Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?

[Fred Kasner]

then, for local pollution, even if the greenhouse gas emissions is not
helped. And if we are making oil or H2 from the same sources, it is a
max-nix (doesn't make any difference). Look at the problem closely. You will
notice that any argument that H2 is a bad fuel because of the source of the
energy, in the end, becomes exactly the same argument against fuel oil made
from these same sources.
This implies some engineering solutions that should be discussed openly as
part of the conclusion.

"max-nix"? What the hell does that mean? Wait ---- how about "machs nichts"
which is German which means makes nothing or seems to be what you were
saying.

BTW most of you hydrogen lovers fail to understand that burning H2 has some
of the same problems of burning hydrocarbons. You produce a lot of water
vapor a real efficient "greenhouse" gas.
FK

 

[Bob Eldred]

Cut......
The source I expect will be coal. In the manufacture of coal
derived fuels the first and thus cheapest fuel will be hydrogen.
Snip......

Hydrogen now and in the future is and will be an intermediary for the
production of other, more convenient, fuels. It will not be used directly in
transportation. For example: C + H20 > CO + H2. And CO + 2H2 > CH3OH which
is methanol. Methanol is a convenient, moderately high energy density
liquid, safe, easy to handle, requiring no special equipment or dangerous
and expensive chemicals, hydrides, high pressure tanks or other nonsense.
Furthermore production of methanol uses some of the energy in the carbon
when coal is the percursor. Using only the hydrogen wastes the carbon
component.
Bob

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

...


trees.

Yes he is, but...

You are sure?

In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well understood. It was
only a matter of spending money to do it.

years?

In 1920 the physics of television was understood. In fact folks were
already working on it by then. Besides, why are you predating the
Copenhagen interpretation? (See my original post.)

or told someone in 1950 that we would spend billions and still be 20 years
away from a fusion power source after 50 years of research.

I would have to research to find out if the physicist of the 50s were
really that obtuse. A popular mechanics cover on fusion was for the masses.

By the way the atomic bomb was patented in 1934. Gee, not long after the
Copenhagen interpretation.

kidney replaced?

In 1960, Dr. Norman Shumway predicted the possibility of transplanting
the human heart from the body of one person to another. By 1967 Dr.
Barnard performed the first transplant. I think David is pulling numbers
out of thin air.

Or that computer viruses and data hacks steal billions from us, bring
business to a halt, and the problem is growing every day.

Moore made his prediction in 1965. There were plenty of people that knew
what the future held.

Just because you didn't know doesn't mean that others didn't. It has
been well understood for quite a long time how the technology would evolve.

You really should do some research before making up claims.

Best, Dan.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

BTW most of you hydrogen lovers fail to understand that burning H2 has some
of the same problems of burning hydrocarbons. You produce a lot of water
vapor a real efficient "greenhouse" gas.

Come on Fred. You know better than that. Stick to the science. There are
more than enough real problems with hydrogen as a fuel that can be
discussed.

FK

Best, Dan.

 

[G. R. L. Cowan]

Fred Kasner included:

... burning H2 has some
of the same problems of burning hydrocarbons. You produce a lot of water
vapor a real efficient "greenhouse" gas.

Is that meant to imply burning hydrogen
will change the climate to the same extent burning carbon will?

What about lawn-watering?


--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet.
Link if you want it to happen

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

BTW most of you hydrogen lovers fail to understand that burning H2 has some
of the same problems of burning hydrocarbons. You produce a lot of water
vapor a real efficient "greenhouse" gas.

Dear Fred, your ignorance and prejudice are showing. My German is way off,
as you point out, but I am pleased that you were able to figure it out after
all. I wonder where the heck I picked this up?

