Saltwater fuel???

I cannot see the video but I think it is a John Kanzius "hydrogen generation using microwaves" video.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/3510#newcomments

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/9309#newcomments

Both explain fairly well what is happening. I don't know if the consensus was on scam or just bad science. A simple case of yes it can be done, no-one is disputing that, its just it is not possible to produce any sort of useful output (such as hydrogen) for the amount of input power necessary. I thought there could possibly be a potential for an alternative form of salt water desalination, but not for hydrogen generation for the purpose of driving motors or cars.

Nice to know I'm still securely behind the curve. "Much grass" for the replies.

You can see a watt meter measureing watts into the system. You could but a measurement of the H2 being made to arrive at an efficency. It would be very low. It would be better to just boil the water and condense to make fresh water.

(With regard to water desalination) I was also thinking that perhaps the microwaves could be used for treatment purposes over existing methods (where it may have advantages in some situations). Only a thought.

It would be better to just boil the water and condense to make fresh water.

I was thinking of high thru put saltwater desalination plants for citys rather than small scale use.

Interesting physics in microwaving water....

You can actually get the energy level above boiling point ( high heat of evaporation..) because the microwaves heat the water, the container cools the water - the reverse of convection heating. this means youcan get more energy into the liquid without bubbles occuring as there are no centres of boiling. sticking something in the superheated water will of course cause it to boil like mad...

The Laws of Thermodynamics do a nice job of refuting this stuff.

It's just amazing how much bad "science" the media will feed the public. I think colleges should require journalists and media types to take a year of Thermodynamics to graduate.

Best to classify this sort of claim under sci-fi comedy.

Pfthhhhhhhhhhhhh................

Don't fool yourself, its not a producer of energy, its basically a user of energy process. No more, no less.....its not even new.....

Its in the same stream as cars driven by compressed air etc....

Hi, water buffalo!

While your u-tube presentation may lead to debate as to its potential, the following interesting application of aluminum/gallium alloy may have you investing in gallium production companies.

http://hydrogen.ecn.purdue.edu/2007.05.01-Woodall/

A research team at Perdue led by a Professor Woodall has developed a method of producing enough hydrogen from ordinary water without utilizing an inordinate amount of energy to drive a car.

The basis for the development was the exocet missile. That device utilizes molten aluminum coming into contact with water, and releasing hydrogen in a powerful explosion. Woodall et al combined aluminum into an alloy with gallium 80:20 at around 100^oC, and made pellets out of it.

As I understand the process, if the pellet is dropped into water, it produces hydrogen by releasing the aluminum into the water in this fashion: the oxygen combination of the H₂O is employed in the rapid oxidation process of the aluminum to leave a byproduct of alumina, and the hydrogen is released as a gas.

[aluminum + gallium] + water ----> hydrogen + gallium +aluminum oxide + water(about 50%)

2Al(Ga) + 3 H₂O ----> 3H₂ + AlO₃ (+Ga)

The process commences instantly in a substantial form. Both the gallium (inert during this process) and alumina powder (left as a residue) are completely recyclable.

So instead of a gas tank, you have a (tap) water tank. And instead of gas, you have a dispenser of aluminum/gallium pellets and a mixing flask which can be emptied after the aluminum in the aluminum/gallium pellet is used up. On top of the flask, you have a gas-transporting tube to the modified ic engine. A metering device will inform the gas tank when to empty old/release new water and add a new pellet from/into the mixing flask. When "filling up", the mixing flask would be substituted for a clean one.

The link will take you to a lecture by the professor showing the entire process.

Mark

is there a enough gallium around to make it practical?

All processes which produce hydrogen HAVE to use more energy than they produce. If that is not true, then all of our science since about 1870 is completely wrong. It may be convenient to burn hydrogen but it is not the panacea to our energy problems and, in fact, tends to fool people into thinking we don't have to address the real problems real soon.

Hi Mark,

Thank you for the link. I had no knowledge of this technology which I find promising.

I do believe that the future of energy is some kind of clean cycle like this one. I also think that the industrialized world should focus on spending the last fossil resources in building such technologies to make our civilization sustainable.

First, when I saw this thread, I was ready to jump on Water Buffalo and to send him to read the other threads in which most of us said Kanzius is a con. Then I found your post and I'm happy to gaining more knowledge in something real.

You are right, its an interesting post and may possibly lead to greater things, but it has little to do with burning seawater, which is what this blog was started about!!

