1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 20, 2002 04:08PM
<HTML>We are coming into an age where zero emission vehicles (Ha Ha!) or super low, emission specific vehicles will be introduced, by government mandate, on our highways. I believe President Bush has called for the use of hydrogen powered vehicles by the year 2012, saying the hybrid is a dead end, like that of the all electric automobile. For the steam vehicles to remain a viable, economical solution to our transportation needs, they must also continue to reduce exhaust emissions with further technological developments. The developments in this direction are as important as gaining system efficiency and their progression on a parallel path only seems logical.
It seems to me, that common practice in the steam propulsion field tends to dictate the use of existing technologies to enhance proven techniques. The cracking or reforming of hydrocarbon fuels is not a new idea, not even in the automotive industry, where it would likely lend its self well to steam propulsion. Methanol can be reacted with steam under the action of a catalyst such as zinc oxide or copper oxide, at about 600 degrees F. in a endothermic reaction. CH3OH + H2O = 3H2 + CO2 A catalyst weight of about 7 pounds can produce 500 cubic feet of H2 per hour. The mixture of methanol and water contains from 1.4 to 1.5 times the hydrogen as liquid hydrogen per unit volume. Sure methanol has only 1/2 the power density of gasoline but it has almost twice the power density of liquid hydrogen and it can easily be made it at home. Power loss would be a trade off, giving up sports car performance for an environmentally acceptable vehicle, besides have you driven one of the new hybrids ? Up a hill ? With future development, the efficiency to extract power could be raised.
The production and distribution of H2 external to the vehicle would be very difficult to implement and makes very little sense for many reasons. Production of liquid H2 can be costly and storage has its own difficulties including the use of about 1/3 of the contained energy to condense it, and continueous evaporative losses can not be eliminated. Compressed hydrogen gas requires a pressure vessel to contain it that weighs 100 times the weight of the H2 and would not seem practical for transportation needs. Hydrides have made many advances in the storage of H2 but these systems are still quite bulky and exhibit a finite life in use. To convert fuel stations to sell H2 products would be very costly and could be accomplished, but at a very slow rate, where as methanol can be pumped with existing equipment. The onboard generation of H2 will also reduce the parts in the system that need to be protected from hydrogen embrittlement.
To continue the use of fossil fuels, means to continue our dependence on foreign oil that must be transported many more miles per gallon than it will make your car go and it is not a renewable resource, not to mention the other environmental impacts involved when extracting it from the ground and refining it. The refining, transport and storage of petroleum products is done on a large scale in few locations and the supply is dependant on continued output. In a war or terrorist situation larger targets may not always be easier to hit but they do produce far greater negative effects when they are. I don't think the home still would be bothered, and the usual by-products of methanol production are, CO2 and a water-mash mixture that can be used to produce livestock feed. In 2010 when known reserves of petroleum start to dwindle and production slows, what do you think will happen to the price of gasoline and other petroleum products ? At that time, production costs for methanol may be reduced by greater efficiency from increased production and improved methods. Do you think they will let you burn wood chips or coke in your car as you cruise through town ? Besides wood is only about 7300 Btu per pound and methanol is 8600 Btu per pound. I would like to see a wood burner hooked up to a smog tester !
Methanol ignites at a temperature of 1340 degrees F., hydrogen about 1080 degrees and gasoline ignites at 563 degrees, hence methanol and hydrogen are very hard to ignite accidentally with something such as a cigarette, you need an open flame. Even with a higher temperature of combustion, H2 requires only about 1/10 of the energy to ignite as do most other fuels. Hydrogen has a flammability range from 4% to 75% by volume with air, far greater range than any hydrocarbon fuel but the minimum is about 2% higher than gasoline making it a little safer in that respect. With the great range of flammability H2 exhibits, there would be very little unburned fuel when starting and stopping a burner. Also the flame speed of H2 is 8.9 feet per second compared to gasoline's 1.0 foot per second so less unburned fuel would be ejected by the draft of starting the burner and that did, I would not hesitate to breathe. When burnt, the by-products of hydrogen combustion in air can be as little as CO2, excess air and water with the water possibly being condensed and reused. The dispersion rate of hydrogen is very high in any state which negates the use of high pressure injection or vaporization to atomize the fuel when fired in a burner. The use of hydrogen in a IC engine has proven somewhat successful at reducing exhaust and overall engine emissions but some problems do occur, including high NOx emissions due to high combustion temperatures, fuel burning in the manifold by flash back and ignition timing concerns. Even with the super clean burning characteristics of hydrogen, in an IC engine you can’t get away from burning the cylinder lubricating oils and the resultant pollution.
The use of methanol as a fuel alone is not without its problems, methanol is quite reactive and can corrode some metals and it has a very specific point of combustion which prohibits ignition at low operating temperatures. Methanol based IC engine projects have included about 15% gasoline to overcome this problem. The use of pure methanol does however prevent the undesirable components of most petroleum based fuels, such as nitrogen, sulphur and heavy metals from entering the combustion process. And yes methanol is poisonous but what would you rather see spilled on the ground, gasoline or kerosene ? Non synthetic methanol production is part of an enviromental cycle in which carbon is first stored in plant matter, it is taken in by the plant as CO2 and the carbon alone is stored. The production of methanol and cracking it for fuel only releases the same CO2 as natural decay of the material it was made from. New synthetic processes can consume more than 300 pounds of CO2 for every 1000 pounds of methanol produced, and they are running with reduced energy consumption over previous methods.
In conclusion, I believe this method of obtaining a cheap source of very clean fuel, with a low environmental impact, is a practical alternative to fossil fuels for powering the steam vehicles in the coming decades. The power available per unit volume is lower than today's fuels and some energy must be expended to crack the methanol but at a cost of creating a practical, super low emission vehicle, running on a renewable resource fuel that can be produced tomorrow by almost anyone with the desire (and money) to do so. The H2 generation by this type of vehicle could be used to replenish the home supply for appliances running on hydrogen.
Sorry about the length again but I wanted to make sure I stated myself clearly, also note the use of the term “fuel cell” would be out of context in this discussion. If you have seen this posted elsewhere I’m sorry to be repeating it.
