Searching \ for '[OT]: hydrogen/aluminium' 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=hydrogenaluminium
Search entire site for: 'hydrogen/aluminium'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: hydrogen/aluminium'
2002\09\18@195758 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > The energy used to make pure Al from the naturally
> > occuring oxide form is heat energy bought generally
> > as coal or natural gas, whatever is mega-cheap in
> > that area and bought under bulk contracts by large
> > corporations. Hence this energy is bought much cheaper
> > than what an end user would pay for household
> > electricity etc. There is a margin that makes aluminium
> > a viable fuel if the alternatives are expensive.
> > What wrecks the idea is the low efficiency of
> > converting the heat energy released on Al oxidation
> > to usable energy.
> > -Roman
>
> Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference? I thought you could only
> reduce Al using electrolysis.

You are correct about the electrolysis.

What he means (I think) is that energy is "stored in Aluminium" by reducing
it from it's oxide and recovered by re-oxidising it (with liberation of
Hydrogen which is then also available for oxidation) BUT that the resultant
heat is not a high grade energy source.

The patent being discussed is intended to overcome the normal problems with
the oxide layer on Aluminium. The rotating drum and spark presumably
disperse fine Aluminium particles into the water where they react to form
Hydrogen. IF it works well this does appear to be a good way of getting the
energy of reaction out in a useful form.

The British mad a torpedo at one stage that was powered by reacting Al with
seawater. I believe there was a mechanical scraper that removed the surface
oxide layer.

Overall TANSTAAFL applies. (There aint no such thing as a free lunch?)
This is just one way of TRYING to exploit the Al / water reaction. It would
be simpler to use Calcium or Sodium or Potassium, and more fun in the latter
two cases :-),  but Al is more available and safer until used.

I have my doubts about the original BMW letter.



       Russell McMahon.

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


2002\09\18@232740 by ards, Justin P

flavicon
face
While on the subject of Al, I remember my 7th grade teacher describing an
explosive mix made by suspending Al in kerosene.  The trick apparently was
to keep the particles suspended.

Does it sound like there is any truth to this?.

My teacher was often accused by my parents for expanding the truth, but I
believe he was more guilty of expanding our minds.  He also discussed
ramjets to 10/11 year olds back in '81.
<snip>

What he means (I think) is that energy is "stored in Aluminium" by reducing
it from it's oxide and recovered by re-oxidising it (with liberation of
Hydrogen which is then also available for oxidation) BUT that the resultant
heat is not a high grade energy source.

<snip>

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


2002\09\19@005254 by Sergio Masci

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell McMahon <apptechspamKILLspamPARADISE.NET.NZ>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: hydrogen/aluminium


{Quote hidden}

only
> > reduce Al using electrolysis.
>
> You are correct about the electrolysis.
>
> What he means (I think) is that energy is "stored in Aluminium" by
reducing
> it from it's oxide and recovered by re-oxidising it (with liberation of
> Hydrogen which is then also available for oxidation) BUT that the
resultant
> heat is not a high grade energy source.

Yes I understand that he's talking about storing energy by reducing the
Al2O3 to Al and then releasing the energy by converting the 2Al + 3H2O back
to Al2O3 + 3H2 + heat. What I was concerned about was the misconception that
the Al2O3 reduction could be achived by directly using heat that is a
byproduct of some other process - basically using the Al as a storeage
heater.

I quote:

> > > The energy used to make pure Al from the naturally
> > > occuring oxide form is heat energy bought generally
> > > as coal or natural gas, whatever is mega-cheap in
> > > that area and bought under bulk contracts by large
> > > corporations

No where does the post refer to the basic need for electricity.

<snip>

> Overall TANSTAAFL applies. (There aint no such thing as a free lunch?)
> This is just one way of TRYING to exploit the Al / water reaction. It
would
> be simpler to use Calcium or Sodium or Potassium, and more fun in the
latter
> two cases :-),  but Al is more available and safer until used.

Calcium aint so hot because of solubility problems, again you end up with a
protective coating. Admittedly no where near as tough as Aluminium oxide.
Assuming you could make a fool proof unit that could utilise Sodium or
Potassium safely could you trust Joe public to handle the waste products
consciensciously? Perhaps you might want to reconsider the "until used" part
of your statement.

Regards
Sergio Masci

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@005518 by Sergio Masci

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: Richards, Justin P <EraseMEJustin.Richardsspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTTEAM.TELSTRA.COM>
To: <PICLISTspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: hydrogen/aluminium


> While on the subject of Al, I remember my 7th grade teacher describing an
> explosive mix made by suspending Al in kerosene.  The trick apparently was
> to keep the particles suspended.
>
> Does it sound like there is any truth to this?.

I don't think it is possible. There are other commonly available liquids
that you could use but I don't think kerosene is one of them.