Most of the negative comments have confined themselves to that, quite correctly too.

Burning seawater is a one way Cul-du-sac energy wise.....!!! Even if unity was achieved (which it is not) it would still be of little long term interest! You must somehow achieve a plus, more energy out than you put in or cheap energy in, expensive out or something.....! To put it simply.....

Have a great day in spite of me!

Thanks Andy, I do hope that you'll have a great day too, after all.

This is an illustration how good things can sometimes emerge from bad ones. As I said, first I was angry on this thread but Mark's post made my day. Would have been my loss not to open it.

Regards

I'm gonna try not to rant, but...

If we spend dwindling resources on dead-ends like "burning saltwater", we have no chance of coming up with something that will help. I don't think Kanzius is a con but I know he is wrong. This whole story is incredible and should be put to rest ASAP.

When saying to spend our resources on viable technologies I was definitely not referring to "burning salt water". John Kanzius' claims are a closed subject for me.

Hey Mark,

Thanks for the link. It's a little more technical than I'm used to, but from what I was able to understand it looks like a real breakthrough. The lecture seemed to cover all the bases, including the energy required for the process of combining the Al and Ga. The basic idea seems to be viable and simply in need of fine tuning to be commercially viable. From what was presented, it would be a little more expensive than our current gasoline fuel, but what happens when government regulators get hold of it? Will it still be as cheap? Without the taxes attached to fossil fuels, they would be way cheaper than this process. I wonder if this AlGa thing could avoid the regulatory hassles of oil.

Well, water buffalo,

The cost comparisons that were made to gasoline referred to the present price of gas at the pump, which includes the various taxes assessed on it vs production and reclamation of the basic ingredients; and came out around three cents per liquid gallon more expensive than gas.

However, I don't believe that the production of smelted aluminum as an energy-intensive metal came into the equation. So let's bump it up to, say, a nickel more per gallon of spent water in terms of total consumption of preparatory energy, compared to gasoline.

As to whether it is commercially viable or cheap, consider the by-products of combustion of standard fossil fuels and their effects on the total ecology. Compare that to the ignition of hydrogen and its by products.

My biggest environmental concern would be the possibility of aluminum hydrate (alumina) massing into the water systems via careless spent fuel water disposal.

Mark

The CR4 thread below, entitled "Metal Powered Vehicles?", mentions the gallium-catalyzed aluminum-as-fuel concept:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/3005#comment110326

Another huckster. The process is just another battery of sorts. It takes lots energy to convert AlO3 back to Al to start the process over, the net effect, a loss in energy over a plain ol battery.

There will never be a free lunch

Guest,

He's not a huckster, but a respected academic researcher looking into a *possible* energy storage medium. Your comment that the process gives a net energy loss is correct, but besides the point since this applies to all energy storage media. If we had to produce our own petroleum, we would find that the overall process would give a net loss of energy (most of the sunlight absorbed by plants ends up as wasted heat). Same goes for energy storage via ethanol, hydrogen gas, batteries, flywheels, or any technology you could suggest. So the issue is not whether or not the overall process is an energy loser (it always is, as required by the 2nd law of thermodynamics). The issue is whether an energy storage medium has enough advantages to make it more attractive than existing methods (taking into account much more than simply the energy balance). And when judging the aluminum cycle, don't limit your thinking to existing practices. Aluminum production is expensive using current production methods, but what if we could use concentrated solar energy to assist this? Then we might develop a useful cycle that is ultimately powered by renewable energy, and one that is cheaper (and definitely cleaner) than petroleum. The key word is "might". But how will we know unless researchers look into it? We won't ever find out if we reject an idea based on uninformed prejudice.

We should look into aluminum as an energy storage medium. A large supply of the element exists, we can recycle it indefinitely, it is environmentally benign both in its metal and salts forms, it is convenient and safe to handle and transport (definitely easier than hydrogen), reacts quickly (when catalyzed by gallium) and cleanly, and we understand its chemistry very well. The only disadvantage concerns the conversion of oxide back to metal. But maybe the cost can be brought down enough. The only more promising alternatives I've heard of are boron hydrides and nitrogen hydrides, and they too are as yet unproven. Let's try to keep an open mind. After all, we're not talking about "free energy".

I thought that in the presentation, the conversion of the oxide by-product was a normal process already widely used in the manufacture of raw aluminum. I am not at all familiar with the ore processing industry or metalurgy in general so please forgive me if this is a dumb question, but wouldn't we be able to attach this process to the existing aluminum industry?

