| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » iron catalyzed hydrogen at low temps
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
|
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:46 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jan 22, 9:53 pm, vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Pick up a chemistry text book and open up to the chapter on oxidation-
reduction reactions. Electrolysis of course injects electrons at the
cathode and attracts hydrogen and the anode absorbs electrons so
attracts oxygen.
Iron reacts with oxygen since it gives up electrons easily to form
hematite and magnetite. Hydrated ferric oxides such as limonite are
also important in this reaction.
You can take water an iron and get hydrogen and ferric oxides.
Now what do you do with the ferric oxides?
Well you can put them in a bessemer furnace and produce iron again -
by burning off the oxygen with carbon - creating carbon dioxide. Not
good.
You can try to heat the ferric oxides up and decompose them releasing
the oxygen from the iron and getting the iron back. This isn't very
efficient.
Here is a good primer on the subject;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
Here is a paper detailing the research done decades go showing how
sunlight alone can decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986CRASM.302.1219O |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:56 pm |
|
|
|
|
<Willie.Mookie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fcd500a-e7eb-48ec-a8fd-d3352a2306bf@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 9:53 pm, vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Pick up a chemistry text book and open up to the chapter on oxidation-
reduction reactions. Electrolysis of course injects electrons at the
cathode and attracts hydrogen and the anode absorbs electrons so
attracts oxygen.
Iron reacts with oxygen since it gives up electrons easily to form
hematite and magnetite. Hydrated ferric oxides such as limonite are
also important in this reaction.
You can take water an iron and get hydrogen and ferric oxides.
Now what do you do with the ferric oxides?
vuvlox@gmail.com,
Willie tried to Bullshit you again acting likes he knows it all, he said
thing in reverse order by the way. It is the Oxygen that has -2 electrons
on the outer ring, this is what causes Oxygen to want to steal electrons
from other atoms such as Iron........ in the end Iron becomes
oxidized......heeheee..........Ain'y that a HOOT to know this tiny matter?
Wake up Willie Smookie..........DumbAss........... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:32 pm |
|
|
|
|
Let me restate in the face of some noise I've attracted...
On Jan 22, 9:53 pm, vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Much of the hydrogen used by industry was produced by the reaction of
of iron with steam. The steam from a boiler is passed over iron
filings heated to a temperature of 600C. The reaction that occurs is
3 Fe(c) + 4 H2O(g) ---> Fe3O4(c) + 4 H2(g)
After a mass of iron has been used in this way for some time, it is
largely converted to iron oxide, Fe3O4. The iron can be regenerated
by passing carbon monoxide CO over the heated oxide
Fe3O4(c) + 4 CO(g) ---> 3 Fe(c) + 4 CO2(g)
Of course carbon monoxide and steam in the presence of other catalysts
also produce hydrogen. Partial oxidation of a carbon fuel may create
steam - and the carbon monoxide used to reverse the iron oxide.
Yet, there is nothing special about iron.
Sodium reacts vigorously with water without any heating. In fact the
heat produced can ignite the hydrogen creating an explosion risk.
Alloying sodium with another metal like lead reduces the temperature
and this risk.
Imagine choosing a metal like iron to mix with sodium - this allows
both metals to absorb oxygen leaving hydrogen behind without any
external heating.
Metals with the same reactivity as sodium react generally the same way
as sodium in water. Metals with the same reactivity as iron react
generally the same way as iron and steam.
The problem is, how do you get the metals in the first place? What do
you with the oxides after? Sodium is produced by the electrolytic
reduction of salt. Iron is produced by the reaction of iron ores with
carbon to create iron and carbon dioxide. Iron oxides may also be
produced electrolytically however. The question then becomes, is the
production of sodium and iron by electrolysis any more efficient than
the production of hydrogen by the electrolysis of water?
Also, the process described above is energized throughout by carbon
burning as you can see.
Using sunlight or nuclear energy as a heat source is a possibility.
Using electrolysis is another possibility as mentioned. But there is
also high temperature electrolysis.
The pointer to the wikipedia entry on hydrogen has a lot of useful
information.
Pick up a chemistry text book and open up to the chapter on
oxidation-
reduction reactions. Electrolysis of course injects electrons at the
cathode and removes electrons at the anode.