Remember this is a dream and I am not a chemist so the information may not be completely accurate but I welcome any corrections. And while I'm dreaming, why can't we just burn hydrogen with pure oxygen to produce steam at 6000 degrees F.....
Hydrogen fueled dreams
Peter Heid</HTML>
It seems to me, that common practice in the steam propulsion field tends to dictate the use of existing technologies to enhance proven techniques. The cracking or reforming of hydrocarbon fuels is not a new idea, not even in the automotive industry, where it would likely lend its self well to steam propulsion. Methanol can be reacted with steam under the action of a catalyst such as zinc oxide or copper oxide, at about 600 degrees F. in a endothermic reaction. CH3OH + H2O = 3H2 + CO2 A catalyst weight of about 7 pounds can produce 500 cubic feet of H2 per hour. The mixture of methanol and water contains from 1.4 to 1.5 times the hydrogen as liquid hydrogen per unit volume. Sure methanol has only 1/2 the power density of gasoline but it has almost twice the power density of liquid hydrogen and it can easily be made it at home. Power loss would be a trade off, giving up sports car performance for an environmentally acceptable vehicle, besides have you driven one of the new hybrids ? Up a hill ? With future development, the efficiency to extract power could be raised.
The production and distribution of H2 external to the vehicle would be very difficult to implement and makes very little sense for many reasons. Production of liquid H2 can be costly and storage has its own difficulties including the use of about 1/3 of the contained energy to condense it, and continueous evaporative losses can not be eliminated. Compressed hydrogen gas requires a pressure vessel to contain it that weighs 100 times the weight of the H2 and would not seem practical for transportation needs. Hydrides have made many advances in the storage of H2 but these systems are still quite bulky and exhibit a finite life in use. To convert fuel stations to sell H2 products would be very costly and could be accomplished, but at a very slow rate, where as methanol can be pumped with existing equipment. The onboard generation of H2 will also reduce the parts in the system that need to be protected from hydrogen embrittlement.
To continue the use of fossil fuels, means to continue our dependence on foreign oil that must be transported many more miles per gallon than it will make your car go and it is not a renewable resource, not to mention the other environmental impacts involved when extracting it from the ground and refining it. The refining, transport and storage of petroleum products is done on a large scale in few locations and the supply is dependant on continued output. In a war or terrorist situation larger targets may not always be easier to hit but they do produce far greater negative effects when they are. I don't think the home still would be bothered, and the usual by-products of methanol production are, CO2 and a water-mash mixture that can be used to produce livestock feed. In 2010 when known reserves of petroleum start to dwindle and production slows, what do you think will happen to the price of gasoline and other petroleum products ? At that time, production costs for methanol may be reduced by greater efficiency from increased production and improved methods. Do you think they will let you burn wood chips or coke in your car as you cruise through town ? Besides wood is only about 7300 Btu per pound and methanol is 8600 Btu per pound. I would like to see a wood burner hooked up to a smog tester !
Methanol ignites at a temperature of 1340 degrees F., hydrogen about 1080 degrees and gasoline ignites at 563 degrees, hence methanol and hydrogen are very hard to ignite accidentally with something such as a cigarette, you need an open flame. Even with a higher temperature of combustion, H2 requires only about 1/10 of the energy to ignite as do most other fuels. Hydrogen has a flammability range from 4% to 75% by volume with air, far greater range than any hydrocarbon fuel but the minimum is about 2% higher than gasoline making it a little safer in that respect. With the great range of flammability H2 exhibits, there would be very little unburned fuel when starting and stopping a burner. Also the flame speed of H2 is 8.9 feet per second compared to gasoline's 1.0 foot per second so less unburned fuel would be ejected by the draft of starting the burner and that did, I would not hesitate to breathe. When burnt, the by-products of hydrogen combustion in air can be as little as CO2, excess air and water with the water possibly being condensed and reused. The dispersion rate of hydrogen is very high in any state which negates the use of high pressure injection or vaporization to atomize the fuel when fired in a burner. The use of hydrogen in a IC engine has proven somewhat successful at reducing exhaust and overall engine emissions but some problems do occur, including high NOx emissions due to high combustion temperatures, fuel burning in the manifold by flash back and ignition timing concerns. Even with the super clean burning characteristics of hydrogen, in an IC engine you can’t get away from burning the cylinder lubricating oils and the resultant pollution.
The use of methanol as a fuel alone is not without its problems, methanol is quite reactive and can corrode some metals and it has a very specific point of combustion which prohibits ignition at low operating temperatures. Methanol based IC engine projects have included about 15% gasoline to overcome this problem. The use of pure methanol does however prevent the undesirable components of most petroleum based fuels, such as nitrogen, sulphur and heavy metals from entering the combustion process. And yes methanol is poisonous but what would you rather see spilled on the ground, gasoline or kerosene ? Non synthetic methanol production is part of an enviromental cycle in which carbon is first stored in plant matter, it is taken in by the plant as CO2 and the carbon alone is stored. The production of methanol and cracking it for fuel only releases the same CO2 as natural decay of the material it was made from. New synthetic processes can consume more than 300 pounds of CO2 for every 1000 pounds of methanol produced, and they are running with reduced energy consumption over previous methods.
In conclusion, I believe this method of obtaining a cheap source of very clean fuel, with a low environmental impact, is a practical alternative to fossil fuels for powering the steam vehicles in the coming decades. The power available per unit volume is lower than today's fuels and some energy must be expended to crack the methanol but at a cost of creating a practical, super low emission vehicle, running on a renewable resource fuel that can be produced tomorrow by almost anyone with the desire (and money) to do so. The H2 generation by this type of vehicle could be used to replenish the home supply for appliances running on hydrogen.
Sorry about the length again but I wanted to make sure I stated myself clearly, also note the use of the term “fuel cell” would be out of context in this discussion. If you have seen this posted elsewhere I’m sorry to be repeating it.
