Searching \ for '[OT]: Hydrogen - making,storage,burning' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=hydrogen+makingstorageburning
Search entire site for: 'Hydrogen - making,storage,burning'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Hydrogen - making,storage,burning'
2001\01\23@093737 by John Walshe

flavicon
face
Hi Guys,
   This is waaaaay off topic, but I figure with the wide experiences of the
people here, someone will have some knowledge to impart.
I'm toying with the idea of making , storing and subsequently burning
hydrogen for heating purposes. Does anyone have any good links/comments re
this type of subject.
Of course I would be using pics to control whatever processes (level
control,pressure,flow etc) if anything viable comes from this interest.

Your comments please

John

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\01\23@112544 by James Paul

flavicon
face
John,

Whatever methods of making, storing and burning hydrogen you choose,
I'd triple up on the processors so as to provide redunduncy because
hydrogen is very unforgiving when ignited.  It burn, very rapidly.
Without some sort of fail safe, I believe you're just asking for
trouble.  I'm not saying you're not capable, but just be very very
careful, and make ALL your control systems redundunt.  You don't
want your house to burn down or be blown up due to some non behaving
hydrogen.

                                           Regards,

                                             Jim



On Tue, 23 January 2001, John Walshe wrote:

{Quote hidden}

spam_OUTjimTakeThisOuTspamjpes.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\01\23@162840 by jamesnewton

face picon face
Sadly, there is a reason why Gasoline and Natural gas are the fuels of
choice...

...just a lot safer. Same for alcohol (unless mixed with gas), solar steam
(high pressure, temperature), flywheels (decomposition, bearing failure),
and most electric battery designs (leaking acid, hydrogen production on
short circuit) etc....

Anybody got info on buying crude and cracking it at home?

---
James Newton (PICList Admin +ACM-3)
.....jamesnewton+AEA-piclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\01\23@182721 by Kevin Maciunas

flavicon
picon face
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:26:41 -0800 James Paul <James Paul <jimspamKILLspamJPES.COM>> wrote:

>  John,
>
>  Whatever methods of making, storing and burning hydrogen you choose,
>  I'd triple up on the processors so as to provide redunduncy because
>  hydrogen is very unforgiving when ignited.  It burn, very rapidly.
>  Without some sort of fail safe, I believe you're just asking for
>  trouble.  I'm not saying you're not capable, but just be very very
>  careful, and make ALL your control systems redundunt.  You don't
>  want your house to burn down or be blown up due to some non behaving
>  hydrogen.
>
>                                             Regards,
>
>                                               Jim
Just on this issue of redundancy, "tripling" the processors does NOTHING. The general issue is we need to get a bunch of processors to reach
concensus about an event (ie "open the valve").  If we wish to allow "k"
failures in the system and have the system still work safely, the number of
processors we need is 3k+1.  This is a "you-can't-dodge-it" result from
information theory.  The best exposition of this is in an IEEE computer
issue from the early 1990's - can't locate it right now, old age has that
effect :-).

The interested reader is encouraged to think about the NASA Space Shuttle,
which is supposed to be fail-safe, fail-safe, fail-operational.  That is,
k=3.  They have 5 processors.  OOPS.

Cheers
/Kevin

--
Kevin J. Maciunas              Net: .....kevinKILLspamspam.....cs.adelaide.edu.au
Dept. of Computer Science      Ph : +61 8 8303 5845
University of Adelaide         Fax: +61 8 8303 4366
Adelaide 5005 SOUTH AUSTRALIA  Web: http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~kevin

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\01\23@184307 by Alice Campbell

flavicon
face
go for ethanol/methanol.  use car radiator for distillation,
pic for temperature and flow regulation.  get your neighbors
yard fruit for feedstock.  you dont want to crack your own
crude, the air board, water board, water quality control
board, epa, and your local sewer district will be waiting in
your driveway.  you can claim to be a winery of some kind.

alice

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2001\01\23@184849 by Tony Goetz

picon face
No matter how many processors you have, they'll all make the wrong choice if
you load the same program onto them. NASA's computers on the space shuttle
have triple redundancy (or better), but one of the computers' programs was
written by a different company than the rest. That way the same flaw won't
show up in all. That doesn't mean that they will always make the right
choice, but it's an improvement. Of course, this doesn't take into
consideration the fact that the inputs may have problems, but on a software
level this seems like a good idea.