Any way, I am not a "hydrogen lover" but just a physicist. I don't like to
see errors made in the name of any version of PC, which in your case seems
to be the "hate hydrogen" crowd. Yes, water vapor is the quintessential
greenhouse gas, and one of the hardest to model completely, but no, this is
not an issue. All the cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes on earth, ten
times over, fueled with hydrogen, would not make enough water to have the
impact of one of our lesser deforestation projects. Unlike CO2, water vapor
is not held in the atmosphere that long and our share is very tiny. In
anycase, the issue of local pollution is not a bit of moisture, perhaps 20%
more than would be released by fuel oil anyway, but is the unburned and
pyrolysed carbon compounds which are 100% removed by using raw H2 for fuel.
If you "hydrogen haters" want to get it right, you just have to comment
accurately on the problems of hydrogen as a fuel. Why would you want to make
up arguments that do not hold water when you have plenty of perfectly sound
objections? I have seen you about for long enough that I would have thought
you would have read a few of my posts on this subject. Haven't you noticed
that I understand those objections perfectly well, and have made them as a
point against the "hydrogen lovers" you love to bash?

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

Furthermore production of methanol uses some of the energy in the carbon
when coal is the percursor. Using only the hydrogen wastes the carbon
component.

When the coal is used as the only energy source, it makes no dif (ignoring
some possible differences in efficiency)whether you produce H2 only or HxCx,
you still use all the energy that was in the carbon. It is probably a better
process from a CO2 perspective, to produce hydrogen from some alternative
source, then use all the carbon in making a fuel oil, but in that case, you
would not want to use the coal at all to make hydrogen. This would, of
course, "waste" all the carbon in the coal, eh?

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

Dan, your attribution tree is really munged. Most (but not all) of your
comments appear as if they were directed toward my comments to David's
epistle, by their position carrots, but in fact refer to David's orignal
post comments.

Most of the development of our modern world is a result of finding that
there is a simple way to solve what appeared to be an intractable
engineering problem, combined with finding out that there is no simple, and
even no very complex, solution to what was otherwise thought to be easy.
Fusion was easy. A practical bomb only took a few years to develop.
Practical stable fusion reactors couldn't be that hard. But I recall
studying the plasma physics 40 years ago, and occasionally catching up
since. Some truly ingenious ideas were tried, and some truly bizarre reasons
developed as show stoppers. For every process that progressed as the best
technical minds imagined, there are at least 10 that simply never got out of
the garage, for reasons we sometimes do not know even today. I.e.. Is
Microsoft the real reason we do not have real AI?

 

[David Harper]

...
trees.

Yes he is, but... (SNIP)
Or told someone in 1980 that we would not be back to the moon in the next
30, that our mighty shuttle would still be our sole and failing manned space
vehicle, or that we would finally build a small space station and be unable
to keep it buisy or staff it.

First off, your statements relate more to political, social, and
funding issues, and aren't really related to the point I was trying to
make. Sure, technology advances can be hampered by politics, but in
many cases (like those I'd listed) it didn't prevent them.

Or that they would find kids who have never read a news story and think the
news is a 10 second byte with no references that go back beyond the film
archives.

You're trying to demonstrate problems with our society and education
system here... point made. But, this isn't related to the point I was
trying to make. How does this affect possibly using hydrogen for fuel
in the future?

or told someone in 1950 that we would spend billions and still be 20 years
away from a fusion power source after 50 years of research.

Sure, there are dissapointments in technological breakthroughs.

or told them that the typical uninsured worker could not afford to have any
of these wonderful miracles performed, or if he did he would be more likely
to die of a careless error and his heirs collect pennies because the
government of the USA has stepped in to protect, not him, but the huge
careless health industry.

Again, this is a social/political problem.

Or that computer viruses and data hacks steal billions from us, bring
business to a halt, and the problem is growing every day.

....aka "crime"... social problem.

Or that the person recieving the message could go to jail for sending you
back a greeting without getting permission from the government. (Wait, isn't
that OUR homeland security's recommendation?)
....politics.

Note that our historic self would be very impressed that we would have
supercomputers on every desk top and in most homes, even available in most
third world countries, but they would expect robots that would embody AI and
do most dangerous labors. They would be shocked because they had no idea
that a semi-intelligent autonomous machine was so difficult to develop.

Sure, there are dissapointments in technological breakthroughs. My
point is that there are also surprises. I don't see anything in your
post that affects the original hydrogen-for-fuel discussion.

Dave

 

[dan]

Just because you didn't know doesn't mean that others didn't. It has
been well understood for quite a long time how the technology would evolve.

You could have just gone ahead and done it in 1980 with a couple
Apple II computers and 300 baud acoustic modems.

 

[David Harper]

In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well understood. It was
only a matter of spending money to do it.

