Posted on 02/17/2003 8:13:02 AM PST by Varmint Al
One more time: I **ONLY** commented on the putative platinum-sugar process, and no other. EVERY bit of your text to me dealing with any other framework is simply not on topic.
Dear me, that seems to be virtually all the text.
Sorry, but the mkts are open now, and I won't have time to respond to ANY further commentary not specifically dealing with the economics of the purported platinum-sugar process. And probably not then, either: gold's down $5.00, nat gas up 7 cents in the first 10 mins...going to be a busy night.
Ta-ta.
Thanks.
ancient_geezer said: "I suggest you learn abit more about catalyisis[sic] before displaying your ignorance."
----------------------------------
I read the article from which you quoted before I posted. I have read it twice since then. Here are some key phrases from the article:
"a new way to make hydrogen from sugar"
"glucose-digesting"
"the mechanism of the reaction is not fully understood"
"iron may be serving as the active catalyst"
"after 100 hours of the experiment, we lost little metal"
"Gluconic acid is produced from glucose sugar, [a] ... renewable carbon source."
I have read write-ups of high school chemistry labs with more precision and clarity than this article. It reads like some of the original articles on "cold fusion".
I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the gluconic acid is not consumed. Why bother to mention that it comes from a "renewable" source if it is not consumed?
CORRECTION: I meant to say keep the BLUE areas pollution free and deposit the pollution in the RED areas.
Another thought: Maybe the Bush administration is supporting the study of hydrogen powered autos to put the emphasis back on nuclear fission. When people finally discuss the use of hydrogen, one of the most practical methods of separating hydrogen would be electrolysis using nuclear energy.
I don't for a moment think that H2 power is all 'hooey', but it's WAAAY overhyped until certain technical developments occur.
Back in the good old days, I was a subcontractor on several nuclear plants and really got heated up agains the antinuke types. I passed through the Atlanta airport one day and met some folks with "A little Nookie Never Hurt Anyone" bumperstickers.They were a strange breed....pronuke types. I had some time so I listened. They gave me a magazine called "Nuclear Fusion" that hyped the coming endall to the energy crisis....nuclear fusion. I gave them $10 and got on their mailing list. I loved to read the mag, even tho it was sometimes over the top.
I later learned these guys were agents for Lyndon Larouche. I really liked to read the mag because it had offbeat science history articles where they would pillory some 18th century mathematician or praise to high heaven some 19th century German physics prof. They also liked to write about the golden section and the fabionichi(sp) series. Much later when LL ran for President they called to beg for money. I never gave them a dime but much enjoyed the process of telling them no.
You stated the point that must be understood and not overlooked or swept under the lab table, the energy required to break the hydrogen/oxygen bond is is greater than that released by burning hydrogen.
I lost track of the fusion quest but at last recall, the Russians were in the lead and there were high hopes for a tokamak at Princeton. USSR failed and I suppose the funding dried up and there is now no funding anywhere and thus no real hope for fusion.
Could you (briefly) explain this please?
I'm always looking for the truth.
Hydrogen is not a very efficient fuel. My text books are at work or I would quote exact values, but Hydrogens heating value per pound is just fractions of that for hydrocarbon fuels. So the tanks have to be rather large. That is the reason for that rusty abortion you see attached to every space shuttle. Use of hydrogen in the vapor phase would employ even larger tanks, proportionally.
Someone's snorting something, and it's not sugar.
Maybe its Hydrogen.
Why don't they use hydrocarbon fuels for the shuttle?
The enviromental agenda was also considered when the Vandenburg launch site was under construction, to pacify CA enviro-wackos. The enviromental fallacy of LOX-Hydrogen engines was that every engine component has to be clean enough to eat off of, and the primary means of achieving that cleanliness at the time was Triclorethane. Since that time other cleaning methods such as deionized water have come online.
Other fuels were considered for the shuttle and its successsors. LOX & RP1 (kerosene) as used on the Saturn V was considered. Although allowing for much smaller tanks and therefore more payload, it is a dirty fuel compared to Hydrogen. Also, RP1 tends to carbon foul injectors and is not a good choice for engines that are designed for restart or reuse.
Slush methane is another choice that is cleaner than either RP1 or Hydrogen when all things are considered. It also has more energy per pound than any of the other commonly considerd propellants. It is also abundant and easy to process, but that would be just be too easy on a boondoggle the magnitude of shuttle.
The choice of propellant system always has trade offs. For the ultimate engine poop the choice would be Hydrogen Flouride, as used on some of the star wars interceptors. You want to know how to make a 10,000 pound thruster that will fit in a shoe box, Hydrogen Flouride is the answer. Problem is that it is so corrosive it eats right through stainless steel like a hot knife in butter.
BTW. Guess why the shuttle required solid rocket boosters ? Could have something to do with that big ugly Hydrogen tank, I imagine. LOX-Hydrogen engines were good for Morton Thiokel too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.