to
produce a convenient and safe room temperature liquid.
"Carbon neutral" is the only route that makes any sense.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Also see http://www.chemistrycoach.com/table_of_bond_enthalpies.htm
which is a table of approximate bond enthalpies. If one has
a mole of methane (16 grams) versus a mole of hydrogen (2 grams),
one gets
CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O + 64 kcal/mole
H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 58.5 kcal/mole
If one uses 1 mole of pure heptane (C7H16) [*], one gets
C7H16 + 11O2 = 7CO2 + 8H2O + 133 kcal/mole
The astute will quickly notice a number of issues here.
For starters, the amount of oxygen per mole is highly variable,
but that's not a big problem as there's plenty of air (assuming
a properly-designed engine). Also, hydrogen is a gas at
standard temperature and pressure; one can of course
carry 8 times as much hydrogen to get the same mass (16 g),
add more air, and get more energy:
8H2 + 4O2 = 8H2O + 468 kcal/mole
but one will either need a fuel tank 8 times as large,
or handle 8 times as much pressure.
A simple calculation will show that 41 moles of an ideal gas
will occupy a cubic meter of space, roughly speaking:
41 mol * 8.314472 J/(mol K) * 293K / (100000 Pascal) = 0.9988 m^3
That same cubic meter will carry about 800 kg or so of heptane,
which translates to 8000 moles. [+]
It is possible to pressurize that tank to 3300 psi or 22.7 MPa,
which will give us
2.27*10^7 Pascal * 1 m^3 / (8.314472 J/(Mol K) * 293 K) = 9318 moles
but transporting pressurized or liquefied hydrogen seems to me a
bit dicey -- though probably not all that much worse than gasoline
now. The main problem, however, is storage -- apparently hydrogen
tends to make things rather brittle after exposure for a period of
time -- and one still only gets about half the energy from
that tank.
(I should note that this is a ridiculously big tank for a passenger
car; most cars have tanks on the order of 15 gallons, or 0.0568 m^3.
Adjust accordingly. :-) )
There is a plus; that 9318 moles of hydrogen will weigh only 18.64 kg.
In fact, it will weigh even less than that, as the cubic meter of
air displaced by the tank weighs about 1.189 kg, giving us bouyancy.
Against 800 kg it's barely noticeable; against 18.64 kg it will
be a definitely lift to one's spirits -- not to mention one's vehicle.
Of course this could be a minus as well as the vehicle will have
less resistance to being blown off the road by the casual wind gust.
Another plus, though one that probably might be hard to extract,
is that the mere fact that there's pressure allows us to extract
work from the expanding gas, in a manner not unlike a steam engine;
this would, ideally, be in addition to using the gas as a fuel source.
I'm also not entirely sure how to calculate how much thicker the
tank walls will be to handle the pressure of the gas (22.7 MPa)
as opposed to the heptane (which would be approximately 7844 Pa,
as the liquid pushes down on the bottom of the tank, which is
assumed 1 m^2, with force 9.805 N per kilogram).
I suppose one could increase the pressure further, to 45.4 MPa,
but if scuba tanks are only built to withstand 22.7 MPa,
how dangerous is this for hydrogen?
All in all, hydrogen is at best problematic. With current
methods of production it's downright disastrous, not because
of its flammability but because one doesn't really gain all
that much thereby (AIUI, the general methods use oil-cracking
of some sort).
[*] this is for simplicity; actual "gasoline" formulation is a
mixture of various things, heptane and octane (C8H18)
among them but also such things as detergents, additives,
and other such whatnot. Presumably many of these are
trade secrets.
[+] I'm assuming a density of .8 kg / liter here. I'd have to
look up the actual value.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 11:00:08 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Don Lancaster
<don@tinaja.com>
wrote
on Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:42:46 -0700
<3arj3nF6b8rqeU2@individual.net>:
habshi wrote:
The problem I think is the hydrogen being a tiny atom gets the
energy to escape the earth . That is why there is no free hydrogen
here. A large scale hydrogen economy will mean our hydrogen and water
escaping into space.
Even worse would be all the flooding at thruway low spots.
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
Personally, I think we should just synthesize gasoline
somehow (or maybe just ethanol) from solar power, if
we can. The best way of doing this is arguably to use
plant power.
There is admittedly the possibility of using algae and
harvesting it but that would have to be carefully
managed lest an algae "bloom" occur and stink up
everything; a more likely possibility is to simply
grow corn or other such.
Of course algae created oil in the first place. :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
30 Mar 2005 09:33:23 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:chsph2-.
....
30%? Not bad, considering the Carnot efficiency of a hypothetical
solar collector might be somewhere around 15/273 = 5.5% on a
good day -- and even less if above freezing. :-)
That is a rather odd statement. The carnot efficiency is related to the
temperature difference. That is the dif between a radiation field at around
5000 C, that is sunlight, and earth normal, which rarely makes it up to even
50C. That makes the carnot limited efficiency close enough to 100% I am not
going to bother figuring it out. But of course material problems etc.
strongly limit how much of this any practical system can get at.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 12:39:48 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:p2vmh2-tqe.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
Personally, I think we should just synthesize gasoline
somehow (or maybe just ethanol) from solar power, if
we can. The best way of doing this is arguably to use
plant power.
Direct production of hydrogen through the chemical PhotoElectrolisis of
water has been demonstrated at efficiencies of 30%. No intermediate
electrical generagion is needed.
Further high temperature separateion of hydrogen directly from steam
(which consists to a large extent of molecular hydrogen, is easily
accomplished via direct solar heating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
30 Mar 2005 01:00:05 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Vendicar Decarian
<VD@Pyro.net>
wrote
on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:39:48 -0500
<M8h2e.12508$RM2.5059@read1.cgocable.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:p2vmh2-tqe.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
Personally, I think we should just synthesize gasoline
somehow (or maybe just ethanol) from solar power, if
we can. The best way of doing this is arguably to use
plant power.