Hi, Guest!

Two things:

1. The process isn't any kind of battery. It's a reaction between two chemical compounds to release an element.

2. The developers have taken the recycling prcess into consideration and built its cost into their end product. They are quite clear about this in their presentation. However, and you might have meant this: they did not involve the cost of aluminum production in their costs. Fortunately, the amounts of aluminum in each pellet is minimal; and the cost of production for each, when considered in normal aluminum production quantities, is also minimal...a few pennies a pellet.

The lunch is not being claimed as free, but the costs are very close to the cost of gasoline, and the environmentally harmless benefits make it worthwhile.

Mark

Like the old chestnut where someone in the gang called out #10 and everyone had a good laugh!

Like many of you, I have for decades been telling people that it is impossible to use water as a fuel because water is essentially the ash left behind when hydrogen burns. Since hydrogen can not be oxidized any further, water can not be used as a fuel. Any process used to reduce the hydrogen back into an oxidizable fuel will use as much or more energy than what can be produced by burning the hydrogen again.

HOWEVER,

Is it not conceivable that a catalyst might one day be developed that could separate hydrogen and oxygen at ambient temperature? The heat energy required to sustain the reaction could be provided by a heat exchanger using the exhaust of the engine that reburns the hydrogen and oxygen- sort of a reverse radiator.

Some of you who know more about catalysts than I do please comment.

Bill Morrow

No, it is not even conceivable. A catalyst facilitates reactions. There probably are materials which, when placed in water, will cause disassociation, but the energy to produce those materials absolutely has to exceed what is gained from burning the hydrogen. This is not a technology question but a core values one. In over a hundred years there has been exactly zero instances where conservation of energy was violated. If it should happen, most of our science and technology would be shown to be pure baloney.

TV-

Yes, I agree with every word you said. But the hypothetical system I am envisioning would not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy would be added into the system by circulating ambient air, as well as exhaust through a "reverse radiator" to maintain catalyst temperature. I know it is far fetched. I just wonder if it is theoretically possible.

Bill Morrow

Bill,

The left over energy in the exhaust would be energy that didn't get used to power the car. So, you have guranteed that your efficiency is always less than 100%. And, that's what the laws of Thermodynamics tell us. I think, that in order to exorcise the demon of "over unity", I have to use the magic words,

"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come up to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an earful of cider." Damon Runyan from Guys and Dolls

Again, I agree with you. I did not mean to imply that the exhaust heat powers the reaction. I simply meant that the exhaust heat could be used to improve efficiency buy recovering some of it- as in any internal combustion engine. But this is missing my point entirely. Forget about the exhaust heat. Let's say the catalyst is maintained at ambient temperature simply by circulating ambient air around it. Is the idea theoretically possible?

Bill Morrow

No, it is not.

Let's say the catalyst is maintained at ambient temperature simply by circulating ambient air around it. Is the idea theoretically possible?

This approach would obey the 1st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), but it would violate the 2nd law (entropy cannot decrease). Just about all mainstream scientists and engineers (including myself) see the 1st law as completely solid, but a few (including myself) feel slightly less certain about the 2nd law. So don't give up yet, but do realize that -- based on history -- a 2nd law violator seems highly unlikely.

Sven,

I understand your hesitance at embracing the 2nd law, but the OP also has a problem with the zeroth law. Maintaining a catalyst at ambient temperatures requires that no heat energy flows into it.

Hi TVP45,

You wrote that "Maintaining a catalyst at ambient temperatures requires that no heat energy flows into it." But the splitting of water would consume energy, thereby cooling the surrounding water and catalyst (assuming that the 1st law still applies). The cooled water and catalyst would then absorb heat from the surroundings. So I think that heat would by necessity flow into the catalyst, assuming this scheme should work at all (which I doubt). This scheme would seem to reduce the entropy of the system, and therefore violate the second law. But I don't see why it would violate the zeroth law. Please elaborate.

"The cooled water and catalyst would then absorb heat from the surroundings. "

Yes! Thank-you. This is the concept I was so clumsily trying to describe.

Bill Morrow

Sven,

The problem is that heat only flows from hot to cold. You can't take water and catalyst at an equilibrium temperature and have heat flow from some of it to another part. To have water at ambient temperature means there is no temperature gradient and thus no energy flow.

You can't take water and catalyst at an equilibrium temperature and have heat flow from some of it to another part.

