Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?

[ZHEN]

Hi, everyone knows:
Can i use 50% H2O2 to get H2 at room tempeature?

H2O2 + H2O + Na -> H2 + NaOH + H2O2

 

[David Harper]

Hi, everyone knows:
Can i use 50% H2O2 to get H2 at room tempeature?

H2O2 + H2O + Na -> H2 + NaOH + H2O2

Before you do that, get all your affairs in order.

Ignoring the H2O2 part, you know what happens when you put sodium in
water, right? It's extremely exothermic and can be dangerous.

Additionally, H2O2 throws off it's extra O relatively easy, so you
might end up having the Na + H2O reaction, PLUS extra O2 given off by
the H2O2. If you have any free H2 in the area near a hot reation with
O2 floating around also, you'll end up with an additional reaction
that fuels the space shuttle's main engines: (2H2 + O2) -> LOTSAHEAT +
2H2O

If you want H2, go to a local gas supplier and rent a full 200+ ft^3
tank for 50$.

 

[ZHEN]

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

 

[[email protected]]

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

Given the volatile reaction and caustic byproducts, I would strongly
recommend going the safer route and buying the compressed gases you
need. Probably cheaper than buying the sodium and peroxide.

Or if large quantities aren't needed, use electrolysis and cheap
electricity to split water.

-Chris

 

[Don Lancaster]

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

Concentrated H2O2 is INSANELY DANGEROUS.
Do not even THINK of experimenting with it.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that it can become part of an energy economy.

Even the X Prize folks weren't allowed to buy any.

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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Sam Goldwasser]

Given the volatile reaction and caustic byproducts, I would strongly
recommend going the safer route and buying the compressed gases you
need. Probably cheaper than buying the sodium and peroxide.

Or if large quantities aren't needed, use electrolysis and cheap
electricity to split water.

There have been well documented lab explosions resulting from the use
of active metals like sodium and potassium in plain water from H2
combustion.

This is not something one should try at home!

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Home Page: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Site Info: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header is ignored.
To contact me, please use the feedback form on the S.E.R FAQ Web sites.

 

[Jed Checketts]

Before you do that, get all your affairs in order.

Ignoring the H2O2 part, you know what happens when you put sodium in
water, right? It's extremely exothermic and can be dangerous.

Additionally, H2O2 throws off it's extra O relatively easy, so you
might end up having the Na + H2O reaction, PLUS extra O2 given off by
the H2O2. If you have any free H2 in the area near a hot reation with
O2 floating around also, you'll end up with an additional reaction
that fuels the space shuttle's main engines: (2H2 + O2) -> LOTSAHEAT +
2H2O

If you want H2, go to a local gas supplier and rent a full 200+ ft^3
tank for 50$.

The compressed hydrogen route is very expensive. 200 cubic feet of
hydrogen is just slightly over 1 pound of hydrogen. To spend $50.00
for this pound is silly when 11 pounds of sodium hydride (at around
$.75 per pound) would produce the same amount of hydrogen. A bottle
of compressed hydrogen is also quite bulky and has an initial cost of
more than $100.00 (not including the expensive pressure regulator) It
is also very hard to pick up. Most people just try rolling the heavy
metal bottles along the ground slowly.

Only a few pounds of sodium aluminum hydride (NaAlH4) can produce a
pound of hydrogen gas (192 cubic feet) upon contact with water.

Sodium metal can be produced from soda ash (sodium carbonate). I am
currently doing this on a small scale at Searles Lake, California.
Sodium carbonate sells for just a little over $.05 per pound.

Sodium aluminum hydride can also be shipped easily. Compressed
hydrogen is tricky to transport.

Jed Checketts

 

[David Harper]

The compressed hydrogen route is very expensive. 200 cubic feet of
hydrogen is just slightly over 1 pound of hydrogen. To spend $50.00
for this pound is silly when 11 pounds of sodium hydride (at around
$.75 per pound) would produce the same amount of hydrogen. A bottle
of compressed hydrogen is also quite bulky and has an initial cost of
more than $100.00 (not including the expensive pressure regulator) It
is also very hard to pick up. Most people just try rolling the heavy
metal bottles along the ground slowly.