The electrolysis of a solution makes the solution around the anode
acidic because of the production of hydrogen ions. Around the cathode
the solution becomes basic because of the production of hydroxide
ions. In this way a salt solution could make sodium hydroxide and
hydrochloric acid (bleach) - which is in fact done in a process called
brine electrolysis - and its the basis of a lot of products made by
Proctor and Gamble and Colgate Palmolive.
Since opposite charges attract, the hydroxide ion migrates to the
anode where the electron it carries is removed and the oxygen
eventually becomes a gas on the electrode.
The cathode attracts hydrogen ion and supplies it with an electron,
forming a gas on the electrode as well.
Thats because the H+ ion is positively charged
and the OH- ion is negatively charged
Oxidation is the loss of electrons.
Reduction is the gain of electrons.
So, when iron oxidizes, it loses electrons.
Iron reacts with oxygen since it gives up electrons easily to form
hematite and magnetite. Hydrated ferric oxides such as limonite are
also important in this reaction with water which is a source of
hydrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
Here is a paper detailing the research done decades go showing how
sunlight alone can decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986CRASM.302.1219O |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:49 am |
|
|
|
|
No wonder why you're such a dumb jerk Willie.. Why? Because you never go to
the core issue, you need to learn a single formula that applies to all
chemical reactions..........Heeheee..........Ain't that a HOOT?
<Willie.Mookie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea72428b-707c-4e21-9f7b-7c3e2c89fd1d@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Let me restate in the face of some noise I've attracted...
On Jan 22, 9:53 pm, vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Much of the hydrogen used by industry was produced by the reaction of
of iron with steam. The steam from a boiler is passed over iron
filings heated to a temperature of 600C. The reaction that occurs is
3 Fe(c) + 4 H2O(g) ---> Fe3O4(c) + 4 H2(g)
After a mass of iron has been used in this way for some time, it is
largely converted to iron oxide, Fe3O4. The iron can be regenerated
by passing carbon monoxide CO over the heated oxide
Fe3O4(c) + 4 CO(g) ---> 3 Fe(c) + 4 CO2(g)
Of course carbon monoxide and steam in the presence of other catalysts
also produce hydrogen. Partial oxidation of a carbon fuel may create
steam - and the carbon monoxide used to reverse the iron oxide.
Yet, there is nothing special about iron.
Sodium reacts vigorously with water without any heating. In fact the
heat produced can ignite the hydrogen creating an explosion risk.
Alloying sodium with another metal like lead reduces the temperature
and this risk.
Imagine choosing a metal like iron to mix with sodium - this allows
both metals to absorb oxygen leaving hydrogen behind without any
external heating.
Metals with the same reactivity as sodium react generally the same way
as sodium in water. Metals with the same reactivity as iron react
generally the same way as iron and steam.
The problem is, how do you get the metals in the first place? What do
you with the oxides after? Sodium is produced by the electrolytic
reduction of salt. Iron is produced by the reaction of iron ores with
carbon to create iron and carbon dioxide. Iron oxides may also be
produced electrolytically however. The question then becomes, is the
production of sodium and iron by electrolysis any more efficient than
the production of hydrogen by the electrolysis of water?
Also, the process described above is energized throughout by carbon
burning as you can see.
Using sunlight or nuclear energy as a heat source is a possibility.
Using electrolysis is another possibility as mentioned. But there is
also high temperature electrolysis.
The pointer to the wikipedia entry on hydrogen has a lot of useful
information.
Pick up a chemistry text book and open up to the chapter on
oxidation-
reduction reactions. Electrolysis of course injects electrons at the
cathode and removes electrons at the anode.
The electrolysis of a solution makes the solution around the anode
acidic because of the production of hydrogen ions. Around the cathode
the solution becomes basic because of the production of hydroxide
ions. In this way a salt solution could make sodium hydroxide and
hydrochloric acid (bleach) - which is in fact done in a process called
brine electrolysis - and its the basis of a lot of products made by
Proctor and Gamble and Colgate Palmolive.
Since opposite charges attract, the hydroxide ion migrates to the
anode where the electron it carries is removed and the oxygen
eventually becomes a gas on the electrode.
The cathode attracts hydrogen ion and supplies it with an electron,
forming a gas on the electrode as well.
Thats because the H+ ion is positively charged
and the OH- ion is negatively charged
Oxidation is the loss of electrons.
Reduction is the gain of electrons.
So, when iron oxidizes, it loses electrons.