Remember this is a dream and I am not a chemist so the information may not be completely accurate but I welcome any corrections. And while I'm dreaming, why can't we just burn hydrogen with pure oxygen to produce steam at 6000 degrees F.....
Hydrogen fueled dreams
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: February 20, 2002 05:15PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
You mention "by-products of methanol production are, CO2 and a water-mash mixture that can be used to produce livestock feed"
I think the only small / home scale method of making Methanol is distructive distilation of wood which gives a low yeild and a lot of ash and char.
If you are making Ethanol at home you do get CO2 and mash. Ethanol production "making moonshine" is well defined but requires feedstock with either a high starch or sugar content. This usually makes it an expensive transportation fuel unless taxation (ie Brazil) or special conditions such as surplus energy and a cheap source of sugars (Milk Lactose by product femented to product drinking alcohol) apply.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
You mention "by-products of methanol production are, CO2 and a water-mash mixture that can be used to produce livestock feed"
I think the only small / home scale method of making Methanol is distructive distilation of wood which gives a low yeild and a lot of ash and char.
If you are making Ethanol at home you do get CO2 and mash. Ethanol production "making moonshine" is well defined but requires feedstock with either a high starch or sugar content. This usually makes it an expensive transportation fuel unless taxation (ie Brazil) or special conditions such as surplus energy and a cheap source of sugars (Milk Lactose by product femented to product drinking alcohol) apply.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 20, 2002 08:54PM
<HTML>Mark,
Your right wood is very poor for the production of methanol, yealding maybe 3-5% alcohol and many tars and resins. Other plant materials can be broken down by forms of yeast that produce methanol. The conditions and the yeast used are not the same as those for the production of ethanol. For ethanol production, the sugar beet can't be beat. It has a very high sugar content (no starch conversion), it grows in most locations of this country, it has a very high yeald per acre, it stores very well and makes a great animal foder. Too bad it is so little used in this country. When you consider the expensive of fuels, you must be talking pump price not the enviromental price. If the worlds leading experts are right the pollution clean up costs added to petroleum fuels in the next few years will drastically affect the pump price and the world reserves are now at a peak production and headed for a decline. Even if there were no decline in sight, the demand is increasing to the point where production will lag slightly in the near future and cause the first of many price increases.
I would like to have an alternative to the petroleum fueled vehicle that can't be beat by the IC auto industry in reguards to emissions, now or in the future, and one that is not to costly for the average person to purchase, run and maintain.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Your right wood is very poor for the production of methanol, yealding maybe 3-5% alcohol and many tars and resins. Other plant materials can be broken down by forms of yeast that produce methanol. The conditions and the yeast used are not the same as those for the production of ethanol. For ethanol production, the sugar beet can't be beat. It has a very high sugar content (no starch conversion), it grows in most locations of this country, it has a very high yeald per acre, it stores very well and makes a great animal foder. Too bad it is so little used in this country. When you consider the expensive of fuels, you must be talking pump price not the enviromental price. If the worlds leading experts are right the pollution clean up costs added to petroleum fuels in the next few years will drastically affect the pump price and the world reserves are now at a peak production and headed for a decline. Even if there were no decline in sight, the demand is increasing to the point where production will lag slightly in the near future and cause the first of many price increases.
I would like to have an alternative to the petroleum fueled vehicle that can't be beat by the IC auto industry in reguards to emissions, now or in the future, and one that is not to costly for the average person to purchase, run and maintain.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: February 20, 2002 11:56PM
<HTML>Thanks Peter, I've obviously lost touch with the renuable liquid fuel field.
Special yeast to convert waste cellulose/plant material to methanol at a reasonable system yield is the ideal particularily for on farm use and retail. I'll do some looking on the web.
I'll leave the price of fuels to the experts as there sure is quite a range in different countries the world.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Special yeast to convert waste cellulose/plant material to methanol at a reasonable system yield is the ideal particularily for on farm use and retail. I'll do some looking on the web.
I'll leave the price of fuels to the experts as there sure is quite a range in different countries the world.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 21, 2002 01:22PM
<HTML>Mark,
I have much more to learn on the subject myself. There are a few books available on the subject and "Methanol and Other Ways Around the Gas Pump" by Garden Way Publishing, seems like a good starting point for the homeowner. It can be found used for about $8.00 US. Other choices include: Moving America to Methanol, Methanol Technology and Application in Motor Fuels and a few others. I have yet to receive any books on the subject, but it seems most were spawned by the energy crisis of the 1970's.
Most information I have found on the net involves Industrial processes not easily adapted to the home owner envrioment. I would enjoy the further exchange of information on the subject as it it becomes available.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I have much more to learn on the subject myself. There are a few books available on the subject and "Methanol and Other Ways Around the Gas Pump" by Garden Way Publishing, seems like a good starting point for the homeowner. It can be found used for about $8.00 US. Other choices include: Moving America to Methanol, Methanol Technology and Application in Motor Fuels and a few others. I have yet to receive any books on the subject, but it seems most were spawned by the energy crisis of the 1970's.
Most information I have found on the net involves Industrial processes not easily adapted to the home owner envrioment. I would enjoy the further exchange of information on the subject as it it becomes available.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 23, 2002 01:56AM
<HTML>I read a news brief in some tech magazine about a catalytic device that is some sort of porous green glass. The device converts CO2 directly to methanol and might be able to be installed on the smoke stacks of factories. Wouldn't it be great if this catalytic device could be used on the exhaust of a vehicle fueled by Hydrogen cracked from methanol ? I think this process must also consume energy from the system so I must wonder what will be left for propulsion.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: February 23, 2002 12:40PM
<HTML>A major problem with any fuel derived from agriculteral products is that American agriculture is heavily dependent on petroleum. Not only as fuel for power but as raw material from which pesticides and fertilizers are derived. A study done some time ago showed that for every gallon of ethanol you could distill from corn mash, two gallons of petroleum had been consumed in production. As alcohol has a much lower heating value than oil, running an engine on alcohol requires three times as much oil as running it on gasoline!</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 23, 2002 03:47PM
<HTML>David,
You make a very good point. There are many fine examples of sucessfull, intensive farming methods that do not rely on petroleum for fertalizer or pesticides even though that is away from the general direction farmers have been lead by the petroleum industry. Any farming practices heavily dependent on oil are following a path toward economic failure as the production of oil is at a peak and will be declining. I have yet to see how many gallons of oil are used to produce a gallon of fuel oil, but the energy needed is going to be much higher. The transportation cost of oil is higher and you can not change this much, but methanol can be produced in every state in the country greatly reducing distribution costs. The energy needed to refine the oil is very high when it is cracked to produce the fuels we use, synthetic methanol can be produced with industrial waste heat. How many times have you seen the waste gas from oil production and refinement being burned off, wasted into the atmosphere ? The energy costs of petroleum production are not often mentioned because they burn their product for fuel. It seems odd that the methanol producers don't fuel their equiptment with methanol.
