hydrogen for nothing

On Feb 20, 12:57 pm, " > wrote:

> naive crap

Namecalling isn't the same as research into facts. Many people
have spent many years trying many ways to create "free" power. None of
them have succeeded. None of them have become rich. "Those who ignore
history are doomed to repeat it." Those who don't read very widely
will make all the same mistakes, and I see a few people in this thread
trying to do just that. Reinventing the wheel. A wheel that doesn't
turn.
Without some fabulous new process, hydrogen will be both costly
to generate and difficult to store. We could use nuclear power to make
it, but we'd still have a storage problem. Perhaps someone will come
up with a means of combining it with some other component to store it
as a liquid or solid, with appropriate technology to release it as
required.
Electric cars with efficient batteries make more sense at this
point.

Water injection was used during the WWII era in aircraft engines
to control combustion temperatures and therefore pressure and
detonation. It did nothing for mileage. Converting water to vapor
absorbs energy, energy that comes from the combustion. If anything, it
will reduce mileage somewhat. See http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/WaterInjection.html

Steam engines such as those used on old locomotives injected the
exhausted steam into the firebox to generate a more powerful draft and
thereby a hotter fire. Water injection, circa 1880. Not new technology
at all. Some thought that the steam was breaking down into hydrogen
and water and reburning to make that hotter fire, but if we really
could get that sort of thing going we could cut off the other fuel and
run on the steam alone, right? Wouldn't we have discovered that a
hundred years ago?
Naive, indeed. Nothing is free and never will be. Even the
gas we burn requires considerable energy to make it from crude.

Dan

Fred Kasner wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> In article >, The Ghost In The
>> Machine > writes:
>>
>>> In sci.physics,
>>> >
>>> wrote
>>> on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:27:42 GMT
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> In article >, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
>>>> \(dlzc\)" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear mmeron:
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>>> > writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" > wrote
>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>> news >>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There will have to be better answers for hydrogen
>>>>>>> generation before this technology can have a chance
>>>>>>> of contributing to the solution of fuel needs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot generate hydrogen puttin in less energy
>>>>>> than you'll recover later while burning it. This is not
>>>>>> a matter of this or other technology but of basic
>>>>>> conservation laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor correction. You cannot generate hydrogen *via breaking down
>>>>> water*, without putting in more energy than you get out burning it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can strip hydrogen off of hydrocarbons (natural gas) with less
>>>>> energy than you get by burning the hydrogen... which defeats the
>>>>> purpose of hydrogen as a renewable fuel source.
>>>>>
>>>> And, may I add, the amount of energy you'll get burning this
>>>> hydrogen is less than the amount of energy you invested *plus* the
>>>> amount of energy that was present in the hydrocarbon. Energy output
>>>> still lower than energy input, you just used some of the energy of
>>>> the hydrocarbon to offset the external energy input while producing
>>>> the hydrogen.
>>>>
>>>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>>>> | chances are he is doing just the
>>>> same"
>>>
>>> The same could be said for charging batteries.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. Thus batteries are just a storage device, not a primary
>> source. And that's the one possible role for hydrogen, as well,
>> serving as portable storage for energy produced from other sources in
>> large stationary facilities. Only, hydrogen is a bitch to use as
>> storage. Low energy density, large explosive range, problematic with
>> many materials. Proper "packaging" is required and about the best
>> packaging is the one Mother Nature is using, in the form of hydrocarbons.
>>
>>> I frankly
>>> don't know if there's a nice solution to this problem
>>> beyond putting solar cells on one's car's roof (which adds
>>> weight) or simply growing "switch grass" and making one's
>>> own fuel (which is an inefficient method by which one can
>>> utilize solar energy to generate fuel).
>>>
>> Well, there is always the old fashined method of growing grass and
>> feeding it to horses:-) Served manking pretty well over few thousand
>> years.
>>
>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>> | chances are he is doing just the same"
>
>
> High maintenance motive source. Walking has served man better.
> FK
Hi.
There is at least one way to manage Hydrogen storage more easily.
Use the "mars" method of synthesising methane from hydrogen and CO2
Tkes the CO2 out of the atmosphere and makes a fuel that is compatible
with mosr existing natural gas storage and distribution systems.
I think there are some details on a NASA site somewhere.
Cliff Wright.

> wrote in message
...

> So, what do you think the odds are that the amount of energy to
> disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the amount of energy
> obtained by burning hydrogen will change with "searching and meaningful
> dialogue"?