-Tony



<< Just on this issue of redundancy, "tripling" the processors does NOTHING.
The general issue is we need to get a bunch of processors to reach
concensus about an event (ie "open the valve").  If we wish to allow "k"
failures in the system and have the system still work safely, the number of
processors we need is 3k+1.  This is a "you-can't-dodge-it" result from
information theory.  The best exposition of this is in an IEEE computer
issue from the early 1990's - can't locate it right now, old age has that
effect :-).

The interested reader is encouraged to think about the NASA Space Shuttle,
which is supposed to be fail-safe, fail-safe, fail-operational.  That is,
k=3.  They have 5 processors.  OOPS.
 >>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\01\24@082804 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
John Walshe wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>     This is waaaaay off topic, but I figure with the wide experiences of the
> people here, someone will have some knowledge to impart.
> I'm toying with the idea of making , storing and subsequently burning
> hydrogen for heating purposes. Does anyone have any good links/comments re
> this type of subject.
> Of course I would be using pics to control whatever processes (level
> control,pressure,flow etc) if anything viable comes from this interest.
>
> Your comments please
>
> John

Hi John, I've made plenty of hydrogen in the past,
mainly as a child and teenager. It is quite safe
if you treat it with respect.

I had an article about a scientist called Yul Brown,
he defected from Russia or somewhere in the '70s
and settled in Australia. He proved that you can
generate the gases safely mixed as oxygen-hydrogen,
store them safely (still mixed) under pressure and
then use them straight from the bottle.

He showed the mixture would weld like a dream,
even rusty metals and corroded aluminium. Very
impressive, and with no UV too! I plan on building
a oxy-hyd welder soon, with no mixture control
needed you just change nozzle size and turn one
tap to get different flame sizes. Absolutely perfect
for alloys, surprised there are not many commercial
units about. He was very much against the
"conspiracies" of the oil companies and had been
persecuted. He was also convinced that this fuel
is very safe and much of the safety issues are
lies propagated by the oil cartels, who he said
use their power to make it almost impossible to
finish commercial hydrogen fueled products.

My advice is to treat it with respect, and mainly
keep gas volumes very low, ie, minimum gas volume
in the electrolyser and use very thin lines.

Safe flashback arresters can be made with "bubbling
jars" so gas transfers but a flame won't.

If you keep your gas volumes small and your lines
thin a flash will only detonate a very small
amount of fuel and make a "pop" and blow your
release cap off.

It is feasible to use an electric welder transformer
to power the elctrolyser cell and generate enough
gas to weld, in real time. This is the system I
will build, and I remember the pictures of his setup.
It was a 1977 Electronic Australia magazine, if you
could search for that somehow. :o)

-Roman

PS. Re heating, he also pioneered a safe flameless
catalytic hydrogen heater that was highly efficient.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\01\24@095248 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Roman,

This is really fascinating.  I suppose if the oxy-hydrogen is held in a big
cool steel tank, and the tank is bolted to something that won't fall over,
it would be sorta safe.  Heaven help us if that tank was in a car wreck and
was ruptured.

In a welder, it seems like the potential of flashback would cry out for some
redundant system or other.  I'd feel a lot safer mixing the two gases at the
nozzle!  The idea of using an old welder transformer and making gas in
realtime is really intruguing. I suppose in this case you would not need a
big explosive tank of hydrogen, just a small line running from your
electrolysis unit to your bubbler, and your tubing.  If you don't want
anything to explode, don't keep much of it around!

Any way you could dig up any info on this Yul Brown character?

When you made hydrogen, what were you using for electrodes?  Storage?  Just
blowing up balloons and popping them with a lit punk?  or storing it
somehow?

-- Lawrence Lile


{Original Message removed}

2001\01\24@102704 by Sergio Picado

flavicon
face
       This Yul Brown guy (I'll bet he's referred to as the late Mr. Brown) stored
the oxygen and hydrogen mixture under pressure?!