Regards
Sergio Masci

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@044952 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> While on the subject of Al, I remember my 7th grade teacher describing an
> explosive mix made by suspending Al in kerosene.  The trick apparently was
> to keep the particles suspended.
>
> Does it sound like there is any truth to this?.

Aluminium is a component of many solid rocket fuels. eg Space Shuttle Solid
Rocket Boosters use 16% Aluminium and 70% Oxidiser with the balance being
binder (rubber = fuel as well) and catalyst.

In the case you mention you have two fuels together and no oxidiser so it
seems unlikely that there would be a viable reaction. The Kerosene is a
hydrocarbon and the suspended Aluminium "wants" none of the carbon or
hydrogen and the Oxygen present is in small amount and already quite well
bound. I suspect that he was thinking of some other substance mixed with
Al - suitable oxidisers would certainly fill the required role. Also, some
people have tried "slurry" propellants and the Al/Kero mix would fill that
role.


       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@081915 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > > The energy used to make pure Al from the naturally
> > > occuring oxide form is heat energy bought generally
> > > as coal or natural gas, whatever is mega-cheap in

> > Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference? I thought you could only
> > reduce Al using electrolysis.
>
> You are correct about the electrolysis.


Sorry, my error, I meant to say the *electrical* energy
used to refine the oxide to pure Al comes from cheap
coal or gas sources. The point I was making is that this
energy is bought CHEAP and the energy that someone else
bought cheap can then be released by an end user when
re-oxidising the Al. The cost effectiveness of that end
use depends on alternative fuels cost and the relative
efficiencies. :o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@100029 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Sorry, my error, I meant to say the *electrical* energy
> used to refine the oxide to pure Al comes from cheap
> coal or gas sources. The point I was making is that this
> energy is bought CHEAP and the energy that someone else
> bought cheap can then be released by an end user when
> re-oxidising the Al. The cost effectiveness of that end
> use depends on alternative fuels cost and the relative
> efficiencies. :o)


Here we have a smelter in the far south of the country near a large Hydro
station. The two were built because of each other, as it were. I believe the
cost of electricity for them is around $US0.01 per unit although the actual
charge is a commercial secret. As well it may be when we pay 5 to 7 times as
much. (We do on average of course use rather less than the smelter and our
load curve is not quite as flat :-) ).




           RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@112650 by Jim

flavicon
face
> cost of electricity for them is around $US0.01 per unit although the
actual
> charge is a commercial secret. As well it may be when we pay 5 to 7 times
as
> much. (We do on average of course use rather less than the smelter and our
> load curve is not quite as flat :-) ).

AND domestic electricity consumption requires an extensive
infrastructure (the lines, the switching equipment, the
sub-stations, the local distribution transformers, the
power-factor correction 'poles') for distribution and that
requires a maintanance division, then there is the billing
system and the customer support operations, the distribution-
system engineering and planning folks ...

RF Jim

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@133935 by mpoulton

flavicon
face
Aluminum in kerosene is not an explosive.  Where's the
oxidizer?  I'm sure it would burn just fine in air, but it's
certainly not going to explode on it's own.  Experiments
have been done using fine Al, Mg, and other metals suspended
in kerosene as a rocket fuel (with liquid oxygen).  They
found it was not very effective because the metal didn't
burn in the chamber.  However, Al in hydrazine ("alumizine")
works pretty well and was used in a few military designs.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:21:33 +1000
>From: "Richards, Justin P"
<@spam@Justin.RichardsKILLspamspamTEAM.TELSTRA.COM>
>Subject: Re: [OT]: hydrogen/aluminium
>To: KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
>
>While on the subject of Al, I remember my 7th grade teacher
describing an
>explosive mix made by suspending Al in kerosene.  The trick
apparently was
>to keep the particles suspended.
>
>Does it sound like there is any truth to this?.
>
>My teacher was often accused by my parents for expanding
the truth, but I
>believe he was more guilty of expanding our minds.  He also
discussed
>ramjets to 10/11 year olds back in '81.
><snip>
>
>What he means (I think) is that energy is "stored in
Aluminium" by reducing
>it from it's oxide and recovered by re-oxidising it (with
liberation of
>Hydrogen which is then also available for oxidation) BUT
that the resultant
>heat is not a high grade energy source.
>
><snip>
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu
>
>
--
Mike P.
MTP Technologies
KC0LLX

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@162352 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
Well one could run cars etc on calcium carbide. Just dump into water /
drop water on it and you have acetylene. Which is a terrific knocking fuel
(comes second after hydrogen on the knocking and flammability scales) but
it will run engines. Calcium carbide is a 'renewable' fuel because the
spent solution can be reprocessed and new carbide generated from it. The
process requires only heat and coal (again) or some other form of carbon,
like partially oxydised methane or oil.

