Fuel choices, Global Warming & Polution

You're joking right? Background radiation is a source of energy that comes from the sun but also from interstellar space:

"Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation, external terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei. This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and electrons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, be glad to.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And before you finish reading this, you'll probably realize you already know more about it than you thought you did.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Basically, everything produced by plants are carbohydrates. And those can be grouped in four general categories: sugars, starches, lipids (oils/fats), and cellulose. The primary difference between them is the complexity of their chemical structure. Sugars, which are the primary short-term food source are the simplest, and cellulose which serves as structural material is the most complex. They are all just chains of different lengths that are composed of combinations of atoms of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Enzymes are chemical catalysts that "attack" molecules at specific point and thus reduce them into simpler molecules. A good example that everyone is familiar with occurs when you eat something like bread that contains starches. Enzymes in you saliva begin immediately breaking down those starches into simpler sugars and that's what gives bread it's characteristic "sweet" taste.

Termites cannot digest the wood they eat but they contain a particular type of bacteria in their gut that breaks down the cellulose into starches and sugars that they can handle.

So enzyme hydrolysis is simply a process that uses enzymes to break down the complex carbohydrates - like cellulose and starches - into much simpler sugars. And then, in alcohol production, those sugars are used by the yeasts just like any other sugar.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

V:

Why don't you tell us HOW LITTLE energy is in background radiation?

Then, do your stereotypical tap dance, meaningless to anyone who really knows at least a little bit of accurate science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are correct that not 100% of energy came from the sun. All of the nuclear power energy ( and radioactive decay, such as K40, which I believe is the main single source of this type internal in the Earth) came from stars, but none from our sun. Also a tiny amount of energy on Earth is from gravity field. - Some current as cosmic dust and meteors strike the earth & and some residual core heat from when the Earth formed. Your "background radiation" is very insignificant compared to these already insignificant non-solar sources.

 

This is a problem and The inventor has stated he has solved the problem by controlling combustion temperatures.

However I have doubts that the hydrogen embitterment issue can be overcome. Aluminum is very porous and susceptible.

I understand that at this point Bio is the answer.

Hydrogen will be the answer only after we are able to create systems that can use it efficiently.

I would be willing to guess that in the near future we will be able to achieve clean nuclear reactions that will be a good source for creating hydrogen.

 

Not sure which problem you are referring to, but probably it is the enbrittlement problem. Because no heat engine is more efficient that (T-t)/T where T is the high temperature available and t is the low temperature at which the exhaust heat is dumped, lowering T for any reason other than avoiding soften of the metal, is a step to being less efficient.

I of course agree, but was thinking of iron. I had forgotten that the hydrogen is not only very hot, but also at very high pressure. Thus, I want revise my guess about the time between the need to replace pistons (even iron ones) downward to approximately every 6 months in normal driving with pure hydrogen. This, with an initial cost of approximately $13,000 makes my point about hydrogen in IC motors about as sensible as trying to dry an ice cube with a hot-air hair dryer!

We have them already. They are called fuel cells, but they are currently at least, not economically attractive either. Again, please undestand that hydrogen is not a fuel, but an expensive, impractical, inefficient, pollution producing (solar generation is much too expensive) ENERGY STORAGE & TRANSPORT SYSTEM, which would require vast sums of capital to convert to even if society could be sold on lots of new nuclear plants to generate it.

We will not change the nuclear reactions - they are fixed by nature, and evey one possible has been studied already. That is OK, as the ones already selected are the most practical and can be safe and cheap, as the French do it.

 

Billy T: The embrittlement potential problem in piston engines fueled by hydrogen MIGHT be solved by selection of just the right alloy for pistons, or by coating piston tops with with some coating of ceramic, etc..

Which makes me think of the ubiquitous "problem" of gasoline fueled engines gaining a coating of carbon upon the piston tops. Therefore, a question, divergent to the hydrogen fuel matter.

In Brazil, during the 30 year use of ethanol fuel, have engines gained a carbon coating upon the piston tops and other associated parts?

If so, how does it compare to carbonization due to gasoline or diesel fuel?

 

I very much doubt anything can resist the absorption of large quantities when exposed to hot, high pressure hydrogen, but have little practical knowledge about this. Reason why I think this surely true for any electrical conductor is then I believe the electron and proton of hydrogen are separated as the hydrogen diffuses into the metal. The tiny proton easily passes thru the metal lattice but does distort it - decreasing the strength and eventually reducing it to powder is my understanding of what is happening, but if anyone knows different, please tell me.

I do not recall all the details but another graduate student needed very high purity Hydrogen and used a warm "palladium leak" to get it. At lunch, he said the hydrogen went thru it so fast it was as if it was full of big holes. (I am almost sure of this but it is memory from 30+ years ago.)

Sorry I do not know, but will try to remember to ask if I am talking to a mechanic who takes apart motors.
As I and others do use gasoline occasionally, it may be that alcohol can not remover carbon deposits already formed on the piston, but DaleSpam pointed out that the alcohol molecule does already contain oxygen so as it is destroyed, I bet there may be some very reactive atomic oxygen (Not O2, but O) in the combustion chamber. Certainly it is well known that alcohol burns "clean" - The reason candles give good light is they burn dirty - have a lot of hot radiating carbon particles - stick a piece of glass over any candle flame and collect "lamp black." In contrast, an alcohol flame can be dangerously invisible. (The hot CO2 is radiating in the IR, but not in the visible.) Thus, I doubt alcohol deposits carbon on the top of the pistons, but I am only speculating with no real knowledge.