Someday mankind will learn how to live without low cost petroleum products available for all phases of production and manufacturing. Based on our current practices, it will take a shortage or a great increase in production costs before we, as a society, even look in that direction. In the mean time the conversion of industrial wastes to methanol and synthetic production methods have a promising future. Give methanol production the 100 plus years of refinement the oil industry has had and see where it leads us.
As far as the energy available, yes it is lower power density but we don't have to rely on an imported fuel that has a huge enviromental cost and can't keep our air clean.
Peter Heid</HTML>
You make a very good point. There are many fine examples of sucessfull, intensive farming methods that do not rely on petroleum for fertalizer or pesticides even though that is away from the general direction farmers have been lead by the petroleum industry. Any farming practices heavily dependent on oil are following a path toward economic failure as the production of oil is at a peak and will be declining. I have yet to see how many gallons of oil are used to produce a gallon of fuel oil, but the energy needed is going to be much higher. The transportation cost of oil is higher and you can not change this much, but methanol can be produced in every state in the country greatly reducing distribution costs. The energy needed to refine the oil is very high when it is cracked to produce the fuels we use, synthetic methanol can be produced with industrial waste heat. How many times have you seen the waste gas from oil production and refinement being burned off, wasted into the atmosphere ? The energy costs of petroleum production are not often mentioned because they burn their product for fuel. It seems odd that the methanol producers don't fuel their equiptment with methanol.
Someday mankind will learn how to live without low cost petroleum products available for all phases of production and manufacturing. Based on our current practices, it will take a shortage or a great increase in production costs before we, as a society, even look in that direction. In the mean time the conversion of industrial wastes to methanol and synthetic production methods have a promising future. Give methanol production the 100 plus years of refinement the oil industry has had and see where it leads us.
As far as the energy available, yes it is lower power density but we don't have to rely on an imported fuel that has a huge enviromental cost and can't keep our air clean.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel-burners
Posted by: G. B. Gilbert (IP Logged)
Date: February 24, 2002 06:29AM
<HTML>Assuming we have hydrogen available on the vehicle, how do we go about designing the burner?</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2002 12:13PM
<HTML>How is hydrogen made commercially? I only know of a few techniques, none of them enviromentally attractive.
1; electrolysis of water, not very efficient, requiring about twice as much electricity as a fuel cell would make from the resulting hydrogen.
2; reduction of water with red hot carbon, end waste product: the carbon dioxide hydrogen fuel is supposed to reduce!
3; thermal cracking of "certain hydrocarbons", which presumably means oil. And, presumably, with carbon dioxide as a waste product.
4; reduction of acids with metals, E. G. dissolving zinc in sulfuric acid yields zinc sulfate and hydrogen. Neither cheap nor clean.
5; a variation of #2 using iron instead of carbon. Even less efficient as one uses carbon to get the iron from its ore in the first place.
It looks to me that the lead acid battery is much more efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell would be if one includes the cost of hydrogen. The main benefit of the fuel cell is greater range. The main reason for hydrogen is that no commercially viable fuel cell can use any other fuel.
Am I way off base?</HTML>
1; electrolysis of water, not very efficient, requiring about twice as much electricity as a fuel cell would make from the resulting hydrogen.
2; reduction of water with red hot carbon, end waste product: the carbon dioxide hydrogen fuel is supposed to reduce!
3; thermal cracking of "certain hydrocarbons", which presumably means oil. And, presumably, with carbon dioxide as a waste product.
4; reduction of acids with metals, E. G. dissolving zinc in sulfuric acid yields zinc sulfate and hydrogen. Neither cheap nor clean.
5; a variation of #2 using iron instead of carbon. Even less efficient as one uses carbon to get the iron from its ore in the first place.
It looks to me that the lead acid battery is much more efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell would be if one includes the cost of hydrogen. The main benefit of the fuel cell is greater range. The main reason for hydrogen is that no commercially viable fuel cell can use any other fuel.
Am I way off base?</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel-burners
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2002 12:35PM
<HTML>G. B.:
I would be the most help if I refered you to the book "Fuel From Water" and others that can be found at most alternative energy sites. They show the difference in burner design, mostly the mixing portion is different. I can send a drawing or two from books I have if you wish. Just let me know.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I would be the most help if I refered you to the book "Fuel From Water" and others that can be found at most alternative energy sites. They show the difference in burner design, mostly the mixing portion is different. I can send a drawing or two from books I have if you wish. Just let me know.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2002 01:04PM
<HTML>David,
If you have to make hydrogen, the cleanest way is to bring water to about 6000 degrees F. and thermally decompose it. Making hydrogen to use as a stored fuel is very cost prohibitive, and not much has changed in recent times. Seems funny since it is our most abundant element. Basically that is why I propose the cracking of methanol onboard the vehicle, you can make use of the hydrogens benefits and avoid the storage problem. High pressure temperature controlled electrolosis can be more than 90% efficient, got a wind generator your not using ?
There is a book I have seen that shows the improvements in hydrogen production up to its time of printing (1998) called "Electrocatalysis", it is on my want list.
It seems the production of hydrogen to run fuel cells would require great energy, taking away from the overall efficiency. On the other hand if you are already making steam, cracking is only a catalyst away.