TP45,

True, but not really the issue. This speculative idea of splitting water by using only ambient heat would not require heat to flow from one place to another in the key step. Heat flow from the environment to the catalyst (from ambient to less than ambient temperature) would occur after the key step. The key step would be direct conversion of ambient heat into chemical energy (using low-grade heat to split water into H₂ and O₂). If this occurred at room temperature (or at any temperature below about 1000°C), this would reduce the entropy of the system, thereby violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Because of this 2nd law violation, I doubt (but don't completely rule out) that this idea could work.

Svengali,

I guess I don't fully understand the intended design of this thing. To me, the second law says entropy increases. It has never occured to me that it might actually decrease. I've read some Brian Greene, but I don't think there is any evidence at all for this to happen.

TP45,

The hypothetical device supposedly would use a "special" unspecified catalyst to allow ambient heat (at uniform temperature -- no temperature gradient) to split water into H₂ and O₂. This would decrease the entropy of the system, which would violate the 2nd law as you point out. Because of this reason, we both agree that it should not work. I merely meant to clarify what the device would supposedly do.

By the way, the 2nd law makes only statistical predictions, so it does allow for occasional random temporary reductions ("fluctuations") of a closed system's total entropy. The bigger the fluctuation, the shorter its lifetime and the less frequently it occurs. For a quantitative treatment of these fluctuations, see the "fluctuation theorem":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem

Well, you have dashed my hope that this may be a viable concept, but thanks for giving it serious thought and explaining the reasons for your conclusions.

Bill Morrow

Bill,

Please don't give up yet -- I said it probably wouldn't work, but of course I could be wrong. Remember that (unlike the 1st law which leaves no room to maneuver) the 2nd law is statistical, so there is still a non-zero chance of success. Just need to figure out how to sum up those small fluctuations into a larger fluctuation which we can harness . On the other hand, I recommend that experimenters keep their day jobs and think of the quest to violate the 2nd law as a hobby. But don't tell too many people about this hobby, and don't spend much $$ on it.

Be careful bringing up that statistical stuff on here where women and children can see it. Remember the fate of poor Boltzman (suffered early string theory).

Interesting, Bill.

Yet here's that equally interesting link. What do you think of what's going on a Perdue?

Mark

I didn't see anything about the overall efficiency. Did I miss that? I think the benefit they are claiming is that this is an effective, SAFE way to store and transport energy.

So driving your car will be really cheap...as long as you have a radio frequency generator and a powersource for that...

I keep 2 of each in my aluminum foil hat (which doesn't work so well since they put the microchip in my butt).

Hi, water buffalo!

The separation of the hydrogen and oxygen in water using hydrolysis of salt to form an electrolytic solution and then applying electrodes to effect electrolysis is taught in elementary schools.

I rationalized that if the salt water is being split, there must be electrodes involved somewhere. But the u tube video doesn't give that game away, except to say that the inventor used his wife's pots to make an "antenna". (Hey! Maybe there's a metal stick hidden in the test tube. )

So I wondered about how an antenna could be created from solution without using solid electrodes.

Electrolysis uses electricity to create a spark that charges the O atom and thus rips open the H₂O bond to produce H₂ and an O radical The process is also known as ionization. In a microwave, the magnetron emits photons using high-speed radio frequencies and the induction caused by the photons caressing metal can drive an electrical spark off a very thin or pointed metallic object. Sodium hydrochloride is electrically conductive. If crystals of salt were present in the solution, radio wave pressure from a close source could in theory drive conductively sensitive electrons along their surfaces and off at the sharp (or in the case of salt crystals, ragged) corners to produce minute sparks of electrolytic consequence. The result from such a theoretical mini-electrolysis happening throughout an RF-exposed saline solution would be the "release" of unstable and combustible gases; and by extension the possible formation of new crystalline structure as it comes out of solution to enhance the reaction. The iginition of the gases would depend upon the heat generated by the radio frequency at close quarters.

In effect, the radio frequencies might be inducing the crystalline salts in the fluid and turning them into mini electrolytic probes.

If the gases were deemed to be an efficient way of producing motion in a heat expansion engine, the interesting question would be what to do with the leftover salt (or other electrolyte). Possibly a "mixer" could be included in the vehicle to re-use the electrolyte in creating another solution.