(SNIP)

Yes, and when he creates 200 ft^3 of hydrogen, how do you think he'll
store it? In a big balloon? Unless he plans on only using small
portions at a time and using it immediately, a compressed cylinder
affords small volume and no potentially dangerous processing (and
hardware to capture the gas) needed. And if he doesn't need 200 ft^3,
he can just get a smaller cylinder for less.

On a side note, I don't know where you got that 100$ estimate from.
Sure, maybe if you buy it instead of rent it. 50$ is a very
conservative over-estimate. One place quoted me 27$ + 10$ for the
regulator, but I ended up opting for helium instead (60$ per 200 ft^3
cylinder) due to additional safety.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

Concentrated H2O2 is INSANELY DANGEROUS.

And compared to this danger, which I would call merely substantially
dangerous, keeping blocks of sodium lying about is also quite dangerous.
Chem. labs used to store stuff like this under oil. The H2O2 will give you a
nasty chemical burn, and decomposes producing steam and oxygen in contact
with a lot of different things, so it's a bit of a fire hazard. But safe
enough if handled by an expert. The sodium is about the same order by
itself, it will burn you, and it will burn by itself. Get it wet by
accident, or do it deliberately with an error in your process, and the
reaction products are extremely corrosive and will attack flesh strongly,
the reaction itself is very violent and can be explosive, and the hydrogen
released can be a fire hazard. Note that the violence of this reaction can
splatter flaming molten sodium all about the area. I used to like to play
with explosives, but this is one I would leave alone.

 

[Bob Eldred]

Hi, everyone knows:
Can i use 50% H2O2 to get H2 at room tempeature?

H2O2 + H2O + Na -> H2 + NaOH + H2O2

What does the H2O2 do in this equation? The H2O2 will break down into water
(steam) and oxygen. 2H2O2 > 2H2O + O2. The water reacts with sodium and the
hydrogen reacts with oxygen and your left with sodium hydroxide and water,
but little or no free hydrogen and little or no free oxygen.

All pure nonsense when you consider that a pound of hydrogen contains about
the same energy as a half a gallon of gasoline worth about a buck with gas
taxes. Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more rediculous.
Bob

 

[Don Lancaster]

And compared to this danger, which I would call merely substantially
dangerous, keeping blocks of sodium lying about is also quite dangerous.
Chem. labs used to store stuff like this under oil. The H2O2 will give you a
nasty chemical burn, and decomposes producing steam and oxygen in contact
with a lot of different things, so it's a bit of a fire hazard. But safe
enough if handled by an expert. The sodium is about the same order by
itself, it will burn you, and it will burn by itself. Get it wet by
accident, or do it deliberately with an error in your process, and the
reaction products are extremely corrosive and will attack flesh strongly,
the reaction itself is very violent and can be explosive, and the hydrogen
released can be a fire hazard. Note that the violence of this reaction can
splatter flaming molten sodium all about the area. I used to like to play
with explosives, but this is one I would leave alone.

An individual can easily buy concentrated sodium.
An individual is prohibited from buying concentrated H2O2.
--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[David Harper]

What does the H2O2 do in this equation? The H2O2 will break down into water
(steam) and oxygen. 2H2O2 > 2H2O + O2. The water reacts with sodium and the
hydrogen reacts with oxygen and your left with sodium hydroxide and water,
but little or no free hydrogen and little or no free oxygen.

All pure nonsense when you consider that a pound of hydrogen contains about
the same energy as a half a gallon of gasoline worth about a buck with gas
taxes.