Peter Heid</HTML>
If you have to make hydrogen, the cleanest way is to bring water to about 6000 degrees F. and thermally decompose it. Making hydrogen to use as a stored fuel is very cost prohibitive, and not much has changed in recent times. Seems funny since it is our most abundant element. Basically that is why I propose the cracking of methanol onboard the vehicle, you can make use of the hydrogens benefits and avoid the storage problem. High pressure temperature controlled electrolosis can be more than 90% efficient, got a wind generator your not using ?
There is a book I have seen that shows the improvements in hydrogen production up to its time of printing (1998) called "Electrocatalysis", it is on my want list.
It seems the production of hydrogen to run fuel cells would require great energy, taking away from the overall efficiency. On the other hand if you are already making steam, cracking is only a catalyst away.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel & Alternatives
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2002 12:52PM
<HTML>I haven't heard of any yeast which can produce methanol. The only alcohol produced by yeast and distillation, to my knowledge, is ethanol. Are there new genetically-engineered yeast strains which now produce methanol?
The problem with cracking alcohol fuels into hydrogen is that the potential energy in the carbon is lost. If alcohol fuel can be obtained at an acceptable cost per btu (a big "if"), it would be better to burn it directly. In a steam car, there would be no performance penalty, and no need to blend it with gasoline.
Better yet, take the material used to produce the alcohol fuel, pelletize it, and burn it directly with excess air in an underfed stoker burner with a fly-ash removal cyclone between the stoker and a catalytic afterburner as now used on clean-burning wood stoves. Radiant-heat coils are exposed to the stoker burner and catalyst, and convection coils grab heat from the combustion product gases. This gets a lot more of the energy from the plant material into the steam than either direct alcohol burning or alcohol-to-hydrogen cracking. It eliminates the considerable costs & energy losses of alcohol production and hydrogen-cracking equipment.
The combination of an underfed stoker burner and a catalytic burner could yield nearly perfectly clean exhaust. With proper design, even the catalyst could be eliminated. With pellet fuels, a fuel hopper could be located almost anywhere in the vehicle, with pellets automatically fed via rams or screws through a tube to the burner. Stack heat should be used to completely dehydrate pellets (heat a vented pellet feed tube?) before input into the burner.
Solid biofuels are the most efficient approach, but these have limitations. Less than 1% of the solar energy input into plants comes out as fuel, then only 10-20% (max) of that gets to the wheels. With a solar heat-battery steam system, about 5% of the incident solar energy could get to the wheels of a vehicle. Solar collectors for such a system would take a tiny fraction of the area of biofuel farms of the same energy production capacity, and this would be a truly zero-emission system with extremely simple and inexpensive (though bulky) equipment.
Stationary solar collectors would heat synthetic oil, which would be pipelined or transported to vehicle charging stations. At stations, vehicles offload cooled oil and take on heated oil, which generates steam in onboard oil-to-steam heat exchangers. Cooled oil is returned to solar collector installations for reheating, and would last indefinitely in an N2-charged anaerobic system.
I have calculated that a hot-oil solar heat battery steam system of this type could give a 5,000 lb, 6-passenger car (think large 1950s American sedan) about 200 miles driving range under typical conditions. Most of that weight would be hot oil and its crashproof atmospheric-pressure storage tanks. We would have to get used to large, spacious cars with good performance and a comfortable ride, however. :)
Peter</HTML>
The problem with cracking alcohol fuels into hydrogen is that the potential energy in the carbon is lost. If alcohol fuel can be obtained at an acceptable cost per btu (a big "if"), it would be better to burn it directly. In a steam car, there would be no performance penalty, and no need to blend it with gasoline.
Better yet, take the material used to produce the alcohol fuel, pelletize it, and burn it directly with excess air in an underfed stoker burner with a fly-ash removal cyclone between the stoker and a catalytic afterburner as now used on clean-burning wood stoves. Radiant-heat coils are exposed to the stoker burner and catalyst, and convection coils grab heat from the combustion product gases. This gets a lot more of the energy from the plant material into the steam than either direct alcohol burning or alcohol-to-hydrogen cracking. It eliminates the considerable costs & energy losses of alcohol production and hydrogen-cracking equipment.
The combination of an underfed stoker burner and a catalytic burner could yield nearly perfectly clean exhaust. With proper design, even the catalyst could be eliminated. With pellet fuels, a fuel hopper could be located almost anywhere in the vehicle, with pellets automatically fed via rams or screws through a tube to the burner. Stack heat should be used to completely dehydrate pellets (heat a vented pellet feed tube?) before input into the burner.
Solid biofuels are the most efficient approach, but these have limitations. Less than 1% of the solar energy input into plants comes out as fuel, then only 10-20% (max) of that gets to the wheels. With a solar heat-battery steam system, about 5% of the incident solar energy could get to the wheels of a vehicle. Solar collectors for such a system would take a tiny fraction of the area of biofuel farms of the same energy production capacity, and this would be a truly zero-emission system with extremely simple and inexpensive (though bulky) equipment.
Stationary solar collectors would heat synthetic oil, which would be pipelined or transported to vehicle charging stations. At stations, vehicles offload cooled oil and take on heated oil, which generates steam in onboard oil-to-steam heat exchangers. Cooled oil is returned to solar collector installations for reheating, and would last indefinitely in an N2-charged anaerobic system.
I have calculated that a hot-oil solar heat battery steam system of this type could give a 5,000 lb, 6-passenger car (think large 1950s American sedan) about 200 miles driving range under typical conditions. Most of that weight would be hot oil and its crashproof atmospheric-pressure storage tanks. We would have to get used to large, spacious cars with good performance and a comfortable ride, however. :)
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel & Alternatives
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2002 03:42PM
<HTML>Peter,
I don't know about genetically engineered, but there are a couple of companies that have patented methods involving a bacteria for the production of methanol.
The power of the carbon is un used but the H2O liberates an extra hydrogen atom for us to use.