Iron reacts with oxygen since it gives up electrons easily to form
hematite and magnetite. Hydrated ferric oxides such as limonite are
also important in this reaction with water which is a source of
hydrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
Here is a paper detailing the research done decades go showing how
sunlight alone can decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986CRASM.302.1219O
No wonder why you're such a dumb jerk Willie.. Why? Because you never go to
the core issue, you need to learn a single formula that applies to all
chemical reactions.... understanding the root cause of Oxidation. Stop
using someone else program to Balance some XYZ crap of yours..........
DumbAss... Heeheee..........Ain't that a HOOT? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:20 am |
|
|
|
|
Let me restate in the face of some noise I've attracted...
On Jan 22, 9:53 pm, vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Much of the hydrogen used by industry was produced by the reaction of
of iron with steam. The steam from a boiler is passed over iron
filings heated to a temperature of 600C. The reaction that occurs is
3 Fe(c) + 4 H2O(g) ---> Fe3O4(c) + 4 H2(g)
(3x56) (4x18) (3x56+4x16) (4x2)
168 72 232 8
So, 21 tons of iron react with 9 tons of water to produce 29 tons of
iron oxide and 1 ton of hydrogen. The iron can be regenerated by
passing carbon monoxide CO over the heated oxide
Fe3O4(c) + 4 CO(g) ---> 3 Fe(c) + 4 CO2(g)
(3x56+4x16) (4x28) (3x56) (4x44)
232 112 168 176
So the 29 tons of iron oxide is reduced to 21 tons of iron again by
passing 14 tons of carbon monoxide over it producing 22 tons of carbon
dioxide in the process. The carbon monoixide may be produced by the
partial oxidation of 6 tons of carbon with 8 tons of oxygen. The heat
produced in the production of both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide
can be used to boil water to produce the steam needed in the first
step.
Of course carbon monoxide and steam in the presence of other
catalysts
also produce hydrogen directly.
Yet, there is nothing special about iron.
Sodium reacts vigorously with water without any heating. In fact the
heat produced can ignite the hydrogen creating an explosion risk.
Alloying sodium with another metal like lead reduces the temperature
and this risk.
Imagine choosing a metal like iron to mix with sodium - this allows
both metals to absorb oxygen leaving hydrogen behind without any
external heating.
Metals with the same reactivity as sodium react generally the same
way
as sodium in water. Metals with the same reactivity as iron react
generally the same way as iron and steam.
The problem is, how do you get the metals in the first place? What
do
you with the oxides after? Sodium is produced by the electrolytic
reduction of salt. Iron is produced by the reaction of iron ores
with
carbon to create iron and carbon dioxide. Iron oxides may also be
produced electrolytically however. The question then becomes, is the
production of sodium and iron by electrolysis any more efficient than
the production of hydrogen by the electrolysis of water?
Also, the process described above is energized throughout by carbon
burning as you can see.
Using sunlight or nuclear energy as a heat source is a possibility.
Using electrolysis is another possibility as mentioned. But there is
also high temperature electrolysis.
The pointer to the wikipedia entry on hydrogen has a lot of useful
information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
Here is a paper detailing the research done decades go showing how
sunlight alone can decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986CRASM.302.1219O |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Eld |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<vuvlox@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfa9222c-59dd-43a8-9a17-be0714061d23@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Quote: iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Mook has shown the equations in the above posts. Notice that no matter what,
you wind up with iron oxide that must be reduced back to elemental iron to
complete the cycle.
Therein lies the rub. To get iron from iron oxide, you must reduce the oxide
with something. Carbon, carbon monoxide, hydrogen or gases containing
hydrogen and carbon like methane are typically used to reduce iron oxide to
iron.
Obviously you can't use hydrogen because that is the product you are trying
to make in the first reaction. Therefore you are left with carbon or
hydrocarbons both of which produce CO2 the very thing you were trying to
eliminate going to hydrogen in the first place.
Producing hydrogen by any method that produces CO2 as a byproduct is
problematic and largely negates one main reason for producing hydrogen. If
CO2 is acceptable, as it might be if sequestered or ignored, then you might
as well use the carbon containing fuel in the first place. Why hydrogen?
In otherwords, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Today, CO2 is just dumped into the atmosphere. I assume your question
relates to finding ways to make "green hydrogen." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| JakTheHammer |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QZmmj.613$R84.592@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Quote:
vuvlox@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfa9222c-59dd-43a8-9a17-be0714061d23@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Mook has shown the equations in the above posts. Notice that no matter
what,
you wind up with iron oxide that must be reduced back to elemental iron to
complete the cycle.
