"RW Salnick" wrote
Seriously, if a chemical has to be carried onboard and is transformed thru
some process (perhaps even using seawater) to produce the hydrogen to be
consumed in the fuel cell, then what is that chemical, other than a fuel?

A catalyst.

As with anything associated with the "hydrogen economy", spend some time
researching how these substances are produced.

Never said I thought it was a magical miracle cure. Just asked whatever
became of it.

Ernest Scribbler wrote:

"RW Salnick" wrote

Seriously, if a chemical has to be carried onboard and is transformed thru
some process (perhaps even using seawater) to produce the hydrogen to be
consumed in the fuel cell, then what is that chemical, other than a fuel?


A catalyst.


As with anything associated with the "hydrogen economy", spend some time
researching how these substances are produced.


Never said I thought it was a magical miracle cure. Just asked whatever
became of it.




Try this one.
Very interesting, but no data on the input power budget.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

cavelamb himself brought forth on stone tablets:
Ernest Scribbler wrote:

"RW Salnick" wrote

Seriously, if a chemical has to be carried onboard and is transformed
thru some process (perhaps even using seawater) to produce the
hydrogen to be consumed in the fuel cell, then what is that chemical,
other than a fuel?



A catalyst.


As with anything associated with the "hydrogen economy", spend some
time researching how these substances are produced.



Never said I thought it was a magical miracle cure. Just asked
whatever became of it.




Try this one.
Very interesting, but no data on the input power budget.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has already been discussed at length in alt.energy.homepower.

I am confused... is the catalyst comment yours, cavelamb?

Regardless, the following is directed at the respondant who thought that
a catalyst could take the place of an energy input...

This is going to take a minute to set up - please stay with me here...

We are going to substitute gravitational potential energy for chemical
energy in this analogy. Imagine that you are standing in Denver,
looking west at the Front Range. Please imagine further, that behind
the ramparts of the Front Range is a valley at say 8500 feet (Vail?).
Now the tops of those mountains in the Front Range are from 11,000 to
14,000 feet, and you are at 5200' in Denver.

Your position in Denver represents water - dihydrogen monoxide. It is
the low-energy position - the state things want to be in.

To get yourself to Vail (to break apart the water molecule into hydrogen
and oxygen), you need to supply energy. In this initial example, you
need to supply enough energy to crest over the Front Range. You will
get a little of it back, coasting down the west slope of the Front Range
into the valley, but since the valley elevation is still above Denver,
you still have to supply energy to reach this higher energy state.

If you decide to head back to Denver, you first have to supply energy to
get up the west slope, but then you get that energy plus all the energy
it took to reach the valley flor elevation back (you just burned the
hydrogen).

Now imagine you drilled a tunnel thru the Front Range at the valley
floor elevation (the Eisenhower tunnel). Going to or from the valley
doesn't involve any difference in the net energy change between the end
states, but you no longer have to go over the whole front range. The
tunnel is the catalyst. It lowers the energy "entry price" for the trip.

But: there is no possible way to drill the tunnel so that you can travel
from Denver at 5200 feet to the valley floor at 8500 feet without having
to climb at least 3300 feet. The tunnel (catalyst) doesn't change the
net energy produced or consumed by the trip (reaction), it just makes it
easier to get started.

That clean burning hydrogen (2 H2 + O2 - 2 H2O) releases *in theory*
exactly the same amount of energy that it took to break apart the water
to liberate the hydrogen in the first place. *In practice*, it takes
substantially more energy to break apart water than is released by the
combustion.

The challenge to the "hydrogen economy" folks is to explain why if you
have the energy to liberate the hydrogen in the first place, why not
just use that energy directly, instead of throwing away part of it in
making hydrogen.

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:02:43 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:
It is not appropriate technology for those kind of applications.

No more so than a nuclear powered house.

Maybe (MAYBE!) the Liquid Hydrogen storage would be safer than a
reactor.

Maybe Not...



As I pointed out already, there are two public schools in my state
that are powered by ONSITE fuel cells. Seems to be working just dandy.
Parents send their kids to these schools. Nobody seems to think they
are dangerous except for nervous nellies wearing tin foil beanies.

I sincerely doubt you are qualified to make the blanket statement that
fuel cells are not appropriate technology for "anything". Did you
hear the news? Somebody in Canada is working on adapting the technolgy
to serve as aux power on sailboats. They have a first generation
working model. I'm sure that they will use what they learned to make
the next model even better.

FORD have just broken the 200mph barrier in the USA using fuel cell
technology in a Ford compact (forget which model). It was reported on
the BBC.

--
Molesworth

"RW Salnick" wrote
The challenge to the "hydrogen economy" folks is to explain why if you
have the energy to liberate the hydrogen in the first place, why not just
use that energy directly, instead of throwing away part of it in making
hydrogen.