No, it wasn't. For instance, engineers had no idea how to handle
atmospheric re-entry at high velocities, nor did they understand
hypersonic flow well. In 1950 nothing had ever collected data over
Mach 3 or so. It wasn't until the X-15 program (and other programs)
post 1950 did the knowledge and technology develope to allow engineers
to tackle the problem or re-entry. And this is just one of the many
examples I could cite.

But that's beside the point. Agreed: the physics of using hydrogen is
understood. It's just a matter of what technological advances "could"
happen to make it a reality (such as nanotech or whatever).

In 1920 the physics of television was understood. In fact folks were
already working on it by then. Besides, why are you predating the
Copenhagen interpretation? (See my original post.)

As mentioned before, the physics of using hydrogen is understood, as
was the TV in the 20's. But, again, the technology to make either
practical (and believable) did not exist for TV in the 20's and for
hydrogen today.

I predated the Copenhagen interpretation because I was on a completely
separate point: people not believing things to be practical (or
possible) in their lifetimes when, in reality, they do become
practical in a matter of decades.

In 1960, Dr. Norman Shumway predicted the possibility of transplanting
the human heart from the body of one person to another. By 1967 Dr.
Barnard performed the first transplant. I think David is pulling numbers
out of thin air.

No, I was basing that on Jarvik-7, the first artificial heart. But
thanks for demonstrating my point. Most people [before] 1960 would
have thought it impossible and/or impractical to have the capacity, in
a matter of years/decades, to have organs replaced. Today it IS
practical due to little break-throughs here and there (immune
suppression drugs, genetic matching, etc). The technology evolved to
make it practical.

Just because you didn't know doesn't mean that others didn't. It has
been well understood for quite a long time how the technology would evolve.

Ah, you said it... "the technology would evolve"... exactly. This was
the entire point of my original post. Technology 'could' evolve to
make hydrogen practical.

You really should do some research before making up claims.

You could cite me for assuming Bob's energy density values for
hydrogen vs. gas was correct, and what I used to reference organ
transplants dates. However, "making up" claims is something I would
not do.

It's not like I'd make up claims like:
"In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well understood."
"there have been no surprises for going on a century"

Dave

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

Dan, your attribution tree is really munged. Most (but not all) of your
comments appear as if they were directed toward my comments to David's
epistle, by their position carrots, but in fact refer to David's orignal
post comments.

Most of the development of our modern world is a result of finding that
there is a simple way to solve what appeared to be an intractable
engineering problem, combined with finding out that there is no simple, and
even no very complex, solution to what was otherwise thought to be easy.
Fusion was easy. A practical bomb only took a few years to develop.
Practical stable fusion reactors couldn't be that hard. But I recall
studying the plasma physics 40 years ago, and occasionally catching up
since. Some truly ingenious ideas were tried, and some truly bizarre reasons
developed as show stoppers. For every process that progressed as the best
technical minds imagined, there are at least 10 that simply never got out of
the garage, for reasons we sometimes do not know even today. I.e.. Is
Microsoft the real reason we do not have real AI?

Well, if it were not for Microsoft and your use of outlook, the thread
may not have been mangled. I take the responsibility as I'm the one
who replied. I've often dropped a microsoft mangled thread because it is
not worth the effort. You may want to look into using netscape if only
for your newsreader.

But, to answer your question, no. AI, I believe, (as I don't have enough
knowledge under my belt), is unobtainable because the human physique
doesn't fit in the rules of a turing machine. There may be quantum
computing...

Best, Dan.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well understood. It was
only a matter of spending money to do it.

No, it wasn't. For instance, engineers had no idea how to handle
atmospheric re-entry at high velocities, nor did they understand
hypersonic flow well. In 1950 nothing had ever collected data over
Mach 3 or so. It wasn't until the X-15 program (and other programs)
post 1950 did the knowledge and technology develope to allow engineers
to tackle the problem or re-entry. And this is just one of the many
examples I could cite.

But that's beside the point. Agreed: the physics of using hydrogen is
understood. It's just a matter of what technological advances "could"
happen to make it a reality (such as nanotech or whatever).

In 1920 the physics of television was understood. In fact folks were
already working on it by then. Besides, why are you predating the
Copenhagen interpretation? (See my original post.)