Therein lies the rub. To get iron from iron oxide, you must reduce the
oxide
with something. Carbon, carbon monoxide, hydrogen or gases containing
hydrogen and carbon like methane are typically used to reduce iron oxide
to
iron.
Obviously you can't use hydrogen because that is the product you are
trying
to make in the first reaction. Therefore you are left with carbon or
hydrocarbons both of which produce CO2 the very thing you were trying to
eliminate going to hydrogen in the first place.
Producing hydrogen by any method that produces CO2 as a byproduct is
problematic and largely negates one main reason for producing hydrogen. If
CO2 is acceptable, as it might be if sequestered or ignored, then you
might
as well use the carbon containing fuel in the first place. Why hydrogen?
In otherwords, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Today, CO2 is just dumped into the atmosphere. I assume your question
relates to finding ways to make "green hydrogen."
You sounded smarter than Willie Smookie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jan 25, 3:25 pm, "JakTheHammer" <jakthh...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QZmmj.613$R84.592@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
vuv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfa9222c-59dd-43a8-9a17-be0714061d23@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
Mook has shown the equations in the above posts. Notice that no matter
what,
you wind up with iron oxide that must be reduced back to elemental iron to
complete the cycle.
Therein lies the rub. To get iron from iron oxide, you must reduce the
oxide
with something. Carbon, carbon monoxide, hydrogen or gases containing
hydrogen and carbon like methane are typically used to reduce iron oxide
to
iron.
Obviously you can't use hydrogen because that is the product you are
trying
to make in the first reaction. Therefore you are left with carbon or
hydrocarbons both of which produce CO2 the very thing you were trying to
eliminate going to hydrogen in the first place.
Producing hydrogen by any method that produces CO2 as a byproduct is
problematic and largely negates one main reason for producing hydrogen. If
CO2 is acceptable, as it might be if sequestered or ignored, then you
might
as well use the carbon containing fuel in the first place. Why hydrogen?
In otherwords, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Today, CO2 is just dumped into the atmosphere. I assume your question
relates to finding ways to make "green hydrogen."
You sounded smarter than Willie Smookie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How's that work? He said exactly the same thing I said, without the
equations. Iron can be used to catalyze the production of hydrogen
from water, but as Heinlein always said, TNSTAAFL! Which I agree.
One system I'm very excited about incorporates a miniature version of
my variable load electrolyzer that's sandwidched to the heat exchanger
side of my high intensity solar die. This creates a high temperatures
electrolysis system that uses the 'waste heat' of the high intensity
die to help with electrolysis.
This is a variant of the water filled concentrating lens array, but
the metal foil and wire setup to collect electrons is replaced with a
water supply and hydrogen/oxygen collector - which is basically
achieved using small tubes created by molding sheets of PET with
channels and joining them with ultrasonic bonding..
The exciting part is that with 38% efficient multi-spectral multi-
junction PV, combined with solar heating of the electrolyzer, you get
about 55% of the incident solar radiation turned into hydrogen fuel.
There are difficulties however. The central one is the high cost of
the Ge/GaAs/InPh cell - about $12 per sq in. Another is the high
temperature of operation and the cycling of that high temp component
in the PET substrate.
We're working on solutions to all of these. The central one is to
achieve 5,000x solar intensity - which creates some issues with the
optics.
However none are show stoppers - and in the end, we believe we can get
an integrated system together for about $0.03 per peak watt.
So, here's how the new system stacks up;
new system
55% conversion efficiency to hydrogen
3.8 metric tons per hour per sq km of sunlight
$16.5 million per sq km capital cost
$5.2 million per year/sq km.
31.5% APR
current system
15% conversion efficiency to hydrogen
1.1 metric tons per hour per sq km of sunlight
$12.6 million per sq km capital cost
$1.5 million per year/sq km.
11.9% APR
Both assume hydrogen sales of $800 per metric ton.