       Wow... let see... you got the fuel and the oxidizer under high pressure
mixed together in the same container... only the ignition source missing.
Company motto: "Safety features?  We don't need no stinking safety
features".




{Original Message removed}

2001\01\24@104907 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Lawrence Lile wrote:
>
> Roman,
>
> This is really fascinating.  I suppose if the oxy-hydrogen is held in a big
> cool steel tank, and the tank is bolted to something that won't fall over,
> it would be sorta safe.  Heaven help us if that tank was in a car wreck and
> was ruptured.


He was simply compressing it and storing in a conventional
gas tank with conventional technology. This is a big
difference to tradional (pure) hydrogen storage, where
the hydrogen must be absorbed onto expensive metallic
particles in the pressure tank (similar to acetylene).
Part of the reason for his controversy was his claim
that the gases were safer to store and handle mixed.

I do know that pure oxygen is dangerous, and obviously
pure hydrogen it also. He spent his whole life on his
research so I assume he knew what he was talking about.


> In a welder, it seems like the potential of flashback would cry out for some
> redundant system or other.  I'd feel a lot safer mixing the two gases at the
> nozzle!

Using low gas volumes, flashback arresters and blowoff
valves is all established and very safe technology.
If only a half-cup of gas detonates it is similar
to a firecracker, nothing dangerous. I used to do
this all the time! Good design keeps all gas cavities
to a minimum, and it should be hard to ignite gases
inside a pressure tank. The guy had never experienced
an unwanted explosion.


> The idea of using an old welder transformer and making gas in
> realtime is really intruguing. I suppose in this case you would not need a
> big explosive tank of hydrogen, just a small line running from your
> electrolysis unit to your bubbler, and your tubing.  If you don't want
> anything to explode, don't keep much of it around!

His design was very simple, a pressure regulator switch
controlled the power to the transformer, so it generated
the gas real-time on demand. Minimum gas was kept in the
system.

>
>  Any way you could dig up any info on this Yul Brown character?

Someone at Electronics Australia may have back archives
of the article, but I am sure if you find some "hydrogen
nerds" on the net they will be aware of his work, and
probably other and better work! This has been one of my
"rainy day" projects for about 10 years now. One day I will
find a suitable transformer cheap and it will start.
Aluminium micro-welding here i come! :o)


> When you made hydrogen, what were you using for electrodes?  Storage?  Just
> blowing up balloons and popping them with a lit punk?  or storing it
> somehow?

As a science keen 12 year old I used what I had, a 10 amp
car battery charger and a cell made from a glass jar
with two carbon electrodes from D cell batteries. Very
low tech, used to bubble the gas into detergent,
then ignite the froth with a match, very nice explosions
and flame fronts. Or bubble store in an inverted jar
underwater then screw the lid on with a 1/2 inch of
water and keep the jar inverted for long term storage.
I didn't have a pressure pump (thank goodness!!)

Many of those jars ended up with spark plugs in them
and were merrily detonated for my (and my friends)
amusement. Ahhh.. simple childish joys come from an
unlimited supply of explosive material! All 12 year
olds should have one.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\01\24@110024 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>This has been one of my
>"rainy day" projects for about 10 years now.
>One day I will find a suitable transformer
>cheap and it will start.
>Aluminium micro-welding here i come! :o)

This what comes of living in Aus, it doesn't rain so these projects never get
done...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\01\24@124008 by Don Hyde

flavicon
face
My friends and I used an even lower-tech device consisting of crumpled-up
aluminum foil in a coke bottle filled with a strong lye solution.
Collection was via a balloon streched across the mouth of the bottle, and
ignition from a flame on the end of a stick.  The sodium from the lye
colored the flames of the explosion so that at night you got a nice bright
yellow flash.

Note: This was in the South (Alabama to be exact), where cokes come in many
flavors such as Pepsi and Mountain Dew.  Whatever the flavor, if it was cold
and fizzy and came in a bottle, it was either a coke or a beer, and beer was
illegal.

SNIP

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\01\24@131351 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Roman -

> amusement. Ahhh.. simple childish joys come from an
> unlimited supply of explosive material! All 12 year
> olds should have one.

It's a wonder we survived teenhood.  I usually only toyed with gasoline and
gunpowder (often toghether!)

