Maker Pro
Maker Pro

How much Hydrogen and Oxygen released..

How much Oxygen/Hydrogen per Volt/Amp (Watt) are we talking to get enough to say run a car tank on? ...

Wondering what kind of power we're talking of we used huge solar mirrors to reflect heat onto a tower to boil water, the steam is sent through a turbine which splits water into oxygen and hydrogen, i've seen solar potentiality for steam, all those mirrors without water would vaporize the metal into lava... or huge solar reflectors like satellite dishes.

then with the hydrogen and the byproduct (oxygen) Releasing into the air, we sell the hydrogen to cars and the home..... or at the plant the electric produced also goes into compression of the hydrogen and pumped into cities and into homes from places like the desert, having it collect water down hill from a remote source with a water supply and then a large enough pipe suitable for transporting liquid hydrogen, we then have a completely green source of energy in which hydrogen could be safely contained as a clean fuel source for the future......

anyone agree? or even understand what i'm saying? :D :p
 
electronics wise not so much, more a math formula, eg i don't know how much oxygen i can get with 12volts at 1amp, can i get enough to fill a balloon? and run my gas cooker?
 
I know that this is not the most technical reference but I know that mythbusters were trying out different car efficiency boosters and one was a container of water that they ran current through to generate hydrogen, it was an extremely slow process

That was 12volts not sure what the amperage was that they put through it though

Hope that helps
 
It requires 2 electrons to perform the electrolysis of water. The charge of an electron is 1.6 e-19 Coulombs. 1 Amp is 1 Coulomb / second. So that is 6.25 e 18 electrons / second and it will create 3.125 e 18 molecules of Hydrogen per second per amp. Divdiing by Avagadros number (6.02 e 23) this gives us 2 e -5 moles per second which is 0.02 mg of Hydrogen per second per amp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

So the answer is not very much: each amp will produce about 1 gram in 50 seconds.

BTW: The voltage does not matter, it needs to be 1.23V and anything over that is waste. In practice it will take a higher voltage and operate at about 50 to 80% efficiency.

Edit: Whoops, that 1 mg in 50 seconds.

Bob

Somebody please check my math!
 
Last edited:
ok so if we had this setup to produce enough steam, be sitting down hill from the water supply so it can gently stream in, and have a gas pipe go down hill to a major city, use the sun to produce tons of heat to run huge turbines...

is this not the perfect most friendly method of producing a sustainable energy supply? but my concern is not being able to produce enough hydrogen and his math went over my head, if all the deserts were exploited, how much oxygen an and how much hydrogen could be made to feed a better more sustainable future?

+No carbon dioxide
+When Hydrogen is burnt, all you're left with is water as a byproduct...
*All the toxic fumes are burnt eg there's no carbon monoxide risk.
*Perfectly safe to run your car on, cook with, warm your house.
*All completely green ways of doing this, esp using a huge solar arrays to produce megawatts of energy to produce vast amounts of oxygen and hydrogen, who loses?...

i just want to know the theoretical limits of how much hydrogen we can seriously extract before i get too excited.
 
Stove, Cooking, Light, Power from Gasification of Hydrogen Based Fuel
---
http://www.USH2.com Wood chips were gasified by a new high speed process and the gas is stored in a weather balloon... this video shows the gas from the balloon being used in a stove and in a gas light as well as a high output demonstration.
not quite my idea, but this guy seems to be onto it, hydrogen of some form or other seems to be the future... and this is not a new concept, why are we not making this?!
 
ok so if we had this setup to produce enough steam, be sitting down hill from the water supply so it can gently stream in, and have a gas pipe go down hill to a major city, use the sun to produce tons of heat to run huge turbines...

It's not free energy, I don't know the exact figures but the energy required to extract the hydrogen and oxygen negates the energy you get out of burning the hydrogen...

is this not the perfect most friendly method of producing a sustainable energy supply?

No it doesn't sustain itself...

but my concern is not being able to produce enough hydrogen and his math went over my head, if all the deserts were exploited, how much oxygen an and how much hydrogen could be made to feed a better more sustainable future?

All the deserts exploited for what? You need to build an infrastructure, that cost money and energy VAST amounts of both...

+No carbon dioxide
+When Hydrogen is burnt, all you're left with is water as a byproduct...
*All the toxic fumes are burnt eg there's no carbon monoxide risk.

You will never get to that point...

*Perfectly safe to run your car on, cook with, warm your house.

You clearly have not heard of the Hindenburg?

And do you have a clue at how dangerous pure Oxygen is?

You need to store and move these dangerous gases, not exactly carefree and not prone to a big *POOF*

*All completely green ways of doing this, esp using a huge solar arrays to produce megawatts of energy to produce vast amounts of oxygen and hydrogen, who loses?...

You need to build those arrays, cost vs output who is going to foot the bill? Also we consume so much energy that I doubt you could even build a farm large enough to support current consumption levels in this century... And by next century what would be the requirements?

i just want to know the theoretical limits of how much hydrogen we can seriously extract before i get too excited.

