Mike:

Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence
of oxygen you get water, and that is all...

John

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:52:28 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

John Smith wrote:
commander:

Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans
themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more
energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you
burn/use hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy
source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from

What are the byproducts?

- Mike -

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence
of oxygen you get water, and that is all...

And if we should ever get hydrogen powered cars, watch the tree huggers
complain about all the water on the streets.

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence
of oxygen you get water, and that is all...

John


What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?

Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.

Interestingly enough, a gallon of gasoline contains more hydrogen than
a gallon of liquid H2 - it's a great way to store hydrogen.

But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.


On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:52:28 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


John Smith wrote:

commander:

Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans
themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more
energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you
burn/use hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy
source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from

What are the byproducts?


- mike KB3EIA -

Cmdr Buzz corey wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Mike:

Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the
presence
of oxygen you get water, and that is all...


And if we should ever get hydrogen powered cars, watch the tree huggers
complain about all the water on the streets.

And I wan't talking about the byproducts of burning Hydrogen. I was
talking about the byproducts of producing hydrogen. Specifically making
H2 from seawater.....


You don't need to be a treehugger to have a problem with that one.

- Mike KB3EIA -

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Facts are that it's anything but.

no they are not

the Shuttle can't deliever on it promises

either for orbit, reliableity turn arround time or cost

Facts are that the Shuttle remains a viable on-orbit delivery
system.

Period.

People with REAL credentals say so.

Huge Snip

Yes we have learned a great deal from the Shuttle, which we would
regrardless of wether it was a sucess or failure, Indeed we Likely will
learn more from it being a failure than we would have from a success

I bet not.

you still owe me 500$ from your last bet

"$500"

yep

Nope. You've yet to prove a thing.


already done you just refuse to pay up

Proved WHAT...?!?!

That your fractured, broken DRECK is acceptable English
composition...?!?!

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! !

NO ONE IN THIS FORUM, WHETEHR THEY "LIKE" ME OR NOT WOULD AGREE
THAT WAHT YOU "WRITE" IS ACCEPTABLE ENGLSIH COMPOSITION! ! ! ! !
! !

Nope. Not even close, Markie. You actually have to have some
"proof" in order to get that...

you bet that an english of my chioce would flunk my sentence and give
you an "A" you lost

Not of YOUR choice, Markie.

that was your bet

cuting stevie evading his wleched bet

Hardly!

And where's this "expert" of yours..?!?!

We're supposed to take this on your "say so"..?!?!

A pathologiocal LIAR...?!?!

"Proof" is the statement of a CERTIFIED English teacher who
actually SAMPLES what you "write" in this forum and then attests to it
IN WRITING, LiarBoy!

I snipped the rest...Mark's lost what little bit of credibility he
had...

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Facts are that it's anything but.

no they are not

the Shuttle can't deliever on it promises

either for orbit, reliableity turn arround time or cost

Facts are that the Shuttle remains a viable on-orbit delivery
system.

that can't pull off a full mission without being grounded


Period.

People with REAL credentals say so.

People with real credentals say the economy is doing great, doesn't
make it so



Huge Snip

Yes we have learned a great deal from the Shuttle, which we would
regrardless of wether it was a sucess or failure, Indeed we Likely will
learn more from it being a failure than we would have from a success

I bet not.

you still owe me 500$ from your last bet

"$500"

yep

Nope. You've yet to prove a thing.


already done you just refuse to pay up

Proved WHAT...?!?!

That your fractured, broken DRECK is acceptable English
composition...?!?!

that you made a bet and then cheated on it


BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! !

NO ONE IN THIS FORUM, WHETEHR THEY "LIKE" ME OR NOT WOULD AGREE
THAT WAHT YOU "WRITE" IS ACCEPTABLE ENGLSIH COMPOSITION! ! ! ! !
! !

the bet was on an given sentense

and you are of course cheating, again


Nope. Not even close, Markie. You actually have to have some
"proof" in order to get that...

you bet that an english of my chioce would flunk my sentence and give
you an "A" you lost

Not of YOUR choice, Markie.

that was your bet

cuting stevie evading his wleched bet

Hardly!

And where's this "expert" of yours..?!?!

William R Morgan license teacher

I agreed he wasn't exactly an unbaised choice


We're supposed to take this on your "say so"..?!?!

A pathologiocal LIAR...?!?!

"Proof" is the statement of a CERTIFIED English teacher who
actually SAMPLES what you "write" in this forum and then attests to it
IN WRITING, LiarBoy!

done and ready where is the money


I snipped the rest...Mark's lost what little bit of credibility he
had...

Steve, K4YZ

Michael:

I figured out the problem, you don't have a news reader which threads
posts, or you are NOT using it correctly.

Don't pose my EXACT same arguments back to me, YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT WHEN
YOU DO!

Else, you haste for character assassination has drive you over the edge.
Get a clue man--you are on the verge of looking like some insane,
blathering nut case!

Give us a break!

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:25:30 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence
of oxygen you get water, and that is all...

John


What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?

Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.

Interestingly enough, a gallon of gasoline contains more hydrogen than
a gallon of liquid H2 - it's a great way to store hydrogen.

But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.


On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:52:28 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


John Smith wrote:

commander:

Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans
themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more
energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you
burn/use hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy
source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from

What are the byproducts?


- mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:

What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?

Mostly salt.

Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.

Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure
canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's
under high
pressure.

Two ways to go boom.

But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.

Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract,
transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to
store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using
electricity made photovoltaically. Etc.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost
to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs?