1. Making hydrogen NOW is more expensive than gasoline. Who said it
will continue to be expensive? Compare your statement to the
following:

"[T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial
capacity of private industry..."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

2. Gasoline is far from clean combustion. Forgetting the greenhouse
gas and smog issues, think of all the bad things that happen to
engines due to carbon deposits, corrosion, etc. that would be
eliminated with hydrogen.

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.

Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more rediculous.
Bob

First, what makes you think creating hydrogen will always be dangerous
and expensive?

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

Dave

 

[Don Lancaster]

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.


Dave

Where did you get such a silly idea?

1 pound of CONTAINED terrestral hydrogen does not have remotely the
same energy density as 1 pound of contained gasoline.

And almost certainly never will.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

David Harper wrote:

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

You have shown examples where individuals lack an understanding of the
potential applications. Hydrogen doesn't fit here.

To speak of hydrogen as the wonder fuel of the future is like saying
nuclear fusion would be 'the' energy source of the next decade back in
the 50s.

Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation. One of the biggest
is that it is not an energy source. And to imply that this can be
overcome by 'vision' means you would have to defy nature, which is not
the case in the examples you have posted above.

Dave

Best, Dan.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

Hydrogen as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation. One of the biggest
is that it is not an energy source.

Dan. This is a polemic statement (a statement intended to argue a case), not
a statement of fact differentiating hydrogen from other fuels. It is also
true of a portion of gasoline (all the material that has been reformed in
the cracking towers), even fuel oils. None of our internal combustion fuels
are energy sources. All are "made from" the raw energy sources. The only raw
fuels consumed are used for external combustion engines, and you just don't
find those any more. (I am pretty sure crude oil will not run any of the
ships engines directly.) In this context Hydrogen differs from gasoline as a
fuel only in the relative efficiency of converting the raw fuels, crude oil
and natural gas, into the final product. If you are going to rail against
this particular fuel, you do have to get the objection right or there is
nothing to be gained.

 

[Bob Eldred]

1. Making hydrogen NOW is more expensive than gasoline. Who said it
will continue to be expensive? Compare your statement to the
following:

"[T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial
capacity of private industry..."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

2. Gasoline is far from clean combustion. Forgetting the greenhouse
gas and smog issues, think of all the bad things that happen to
engines due to carbon deposits, corrosion, etc. that would be
eliminated with hydrogen.

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.

Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more rediculous.
Bob

First, what makes you think creating hydrogen will always be dangerous
and expensive?

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

Dave

You forgot the old saw that if man was meant to fly, God would have given
him wings. That facts are than many things deemed impossible or impractical
still are, your examples not with standing. Carnot efficiency in a
thermodynamic engine comes to mind as does the various perpetual motion
ideas that come up from time to time. Just because some bozo thought the
telephone was impractical does not mean that hydrogen is practical. Hydrogen
has many negatives that have been discussed here and elswhere ad nausium. Do
yourself a favor and find out what the negatives are then propose what has
to happen to get around them. If you can find solutions, you could become a
very rich man, indeed.
Bob

 

[Don Lancaster]

1. Making hydrogen NOW is more expensive than gasoline. Who said it
will continue to be expensive? Compare your statement to the
following:

"[T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial
capacity of private industry..."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

2. Gasoline is far from clean combustion. Forgetting the greenhouse
gas and smog issues, think of all the bad things that happen to
engines due to carbon deposits, corrosion, etc. that would be
eliminated with hydrogen.

3. Yeah, you said it. 1 lbs of hydrogen has the same energy as 3.5
lbs of gasoline.

Hydrogen is idocy and will always be the "fuel of the future." Using
expensive and dangerous chemicals to generate it is even more rediculous.
Bob

First, what makes you think creating hydrogen will always be dangerous
and expensive?

That statement reminds me of a few other quotes:

"A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a
Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is
exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious.
Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in
profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first
rank."
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

"Radio has no future."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca.
1897.