We both know what the energy requirements are. I am a chemist.

"Meaningful dialogue" would indicate that energy requirements are not the
only
issues in play here. Carbon and hydrocarbon based energy production leads
to
increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... I think that will be
disastrous for the
human race in time.

If you want to consider the total cost of energy, reconstruct your
calculations based
on how much it would cost to continue the increasing used of carbon fuels,
but
with the constraint that you must have zero carbon dioxide release back into
the
atmosphere. That is meaningful.

Can you economically recover CO2 and convert it back to hydrocarbons? Sure
you can, but consider the cost, because that is what you are demaning of
hydrogen.

Hydrogen may not be the answer. It might be one of the answers.

"Fred Kasner" > wrote in message news:MA3Dh.77> High
maintenance motive source. Walking has served man better.
> FK

We have disagreed on a number of things over the years, Fred, but I dont
disagree
with you on this.

We have far too much fuel stored in most of our fat asses.

"cliff wright" > wrote in message
...

> There is at least one way to manage Hydrogen storage more easily.
> Use the "mars" method of synthesising methane from hydrogen and CO2
> Tkes the CO2 out of the atmosphere and makes a fuel that is compatible
> with mosr existing natural gas storage and distribution systems.
> I think there are some details on a NASA site somewhere.
> Cliff Wright.

jimp the chimp doesn't like the economics.

In article >, wrote:
>In sci.physics The Ghost In The Machine >
wrote:
>> In sci.physics,
>> >
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:37:05 GMT
>> >:
>> > In article >, The Ghost In The
Machine > writes:
>> >>In sci.physics,
>> >
>> >> wrote
>> >>on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:27:42 GMT
>> >:
>> >>> In article >, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" > writes:
>> >>>>Dear mmeron:
>> >>>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>> In article > ,
>> >>>>> > writes:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"The Ghost In The Machine" >
>> >>>>>>wrote in message
>> >>>>>>news >> >>>>...
>> >>>>>>There will have to be better answers for hydrogen
>> >>>>>>generation before this technology can have a chance
>> >>>>>>of contributing to the solution of fuel needs.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> You cannot generate hydrogen puttin in less energy
>> >>>>> than you'll recover later while burning it. This is not
>> >>>>> a matter of this or other technology but of basic
>> >>>>> conservation laws.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Minor correction. You cannot generate hydrogen *via breaking
>> >>>>down water*, without putting in more energy than you get out
>> >>>>burning it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You can strip hydrogen off of hydrocarbons (natural gas) with
>> >>>>less energy than you get by burning the hydrogen... which defeats
>> >>>>the purpose of hydrogen as a renewable fuel source.
>> >>>>
>> >>> And, may I add, the amount of energy you'll get burning this hydrogen
>> >>> is less than the amount of energy you invested *plus* the amount of
>> >>> energy that was present in the hydrocarbon. Energy output still lower
>> >>> than energy input, you just used some of the energy of the hydrocarbon
>> >>> to offset the external energy input while producing the hydrogen.
>> >>>
>> >>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>> >>> | chances are he is doing just the
same"
>> >>
>> >>The same could be said for charging batteries.
>> >
>> > Exactly. Thus batteries are just a storage device, not a primary
>> > source. And that's the one possible role for hydrogen, as well,
>> > serving as portable storage for energy produced from other sources in
>> > large stationary facilities. Only, hydrogen is a bitch to use as
>> > storage. Low energy density, large explosive range, problematic with
>> > many materials. Proper "packaging" is required and about the best
>> > packaging is the one Mother Nature is using, in the form of
>> > hydrocarbons.
>
>> The energy density is in fact higher, if expressed in J/kg. However,
>> liquid hydrogen is a bitch to fabricate. :-)
>
>> >
>> >> I frankly
>> >>don't know if there's a nice solution to this problem
>> >>beyond putting solar cells on one's car's roof (which adds
>> >>weight) or simply growing "switch grass" and making one's
>> >>own fuel (which is an inefficient method by which one can
>> >>utilize solar energy to generate fuel).
>> >>
>> > Well, there is always the old fashined method of growing grass and
>> > feeding it to horses:-) Served manking pretty well over few thousand
>> > years.
>
>> Until the horses keeled over. (This was an issue during the early part
>> of the automobile revolution.)
>
>Actually the biggest issue at that time was city streets full of
>horse crap and flys.