The short of it, don't get excited...
 
Last edited:
His math was to calculate how much electricity it takes to seperate hydrogen and oxygen in water. It takes a lot. As far as cars go, if you wanted to run your car off a supply of hydrogen from water, you would need a battery bigger than your car.

Hydrogen as an energy storage medium is useful in some situation though. One nice thing about Hydrogen is that it is light weight. The ratio of stored energy to mass is high.

There are some issues with transportation and storage that don't occur with other fuels, but maybe we could solve that somehow. Your right, though, that there are no toxic byproducts from burning Hydrogen. I'd rather have Hydrogen coming out to my home than natural gas if it could be cost effective and safe.

I'm not farmilliar with this turbine setup that splits water with the suns's energy. I understand that reflectors could concentrate sunlight to extreme heat levels, and I understand that that can be made to produce steam, but steam is just water vapor. How does it get from gaseous H2O to gaseous H2 and O2?

Did you read about it online? (Link please)
Or was this on TV? (What show?)
I'd like to know more.


This site: http://www.ush2.com/
...is trying to sell you books and movies. Take their information with a grain of salt. All of the information that could possibly be in those are freely available somewhere on the internet. Although it is sometimes nice to have the information nicely collected for you. My point is that you shouldn't expect them to reveal some new secret. If the books are well written and accurate then you should be able to find some positive reviews online somewhere.

The you tube video is just an advertisement for the website selling the books. In the video he says, "Were not patenting this information, we are freely giving it away." Freely??? It's not free if they are selling it! I'm not saying there might not be some useful information there.

You say, "Why are we not making this?"

In some ways we are. NASA has taken advantage of the light-weight nature of hydrogen as a fuel. When the space shuttle would launch and the 2 solid rocket boosters would get used up and fall away, it was all hydrogen and oxygen from there on. The big tank to get them into orbit and once in orbit there manuvering thrusters were H2/O2.

One of the books is about using solar energy to heat water for home use. They say it heats to 185F in winter in Michigan. That's amazing if true. I bet it can't do that every day in winter in Michigan. But still, if you use this to preheat your water and still use a conventional water heater, there is bound to be some savings. I believe these solar water heaters are actually in use somewhere. That might be something I research a bit when done here. I'd like to see what some people say about it that aren't trying to sell books.

-tim.

Since, CocaCola posted while I was typing...

OP: "sustainable energy supply?" Coke:"it doesn't sustain itself."
Certainly seperating H2 from water is not self sustaining. That would be overunity. However, "sustainable" in the context of environmental concerns means someting else. If we can produce as much of something as we need and only use what we produce, then that activity can be sustained indefinately. If a technology relies on the previous existance of something that could one day run out, then that's not sustainable.

For example, paper. If we plant new trees, let them grow, harvest them, and make paper out of them, then that's sustainable. But if our need for paper excedes what we can plant and harvest and we have to cut into previosly existing rain forests and old growth to meet our needs, then at some point it wil all run out and that will be the end of our hey-day in the sun. Not sustainable. Coal, oil and natual gas are not sustainable energy sources, because what we are using took millions of years to occur natually.

OP: "perfectly safe" Coke: "Hindenburg" LOL. Yes! Great example. Hydrogen can go BOOM! It is no safer than natural gas. (It is less safe in some ways.) They switched from Hydrogen to Helium in blimps. Helium is a bad way to heat your home. It doesn't burn. Great for blimps.

Hindenburg Fail Video

And to the OP, a reminder, I'd like to know:
Did you read about it online? (Link please)
Or was this on TV? (What show?)
 
That would be overunity. However, "sustainable" in the context of environmental concerns means someting else. If we can produce as much of something as we need and only use what we produce, then that activity can be sustained indefinately.

And if you read further, I stated that I have my doubts on the ability to achieve that goal...

Also we consume so much energy that I doubt you could even build a farm large enough to support current consumption levels in this century...

If a technology relies on the previous existance of something that could one day run out, then that's not sustainable.

A slippery slope, if you want to claim anything as sustainable...
 
The sun wont run out and Coca Cola is fixated on the fact he seems to think i'm talking about burning hydrogen.. i'm not i'm talking about creating large sources of it by splitting water via electrolysis passing current through water, try it, it produces hydrogen and oxygen....

the oxygen is the by product which gets released into the atmosphere and we pump the what we want hydrogen down into cities..

take somewhere hot like Nevada desert we stick 1,000 huge mirrors all focusing at a concrete tower full of water, the idea the solar arrays try to vaporise the tower, but it can't instead the water begins to boil and turns to steam, then a steam turbine (same way we use steam from burning coal, or for that matter a nuke site, it's all about boiling huge amounts of water to make steam, steam powers the turbines that produce the high voltage electricity which gets stepped up and delivered to the grid...

here's a video of what i mean except they produce electricity and deliver it, my idea is produce the electricity and make as much hydrogen as possible and use that to cook and power generators from and power are cars, use it to replace oil/gas.

video:


instead, pump the hydrogen out to who needs it and supply and demand.
 