Direct production of hydrogen through the chemical PhotoElectrolisis of
water has been demonstrated at efficiencies of 30%. No intermediate
electrical generagion is needed.
Further high temperature separateion of hydrogen directly from steam
(which consists to a large extent of molecular hydrogen, is easily
accomplished via direct solar heating.
30%? Not bad, considering the Carnot efficiency of a hypothetical
solar collector might be somewhere around 15/273 = 5.5% on a
good day -- and even less if above freezing. :-)
Admittedly, I'd have to research the issues though --
and there are a lot of them, not the least of which
is electrons being knocked out of one energy band in
semiconductors or something, as opposed to simple heat.
However, extraction is the easy part. How does one keep
it? Hydrogen tends to make things rather brittle. Also,
it's rather hard to tote around in gaseous form and rather
dangerous to carry around in liquid form -- not because
of its flammability but because a liter of water expands
to approximately 2200 cubic meters of low-pressure steam,
and I would expect a liter of liquid hydrogen to expand a
comparable amount (but it would weigh only 1/9th as much),
very roughly. Of course liquid hydrogen has a far lower
boiling point.
I'm not sure hydrogen is the answer. However, one should
have an answer very soon; the average amount of electrical
power per person is about 270 watts or so. Presumably,
the amount of non-electrical power (e.g., transport) is
comparable but I'd have to look -- and it's well below the
70-100 kW automobile drivers currently enjoy (and that's
in an automobile; the SUVs are even worse).
Contrariwise, gasoline (heptane/octane) is a liquid and
therefore easier to handle, at room temperature. If we
can modify the cars for it, ethanol might be a reasonably
good choice as a renewable fuel but there's probably a bit
of fiddling with such things as fuel/air mixtures, Also,
ethanol is not a pure hydrocarbon -- it has an OH radical
which might make it more reactive to various things,
such as holding tanks.
Of course all of these sorts of problems were solved by
distilleries long ago (vodka, anyone? :-) ). The main
outstanding issue -- and it's probably rather minor, though
it might affect the power output -- is the adulteration
of ethanol by water and the inability to purify it to 100%
by simple distillation methods (a mix of water and ethanol
has a lower boiling point than pure ethanol or pure water).
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Halpern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
28 Mar 2005 08:06:23 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
The problem I think is the hydrogen being a tiny atom gets the
energy to escape the earth . That is why there is no free hydrogen
here. A large scale hydrogen economy will mean our hydrogen and water
escaping into space.
Then why is the place full of water??
josh halpern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet! |
29 Mar 2005 09:42:36 AM |
|
|
"Joshua Halpern" <vze23qvd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:zK22e.27343$uw6.7204@trnddc06...
....
Then why is the place full of water??
It's only a temporary problem Joshua. In another billion or so, the thin
scum of water on the surface will be completely boiled off into space and we
will be nice and dry. I can't hardly wait.
#! rnews 1837
Xref: xyzzy sci.energy:127511 sci.energy.hydrogen:79245 sci.environment:388017
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment
Path: xyzzy!nntp
From: "Fred McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet!
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e056750.nw.nos.boeing.com
Message-ID: <IE4EKC.1FC@news.boeing.com>
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
Lines: 16
Sender: (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
References: <1109091214.4a204f5776c093cab1186ab5c9630ece@teranews> <Xns9605CC8B320E6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229> <1109102161.3934d52c6929f74a4da18a7523ed9f24@teranews> <Xns9605D69B9453DThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229> <381k0tF5d4au3U2@individual.net> <1109182179.436842.181870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <lNU1e.67809$c72.60874@bignews3.bellsouth.net> <slrnd4g77t.ffv.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net> <4248248F.9D234CB1@lifeform.org> <slrnd4gah3.ffv.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:48:12 GMT
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3at97gF6cud4sU1@individual.net...
....
The efficiency of electrolysis does not mean jackshit, because
electrolysis is the process of converting very high value kilowatt hours
of energy into fewer very low value kilowatt hours of energy.
Don. You are using loud and insulting to replace reasoned. Bad Bad Don.
Besides, if the efficiency of the combined electrolysis and some more or
less arbitrary combustion cycle were high enough, even you would have to
swallow it's description as a reasonable energy storage process. A battery
of a sort.
So, to paraphrase, efficiency of electrolysis does mean exactly "jackshit".
#! rnews 1379
Xref: xyzzy sci.energy:127512 sci.energy.hydrogen:79246
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen
Path: xyzzy!nntp
From: "Fred McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen removes Oxygen from our planet!
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e056750.nw.nos.boeing.com
Message-ID: <IE4Enx.1M8@news.boeing.com>
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
Lines: 11
Sender: (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
References: <1109091214.4a204f5776c093cab1186ab5c9630ece@teranews> <Xns9605CC8B320E6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229> <1109102161.3934d52c6929f74a4da18a7523ed9f24@teranews> <Xns9605D69B9453DThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229> <381k0tF5d4au3U2@individual.net> <1109182179.436842.181870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <lNU1e.67809$c72.60874@bignews3.bellsouth.net> <slrnd4g77t.ffv.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net> <HRX1e.77840$Q83.12733@bignews5.bellsouth.net> <3ar0ncF6bik7kU1@ind
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:50:19 GMT
<lifeform1@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:1112063328.990218.97190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
March 28, 2005
And again, Don Lancaster is a liar,
Nonsense. Opinionated, wrong, and careless with his physics, but not a liar.
Wash your mouth out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