The current system uses a silicon based solar panel array connected to
variable load electrolyzers in the field. Detailed specifications
can be obtained by visiting my web site and filling out the contact
information there
http;//www.usoal.com
So, with a $30 million NRE charge, and 25 sq km collector area, total
installation charges of $442.5 million for the new system - and $315
million for the older system (no NRE charges there) - and each produce
$130 million per year and $37.5 million respectively. Valued at 10x
earnings each installation when completed would be $3.15 billion and
$1.30 billion respectively. Assuming a five year cycle for the new
system and a three year installation cycle for the older system, and
discounting the cost of capital at 40% per year, this translates to
$2.75 for each $1.00 risked on the older design and $5.38 for each
$1.00 risked on the newer system. This translates to an ownership
position in each project as 75.5% of the newer design and 66.7% of the
older design - assuming all the project sales occur at one time at the
beginning of the project.
EXAMPLE
25 sq km representative solar hydrogen project with each
technology
New high-temperature electrolyzer
$442.5 million amount risked
$2,380.7 million - value realized
$3,150.0 million - project value realized
5.0 years - term
75.5% ownership position
$5.86 million/point
161,500 metric tons hydrogen per year
Current - silicon based DC driven low temp electrolyzer
$315.0 million amount risked
$866.2 million - value realized
$1,300.0 million - project value realized
3.0 years - term
66.7% ownership position
$4.72 million - value realized
46,750 metric tons hydrogen per year
The world currently uses the following fuels to provide the bulk of
its primary energy for industry;
Crude Oil: 28.3 billion barrels
Coal: 5.5 billion metric tons
Natural Gas 2.2 billion metric tons
and produces about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year at a
cost of about $4,000 billion per year.
The world may replace all this fuel with hydrogen gas, since hydrogen
burns under the same conditions all these other fuels burn.
Hydrogen: 3.34 billion metric tons
made with 30 billion tons of DI water each year and solar energy made
with my system. Sold at $800 per metric ton this has an annual cost
of .$2,672 billion per year
The new system described here represents the following opportunity
New System.
3.8 metric tons per hour per sq km
1700 hours insolation
6,460 metric tons per sq km per year
517,000 sq km solar panels total
$6,514 billion CAPEX
Approximately 21,000 installations each 25 sq km in area would supply
all the world's energy needs with hydrogen. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:11 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jan 25, 10:33 pm, "JakTheHammer" <jakthh...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: "Fred Kasner" <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i2umj.3091$nK5.2151@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
sounds like porphyritic iron to me. And do you know why it has that
name? Becaause it doesn't catalyze the decomposition of water but rather
it reacts with water to produce iron oxide and a rather energetic
reaction.
100 degrees centigrade = 212F, this is boiling point of water, even 150F
your water vapor will destroy your Catalyst converter. DumbFuck Poster, do
you know what you're doing? Many of you acting smart went online selling
the Fucking Scam Hydrogen generator (when in fact it's a simple "water vapor
generator")........heeheee...........Yup.......America got
fucked............ Go check the latest cost of living in your
stores........Ain't that GRAND?..............
Fred,
You're talking out of your ass.
First off, the boiling point of water you cite is at only accurate if
you assume one atmosphere (14.7 psi). Nearly everyone but you knows
that when you increase the pressure and the boiling point rises - so
steam can have be very hot. As I mentioned, 600C steam is required to
catalyze water into hydrogen using iron. This has been done for years
and it cited in many an old chemistry text - Linus Pauling's GENERAL
CHEMISTRY from Dover Press is a very good read for those who really
want to know a thing or two about Chemistry.
Here is a chart for an autoclave relating pressure and temperature
http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html
The temperatures are rather modest, but this is only used for
sterilization.
As for your comments about the sensitivity of catalysts to
temperatures approaching 100C - check out the operating temperatures
of catalytic converters in car exhausts. Car exhausts are a lot
hotter than 100C. Obviously catalytic converters work under these
conditions. This obviously proves you are wrong in your idiotic
assertion about catalytic temperatures. For someone who wants to
know, all they've gotta do is pull down a technical reference for the
reaction they want to catalyze and there will be given a range of
temperatures and pressures needed for efficent operation. They're not
all below 100C - which is my point.
Please note that most catalysts operate at temperatures above the
boiling point of water. To use iron to efficiently make hydrogen from
water, you need 600C steam. Its in all the technical literature if
you'd care to look it up.
So,your commentary is dead wrong about the catalysts..
You are obviously wrong about steam temperatures and the sensitivity
of all catalysts to temperatures above 100C.