Basically all these schemes move the place where the oil or coal is need /
burned from inside your car, house etc into a larger facility that is
presumably more efficient.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@191004 by Jim

flavicon
face
> *>Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.
>   Yes but those are 'primary' fuels and non-renewable.

In light of the discovery that oil fields once thought to
be exhausted are now in the process of "recharging"?

What classification would a fuel source which renews
itself/replensishes itself fall into? Perhaps we
have to have a bigger picture of the earth and it's
internal 'systems' ...

RF Jim

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@201026 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> AND domestic electricity consumption requires an extensive
> infrastructure (the lines, the switching equipment, the
> sub-stations, the local distribution transformers, the
> power-factor correction 'poles') for distribution and that
> requires a maintanance division, then there is the billing
> system and the customer support operations, the distribution-
> system engineering and planning folks ...

In NZ in our "enlightened" free market lead the world system we separate out
the costs of supply and distribution and they are charged separately.

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@214749 by Jim

flavicon
face
You left us wanting for specifics - what is the
breakdown in those costs between supply and
distribution, Russell?

RF Jim

>
> In NZ in our "enlightened" free market lead the world system we separate
out
> the costs of supply and distribution and they are charged separately.
>
>         RM
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\20@032521 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Jim wrote:

*>> *>Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.
*>>   Yes but those are 'primary' fuels and non-renewable.
*>
*>In light of the discovery that oil fields once thought to
*>be exhausted are now in the process of "recharging"?

I can't afford 1-2 millon years until exhausted fields start producing
again. They may recharge but on a scale that makes them useless for
humans. The environmentalists should be happy though.

Peter

--
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


2002\09\20@045333 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> *>> *>Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.
> *>>   Yes but those are 'primary' fuels and non-renewable.
> *>In light of the discovery that oil fields once thought to
> *>be exhausted are now in the process of "recharging"?
> I can't afford 1-2 million years until exhausted fields start producing
> again. They may recharge but on a scale that makes them useless for
> humans. The environmentalists should be happy though.


I have no hard data to hand and I'm going to resist going Googling for any
but reportedly coal equivalent can be made in a few years from bio stuff *
with modest temperatures and pressures.


       RM

* - highly technical terminology.

> Peter
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>

--
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


2002\09\20@060900 by Also-Antal Csaba

flavicon
face
"Peter L. Peres" wrote:
>
> Well one could run cars etc on calcium carbide. Just dump into water /
> drop water on it and you have acetylene.

Or you put to closed botle, you get a nice fishing bomb :)))

udv
Csaba

--
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


2002\09\20@063503 by o-8859-1?Q?Tony_K=FCbek?=

flavicon
face
Hi,

Jim wrote:
>You left us wanting for specifics - what is the
>breakdown in those costs between supply and
>distribution, Russell?
>
>RF Jim
>

In reply to Russels statement:

>>
>> In NZ in our "enlightened" free market lead the world system we
separate
>>out
>> the costs of supply and distribution and they are charged separately.
>>
>>         RM

Well, same here ( Sweden ), you have separate bills for actual
eletricity
and for distribution of the same.

So you pay x*comsumption_rate/kWh to one company for the electicity
and x*distibution_rate/kWh + flatrate to another company for the
distribution.

Distribution costs should cover, lines, tranformers, service etc.
everything
related for getting the electrons to your house.

If it's for better or worse I'll refrain from dwelling into :)

/Tony

--
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


2002\09\20@120147 by Jim

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres penned:
  "I can't afford 1-2 millon years until exhausted fields
   start producing again."

They are producing again now (I thought that was my point?) ...

  "They may recharge but on a scale that makes them
   useless for humans."

Sort of puts them on a par with solar and wind power - eh?
(i.e., 'rates of extraction' are not fast enough to satisfy
the wholescale 'drilling and pumping' operations that were
done initially.)

  "The environmentalists should be happy though."

Welcome to the world of 'renewables' where the 'rates of
extraction'/conversion are slow but steady ...

RF Jim

--
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


2002\09\20@170959 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Jim wrote:

*>Welcome to the world of 'renewables' where the 'rates of
*>extraction'/conversion are slow but steady ...

Hey, look at the good side. You have enough gas to drive your fully taxed
and environmentally complying car for more than 2 minutes per year. This
is enough to impress the neighbors, if you take a sharp turn out of the
road before you run out of gas. Then you can spend a few days hiking and
come back and tell them you had this terrible accident just 150 miles out
of town and that it will take about a year to fix it.

Peter

--
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


2002\09\20@173433 by Jim

flavicon
face
That was actually quite funny! <grin>

RF Jim

> road before you run out of gas. Then you can spend a few days hiking and
> come back and tell them you had this terrible accident just 150 miles out
> of town and that it will take about a year to fix it.
>
> Peter
>

--
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


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...