Drop on by and you can borrow my 200 amp arc welder!  We'll just add a big
200 amp diode ( I have a few around to use for doorstops etc. )  and a
coupla carbon brushes from a 200 horsepower DC motor, and viola!

I really could USE a gas welder, BTW.  I usually use a MIG welder, and I
always liked gas better.

-- Lawrence Lile


{Original Message removed}

2001\01\24@170600 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Sergio Picado wrote:
>stored
>the oxygen and hydrogen mixture under pressure?!
>
>        Wow... let see... you got the fuel and the oxidizer under high pressure
>mixed together in the same container... only the ignition source missing.

I believe it is safe with regard to detonation.
Compare to dynamite sealed in a metallic container, without igniter.
The pressure and safety utilities mentioned by Roman should make it pretty safe.

Rupture of the container due to high pressure or (if used in a vessel) external mechanic stresses is another issue...

For more on Yul Brown, see:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yul+Brown%22

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\01\24@173716 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>
>For more on Yul Brown, see:
>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yul+Brown%22

Brown of "Brown's gas" fame.
Hoax-o-matic.


--
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\01\24@182807 by Anthony Bussan

flavicon
face
The risk would also increase with the rate that the tank was pressurized.
Think diesel engine, no spark needed.  With this near perfect ratio of
fuel/oxygen the compression rate wouldn't have to be too high to see a nice
mushroom cloud.

Tony




{Original Message removed}

2001\01\25@052831 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:
>
> >
> >For more on Yul Brown, see:
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yul+Brown%22
>
> Brown of "Brown's gas" fame.
> Hoax-o-matic.


Ha ha! A hoax? So you're saying oxygen and hydrogen
don't burn and release energy? :o)

There may be a certain amount of hype surrounding
this man but I believe that hydrogen/oxygen mix
has it's place as a fuel source, *especially* for
welding.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@055155 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Ha ha! A hoax? So you're saying oxygen and hydrogen
>don't burn and release energy? :o)

>There may be a certain amount of hype surrounding
>this man but I believe that hydrogen/oxygen mix
>has it's place as a fuel source, *especially* for
>welding.

Obviously he never had the teacher plunge a burning taper into a jar of the
mixed gases at secondary school! That was quite a demonstration of how volatile
the mixture is once ignited.

I believe another trick is to fill a softdrink bottle with water so it is brim
full. Now insert an old spark plug into the top and invert the bottle so the
sparkplug is at the bottom. Connect the spark plug to an ac or dc current
source, allowing the excess water pressure to bleed past the sparkplug as the
gas pressure build up in the bottle. When the bottle is empty of water take it
out into a suitable field and secure the sparkplug to a suitable stable item so
the bottle is in a vertical position with sparkplug at bottom. Now stand well
back and allow a suitable high voltage source to make a spark jump the gap in
the sparkplug. You now have a testjig for those rocket altimeter projects.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@091818 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Roman Sez:
> And who needs a diode? AC is fine thanks. :o)

Ya, if you are mixing the gasses, you don't have to keep them separate by
having a positive and negative electrode - just dump juice into the water!


-- Lawrence Lile

{Original Message removed}

2001\01\25@092701 by Sergio Picado

flavicon
face
       Actually I was thinking just what would happen if the gases ignited while
still in the container.  I know that energy would be released as the
hydrogen and oxygen combined, but once it combined the volume would be
drastically reduced since it went from gas to liquid water (or water vapor)
which would take up less space.  Would it be an explosion first then
immediately followed by an implosion?



{Original Message removed}

2001\01\25@105723 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 09:25 PM 1/25/01 +1100, Roman Black wrote:
>David VanHorn wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >For more on Yul Brown, see:
> > >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yul+Brown%22
> >
> > Brown of "Brown's gas" fame.
> > Hoax-o-matic.
>
>
>Ha ha! A hoax? So you're saying oxygen and hydrogen
>don't burn and release energy? :o)

Obviously not.

However, it's over-hyped, and there seem to be some 'free energy' claims.