Now, I move on to your point about 'scam hydrogen generator' and 'dumb
fuck poster'
You seem to be the 'dumb fuck' to use your phrase - since you
obviously can't tell that there is a clear difference between workable
systems - such a hydro-electric powered hydrogen generation - and non
workable systems which get a lot more press than the workable
systems. It seems the media likes to marginalize alternative energy
systems by promoting scams and then debunking them in quick succession
- while ignoring workable systems totally.
Now, while iron is an efficient catalyst for converting water and heat
to hydrogen, its not clear it can be made into an efficient carbon-
free hydrogen generator system. Which was my point in posting - with
the technical details to back up my comments.
Your response indeed portrays you as a 'dumb fuck' - which it too
damned bad. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jan 25, 10:33 pm, "JakTheHammer" <jakthh...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: "Fred Kasner" <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i2umj.3091$nK5.2151@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
sounds like porphyritic iron to me. And do you know why it has that
name? Becaause it doesn't catalyze the decomposition of water but rather
it reacts with water to produce iron oxide and a rather energetic
reaction.
100 degrees centigrade = 212F, this is boiling point of water, even 150F
your water vapor will destroy your Catalyst converter. DumbFuck Poster, do
you know what you're doing? Many of you acting smart went online selling
the Fucking Scam Hydrogen generator (when in fact it's a simple "water vapor
generator")........heeheee...........Yup.......America got
fucked............ Go check the latest cost of living in your
stores........Ain't that GRAND?..............
Oh, I'm sorry, I responded to 'Fred and meant to respond to Jak here.
sheez |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fred Kasner |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
vuvlox@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
sounds like porphyritic iron to me. And do you know why it has that
name? Becaause it doesn't catalyze the decomposition of water but rather
it reacts with water to produce iron oxide and a rather energetic reaction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| JakTheHammer |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Fred Kasner" <fkasner@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i2umj.3091$nK5.2151@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Quote: vuvlox@gmail.com wrote:
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
sounds like porphyritic iron to me. And do you know why it has that
name? Becaause it doesn't catalyze the decomposition of water but rather
it reacts with water to produce iron oxide and a rather energetic
reaction.
100 degrees centigrade = 212F, this is boiling point of water, even 150F
your water vapor will destroy your Catalyst converter. DumbFuck Poster, do
you know what you're doing? Many of you acting smart went online selling
the Fucking Scam Hydrogen generator (when in fact it's a simple "water vapor
generator")........heeheee...........Yup.......America got
fucked............ Go check the latest cost of living in your
stores........Ain't that GRAND?.............. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| JakTheHammer |
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<Willie.Mookie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb47bda4-aa2b-4783-8d95-0173254d06f9@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 10:33 pm, "JakTheHammer" <jakthh...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: "Fred Kasner" <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i2umj.3091$nK5.2151@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
sounds like porphyritic iron to me. And do you know why it has that
name? Becaause it doesn't catalyze the decomposition of water but rather
it reacts with water to produce iron oxide and a rather energetic
reaction.
100 degrees centigrade = 212F, this is boiling point of water, even 150F
your water vapor will destroy your Catalyst converter. DumbFuck Poster, do
you know what you're doing? Many of you acting smart went online selling
the Fucking Scam Hydrogen generator (when in fact it's a simple "water
vapor
generator")........heeheee...........Yup.......America got
fucked............ Go check the latest cost of living in your
stores........Ain't that GRAND?..............
Fred,
You're talking out of your ass.
First off, the boiling point of water you cite is at only accurate if
you assume one atmosphere (14.7 psi). Nearly everyone but you knows
that when you increase the pressure and the boiling point rises - so
Hey you Willie, the opportunistic talker out of a nice ass:
"Are motor vehicle users seatting at 14.7psi ?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point
Boiling point
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the boiling point of liquids. For other uses, see
Boiling point (disambiguation).
The boiling point of a liquid is the temperature at which the vapor pressure
of the liquid equals the environmental pressure surrounding the
liquid.[1][2][3][4] A liquid in a vacuum environment has a lower boiling
point than when the liquid is at atmospheric pressure. And a liquid in a
high pressure environment has a higher boiling point than when the liquid is
at atmospheric pressure. In other words, all liquids have an infinite number
of boiling points.
