Hydrogen Power Conundrum

[p0lizei]

I might suggest the same advice for you, but I'm not about to jump to conclusions and make baseless assumptions.

You have yet to provide solid evidence to support your claims on this "Brown's Gas" bull**.

[p0lizei]

Hydrogen exists in its native (I should say "terrestrial") form as a molecule comprised of two hydrogen atoms, and is denoted by the symbol H2 (in which, of course, the two is subscripted).  Atomic hydrogen is a "free" hydrogen atom, or more accurately, a single proton.  Hydrogen "wants" to be H2, and it is extremely difficult if not downright impossible to store any signifigant amount (now, you can store hydrogen in SWTs and that hydrogen will exist in its elemental form, but upon its release, it forms H2, and therefore I consider that to be different than a situation in which atomic hydrogen enters a container, and atomic hydrogen exits that same container).

[p0lizei]

Part of the efficiency problem with your propose scheme is the storage phase.  Why are you storing electricity in one medium, and then extracting it to make hydrogen?  Take out the storage phase and there, increased efficiency.  Another problem is that you're suggesting that the hydrogen be burnt in an ICE.  I assume you mean a reciprocating engine, and I'm glad you brought this up because it ties in with some points other posters have made in this thread.

An alternative fuel is only half the solution.  The other half involves society's responsible use of that fuel.  For example, reciprocating engines have provided us with good, mostly reliable service for at least two hundred years, but they are most definitely not efficiency leaders.  We are now at the point where we have hybrid vehicles, and it no longer makes a whole lot of sense to use a reciprocating ICE to generate electricity for those vehicles when there are more efficient alternatives.  I see no problem with using a small gas turbine to power the generator on a hybrid electric vehicle.  There are some issues with noise and heat, but then there were those same issues with early automotive powerplants, and those have mostly been resolved; there is no reason why the same engineering can't be done to adapt a gas turbine to an automobile.  The end result is even more efficiency, because gas turbines are inherently non complex machines (in comparison to a reciprocating engine) and therefore less weight is involved.

And while we're at it, why not work on improving the efficiency of these wind turbines.  Do the coils generate heat?  Slap on some Peltier generators and turn that waste heat into electricity!  You get the added benefit of a cooling system for the coils.

[rotornuts]

Revolt!

[Norm]

   Yes Tom, that's basically the way I do it also...sometimes and also I fill the thermos with hot water and pre-heat the thermos the coffee stays hot a little longer...

   BTW I remember one connisuer (sp??)of fine coffee with a recipe something like this:

   1.Take 1 cup coffee.

   2.About 1qt. of cold water

   3.mis together and let sit in refrigerator for about 24 hrs.

   4.Filter the grounds out

   5. Use the resulting mixture as an instant coffee concentrate. This eliminates the oils (that makes the coffee bitter)that you usually get when you normally brew it.......I don't know...I've never tried it....might not taste like the coffee I've learned to love....LOL

           ( :>) Norm.                      

[Norm]

  Right on Ed..the only garbage grinders we ever had squealed and grunted ...no wastebaskets...most wrappers were paper that you just threw in the fire (always a fire going ...if not for heat...to cook with)Mom...Grandma...Aunts always a fire goin' somewhere cooking and canning.

  A shedful of (free)corncobs from the local feed and grain store, fueled Grandma's cookstove in the summer.

        ( :>) Norm.

[finnsawyer]

So, we stop paying a salary to politicians, so everyone's a volunteer.  Then only the rich can run for office, and I don't need to tell you who they're looking out for.  It'd be a lot more of what we got now.  Look at the record.  History shows that everything government does is designed to control the little man.  Why do you think they want to do away with the constitution?

[finnsawyer]

While fusion would be nice and may become feasible, I'd like to point out the hydrogen used in fuel cells is not destroyed, but is returned to the environment and so will still be available for fusion.  Actually it's the deuterium (heavy) form that is used for fusion on earth (unlike the sun), which is only a small fraction of the hydrogen and is left over from the big bang.  This form is not produced in stars, which means, in a sense, that fusion reactors will be using a type of fossil fuel.

[finnsawyer]

Let's see: 1.2kw times 1/20 hr times 10 cents equals 0.6 cents.  O. K. Shut off the coffee maker and reheat the coffee later in the mickeywave.  That's what I do.  Let's not lose sight of the forest because of the trees.

[finnsawyer]

So, I come back to my proposal for collecting the sun's energy in space and beaming it to earth in a coherent form (microwaves).  We go around and around.  Watch what Haliburton does.  When they go into space....