--
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@134117 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Hmmm:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yul+Brown%22

"Brown's gas is a new state of matter"  (Guffaw)
"Brown's gas is a new state of water" (I.e. ice, water, steam and this
tuff  - ???)
"Brown's gas implodes rather than explodes"  (try putting a lit punk into a
mix of H2 O2 and see if you think it implodes???)
"Brown could visualize molecular interactions not predicted by quantum
mechanics"  -- (what is he, psychic????)
"Brown's gas will always get hot enough to melt the material at
and..."  ---??? "with a blue flame"  (which has a fixed and predictable
black body temperature)
"Brown's gas is safe and will not explode even when compressed"  (Then how
come you can light it with a spark?)
"Imploding Brown's gas will produce a perfect vacuum with no contaminants"
(what about the water, which would immediately boil in a vaccum
contaminating it?)

This really does look like a hoax to me too.
Why can't the guy just stick to facts? It was probably a great idea before
he started saying it would save the world and revolutionize quantum physics!

-- Lawrence Lile

{Original Message removed}

2001\01\25@140649 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
I am not an expert on this but in general hydrogen gas is bad news, except
in rockets and welding devices and fuel cells, so far. It diffuses
(including through metal walls and glass), passes valves that appear to be
closed as if they would be open, is autoexplosive when mixed with air at
certain concentrations and in presence of certain catalysts (like
cigarette ashes - even when cold ! - or so I'm told).

Making hydrogen is easy. Too easy. Dump any metal in a strong acid and you
get hydrogen gas bubbling up. Once upon a time they used to fill hydrogen
balloons by dumping Zinc (tin) filings into H2SO4 I think. Charge a lead
acid battery and you get hydrogen gas. Build a proper electrolysis cell
and you get hydrogen. Crack hydrocarbons hard enough and you get hydrogen.

Burning it is another thing. The flame temperature is very high and it
produces nitrogen oxides and other nasty substances in the flame when
burned in air. The materials for the furnace/engine/etc need to be able to
cope with the high temperatures.

Most efforts for alternate fuel go towards methanol. Methanol can be
separated into hydrogen and carbon dioxide in a catalytical process. This
is used by some recent experimental cars with fuel cells. Methanol can be
stored without problems and it can be produced from natural sources (like
wood). Its flame temperature is tolerable for common materials. It is not
really dangerous (not anymore than other liquid fuels), although poisonous
to people if ingested. Model aircraft engine fuel is mostly methanol fyi
(70+5).

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@140659 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>Anybody got info on buying crude and cracking it at home?

<G> This is real easy. For a start use the moonshine still to distill off
the volatile parts then use a modified still (which is actually a crude
cracking column if run hot enough under controlled conditions). 1915 era
technical dictionaries/lexicons hold information on this.

I think that proper modern cracking uses some rather exotic catalysts and
the process details are very proprietary. They also often do things like
vacuum pressurization and nitrogen pressurization (and even steam
pressurization) of the systems to prevent fireworks.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@144314 by Ian Hynes

flavicon
face
Hi Roman and others,

I remember reading that article in a library copy of EA a long while
back. I think it was two articles about Yul Brown and his "water gas".
His scheme worked OK but I'm pretty sure it relied on arrestors to
suppress flash backs. I seem to recall a TV programme that showed his
welding set up in action. I think the programme said he'd moved from
Australia to an American university. The EA article said he was in the
process (ie late 1970's) of patenting the water-gas technology.

The rate of electrolytic breakdown is limited by diffusion at the
electrode/electrolyte interface. It's speeded up by a high electric
field to be sure, but if you planned to use a BIG current, like from a
200A welder, you'd need a humungous electrode surface area. Welders
use a pretty low voltage, so the effective resistance at the
electrode/electrolyte interface would limit the amount of current you
could pull and hence the rate of H2 production. So you'd have to wait
a helluvalong time before you got enough to use in, say, a home
heating application.

Ian

Roman Black wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@150418 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>
>This really does look like a hoax to me too.
>Why can't the guy just stick to facts? It was probably a great idea before
>he started saying it would save the world and revolutionize quantum physics!

Exactly.
BTW, they mention that it tends to oxidize when used to weld.
No surprise there, I guess, with the extra O floating around in the mix.