The normal boiling point (also called the atmospheric boiling point or the
atmospheric pressure boiling point) of a liquid is the special case in which
the vapor pressure of the liquid equals the defined atmospheric pressure at
sea level, 1 atmosphere.[5][6] At that temperature, the vapor pressure of
the liquid becomes sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure and lift the
liquid to form bubbles inside the bulk of the liquid. The standard boiling
point is now (as of 1982) defined by IUPAC as the temperature at which
boiling occurs under a pressure of 1 bar.[7] This bar is not coming from
Willie DumbAss's 14.7psi. Therefore, one should be careful of every link he
provided because he usually point you to his weird sites. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:53 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jan 26, 12:29 am, "JakTheHammer" <jakthh...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb47bda4-aa2b-4783-8d95-0173254d06f9@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 10:33 pm, "JakTheHammer" <jakthh...@aol.com> wrote:
"Fred Kasner" <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i2umj.3091$nK5.2151@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
vuv...@gmail.com wrote:
iron nanopowder will catalyze decomposition of H2O to hydrogen and
oxygen at 100 degrees centigrade. That's in the Mercke index. Does
anyone know how efficient that reaction is?
sounds like porphyritic iron to me. And do you know why it has that
name? Becaause it doesn't catalyze the decomposition of water but rather
it reacts with water to produce iron oxide and a rather energetic
reaction.
100 degrees centigrade = 212F, this is boiling point of water, even 150F
your water vapor will destroy your Catalyst converter. DumbFuck Poster, do
you know what you're doing? Many of you acting smart went online selling
the Fucking Scam Hydrogen generator (when in fact it's a simple "water
vapor
generator")........heeheee...........Yup.......America got
fucked............ Go check the latest cost of living in your
stores........Ain't that GRAND?..............
Fred,
You're talking out of your ass.
First off, the boiling point of water you cite is at only accurate if
you assume one atmosphere (14.7 psi). Nearly everyone but you knows
that when you increase the pressure and the boiling point rises - so
Hey you Willie, the opportunistic talker out of a nice ass:
Wait a minute, you are saying that water boils only at 100C or 212F?
lol. And you're calling ME a dumbass? I see you elided the table i
gave you from the autoclave. Didn't your momma ever fix dinner in a
pressure cooker? sheex
Quote:
"Are motor vehicle users seatting at 14.7psi ?"
What does that have to do witn anything we're talkinga bout dog?
Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point
Boiling point
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the boiling point of liquids. For other uses, see
Boiling point (disambiguation).
The boiling point of a liquid is the temperature at which the vapor pressure
of the liquid equals the environmental pressure surrounding the
liquid.[1][2][3][4] A liquid in a vacuum environment has a lower boiling
point than when the liquid is at atmospheric pressure. And a liquid in a
high pressure environment has a higher boiling point than when the liquid is
at atmospheric pressure.
This is precisely what I said. Obviously your abusive and dismissive
comments are gratuitous - since there is no real basis for them.
Quote: In other words, all liquids have an infinite number
of boiling points.
Ayup.
Quote: The normal boiling point (also called the atmospheric boiling point or the
atmospheric pressure boiling point) of a liquid is the special case in which
the vapor pressure of the liquid equals the defined atmospheric pressure at
sea level, 1 atmosphere.[5][6] At that temperature, the vapor pressure of
the liquid becomes sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure and lift the
liquid to form bubbles inside the bulk of the liquid. The standard boiling
point is now (as of 1982) defined by IUPAC as the temperature at which
boiling occurs under a pressure of 1 bar.[7]
That is precisely right... did you get that Freddie boy?
Quote: This bar is not coming from
Willie DumbAss's 14.7psi.
Ooops. I think not! haha.. ROTFLMAO
Oh, Fred you're a trip! You freak. I see Fred, you're saying our
whole disagreement is about what one bar means? lol.
You are upset because wiki says 1 bar and I say it equals 1 atmosphere
and that's pretty damned close to 14.7 psi in older units. That's a
reason to call me a dumbass in your view? lol You are a freak. You
really are.
Plainly Fred you are making abusive comments for no damned good
reason. Obviously you were wrong in your contention that it was not
possible to have 600C steam, and in your contention that 600C catalyst
couldn't work. The technical literature is clear. Also plainly and
painfully obvious is your total inability to navigate that literature
sensibly. lol. <sigh>
I really do have to thank you though Freddie boy, I haven't had a good
laugh like this in several days. haha..
.
Quote: Therefore, one should be careful of every link he
provided
hahahahahaha...
Quote: because he usually point you to his weird sites.-
Your reference totally backed my point - so, we're golden there.
lol. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:52 am
|
|