hydrogen fuel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awabbit6

There are quite a few errors and assumptions in these calculations but the intent is OK.

---

For the studious types...

A quick glance at the figures provided, suggests H2 is the "species" of hydrogen being discussed here.

So, why are people continually stooged into looking at H2?

Just a hunch of course, but could the following scenario fit the bill?


If you go back a ways, back to when the H2 "myth" appears to have surfaced, you'll find that it seems to have manifested sometime after 1912.

Now, there was an impressive hydrogen discovery made in 1912 (though most people are wholly unaware of it), but this discovery was made with H1 hydrogen, not H2.

So, is it possible that this H1 "discovery" was in turn misinterpreted, and thus led to H2 being wrongly labelled as the spotty dog for impressive thermal energy yields?

Of course it's just my opinion, but I reckon that the work of Dr Irving Langmuir (1912), has simply been misunderstood, and continues to be.

Is that possible?

Now, if the above scenario is considered plausible, and you then do the math on H1 instead (now that you know it actually exists), wouldn't those results be considered far more appealing?

Ok, just to save a little bit of time for the intrepid few:

http://www.gifnet.org/articles/Langm...20Hydrogen.pdf

While I can't vouch for the accuracy of the entire document, it happens that in all the research I did on the matter (H1), I can't really find any glowing inconsistencies contained therein either.

Should you be courageous (or foolish) enough to scout yet further, you'll find those figures are considered to be scientifically "correct".

I should add too, that I'm not providing this info in order to begin any sort of debate as to this or that, I'm just making this info available so that anyone with an interest in this type of thing, can thus advance their knowledge base enough to afford them the privilege of knowing "what" they're talking about.

There's a coloured diagram down toward the bottom of that document, which I believe is the focal point of where the H2 "myth" began.

Please do us all a favour and go read "voodoo science" by Bob Park...

Or better yet, produce a working device using the drivel you have linked to???

Lots of crackpots out there who can sell you engineering drawings for free energy or ZPE generators, but what are their homes and vehcles powered by ;)

Science is not about belief or disbelief, it is about evidence. There is no evidence that ZPE / Free Energy devices can exist. In fact there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Here is a link about hydrogen dissociation which is based on experiments and sound theory.
Dissociation and ionization of warm dense hydrogen

In what form does H1 exist. Wouldn't it be wanting to bond immediately with another atom? i.e. If you put a whole lot of H1's in a glass jar, wouldn't it immediately react to become half as many H2's (hydrogen gas)?
It's been so long since I did chemistry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

In what form does H1 exist. Wouldn't it be wanting to bond immediately with another atom? i.e. If you put a whole lot of H1's in a glass jar, wouldn't it immediately react to become half as many H2's (hydrogen gas)?
It's been so long since I did chemistry.

---

In short, yes. However if you heat H2 up, you can get it to dissociate. You can also do the same using electrodes.

The link that navigation2000 posted is claiming you can use electrical energy to dissociate H2 (or H-H) into H + H, then when you allow it to recombine you get back out more heat energy than the electrical energy you put in in the first place.

Complete bunkum, which like all free energy devices:
(a) have never been turned into a working model
(b) circumvent the (thoroughly tested and proven) laws of thermodynamics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by navigation2000

For the studious types...

A quick glance at the figures provided, suggests H2 is the "species" of hydrogen being discussed here.

So, why are people continually stooged into looking at H2?

Just a hunch of course, but could the following scenario fit the bill?


If you go back a ways, back to when the H2 "myth" appears to have surfaced, you'll find that it seems to have manifested sometime after 1912.

Now, there was an impressive hydrogen discovery made in 1912 (though most people are wholly unaware of it), but this discovery was made with H1 hydrogen, not H2.

So, is it possible that this H1 "discovery" was in turn misinterpreted, and thus led to H2 being wrongly labelled as the spotty dog for impressive thermal energy yields?

Of course it's just my opinion, but I reckon that the work of Dr Irving Langmuir (1912), has simply been misunderstood, and continues to be.

Is that possible?

Now, if the above scenario is considered plausible, and you then do the math on H1 instead (now that you know it actually exists), wouldn't those results be considered far more appealing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by navigation2000

Ok, just to save a little bit of time for the intrepid few:

http://www.gifnet.org/articles/Langm...20Hydrogen.pdf

While I can't vouch for the accuracy of the entire document, it happens that in all the research I did on the matter (H1), I can't really find any glowing inconsistencies contained therein either.

Should you be courageous (or foolish) enough to scout yet further, you'll find those figures are considered to be scientifically "correct".

I should add too, that I'm not providing this info in order to begin any sort of debate as to this or that, I'm just making this info available so that anyone with an interest in this type of thing, can thus advance their knowledge base enough to afford them the privilege of knowing "what" they're talking about.

There's a coloured diagram down toward the bottom of that document, which I believe is the focal point of where the H2 "myth" began.

---

No I don't think that anyone would confuse H1 and H2 when labeling it in a scientific finding as that would certainly defeat the purpose of the finding as they are 2 related but different atomic structures from my understanding.

I think you may want to look at a bit more of the information which debunks these theories as well as those which supports them as with knowledge of both it soon becomes evident which is based on real science and which is not.

There are some great science fiction stories from the past which have become reality such as aeroplanes carrying hundreds of people all around the world and harnessing electricity to light homes and also computers that sit in the palm of your hand but they were all proven to be possible, tested and developed and now in the main stream but the tech your talking about is based on dodgey science, there have been no real scientific testing by real scientific authorities and there are no real working prototypes to prove the so called theory.

There are plenty of people who say they can do it but I have not seen anyone personally or in any science book, show or otherwise who has been able to convince me it is feasible to do so.

Yes to running a car on H2, no to running a car on H1 as described above, no to making the H2 in the car your going to power it with, and no to perpetual motion.

No really my place to say anything but I really don't think there is much call for violence over this though.

It's just a difference of opinion and the best thing you both could do would be to just stay away from each other to avoid any more nastiness.

Cheers Casper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

I hope to be driving a hydrogen fueled fuel cell car in the future (not too distant I hope).

---

If the original energy source for the fuel cell comes from Hydro or Nuclear or Wind or Wave energy then I will be with you BUT it will most likely come from coal fired energy which is not a good thing due to the amount of energy required.

Maybe we should dam every river in Tasmania and use the electricity generated to run the country. :wasntme:and run fuel cells.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

If the original energy source for the fuel cell comes from Hydro or Nuclear or Wind or Wave energy then I will be with you BUT it will most likely come from coal fired energy which is not a good thing due to the amount of energy required.

Maybe we should dam every river in Tasmania and use the electricity generated to run the country. :wasntme:and run fuel cells.

Garry

---

Yeah I'd be happy to convert the Disco to Electric and run a cell if the H2 was made from clean energy but for now I think I will get back to working out my Bio Diesel plant.

As for the Tasweigian electric company, they always say that 2 heads is better than 1 so they should be able to work it out :D

Sorry to all the Tassy's out there :(

Cheers Casper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

If the original energy source for the fuel cell comes from Hydro or Nuclear or Wind or Wave energy then I will be with you BUT it will most likely come from coal fired energy which is not a good thing due to the amount of energy required.

Maybe we should dam every river in Tasmania and use the electricity generated to run the country. :wasntme:and run fuel cells.

Garry

---

I'm with you there.
It is possible to get it from algae. Problem is scaling it up to produce hydrogen in industrial volumes.
Was at the Melbourne motor show. Nissan had their zero emission (battery) car on display. I had a go at them telling them they're just passing their emissions on to Hazelwood. Told them they weren't very green.