**** if I know, Bob, maybe for the same reasons that if you had the energy
to poke a hole in the ground, pump oil out of it, transport it to the coast,
load it on a boat, take it halfway around the world, process it in a
refinery, distribute it to retailers, and so forth, you'd "throw away" all
that just to gas up the old suburbedition and drive around with your buddy
Sancho imagining that somebody in some usenet group has suggested that
technology exists to make hydrogen power economically feasible when he
hasn't done any such thing. But that's not important right now, because all
I asked is what, if anything, ever became of this:
http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/boattests/0104duffy/

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:38:43 +0000, Larry wrote:

Joe wrote in news:1190122674.465569.282800
:

Harrington's early calculations suggested the sailboat could reach 6
knots under fuel cell power, but his tests revealed a top speed of
just 1.5 knots. Future tests will incorporate larger fuel cells.




Just like cars....there's no place to STORE super-high-pressure hydrogen
gas bottles that weigh too much, is there? If you took out the diesel
fuel tank from your sailboat, the little one that runs the diesel, and
replaced it with hydrogen cylinders, how far would it travel on gas
stored in the same space? Will it go 20 miles? at 1.5 knots that's over
13 hours. Will it produce full power for 13 hours on cylinders that take
the same space as the diesel tank in a sailboat?

No, it won't, and never will, no matter how greenie feeley good it is.

Then there's this other problem:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/n...92h2future.asp
"At $4/gallon for gasoline, hydrogen’s break-even cost is $8/kg."
"Renewably produced hydrogen and oxygen would be cost competitive with
gasoline at about $6 per gallon."

http://local.google.com/answers/threadview?id=704915
"The price of hydrogen gas in steel cylinders costs about $100/kg."

At $100/kg, you could run a sailboat 1.5 knots for about the same price
as buying diesel for a SHIP! The ship has bigger heads and lot more
creature comforts.

Can you say "crazy" without laughing?


Larry


If I remember, Mercedes actually built a hydrogen powered car some 20
or 30 years ago. From what I read the engine functioned pretty well
but the storage of high pressure hydrogen proved to be an
unsurmountable problem. Apparently hydrogen being the lightest
molecule will leak right through most metal tanks.



Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
. ..
"RW Salnick" wrote
The challenge to the "hydrogen economy" folks is to explain why if you
have the energy to liberate the hydrogen in the first place, why not just
use that energy directly, instead of throwing away part of it in making
hydrogen.

**** if I know, Bob, maybe for the same reasons that if you had the energy
to poke a hole in the ground, pump oil out of it, transport it to the
coast, load it on a boat, take it halfway around the world, process it in
a refinery, distribute it to retailers, and so forth, you'd "throw away"
all that just to gas up the old suburbedition and drive around with your
buddy Sancho imagining that somebody in some usenet group has suggested
that technology exists to make hydrogen power economically feasible when
he hasn't done any such thing. But that's not important right now, because
all I asked is what, if anything, ever became of this:
http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/boattests/0104duffy/
check this out:
http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/mai...&reqid=1040161

Copied from th discussion...

But sounds like a good starting point.


On June 28, 2007, Ted Green Theodore.A.Green {at} l-3com.com wrote:

To get right to the point, I believe the Kanzius effect is caused by the
polarization of the hydrogen molecules in the water. This polarization
causes the two atoms of hydrogen to lose their 105 degree orientation to
each other and de-stabilize the water molecule.

The unstable water molecule comes apart easily then, combining hydrogen
to hydrogen and oxygen to oxygen in a magnetic bond.

Because the water molecules’ special property to hold sodium is lost,
some sodium atoms must also be released to react violently with the
water still present.

This ignites hydrogen which recombines with the oxygen to keep the wick
from being consumed. The unusual properties of the HHO gas, catalyzes
the whole process to a very high efficiency.

"Scotty" wrote in news:n7GdndH-2-
:

put your sails up and you can do 5kts all day for FREE!

Scotty




You, obviously, haven't replaced/repaired sails, rigging, winches, the
tiniest little plastic thingy on the rig, cars, travelers, lines, sheets,
sail winding equipment or sailboat steering equipment......etc., etc., ad
nauseum.

Sailing is NEVER "free"! Just ask a sailor coming out of Waste Marine!

Larry
--
"How much did your cruise cost you?"
"About $5400 if you include the torn sails and broken rigging. But, we
only used 12 gallons of diesel fuel!"

wrote in news:slt0f31p2acitl9s35jdre6d9ab4kd9aco@
4ax.com:

Apparently hydrogen being the lightest
molecule will leak right through most metal tanks.


Hmm...great point, Bruce! I suppose it's the same as the lighest elements
of gasoline leaking right through those cheapassed polyethelene gas tanks
they put in expensive boats...leaving the shellac behind.

Larry
--
Search youtube for:
Ship Engine
How beautiful they are....(c;