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
- The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

Dave

You forgot the old saw that if man was meant to fly, God would have given
him wings. That facts are than many things deemed impossible or impractical
still are, your examples not with standing. Carnot efficiency in a
thermodynamic engine comes to mind as does the various perpetual motion
ideas that come up from time to time. Just because some bozo thought the
telephone was impractical does not mean that hydrogen is practical. Hydrogen
has many negatives that have been discussed here and elswhere ad nausium. Do
yourself a favor and find out what the negatives are then propose what has
to happen to get around them. If you can find solutions, you could become a
very rich man, indeed.
Bob

They laughed at Bozo the clown, too.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

...



Dan. This is a polemic statement (a statement intended to argue a case), not
a statement of fact differentiating hydrogen from other fuels. It is also
true of a portion of gasoline (all the material that has been reformed in
the cracking towers), even fuel oils. None of our internal combustion fuels
are energy sources. All are "made from" the raw energy sources. The only raw
fuels consumed are used for external combustion engines, and you just don't
find those any more. (I am pretty sure crude oil will not run any of the
ships engines directly.) In this context Hydrogen differs from gasoline as a
fuel only in the relative efficiency of converting the raw fuels, crude oil
and natural gas, into the final product. If you are going to rail against
this particular fuel, you do have to get the objection right or there is
nothing to be gained.

Hi Fred,
And your conclusion should be the point exactly. Where gasoline and
diesel are 'direct' derivatives of oil, the hydrogen vector only adds an
unnecessary loss. Oil presently burdens the world economy at some $2 to
$3 a barrel at the well head.

So, hydrogen would have to come from some non fossil source to be a fuel
of the future, and that source is non existent. At our present rate of
evolving the way we deal with energy, it will likely take 5 to 10
decades before hydrogen can be considered much less seriously implemented.

You know as well as I do that the first non fossil source of hydrogen
would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical processes. At
that point it will become feedstock to sweeten tar and sand oils.

I hope that makes my earlier statement clearer.

Best, Dan.

 

[Richard Haimann]

At an rate, gasoline, etc. is just stored solar energy. It was
accumulated in biomass and deposited into geological formations over many
millions of years. Eventually, it will be gone. At some point, we humans
will need to find a way to harvest solar (or nuclear?) energy at the rate
we expend energy. This savings account of stored energy we have in the
form of fossil fuels should be counted as our investment fund that we
invest in the development of technologies appropriate to meet our energy
needs when these fossil fuels are gone. Is hydrogen the right energy
carrier? It is certainly is less efficient than reduced carbon species.
Yet, it oxidizes cleaner. What is the appropriate balance? I see nothing
wrong with experimentation as long as the experimenters don't blow their
fingers off.

Good luck,
Richard Haimann, P.E.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

At an rate, gasoline, etc. is just stored solar energy. It was
accumulated in biomass and deposited into geological formations over
many millions of years. Eventually, it will be gone. At some point,
we humans will need to find a way to harvest solar (or nuclear?) energy
at the rate we expend energy.

I know, you are preaching to the choir.

This savings account of stored energy we
have in the form of fossil fuels should be counted as our investment
fund that we invest in the development of technologies appropriate to
meet our energy needs when these fossil fuels are gone. Is hydrogen
the right energy carrier? It is certainly is less efficient than
reduced carbon species. Yet, it oxidizes cleaner. What is the
appropriate balance?

As long as coal and oil are our primary sources of energy, it does not
make sense to add the burden of the hydrogen vector. It most certainly
oxidizes dirtier when the complete vector is considered. As world
policies by those that lead us have made little provisions for a future
without cheap oil, I think it a rouge to talk about hydrogen as if it
were some kind of solution.

I see nothing wrong with experimentation as long
as the experimenters don't blow their fingers off.

I was following a post about the future of hydrogen. As for the guy with
the h202, he could just throw some pot metal into some swimming pool
acid if he wants hydrogen. But then, he does take the chance of getting
blown fingers and an acid burn to boot!

Good luck,
Richard Haimann, P.E.

<Try not to top post>
Best, Dan.