I believe Burning alcohol directly does raise a few issues, Methanol is corrosive and precautions must be taken in this respect so the products of corrsion don't become products of combustion. Methanol, like most simple alcohols is hygroscopic and must be sealed from the enviroment. The fuel and maybe the incoming air would need to be heated in sub zero operating contitions before combustion could commence. All issues that can be overcome.
Burning solids can be very tricky when working with a system that has great variation in load. Starting and stopping conditions are tough to control and prevention of unburnt fuels that cause pollution is not easy. The system would have to just about have to anticipate the power need for the conditions. Ash and embers would have to be controlled, increasing the size of the system (as you mentioned). in an average burn, the cleanest wood stove will not meet emission standards for a highway vehicle so work would have to be done in this direction. If some one gets the idea developed, maybe we will turn the ignition key to start the wood stove in the house also.
I really like the idea of recharging a vehicle with a heat storage medium to produce steam but nation wide implementation would be slow and costly. It would be of great benefit to reuse the medium over and over, plus the conversion from solar radiation to heated steam would have far less apparent losses from an almost direct use. The use of a liquid to liquid heat exchanger would likely result in a savings in boiler space and heat losses to the enviroment might be more easily controlled. Also as you said, this is the one of the few ZERO emission vehicle systems and maybe the only truly practical ZERO emission system not human powered.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I don't know about genetically engineered, but there are a couple of companies that have patented methods involving a bacteria for the production of methanol.
The power of the carbon is un used but the H2O liberates an extra hydrogen atom for us to use.
I believe Burning alcohol directly does raise a few issues, Methanol is corrosive and precautions must be taken in this respect so the products of corrsion don't become products of combustion. Methanol, like most simple alcohols is hygroscopic and must be sealed from the enviroment. The fuel and maybe the incoming air would need to be heated in sub zero operating contitions before combustion could commence. All issues that can be overcome.
Burning solids can be very tricky when working with a system that has great variation in load. Starting and stopping conditions are tough to control and prevention of unburnt fuels that cause pollution is not easy. The system would have to just about have to anticipate the power need for the conditions. Ash and embers would have to be controlled, increasing the size of the system (as you mentioned). in an average burn, the cleanest wood stove will not meet emission standards for a highway vehicle so work would have to be done in this direction. If some one gets the idea developed, maybe we will turn the ignition key to start the wood stove in the house also.
I really like the idea of recharging a vehicle with a heat storage medium to produce steam but nation wide implementation would be slow and costly. It would be of great benefit to reuse the medium over and over, plus the conversion from solar radiation to heated steam would have far less apparent losses from an almost direct use. The use of a liquid to liquid heat exchanger would likely result in a savings in boiler space and heat losses to the enviroment might be more easily controlled. Also as you said, this is the one of the few ZERO emission vehicle systems and maybe the only truly practical ZERO emission system not human powered.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel & Alternatives
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 27, 2002 10:05AM
<HTML>Hi Peter H.,
Right, there are lots of challenges with all of these ideas. One problem is economics. Even if an alternative power source is cheaper than market price of existing sources, its adoption on the market would soon cut the demand/price for existing energy sources, which would slow down the further adoption of the alternative. Any replacement of fossil fuels will probably be gradual, over several decades, government mandates or no. When you look at the production cost of, say, Saudi crude, which as I recall is in the US$5-7/barrel range, it becomes obvious that they can cut their prices quite a bit to compete with anything that shows up. To really knock oil out of the market, the alternative would have to be breathtakingly cheap! For now, I plan to burn pump gasoline.
A vaporizing burner, either premix or postmix type, could have an electric heating element to overcome the cold-start problem with alcohol fuels. Stanleys had an electric pilot preheater by about 1918. Alcohol fuel system water buildup/corrosion would be a challenge, probably solved with a lot of stainless and/or teflon-lined hose. I am currently specifying a stainless pressure tank for my fuel system (tank is in shop now, new ones are about $80). The Brazilians claimed to have solved these problems with their alcohol-car experiment (which was, however, an economic/environmental disaster overall).
It doesn't surprise me that methanol-producing microbes are available. New G.E. microbes are being developed to produce all kinds of medical and industrial compounds, even stuff more toxic than methanol. I just hadn't heard of that specific type. Those little yeasties do charge quite a "commission" for their alcohol production services, though.
For automotive use, a successful solid-fueled boiler would probably need good stored energy, like a Lamont. The less stored energy, the more of a lag you'd get during acceleration. There are "look-ahead" burner air controls which can change firing levels in advance of steam demand, usually incorporating a throttle pedal sensor. Still, changes in solid-fuel firing rate would probably be slower than with a liquid or gas burner, and solid-fuel hoppers and burners would be larger and heavier than analogous fluid fuel system components. Also, a bypass flue and perhaps radiant heat shields might be necessary for shutdown, to avoid overpressure.
One of the screwy problems with the hot-oil heat battery steam system is that the temperature differential between the oil and the water/steam would be lower, plus there is no radiant heating, so actually the boiler would have be be larger and heavier. However, that can be at least partially offset by using smaller tubing in multiple parallel paths, and the oil requires less flowpath area/volume between the tubes than hot gases. 1000°F oil may be about the practical max, whereas hydrocarbon combustion products start at like 2500-2600°F(?).
Also, there is a volume to surface area ratio factor. A bigger system will lose a smaller percentage of contained heat to radiation than a smaller system, in a given recharge/running cycle. This is why big dogs eat less per lb of body weight than small dogs. Hence my preference for really big, heavy cars with this system. A lighter car, curiously, would be less efficient & would need more frequent recharging for a given travel distance.
Infrastructure for this system would also have to include fleets of fast-response hot-oil delivery trucks, for those who for whatever reason leave their hot-oil steam cars sitting/cooling for more than a week or so! Some owners might be able to fit loss-replacing solar collectors to their garage rooves, however. Some might even be able to do all their solar oil heating right at home, eliminating visits to solar oil stations except on long trips.
Folks with the money, sun/driving conditions, and space to do all their own solar oil heating at home, would be the most likely first adopters of this system. They would need no infrastructure. A couple of ~15 foot (~5 m) diameter reflective dishes could run a typical solar steamer, and these would fit the yards or rooves of most homes. While the driver is at work, the home dishes would heat up an oil storage tank for recharging the next morning (and perhaps heating/electrifying the house too). Imagine having no fuel bills for your steam car!
