Connect with us

Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by ZHEN, Jul 18, 2004.

  1. ZHEN

    ZHEN Guest

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

    H2O2 + H2O + Na -> H2 + NaOH + H2O2
     
  2. David Harper

    David Harper Guest

    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$.
     
  3. ZHEN

    ZHEN Guest

    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.
     
  4. Guest


    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
     
  5. 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:

    Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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
     
  8. David Harper

    David Harper Guest

    (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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. Bob Eldred

    Bob Eldred Guest

    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
     
  11. 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:

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

    David Harper Guest

    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.
    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
     
  13. 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:

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

    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.
    Best, Dan.
     
  15. ....
    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.
     
  16. Bob Eldred

    Bob Eldred Guest

    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
     
  17. 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:

    Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. I know, you are preaching to the choir. :)
    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 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!
    <Try not to top post>
    Best, Dan.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-