Horse ****. The crap could drop into diapers. It is the ****
that stinks to high heaven and impossible to clean up. When it
soaks into the dirt, all of a sudden you have 6" of hardpack whose
smell makes you puke.

/BAH


/BAH

In sci.physics,
>
wrote
on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:15:03 GMT
>:
> In sci.physics The Ghost In The Machine > wrote:
>> In sci.physics, Autymn D. C.
>> >
>> wrote
>> on 19 Feb 2007 21:38:26 -0800
>> om>:
>> > On Feb 19, 8:15 am, wrote:
>> >> In sci.physics wrote:
>> >> > > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > > In view of my sig, any further comment will be a waste of time.
>> >>
>> >> > > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>> >> > > | chances are he is doing just the same"
>> >> > I agree. There is no need to take the conversation any further. Everyone
>> >> > in this discussion has opinions, and some have visions. What we dont
>> >> > have is searching and meaningful dialogue.
>> >>
>> >> What some people can't seem to grasp is that neither dialogue nor wishful
>> >> thinking will change the basic laws of nature.
>> >
>> > There are no laws.
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Au...th?rmodunamics
>> > http://groups.google.com/grouops?q=Autymn+reservories
>> >
>
>> Autymn is quite correct here. What we call "laws" are
>> merely the chunking of our observations held together by
>> the glue of whatever theory happens to be popular (and
>> validated) at the time. At best, it is an assumption that
>> the Universe is consistent -- a well-founded assumption
>> from what we've seen thus far in the over three centuries
>> or so of hard science, but an assumption nonetheless.
>
>> Of course, most people will want to know these "laws"
>> regardless, if only as a good starting point. To that
>> end, we publish textbooks. :-)
>
> So, what do you think the odds are that the amount of energy to
> disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the amount of energy
> obtained by burning hydrogen will change with "searching and meaningful
> dialogue"?
>

That actually depends on a number of factors, since the
amount of heat energy feeding into the disassociation is
subject to issues Carnot identified way back (thermodynamic
efficiency, IIRC). Of course, the electropotential --
I think that's what it's called -- of the disassociations
is more or less well known. (There are of course two of
them: one to convert H to H+, one to convert O to O--.
Or something like that; I'm not up on my chemistry.)

And thermodynamics is quite clear: if one expends energy
(in whatever form) to disassociate water into H2 and O2,
then burns the resulting chemicals, one can never get all
the energy back.

A well-crafted experiment will produce the same results
regardless of how many times one runs it (within
observational error). Flowery oratory or searching and
meaningful question won't change that, unless the one
doing the oratory or asking the question breathes on the
experiment and thereby disrupts it. :-) (It appears that
Miller's results, when attempting to work with MMX, were
affected by, among other things, temperature, for example.)

--
#191,
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics, cliff wright
>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:29:39 +1300
>:
> Fred Kasner wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>

[snippage]

>>> Well, there is always the old fashined method of growing grass and
>>> feeding it to horses:-) Served manking pretty well over few thousand
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>>> | chances are he is doing just the same"
>>
>>
>> High maintenance motive source. Walking has served man better.
>> FK
> Hi.
> There is at least one way to manage Hydrogen storage more easily.
> Use the "mars" method of synthesising methane from hydrogen and CO2
> Tkes the CO2 out of the atmosphere and makes a fuel that is compatible
> with mosr existing natural gas storage and distribution systems.
> I think there are some details on a NASA site somewhere.
> Cliff Wright.

And the H2 comes from precisely where?

--
#191,
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Feb 21, 4:06 pm, wrote:
> Namecalling isn't the same as research into facts. Many people
> have spent many years trying many ways to create "free" power. None of
> them have succeeded. None of them have become rich. "Those who ignore
> history are doomed to repeat it." Those who don't read very widely
> will make all the same mistakes, and I see a few people in this thread
> trying to do just that. Reinventing the wheel. A wheel that doesn't
> turn.

Wrong anoth, http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Au...eels+perpetual

> Without some fabulous new process, hydrogen will be both costly
> to generate and difficult to store. We could use nuclear power to make
> it, but we'd still have a storage problem. Perhaps someone will come
> up with a means of combining it with some other component to store it
> as a liquid or solid, with appropriate technology to release it as
> required.

offboard tanks, endles size

> Naive, indeed. Nothing is free and never will be. Even the
> gas we burn requires considerable energy to make it from crude.

Anything is free. You use the word wrong.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22ènèrjy+is+free%22
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+reservories

-Aut