As mentioned before, the physics of using hydrogen is understood, as
was the TV in the 20's. But, again, the technology to make either
practical (and believable) did not exist for TV in the 20's and for
hydrogen today.

I predated the Copenhagen interpretation because I was on a completely
separate point: people not believing things to be practical (or
possible) in their lifetimes when, in reality, they do become
practical in a matter of decades.

In 1960, Dr. Norman Shumway predicted the possibility of transplanting
the human heart from the body of one person to another. By 1967 Dr.
Barnard performed the first transplant. I think David is pulling numbers
out of thin air.

No, I was basing that on Jarvik-7, the first artificial heart. But
thanks for demonstrating my point. Most people [before] 1960 would
have thought it impossible and/or impractical to have the capacity, in
a matter of years/decades, to have organs replaced. Today it IS
practical due to little break-throughs here and there (immune
suppression drugs, genetic matching, etc). The technology evolved to
make it practical.

Just because you didn't know doesn't mean that others didn't. It has
been well understood for quite a long time how the technology would evolve.

Ah, you said it... "the technology would evolve"... exactly. This was
the entire point of my original post. Technology 'could' evolve to
make hydrogen practical.

You really should do some research before making up claims.

You could cite me for assuming Bob's energy density values for
hydrogen vs. gas was correct, and what I used to reference organ
transplants dates. However, "making up" claims is something I would
not do.

It's not like I'd make up claims like:
"In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well understood."
"there have been no surprises for going on a century"

Please look at the above and make a distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'. Then go back and read the thread. You
will see I have continually made the distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'. Then look at where I started, "Hydrogen
as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation." Technological innovation
does not defeat physical limitations.

My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood.

I have all along tried to make the distinction for you. Again, please
reread the thread. The physical limitations of hydrogen will -not- go
away short of new physics. And again, it is very very unlikely we will
see new physics that will only impact the use of hydrogen. If there is a
new physical discovery by this time, what it means for hydrogen as a
fuel will, with overwhelming odds, mean nothing.

Technology and physics go hand and hand. But they are two very different
things.

Dave

Best, Dan.

 

[Jed Checketts]

It gets much worse when you throw heavy sodium and heavy aluminum into
the tank, of course.

Much worse than what?

Sodium aluminum hydride:

NaAlH4 + 2 H2O --> NaAlO2 + 4 H2

Note that you produce 8 Kg of hydrogen for each 54 Kg of Alanate.

LiAlH4 + 2 H2O --> LiAlO2 + 4 H2

For this example, 8 Kg of hydrogen are produced from each 37 Kg of
Lithium Aluminum Hydride.

LiBH4 + 2 H2O --> LiBO2 + 4 H2

For the above example, 8 Kg of hydrogen are produced from each 23 Kg
of Lithium Borohydride.

Don often points out how how energy dense gasoline is as if it is the
ultimate energy storage medium. It isn't. He may be a proponent of
gasoline but the SCIENCE is straightforward. Lithium Borohydride and
other hydrides contain more energy by mass AND VOLUME than gasoline.

This is verifiable scientific fact.

No personal vehicle compatible method of containing hydrogen is known
that even remotely approaches the energy density by weight of contained
gasoline.

Claiming that hydrogen is better is ludicrous.

Claiming that gasoline contains more energy than hydrides like lithium
aluminum hydride are contradictory to scientific fact.

Jed Checketts
Searles Lake, CA

 

[Tony Bryer]

No surprises for a century? I think you're missing the forest for the
trees.

My father was born just before the Wright brothers first flight and
lived through 15 years of Concorde (RIP) flight. In my 51 years I don't
see changes of this significance - with apologies to Boeing engineers a
777 is not that different to a Comet. What has changed is that things
that were the experience of a handful of people when I was a child are
now normal: owning a car, TV or any number of other appliances, full
house central heating, overseas holidays etc etc. You can be poor - as
defined by UK statisticians - and have a (material) standard of living
that most people could only dream of when I was a child.