The sun wont run out

For the foreseeable future likely no, but yes, it will burn out...

and Coca Cola is fixated on the fact he seems to think i'm talking about burning hydrogen.. i'm not

If you are not going to burn the Hydrogen WTF are you going to do with it?

i'm talking about creating large sources of it by splitting water via electrolysis passing current through water, try it, it produces hydrogen and oxygen....

I have split water, did it last year for some cool exploding balloons at night, but that is a different subject... And it's a bloody slow process, unless you pump A LOT of electricity into it...

What do you plan to do with these 'large' sources of Hydrogen, if you are not burning it? Heck how are you producing it?

the oxygen is the by product which gets released into the atmosphere and we pump the what we want hydrogen down into cities..

Why waste the Oxygen?

What are you pumping the Hydrogen to the cities for if you are not going to burn it? You also realize that you will forever be fighting leaks and experiencing substantial losses trying to transport and move that Hydrogen? It's hard enough to just contain it in it's gas form in any volume, and requires a substantial amount of energy to compress to a liquid, and all that comes with it's own troubles...

take somewhere hot like Nevada desert we stick 1,000 huge mirrors all focusing at a concrete tower full of water, the idea the solar arrays try to vaporise the tower, but it can't instead the water begins to boil and turns to steam, then a steam turbine (same way we use steam from burning coal, or for that matter a nuke site, it's all about boiling huge amounts of water to make steam, steam powers the turbines that produce the high voltage electricity which gets stepped up and delivered to the grid...

That has nothing to do with splitting water, or extracting Hydrogen and Oxygen, you just did a 180... Also the human population is spread over a much larger area than Nevada, for "A Solution" to work it has to work for everyone or else it's simply an alternative available to some...

here's a video of what i mean except they produce electricity and deliver it, my idea is produce the electricity and make as much hydrogen as possible and use that to cook and power generators from and power are cars, use it to replace oil/gas.

Steam ≠ Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas, it's still water... How are you going to split the water molecules into Hydrogen and Oxygen? Boiling isn't going to do it, it take A LOT more heat to break the water apart...

instead, pump the hydrogen out to who needs it and supply and demand.

Electrolysis to split the water isn't efficient, and won't sustain itself... The energy is better left in the form of electricity...
 
Last edited:
solar energy from a mirror to a tower.. tower creates steam, steam drives turbine, turbine makes power, power comes ability to split oxygen and hydrogen apart.... still don't get it? seriously?
 
solar energy from a mirror to a tower.. tower creates steam, steam drives turbine, turbine makes power, power comes ability to split oxygen and hydrogen apart.... still don't get it? seriously?

You don't seem to comprehend that splitting water is a WASTE of energy... Leave the generated energy in the form of electricity... Hydrogen production is wasteful, and impractical...
 
Last edited:
back to my original question what is the equation if we put in say 100,000 watts how much hydrogen we pump out?

Watts are a measure of power rather than energy, so the question should be "at what rate could we pump out Hydrogen," unless you meant to type watt-hours or Killowatt-hours. The answer is some. The exact amount doesn't matter. If it's not enough, you could just add a few zeros and say what if we use a billion killowatt-hours.

The question that matters is whether it is worth while to do that.

Consider the flow that you've described from one medium to another.
1 You have mirrors that target the sunlight onto a boiler.
2 Water boils into steam.
3 Steam drives turbines.
4 Turbines generate electricity.
5 Electricity splits H2O into H2 and O2.
6 H2 is transported to the pont of use.
7 H2 is used for cooking and heating.

In step 4 you have electricity. Like CocaCola is saying, Why not just trasnmit the electricity directly to the point of use? Electrolysis can be efficient but then it will be slow. It can be sped up, but then it is inefficient, take your pick.

If you consider those steps H2 is really just being used as an energy transort medium. Ease of transport and ease of containment ARE NOT features of H2. So, the H2 production becomes useless.

In your video they are storing solar energy as heat, not because it's an efficient way to do things, but because they are trying to make up for the fact that solar energy sources don't work very well at night. If they could smooth out that night-time gap and supply electricity 24 hours per day, then they can make their solar power plant more useful.

As far as using H2 to power cars, it's true that cars need a portable supply of energy. It's hard to hook up transmission lines to vehicles while they are driving around. Gasoline works great as a portable energy supply, but we need to get away from using gasoline. Batteries for a long time were not a viable option, but they are getting better. I'm not completely against using H2 as the portable energy source for vehicles. Containment is one big issue with that, but maybe they could find a way around that. There has been great advancement in the Hydrogen Power Cell technology.

Now if you want to put H2/O2 on a space ship for energy, I say go for it! The space programs have already been doing that for years.

Another Hydrogen explosion: Challenger Space Shuttle Crash

--tim
 
Top