So here we have the basis of another form of plain water (not salt water) motive gas source for driving an ic engine. (Whoops! No combusion here, only ignition. I guess the engine would be an "ii" engine instead of an "ic" engine. )

And perhaps a water ii engine could develop a tiny bit more efficiency, since both the O and the H are ignitable.

Presumably, some super suction system could be used to evacuate the cylinder of any H2O after/caused by ignition.

Mark

Whoops! The "post it" caught me by the short and curlies and hurled the last blog into the fray before I was quite finished with it. At the risk of being terminally boring through repetition, here's the blog I actually intended to submit. Those who wish to jump down my throat re the obvious generalizations/errors in the first one will now have a more legitimate opportunity to do so as I now have had the ability to stuff both feet in:

Hi, water buffalo!

The separation of the hydrogen and oxygen in water using hydrolysis of salt to form an electrolytic solution and then applying electrodes to effect electrolysis is taught in elementary schools.

I rationalized that if the salt water is being split, there must be electrodes involved somewhere. But the u tube video doesn't give that game away, except to say that the inventor used his wife's pots to make an "antenna". (Hey! Maybe there's a metal stick or two disguised/concealed/hidden in the test tube. )

So I wondered about how an antenna could be created from solution without using solid electrodes.

Why an antenna (or two)?

Electrolysis uses electricity to create a spark that charges the O atom and thus rips open the H₂O bond to produce H₂ and an O radical. Elsewhere, the process would be known as ionization.

In a microwave, the magnetron emits photons using high-speed radio frequencies and the induction caused by the photons caressing metal can drive an electrical spark off a very thin or pointed metallic object. Sodium hydrochloride is electrically conductive. If crystals of salt were present in the solution, radio wave pressure from a close source could in theory drive conductively sensitive electrons along their surfaces and off at the sharp (or in the case of salt crystals, ragged) corners to produce minute sparks of electrolytic consequence. The result from such a theoretical mini-electrolysis happening throughout an RF-exposed saline solution would be the "release" of unstable and combustible gases; and by extension the possible formation of new crystalline structure as it comes out of solution to enhance the reaction. The iginition of the gases would depend upon the heat generated by the radio frequency at close quarters.

In effect, the radio frequencies might be inducing the crystalline salts in the fluid and turning them into mini electrolytic electrodes.

If the ignited gases were deemed to be an efficient way of producing motion in a heat expansion engine, the interesting question would be what to do with the leftover salt (or other electrolyte). Possibly a "mixer" could be included in the vehicle to re-use the electrolyte in creating another solution.

So here we have the basis of another form of plain water (not salt water) motive gas source for driving an ic engine. (Whoops! No combusion here, only ignition. I guess the engine would be an "ii" engine instead of an "ic" engine. )

And perhaps a water ii engine could develop a tiny bit more efficiency, since both the O and the H are ignitable.

Presumably, some super suction system could be used to evacuate the cylinder of any H2O after/caused by ignition.

Mark

"radio wave pressure from a close source could in theory drive conductively sensitive electrons along their surfaces and off at the sharp (or in the case of salt crystals, ragged) corners to produce minute sparks of electrolytic consequence"

We can recognize a similarity in piezoelectric response of larger crystals utilizing a property known as electromagnetoelasticity. Except that instead of giving the crystal a "boink", in this case it's more of a repetetive induction carress.

RF and EMF Periodicity studiers and crystalline structure folks might be interested in how this phenomenon as postulated on a micro level, might be employed in the nano game.

Mark

The electromagnetoelasticity response of unhydrolyzed crystals in solution could be the explanation of the various illnesses attributed to RF and EMF broadcast of hydro transmission lines.

Certainly in most saline solutions there are occasions when the crystallization forms out of solution. The human body contains several forms of saline solution. It stands to reason that occasionally crystals will hydrolyze and unhydrolyze either deliberately or in random fashion within the body. In areas of great tissue delicacy, a piezoelectric spark carressed off the ragged edges of such crystals by induction could present trauma in the form of nearby-tissue burning. As well, there is the possibility of electrolysis causing more salts to come out of a solution in which the H₂ and O bond had been decreased by an electrolytic effect of the sparks off the edges of the crystals, resulting in less fluid available locally to the cellular structures and exposing them to more damage by crystalline irritants.

Studies in variations of salinity as well as other crystalline structures in areas of traumatized tissue where RF or EMF presence is suspected as the cause of trauma may well be indicated as a yeild of greater information in this area.