[JW]

"converted to whatever?" Basically p0lizei Im reffering to water, isnt deuterium simply water with an extra neutron? aside from fossil fuel sources, last I checked hydgrogen is derived from water, really, whats the difference in pointing out that conversion to dueterium is easyier and cheaper than production of H2, atleast energy wise. Fin if you think we will get 100% of the water back, from a hydrogen economy you are sorely mistaken, percentages of h2 are lost to heat in the process, at best you'll get back 80% of the hygrogen from electroliss. Let alone where in the bioshpere it may accumilate where we dont want it too, such as the upper atmosphere, from proposed venting of H2, besides why should anyone care, they wont figure it out till after were all long gone anyway. The true results from such a scenario wont be truely known for hundereds of years, we are definitly not err-ing on the side of caution, just greedily trying to stuff our faces with energy at whatever the short term costs, with no introspection... These things that were setting in motion affect many future generations "who are we" to say its a safe bet.. At least Fusion is worth sacraficing for, since it can potentally return millions of times the energy of a fuelcell for a given quantity of H2( convert it the way you like), its what I would do for my great,great,great, grandchildren, instead of leaving them a pitifully, inherently wastefull, fuel cell based energy infrostructure. We should invest much more in Fusion, since its potentally a long term solution.

JW

 

[JW]

I think its cool that there is such intense discussion about this topic, ask most people about this, and they really can't give a personal opinion either way Hats off to those, for or against, at least you know where you stand, and that you are thinking..

JW

[p0lizei]

I'm not certainly not against hydrogen, though I'm not emphatically for it, either.  Most of what has been posted in reference to hydrogen on here has been misinformation, and that is detrimental to progress, hence my responses.  I'm actually for biofuel.

[tecker]

 Can you say truthfully that you have any experience with using hydrogen in any form .

If you can then relate those experiences . If you don't then your links and references

don't fit any model that forwards the use of alternatives to oil ,natural gas or grid

 electrical living . You won't get much other than practical experience from myself or

others from this forum because we're all busy making devices to meet our alternative goals. I'm trying to find a safe process to make and use the product of water electrolysis I have only one .Make only what you can use (Browns gas bs) and the storing part is better left to those with the control precesses and this means money any way you slice it  

[finnsawyer]

The only way the hydrogen atoms will be lost is if they escape into space and hence leave the earth's environment.  In reality it's more likely the hydrogen will react with oxygen at high altitudes form water and hence be returned for re use.  Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that contains a proton and a neutron.  It can be fused directly into helium, which is why it was so handy for the H-bomb.  As I mentioned it is believed that the entire stock of deuterium was produced by the big bang.  As far as I know there is no way, or at least no energy efficient way, to produce deuterium from the normal hydrogen atom, although one can't rule out the possibility of neutron capture.  It doesn't seem to happen in nature.

I really don't see the point in worrying where the energy comes from.  We can always fall back on solar and capture some of the energy that is whizzing by the Earth 24/7.  I guess we should be more concerned about effects on the environment.  Hydrogen in use would be benign, but in production might not be.

Nuclear fusion would last a long time based on current energy use.  But who is to say energy usage might not sky rocket as well.  Anyway it's a dream right now just like a practical fuel cell

[skravlinge]

I did not learn much from this thread, but I had fun thank you all!

[nicodemus]

Joe, as others have stated the problem is getting usable hydrogen at low cost.  Contrary to other posts as well, H2 in the atmosphere isn't going to cause global warming.  The most obvious solution to obtaining hydrogen is from water.  However, forget conventional electrolysis, which consumes a lot of power.  The answer is to obtain hydrogen/oxygen gas by electrical resonance of water.  The method was brought to light in the early eighties by the inventor Stanley Meyer.  Unfortunately he is now dead (Speculated that he was poisoned).  What he did was to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas by using a series electrical resonant circuit.  The idea of resonance in electricity was first brought to light by Nicola Tesla.  Effectively, an ideal tuned resonant circuit does not use any power.  They contain a resistance in series with an inductor and a capacitor.  What Stan Meyer did was make a water capacitor.  The dielectric between the positive and negative plates of the capacitor was water.  Water has a dielectric breakdown of around 2000volts per mm.  So what he did what make sure the plates were spaced around a 1mm apart.  He pulsed a high frequency, high voltage signal through the resonant circuit.  Around 12kV at around 20kHz.  (This can be done by an ordinary car battery with the right electronics and a car ignition coil).  Hydrogen/Oxygen gas would pour off the water capacitors of his device.  If he increased the voltage it would happen more quickly.  It is easily verifiably if you know about such things.  Also the current consumed was very small.  The device used around 60Watts of electricity.  The problem is how to store hydrogen.  You need energy to compress it.  Or do you?  And that is where the future solution lies with Meyers' device.  The future will be one where we generate our own fuel from water on site.  We will need the help of the sun to get our electricity from solar panels or wind/wave generators.  Our fuel can be supplied by hydrogen, but the only viable manner I have seen so far is Meyer's device.  The future will be smaller rotary engines in our cars too, and not hulking V8s that the US seem to think they have the right to drive.  Energy as it were, would become very cheap.  The hydrogen age is just around the corner.