Peter B.</HTML>
Right, there are lots of challenges with all of these ideas. One problem is economics. Even if an alternative power source is cheaper than market price of existing sources, its adoption on the market would soon cut the demand/price for existing energy sources, which would slow down the further adoption of the alternative. Any replacement of fossil fuels will probably be gradual, over several decades, government mandates or no. When you look at the production cost of, say, Saudi crude, which as I recall is in the US$5-7/barrel range, it becomes obvious that they can cut their prices quite a bit to compete with anything that shows up. To really knock oil out of the market, the alternative would have to be breathtakingly cheap! For now, I plan to burn pump gasoline.
A vaporizing burner, either premix or postmix type, could have an electric heating element to overcome the cold-start problem with alcohol fuels. Stanleys had an electric pilot preheater by about 1918. Alcohol fuel system water buildup/corrosion would be a challenge, probably solved with a lot of stainless and/or teflon-lined hose. I am currently specifying a stainless pressure tank for my fuel system (tank is in shop now, new ones are about $80). The Brazilians claimed to have solved these problems with their alcohol-car experiment (which was, however, an economic/environmental disaster overall).
It doesn't surprise me that methanol-producing microbes are available. New G.E. microbes are being developed to produce all kinds of medical and industrial compounds, even stuff more toxic than methanol. I just hadn't heard of that specific type. Those little yeasties do charge quite a "commission" for their alcohol production services, though.
For automotive use, a successful solid-fueled boiler would probably need good stored energy, like a Lamont. The less stored energy, the more of a lag you'd get during acceleration. There are "look-ahead" burner air controls which can change firing levels in advance of steam demand, usually incorporating a throttle pedal sensor. Still, changes in solid-fuel firing rate would probably be slower than with a liquid or gas burner, and solid-fuel hoppers and burners would be larger and heavier than analogous fluid fuel system components. Also, a bypass flue and perhaps radiant heat shields might be necessary for shutdown, to avoid overpressure.
One of the screwy problems with the hot-oil heat battery steam system is that the temperature differential between the oil and the water/steam would be lower, plus there is no radiant heating, so actually the boiler would have be be larger and heavier. However, that can be at least partially offset by using smaller tubing in multiple parallel paths, and the oil requires less flowpath area/volume between the tubes than hot gases. 1000°F oil may be about the practical max, whereas hydrocarbon combustion products start at like 2500-2600°F(?).
Also, there is a volume to surface area ratio factor. A bigger system will lose a smaller percentage of contained heat to radiation than a smaller system, in a given recharge/running cycle. This is why big dogs eat less per lb of body weight than small dogs. Hence my preference for really big, heavy cars with this system. A lighter car, curiously, would be less efficient & would need more frequent recharging for a given travel distance.
Infrastructure for this system would also have to include fleets of fast-response hot-oil delivery trucks, for those who for whatever reason leave their hot-oil steam cars sitting/cooling for more than a week or so! Some owners might be able to fit loss-replacing solar collectors to their garage rooves, however. Some might even be able to do all their solar oil heating right at home, eliminating visits to solar oil stations except on long trips.
Folks with the money, sun/driving conditions, and space to do all their own solar oil heating at home, would be the most likely first adopters of this system. They would need no infrastructure. A couple of ~15 foot (~5 m) diameter reflective dishes could run a typical solar steamer, and these would fit the yards or rooves of most homes. While the driver is at work, the home dishes would heat up an oil storage tank for recharging the next morning (and perhaps heating/electrifying the house too). Imagine having no fuel bills for your steam car!
Peter B.</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel & Alternatives
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 27, 2002 04:36PM
<HTML>Peter,
I was thinking of a solid fired system that burned powered biomass in a low pressure burner so the firing rate could be easily varied. The lamont does seem logical for its ability to store some extra power with a burner that responds somewhat slowly. If you over pressurize the system, are there any steam whistles that condense ?
Methanol in steel tanks has shown a development of hydrous ferric oxide which will flow through the fuel filter untill the actions of heat and road travel make it coagulate, blocking the filter. Stainless or plastics seem to be the stuff.
The oil heat battery, in my mind, would contain the steam generator tubes and water would be admitted as steam is needed. The tubes could never overheat and an overall reduction in size might be achieved with proper design. I have since considered an oil heat battery/burner hybrid system as an option. What do you think?
The main nonsynthetic method for methanol production involves the reduction of biomass yealding gasses that are synthisized to methanol. It is a closed loop that does not produce any net increase in atmospheric CO2. A consideration is the land used to grow the biomass might be need more for food production and urban waste is only a small source. Corn produces 3 to 17 tons of dry biomass per acre per year but requires good growing conditions, cattails and water hyacinth can produce between 16 and 30 tons per acre per year. Algaes have also been investigated for the production of biomass with promising results. The bacteria for direct production of methanol seem to be very propriatary with little info available but they may be related to the bacteria that oxydizes methanol.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I was thinking of a solid fired system that burned powered biomass in a low pressure burner so the firing rate could be easily varied. The lamont does seem logical for its ability to store some extra power with a burner that responds somewhat slowly. If you over pressurize the system, are there any steam whistles that condense ?
Methanol in steel tanks has shown a development of hydrous ferric oxide which will flow through the fuel filter untill the actions of heat and road travel make it coagulate, blocking the filter. Stainless or plastics seem to be the stuff.
The oil heat battery, in my mind, would contain the steam generator tubes and water would be admitted as steam is needed. The tubes could never overheat and an overall reduction in size might be achieved with proper design. I have since considered an oil heat battery/burner hybrid system as an option. What do you think?