--
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@154806 by Don Hyde

flavicon
face
No implosion.  PV = nRT, as you might recall from a high-school physics
class.  Since energy (quit a bit) is being released, T goes up (like a
couple thousand degrees), even though two H2 molecules have combined with
one O2 molecule to produce only two H2O molecules, the total PV is much
larger due to the increase in T.  That's spelled Kaboom.  You do NOT get
cold liquid water.  You get HOT steam.

> {Original Message removed}

2001\01\25@180833 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
   It was probably a great idea before he started saying it would save the
   world and revolutionize quantum physics!

It wasn't a great idea to start with.  Gaseous hydrogen (or even liquid
hydrogen) has serious energy density problems (BTUs/liter or whatever);
that's why hydrogen-power advocates are always going on about esoteric
metal hydride schemes.  Adding oxygen as well certainly doesn't help with
the density issues, and does horrible things to the safety aspects.

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@192212 by William Jacobs

flavicon
face
Has anyone done the math on this?  Other than a bang, would not the
electric used as produce 3414 btu / KWh.  Is that not more heat than
would come from the combustion of the gas?

bill jacobs

Sergio Picado wrote:
>
>         Actually I was thinking just what would happen if the gases ignited while
> still in the container.  I know that energy would be released as the
> hydrogen and oxygen combined, but once it combined the volume would be
> drastically reduced since it went from gas to liquid water (or water vapor)
> which would take up less space.  Would it be an explosion first then
> immediately followed by an implosion?
>
> {Original Message removed}

2001\01\25@192703 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 07:22 PM 1/25/01 -0500, William Jacobs wrote:
>Has anyone done the math on this?  Other than a bang, would not the
>electric used as produce 3414 btu / KWh.  Is that not more heat than
>would come from the combustion of the gas?

So far, Bush hasn't repealed conservation of energy. :)

--
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\25@205318 by miked

flavicon
face
> Hi Guys,
>     This is waaaaay off topic, but I figure with the wide experiences of the
> people here, someone will have some knowledge to impart. I'm toying with the
> idea of making , storing and subsequently burning hydrogen for heating
> purposes. Does anyone have any good links/comments re this type of subject. Of
> course I would be using pics to control whatever processes (level
> control,pressure,flow etc) if anything viable comes from this interest.
>
> Your comments please
>
> John
>
I remember seeing a news story years ago about an 80 year old
farmer/junk collector who had not been connected to any utilities for 20
years. He used a wind powered generator/battery system to break down
water and used the hydrogen to run his gas appliances.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\26@050150 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>The rate of electrolytic breakdown is limited by diffusion at the
>electrode/electrolyte interface. It's speeded up by a high electric
>field to be sure, but if you planned to use a BIG current, like from a
>200A welder, you'd need a humungous electrode surface area. Welders
>use a pretty low voltage, so the effective resistance at the
>electrode/electrolyte interface would limit the amount of current you
>could pull and hence the rate of H2 production. So you'd have to wait
>a helluvalong time before you got enough to use in, say, a home
>heating application.

I suspect the biggest problem whatever current you use will be the collection of
bubbles on the electrodes before they float to the top of the liquid. I do
remember doing the experiment at school using the fancy 2 column apparatus so
you could see that there was twice the volume of hydrogen as there was oxygen,
but cannot recollect if bubbles collected on the electrodes. It may have been a
case of using a low enough current that this was not a problem anyway.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\01\26@050357 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>This really does look like a hoax to me too.
>Why can't the guy just stick to facts? It was probably a great idea before
>he started saying it would save the world and revolutionize quantum physics!

I don't think it is a hoax, just a lack of understanding of basic physics, and
possibly equipment that could not go to high enough limits to test some of the
statements e.g. explosion at high gas pressure.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\01\26@051855 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Sergio Picado wrote:
>
>         Actually I was thinking just what would happen if the gases ignited while
> still in the container.  I know that energy would be released as the
> hydrogen and oxygen combined, but once it combined the volume would be
> drastically reduced since it went from gas to liquid water (or water vapor)
> which would take up less space.  Would it be an explosion first then
> immediately followed by an implosion?


       Don't take the implosion stuff too literally.
Mine used to blow the lid off the jar with quite a bit
of force, when the mixture is ignited it releases a LOT
of energy very quickly.

