Connect with us

Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?

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

  1. Fred Kasner

    Fred Kasner Guest

    "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

    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.
  2. Bob Eldred

    Bob Eldred Guest

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

    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
  3. 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.
    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.)
    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.
    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.
    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.
  4. 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
    Best, Dan.
  5. Fred Kasner included:
    Is that meant to imply burning hydrogen
    will change the climate to the same extent burning carbon will?

    What about lawn-watering?

    --- Graham Cowan --
    How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet.
    Link if you want it to happen
  6. ....
    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?
  7. ....
    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?
  8. 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?
  9. David Harper

    David Harper Guest

    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.
    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?
    Sure, there are dissapointments in technological breakthroughs.
    Again, this is a social/political problem.
    ....aka "crime"... social problem.
    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.

  10. dan

    dan Guest

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

    David Harper Guest

    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).
    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.
    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.
    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 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"

  12. 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

    Best, Dan.
  13. 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
    Best, Dan.
  14. 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.
    Claiming that gasoline contains more energy than hydrides like lithium
    aluminum hydride are contradictory to scientific fact.

    Jed Checketts
    Searles Lake, CA
  15. Tony Bryer

    Tony Bryer Guest

    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.
  16. 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:

    Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at
  17. ....
    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.
  18. David Harper

    David Harper Guest

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

    Was that unclear?
    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

    When I traced back, the drive behind most of my comments originated
    from your following statement:
    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.
    "The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
    of understanding of supersonic physics."

    ....(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.

  19. ....
    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.
  20. ....

    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
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