Repeated exposure to inductive varieties/amounts of radiation causing minute trauma could be the cause of signifigant tissue irritation in children and adults both; although the literature points to children as being the major risk category.

It would, if these hypotheses contain any signifigance, seem more practical to manufacture high tension transmission lines in a trefoiled configuration with mu metal foil sheathing and a grounded RF cage around the insulation; and then run them underground.

These are the precautions I have taken in the proposed method of delivering electricity to end-users in my patent-pending generating station. If you are interested in that proposed technological innovation, a description may be found at http://www.ecofriendly power.wetpaint.com .

Mark

Your link did not work, even after I removed the (surely?) incorrect full stop at the end, also Google could not find anything.

Please test your links once you have posted, it has happened to me as well that something goes wrong with a link while posting.

Hi, Andy!

Try this one. If I haven't made it into a link with the transmforming facility in here, just copy and paste it. It should get you there. I hope this is the link you were requesting, since there was an earlier one I mentioned at Perdue University.

http://ecofriendlypower.wetpaint.com

Mark

That link worked, many thanks, the con does not!! It reads good!!

Have a great day and thanks for your trouble in getting a working link.

Hi, Andy!

Thanks. It was written by a pro who does executive summary preparations, from Edmonton Alberta. I've always thought that the piece was brilliantly presented. He took the information directly from the registered patent application material and brought it to life. [Which thing was the "con"?]

ALSO

I was hoping for a little more peer review and commentary on my RF/EMF induction hypothesis re its potential for causing cancer due to sparking on the microscopic crystalline level. I had checked the literature, and while many general observations were found, none appears to make the same attibutive cause suggestions as I have.

The connection was made due to the belief of Mr. K. that he was 'burning' salt water, when in fact I think he was 'burning' fresh water via the induction effect of the RF on the salt crystals in his solution. I made the extension due to my own interests in the area of electricity delivery.

So I am appealing to the engineers in here. Am I a couple of sandwhiches short of a picnic, or might I have postulated a worthwhile area of investigation?

C'mon back!

Mark

I don't think you're off your rocker, but I gotta say I think you're on a wild goose chase. Water doesn't burn. Sodium Chloride doesn't burn. Oxygen doesn't burn. Hydrogen does burn. And, i repeat that the problem I have with all this is that Mr. Kanzius's project apparently soaked up some of the pork-barrel (oops, I mean earmarked) money from our senators when that money could have gone to a more promising fuel cell company nearby.

You wrote (unkindly to yourself I feel!):-

Am I a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, or might I have postulated a worthwhile area of investigation?

Scientific investigation must and does go on every day, sometimes totally unrelated technology brings an answer, I hope it does here.

I am personally not clever enough to be either positive or negative for the longterm, for the short term I feel that it is unlikely at best.......

My understanding of the problems are that the H to O bond needs a higher energy level to break ( no matter how you do it with electricity or radio waves or what ever) than the resulting energy of burning.....

So you are onto a bad thing, so to say, right up front, but it could still become acceptable when petrol and diesel are no more or in very short supply.

If these aluminium X crystals (I have forgotten the name of the other component) actually allow (for only knows what reason!) the bond to be broken with less energy, I see a further problem that both the gases will be mixed up together, forming a very unstable mixture of hydrogen and oxygen!!! That could, with hardly any real help, suddenly recombine!!!

That means that you need a method (further energy input) to separate the two gases and keep them separate!!!

Burning Hydrogen in pure oxygen (you get it from the process) is probably the only way to keep the resulting chemicals down to only H2O, burning in air causes several other, sometimes nasty nitrides etc to be formed, so some further form of catalytic converter will be required, though the results should still be less harmful than what we are producing by burning fossil fuels today!!

But until the basic process is found/refined to produce Hydrogen in a reasonably economic manner, I still see problems.

About the only way I feel (at the present) to produce Hydrogen economically is by using Nuclear Power and many countries are actively leaving this area (Germany for example, I disagree with this decision completely!), but I personally (at this time) cannot perceive of any other longterm workable method !! I hope that I am wrong and something new and viable crops up, but up to now......its all wishful thinking!

Hi Andy Germany!

You are one of the reasons this blogsite is so valuable to engineering and to the world in general.

The points you brought up re the Al + Ga reductions in the hydrogen production process as proposed by Perdue are not covered so far as I am aware in their presentation. Thus, I doubt that they were considered by that research team.

If we know anything at all about current research, we know to investigate any environmental threats potentially associated with our findings.