 

[Don Lancaster]

My father was born just before the Wright brothers first flight and
lived through 15 years of Concorde (RIP) flight. In my 51 years I don't
see changes of this significance - with apologies to Boeing engineers a
777 is not that different to a Comet. What has changed is that things
that were the experience of a handful of people when I was a child are
now normal: owning a car, TV or any number of other appliances, full
house central heating, overseas holidays etc etc. You can be poor - as
defined by UK statisticians - and have a (material) standard of living
that most people could only dream of when I was a child.

Huh?
The web alone.
Not to mention memory under microcents per bit are two of the most
significant developments of all time.
--
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

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

First off, your statements relate more to political, social, and
funding ... How does this affect possibly using hydrogen for fuel
in the future? ....
Sure, there are dissapointments in technological breakthroughs. My
point is that there are also surprises. I don't see anything in your
post that affects the original hydrogen-for-fuel discussion.

The problem is that in some cases what seems simple is impossible. Example.
Fusion is simple. Stable controlled fusion in a room sized unit, appears to
be unprofitable. I can make fusion events with a high voltage source and a
small vacuum tube. But I cannot make net power. The things you are
overlooking, politics, social structure, funding, the economics of it, are
the real drivers. So I could today build a hydrogen economy. The cars would
be rather clunky and perform poorly, they might cost 10 times what a car now
costs, and cost 3-4 times as much to make run a mile. They may be more
dangerous on the road. What alternatives do we have? If we have none, then
we might still make it work. And you are right that some of these processes
can be improved. But some cannot. The purpose of my response was to point
out that you need more flexibility in your solution. Using hydrogen to make
fuel oil may turn out to be much more cost effective than trying to use the
fuel directly. Constructing our cities so we get to work by electric trolley
would save a lot of energy. Long term research to find "new" ways to store
hydrogen that might make a practical car is likely to be wasted cash. You
are betting on the long shot. Not a bad idea to put something on it, but not
to plan your future assuming that you hit.

 

[David Harper]

Please look at the above and make a distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'.

That was the main point of my entire response. One of the first
things I said was:

Was that unclear?

Then go back and read the thread. You
will see I have continually made the distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'. Then look at where I started, "Hydrogen
as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation." Technological innovation
does not defeat physical limitations.

And the only "physical limitation" you cited was that it was not an
energy "source", but a "currency". I agreed with this in a later
post, when I understood exactly what you meant. Using it as a
currency eliminates the physical limitation you cited. This became a
non-issue.

When I traced back, the drive behind most of my comments originated
from your following statement:

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.

This statement assumes technological progress in other fields (i.e.
nanotech) won't become viable options first. That's when I questioned
your ability to foresee the future of technological innovation.

Perhaps our entire clash boils down to the fact that I'm more of an
optimist in terms of technological advances.

My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood.

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec05.html

....(enter stage left) the X-15 program: to better understand
supersonic physics and figure out what was (and was not) possible.
But this is really a side point to our original discussion.

You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. However, you
can't get to the moon with orbital mechanics alone. Other areas, such
as fluid mechanics, were also needed to get to the moon...and, as
mentioned before, the fluid dynamics of hypersonic flow was *NOT* well
understood. Two other major areas within the realm of physics that
had to be better understood to get to the moon include
super/hypersonic heat transfer (both in the engines and on re-entry
surfaces, also aided by the X-15 program) and solar physics/radiation
outside the Van Allen belts. There's plenty of others areas I'm sure
I'm forgetting or not aware of.

Dave

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

No, it wasn't. For instance, engineers had no idea

Interesting dichotomy. Physics is understood, but the engineering is not
there yet. In this case, the physics is a couple of simple equations of
motion. The engineering is a million little physics problems, some of which
are not solvable, but enough of which could be worked around to actually go
to the moon. The idea that understanding the equations of flying to the
moon, if you can build the space craft, if you can reenter, is all the
understanding needed for the problem is simply mistaken. The whole real
physical problem of going was so complex that there was a lot of uncertainty
on those first launches.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well

understood.

Dan. Suppose that black powder were still the only fuel available. As you
know, you cannot get to the moon even on a mountain of black powder. You
would then have this wonderful physics to get to the moon, understand the
orbital mechanics in detail, but not be able to get there. The real physics
of going to the moon includes such disparate issues as making a reliable
engine. Finding a fuel that we can afford, that we can store (monatomic
hydrogen would make a great fuel), that will give us the performance we
need.