The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long-term
solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up.

Here's two favorites of mine:

Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A
vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom.

Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward
the tower.

When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and
rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed
air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works
whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are
near ground level. Etc.

also

There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that
can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and
other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in
Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a
type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are
usable as fertilizer. The result is also
sterilized.

Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

Of course the above pilot plants produce fuel at the rate of a few
hundred barrels a day.

It's doubtful that either of the above will solve all our energy
problems. It's also unclear as to whether they are economically
feasible on a large scale.

But if they are doable, they can sure help. In the case of TDP, a big
part of
the waste-disposal problem can be dealt with.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

As far as the danger of hydrogen, it is safer than gasoline, in an
accident--hydrogen being lighter than air heads for the far upper
atmosphere, gasoline lays around you burning (really bad if you are
trapped in the vehicle.)

In a hydrogen explosion more energy is directed upwards, in the direction
of the hydrogen itself, with gasoline the energy is expended outwards
towards people and property... hydrogens danger from a "spill" quickly
disappears, gasoline/diesel stays there a long time...

Gasoline/diesel is toxic and is devastating to the environment, hydrogen
is almost benign (but large scale use would have to evolve to truly know
the real consequences.)

Danger is not a good reason to skip hydrogens use, propane is much more
dangerous than hydrogen and used inside buildings on forklifts and other
industrial equipment (even some city buses (and natural gas too) and other
vehicles.)

Hydrogen is a scam at this point in time, I think it always will be, when
you finally have enough energy to remove hydrogen from sea water--why
bother, the energy can already be used! But, if some alchemist discovers
a way to remove it from sea water with little or no energy, GREAT!

But, even hybrid vehicles are mostly a scam at this point, you are wearing
out two different systems, maintaining them, with all the related use of
energy to do so. And, this ignores the the manufacturing expenditure of
energy which occurs in making the extra electrical components for the
vehicle. It is mainly a "feels good campaign" used by politicians to
soothe the people, and manufacturing for "gov't pork money." It looks to
me a lot like putting props on jet aircraft...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:37:59 -0700, N2EY wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote:

What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?

Mostly salt.

Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.

Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure
canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's
under high
pressure.

Two ways to go boom.

But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.

Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract,
transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to
store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using
electricity made photovoltaically. Etc.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost
to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs?

The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long-term
solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up.

Here's two favorites of mine:

Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A
vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom.

Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward
the tower.

When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and
rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed
air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works
whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are
near ground level. Etc.

also

There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that
can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and
other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in
Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a
type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are
usable as fertilizer. The result is also
sterilized.

Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

Of course the above pilot plants produce fuel at the rate of a few
hundred barrels a day.

It's doubtful that either of the above will solve all our energy
problems. It's also unclear as to whether they are economically
feasible on a large scale.

But if they are doable, they can sure help. In the case of TDP, a big
part of
the waste-disposal problem can be dealt with.

73 de Jim, N2EY

.... sorry, the post above is mis-placed, I hope he is able to find it!
grin

.... don't fret, I do that all the time--make mistakes, no reason to point
it out, I already am aware of it and working on the problem--problem is,
alzheimers is on the way and most likely defeat the efforts of a lifetime.
frown

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:51:01 -0700, John Smith wrote:

N2EY:

As far as the danger of hydrogen, it is safer than gasoline, in an
accident--hydrogen being lighter than air heads for the far upper
atmosphere, gasoline lays around you burning (really bad if you are
trapped in the vehicle.)

In a hydrogen explosion more energy is directed upwards, in the direction
of the hydrogen itself, with gasoline the energy is expended outwards
towards people and property... hydrogens danger from a "spill" quickly
disappears, gasoline/diesel stays there a long time...

Gasoline/diesel is toxic and is devastating to the environment, hydrogen
is almost benign (but large scale use would have to evolve to truly know
the real consequences.)

Danger is not a good reason to skip hydrogens use, propane is much more
dangerous than hydrogen and used inside buildings on forklifts and other
industrial equipment (even some city buses (and natural gas too) and other
vehicles.)

Hydrogen is a scam at this point in time, I think it always will be, when
you finally have enough energy to remove hydrogen from sea water--why
bother, the energy can already be used! But, if some alchemist discovers
a way to remove it from sea water with little or no energy, GREAT!

But, even hybrid vehicles are mostly a scam at this point, you are wearing
out two different systems, maintaining them, with all the related use of
energy to do so. And, this ignores the the manufacturing expenditure of
energy which occurs in making the extra electrical components for the
vehicle. It is mainly a "feels good campaign" used by politicians to
soothe the people, and manufacturing for "gov't pork money." It looks to
me a lot like putting props on jet aircraft...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:37:59 -0700, N2EY wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote:

What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?

Mostly salt.

Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.

Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure
canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's
under high
pressure.

Two ways to go boom.

But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.

Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract,
transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to
store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using
electricity made photovoltaically. Etc.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost
to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs?

The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long-term
solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up.

Here's two favorites of mine:

Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A
vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom.

Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward
the tower.

When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and
rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed
air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works
whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are
near ground level. Etc.

also

There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that
can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and
other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in
Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a
type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are
usable as fertilizer. The result is also
sterilized.

Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

Of course the above pilot plants produce fuel at the rate of a few
hundred barrels a day.

It's doubtful that either of the above will solve all our energy
problems. It's also unclear as to whether they are economically
feasible on a large scale.

But if they are doable, they can sure help. In the case of TDP, a big
part of
the waste-disposal problem can be dealt with.

73 de Jim, N2EY