I encourage you to email the Perdue team with your thoughts on the matter, since I don't know if they are present in this site as participants.

All the best,

Mark

If these aluminium X crystals (I have forgotten the name of the other component) actually allow (for only knows what reason!) the bond to be broken with less energy, I see a further problem that both the gases will be mixed up together, forming a very unstable mixture of hydrogen and oxygen!!! That could, with hardly any real help, suddenly recombine!!!

Andy,

The reaction in question produces hydrogen gas (H₂), but no oxygen (O₂), so the safety issue you mention doesn't apply (assuming proper H₂ storage and handling). And what do you mean by "aluminum X crystals"? The reaction is that of aluminum metal with water:

2 Al + 6 H₂0 --> 2 Al(OH)₃ + 3 H₂

Normally aluminum metal has an insoluble layer of aluminum oxide which prevents it from reacting with water. Jerry Woodall at Perdue University discovered that gallium (which melts just above room temperature) dissolves aluminum metal, thereby removing the aluminum oxide passivating layer, allowing aluminum to react with water (gallium itself does not react, and so can be used again indefinitely).

The X represented the other part of the equation that I had forgotten (Gallium) and was too lazy to look up.

BUT, if you take the Hydrogen away from H2O, what happens to the oxygen atoms produced, nobody has explained that in a satisfactory method up to now. they cannot simply disappear.....

If they are absorbed (which I doubt about 110%) then how much can be absorbed before the process halts????

I know chemistry was never my "Ace in the Hole", but someone with better knowledge must answer this in a proper manner.....please?

BUT, if you take the Hydrogen away from H2O, what happens to the oxygen atoms produced, nobody has explained that in a satisfactory method up to now. they cannot simply disappear.....

You are correct that the oxygen atoms cannot disappear. The left (reactant) and right (product) sides of all balanced chemical reaction equation must show the same total number of atoms of each element (assuming no nuclear reactions occur). I already specified where the oxygen atoms end up -- as aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)₃ (also known as the naturally occurring mineral gibbsite)

2 Al + 6 H₂0 --> 2 Al(OH)₃ + 3 H₂

Aluminum hydroxide is a non-volatile water-insoluble solid which is both unreactive and non-toxic. With heating, it loses water to become aluminum oxide, Al₂O₃ (also known as the naturally occurring mineral corundum, and the major component of the ore mineral bauxite)

2 Al(OH)₃ --> Al₂O₃ + 3 H₂O

Aluminum oxide is primary starting material in the industrial production of aluminum metal via electrolysis using a sacrificial carbon electrode:

2 Al₂O₃ + 3 C --> 4 Al + 3 CO₂

Note that recycling of aluminum oxide back to aluminum is driven by the oxidation of carbon to carbon dioxide (plus whatever electricity the electrolysis consumes). So if we want to make the gallium-catalyzed aluminum-to-hydrogen energy economy environmentally benign, we need to either sequester the carbon dioxide product, or find a way to reduce the oxide to the metal without using carbon. As I stated before, this is probably the major hurdle to successful use of the "aluminum economy".

HI, svengali!

"if we want to make the gallium-catalyzed aluminum-to-hydrogen energy economy environmentally benign, we need to either sequester the carbon dioxide product, or find a way to reduce the oxide to the metal without using carbon"

Any suggestions?

Mark

The ideal approach to avoiding the problem of carbon dioxide generation in the "aluminum economy" would use nuclear fusion to create temperatures hot enough to decompose aluminum oxide directly into aluminum metal and oxygen gas:

2 Al₂O₃ + energy --> 4 Al + 3 O₂

Unfortunately, as a net energy source, nuclear fusion still remains at least another 20 years in the future (always seems "20 years away"). While we wait for that, I suggest researching an electrolytic method that does not use a sacrificial carbon electrode. I see no inherent reason to use one (maybe simply to decrease the amount of electrical energy consumed?, or maybe a specific chemical mechanistic reason requires it?). Electrolysis of aluminum oxide (as per the chemical reaction equation above) should in principle be possible with inert electrodes.

Alternatively, we could continue using carbon in aluminum production, and then sequester the carbon dioxide (CO₂) byproduct on-site at the industrial plant (experiments already in progress). But, although this helps with concerns about possible global warming, it doesn't address the fact that we have a limited amount of carbon available (we still rely on biology to convert carbon dioxide back to carbon). Ideally we should completely remove carbon from the chemical cycle.