 

Just asking, but doesn't carbon normally burn off the pistons and heads during long road trips?

All this could make a really interesting episode of Myth-Busters. Let them do some heavy-duty testing of whether alcohol in the fuel cleans carbon out of an engine, whether pure alcohol burns free of carbon deposits, whether long trips have the same effect, and whether a well-tuned engine is pretty much immune to such disturbances. Also, if any of this works, some method might be developed to clean cylinders that does not involve taking them apart. We could also learn if there are already effective methods on the market. I for one would certainly rather just throw something in the tank to get an old engine back in shape.

 

I, personally, have no problem with global warming.

I live in Canada. We can use any kind of warming here.

Plus, I have a pair of Speedos that are aching to get wet in the St. Laurence seaway.

If Satyr can’t go to Hawaii…then let Hawaii come to Satyr.

 

It sounds like an external combustion scheme is better for burning hydrogen.

 

I respect your scientifically worded answers. However, you state that "K40, which I believe is the main single source of this type internal in the Earth came from stars, but none from our sun. Also a tiny amount of energy on Earth is from gravity field. - Some current as cosmic dust and meteors strike the earth & and some residual core heat from when the Earth formed. Your "background radiation" is very insignificant compared to these already insignificant non-solar sources."

Answer: The sun is a star.

But that is irrelevant to my post. Why do you not consider hydrogen as a source of energy?

 

Anyone who would ask if something either is a source or not should acquaint themself with the standard dictionary definition of the word "source".

Afterward, perhaps there will no longer be any confusion remaining in the mind of the asker.

The phrase "background radiation" is not a magically expansive figure of speech. It customarily is limited to a relatively narrow range of items which collectively sum to a very small amount of energy.

 

In ordinary gasoline fueled motors the hydrocarbon molecules are broken apart into hydrogen and carbon atoms immediately prior to combining with oxygen atoms in combustion activity. It seems logical that hydrogen embrittlement would therefore happen in motors fueled by gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation gas, natural gas, etc., including aerospace motors using pure hydrogen fuel, if the relatively low pressures and NON CATALYTIC conditions of ordinary combustion were enough.

Perhaps a proponant of hydrogen embrittlement in ordinary motors MIGHT investigate to see if they have a case.

It is interesting to notice that a critic has mentioned an example of using a catalyst, Platinum, to argue out of context. It has been previously noticed that this particular critic uses the ploy of arguing out of context as one of their favorite misleading tactics.

Regardless, I feel a very limited need to defend a statement prominently displaying the word "MIGHT".

 

Small but important correction. There's really no free hydrogen at any stage in the fuel (perhaps a random atom or two that last for milliseconds) because the H-C bonding is broken during the oxidizing process. Actually, there are many more free carbon atoms present at any given moment because the oxidation of the hydrogen atoms can be considered as about as close to instantaneous as any physical process can be. As a result, there's no time available for any hydrogen embrittlement to even begin to take place.

 

Thank you, Light, for helping me get my chemistry straight.

There still is the interesting question about hydrogen embrittlement in rocket motors fueled by pure hydrogen. I do not know the answer. I just know the question.

And there is the lingering question of whether hydrogen embrittlement happens in a non catalytic situation.

And lest anyone be thrown off the track of whether hydrogen is a good energy SOURCE, I have continuing serious doubt that it is a UNIVERSALLY good TRANSPORTER of energy, although it is obvious that it could replace the uses of natural gas and propane such like.

However, the bottom line is that I am not a fervent hydrogen fuel fan but rather the opposite. I find great logic in the use of renewable fuels which ABSORB SUNLIGHT and which PRODUCE NO NET GREENHOUSE GAS.

I summarily consider the use of hydrogen as a fuel, as it is being generally proposed, to be a fraud which is being attempted to be perpertrated upon the people of the planet.

 

You're welcome, CANGAS. You've been helpful in correcting my small mistakes also.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I agree about the hydrogen "fraud." Unless and until we are willing to accept the risks of fission power or develop fusion power, anything having to do with using hydrogen as a fuel is a step backwards. It's implementation would result in a negative energy gain.

It has only one "benefit" and that is moving the air pollution from downtown into the countryside. And while that would help densely populated areas like L.A., Chicago, Atlanta and others, the population there and all across the nation would be thrust into a even deeper energy deficit as a result.

 

That is a really good question. I know that most liquid-fuel rockets are kept empty until immediately prior to launch. At that time they are quickly fueled and launched. I wonder if that is necessary in order to avoid the embrittlement or if it is just done that way because it's so hard to maintain the cold temperatures required for liquid H.

Agreed!

-Dale

 

It is not to avoid embrittlement. At liquid H2 temps, I doubt there is enough thermal energy to break the H2 molecule up even on a metal surface, but I am just speculting.

Would be easy to test, if you have access to Liquid H2. Carfully weigh a small piece of the metal you want to test for absorbing hydrogen after mild heating, preferable in vacuum. Step place in Liquid H2. Step 3, weigh again in very dry atmosphere to avoid water condensing if still cold. Step 4 weight again (if heaver in step 3) with reheating again in vacuum if possible, to see if original weight is restored. If it all could be done in a big molecule, inert atmosphere, like
Argon, all the better.

 

Explain or else do your own stereotypic tap dance.

Background radiation? Solar radiation? Ozone layer? Magnetosphere? What do you want me to explain to you?