       The good news is that the entire chamber
is mainly water, which is inert and safe. Only the
small amount of gas on top will detonate.

       If you could fill a chamber with the gas and
burn it SLOWLY you would eventually end up with low
pressure, but would not be a vacuum as the water would
evoporate to a vapour as it does in low pressure
chamber. :o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu


2001\01\26@053203 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:
>
> At 09:25 PM 1/25/01 +1100, Roman Black wrote:
> >David VanHorn wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >For more on Yul Brown, see:
> > > >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yul+Brown%22
> > >
> > > Brown of "Brown's gas" fame.
> > > Hoax-o-matic.
> >
> >
> >Ha ha! A hoax? So you're saying oxygen and hydrogen
> >don't burn and release energy? :o)
>
> Obviously not.
>
> However, it's over-hyped, and there seem to be some 'free energy' claims.


Sure I agree that hydrogen for fuel is often over-hyped,
as is solar for that matter. But all things have their
uses. I would prefer to weld aluminium or stainless
steel with hydrogen/oxygen mix than any of the
"standard" methods that people are using. :o)

To my limited knowlege I have never seen Mr Brown
claim free energy or "over unity" effects, claims
like that as always made by the feel-good hippy
energy crowd that have too much excitement and
not enough training.

-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\01\26@064722 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
William Jacobs wrote:
>
> Has anyone done the math on this?  Other than a bang, would not the
> electric used as produce 3414 btu / KWh.  Is that not more heat than
> would come from the combustion of the gas?

Electrolysis cells normally run fairly hot. The wasted
energy (not used to electrolyse the water) produces
the heat.

Efficiencies can get fairly high with a well designed
cell but NOT "over unity" as some whackos proclaim.

In fairness to Mr Brown, in the article I read he
was extremely conservative in his claims, he made no
claims of "Browns Gas" or "free energy", simply
he wanted to impress the point that the gases
could be produced togther safely and used for heating
and welding safely, obviously this doesn't use oxygen
from the air and doesn't cause any of the pollution
issues that burning pure hydrogen in the air does.

Having a very hot flame that steam cleans the work
as it welds is smart idea!

I had never heard any whacko claims for hydrogen
until a couple of days ago... :o)

-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu


2001\01\26@101315 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Hey, Roman, take it easy on us old hippies!

-- Lawrence Lile, Who always had a sound backing in physics behind anything
he ever claimed when he worked as an energy conservation auditor

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu


2001\01\26@135619 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>Would it be an explosion first then
>immediately followed by an implosion?

The implosion will not happen because the energy put into the separation
of H2 and O2 will be released as heat and the resulting water emerges as
superheated steam. This is hot enough to cut steel like butter (ever seen
welding at work ?).

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu



'[OT]: Hydrogen - making,storage,burning'
2001\02\05@011200 by Gennette, Bruce
flavicon
face
Nothing - repeat *NOTHING* holds the tiny, teeny tiny hydrogen molecules for
any length of time, they see steel tanks the same way water sees canvas
water bags - most will stay inside for a while, but after a time it'll all
be gone.  Even glass lined tanks are just a sieve to hydrogen molecules.

*DO NOT* attempt long term storage and make *DARN SURE* your storage area is
ventilated.

Bye.

> {Original Message removed}

2001\02\05@070253 by Russell McMahon

picon face
> Nothing - repeat *NOTHING* holds the tiny, teeny tiny hydrogen molecules
for
> any length of time, they see steel tanks the same way water sees canvas
> water bags - most will stay inside for a while, but after a time it'll all
> be gone.  Even glass lined tanks are just a sieve to hydrogen molecules.
>
> *DO NOT* attempt long term storage and make *DARN SURE* your storage area
is
> ventilated.


Storage in metal hydrides is somewhat effective (still not totally) as there
is less pressure involved.for a given storage volume and quantity of gas.
Can get dangerous if you don't know what you are doing (or if you do) I'm
told.

When used in a lifting balloon (aka Hindenberg) the gas is (was) sampled
regularly to track diffusion of air into the Hydrogen as the Hydrogen
diffuses out - or else.



RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2001 , 2002 only
- Today
- New search...