The main nonsynthetic method for methanol production involves the reduction of biomass yealding gasses that are synthisized to methanol. It is a closed loop that does not produce any net increase in atmospheric CO2. A consideration is the land used to grow the biomass might be need more for food production and urban waste is only a small source. Corn produces 3 to 17 tons of dry biomass per acre per year but requires good growing conditions, cattails and water hyacinth can produce between 16 and 30 tons per acre per year. Algaes have also been investigated for the production of biomass with promising results. The bacteria for direct production of methanol seem to be very propriatary with little info available but they may be related to the bacteria that oxydizes methanol.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel & Alternatives
Posted by: John Mahler (IP Logged)
Date: March 01, 2002 08:33PM
<HTML>Go to [ans.neep.wisc.edu]
for one "ultimate" solution to our pollution/energy needs.
If development of this energy provided unlimited electrical energy,or glass bound isotopes were used as batteries heating water to steam, the oil producers would have only lubrication products to sell the world. Of course, the answer to why we have to put up with pollution and strict government regulation/taxation is in this knowledge. The governments of the world and the oil cartels join forces in the greatest monopoly ever to corner the market on energy and the windfall taxation that results. It will never come, a day when properly engineered nuclear powered vehicles are in the hands of the world's motorists. Nor, will ever a day come, when electricity is produced in such quantities that the oil fired electrical generating plants of the world are replaced by nuclear reactors. And, for the same reason. This is also the reason why so many of the ones built since W W I I have been dismantled. While many technical reasons are cited, the truth is that monoply interests prevent the adoption of pollution free energy production.
We just have to accept this and live with it. Steam powered cars, almost without exception, are the cleanest vehicles produced to date. The exceptions may be vehicles fired with solig fuels such as coal or other solid combustibles.
John Mahlerr</HTML>
for one "ultimate" solution to our pollution/energy needs.
If development of this energy provided unlimited electrical energy,or glass bound isotopes were used as batteries heating water to steam, the oil producers would have only lubrication products to sell the world. Of course, the answer to why we have to put up with pollution and strict government regulation/taxation is in this knowledge. The governments of the world and the oil cartels join forces in the greatest monopoly ever to corner the market on energy and the windfall taxation that results. It will never come, a day when properly engineered nuclear powered vehicles are in the hands of the world's motorists. Nor, will ever a day come, when electricity is produced in such quantities that the oil fired electrical generating plants of the world are replaced by nuclear reactors. And, for the same reason. This is also the reason why so many of the ones built since W W I I have been dismantled. While many technical reasons are cited, the truth is that monoply interests prevent the adoption of pollution free energy production.
We just have to accept this and live with it. Steam powered cars, almost without exception, are the cleanest vehicles produced to date. The exceptions may be vehicles fired with solig fuels such as coal or other solid combustibles.
John Mahlerr</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel & Alternatives
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 02, 2002 12:17PM
<HTML>Hi John,
Now, _there's_ the ultimate steam car fuel. Good luck getting it licensed by the NRC! :)
Peter</HTML>
Now, _there's_ the ultimate steam car fuel. Good luck getting it licensed by the NRC! :)
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel-burners
Posted by: TIM WARNECKE (IP Logged)
Date: April 09, 2002 06:11PM
<HTML>IM LOOKING FOR A BURNER SYSTEM THAT WE CAN ADAPT TO OUR WASTE OIL HEATING SYSTEM. WE ARE EXPLORING ALTERNATIVE HEATING SYSTEMS USING HYDROGEN. THANKS TIM 208 755 1375</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel-burners
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: April 12, 2002 06:47PM
<HTML>I don't know of any burners comerically available but the book "Fuel From Water" has information on converting burners for hydrogen use.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel
Posted by: LeRoy Pea (IP Logged)
Date: May 16, 2004 05:50PM
<HTML>Try these carb designs available at USPTO for download!
Local listing for \Patents\Carburetors:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
compressed air patents.htm Air powered, pnuematically powered automobile. (9 results)
patents that reference US03256504.htm
patents that reference US03648668.htm
patents that reference US03980053.htm
uspn0583104 Details not found, show references.
USpn2623812_Hydrogen_gen Details not found, show references.
uspn3256504_Hydrogen_gen Details not found, show references.
uspn3262872 water_carburetor Partial description by William A. Rhodes, 1966.
uspn3648668_hydro_carb (Hydrogen)Gas operated intern.combust. engine Francisco Pacheco, 1972.
uspn3840454_Hydro_gen Electrolytic Hydrogen Source. J.Jansta & O. Lasota, 1974.
uspn3892653_Hydro_gen Hydrogen generator. Francisco Pacheco 1975.
uspn3910831 hydrogen gen
uspn3942511_Hydrogen_gen_USNAVY
uspn3954592 Water Carb
uspn3980053_Hdro_carb
USpn3980053_WaterCarb
uspn4011843 Water carb
uspn4023545_Water_carb
uspn4064226_SaltWater_Hydro_gen
uspn4074666 carb
uspn4133847 water carb
uspn4146446_Hydrogen_gen
uspn4184931_Water_carb
uspn4292804 Compressed Air
uspn4344831_Water_carb
uspn4368163 carb
uspn4399079 carb
uspn4412521 carb
uspn4424105_SolidState_Hydro_gen
uspn4442801 water carb
uspn4551153 carb
uspn4596119 Compressed air propulsion
uspn4597363_MEmelock
uspn4622944 carb
uspn4702894_Hydrogen_carb
uspn4798661_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn4826581_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn4926831 carb
uspn4936961_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn5005787 oxygen
uspn5076243 carb
uspn5089107_Water_carb_FPacheco
uspn5149407_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn5244558_Hydro_gen
uspn5244640_Hydrogen_gen
uspn5401371_Membrane_hydro_gen
uspn5515675 Apparatus to convert
uspn5632870_Hydro_fuelcell
uspn5782225 carb
uspn5968325_Auto_electro_hydrogen_gen
uspn6006519 Compressed air-powered engine
usre035237 water carb</HTML>
Local listing for \Patents\Carburetors:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
compressed air patents.htm Air powered, pnuematically powered automobile. (9 results)
patents that reference US03256504.htm
patents that reference US03648668.htm
patents that reference US03980053.htm
uspn0583104 Details not found, show references.
USpn2623812_Hydrogen_gen Details not found, show references.
uspn3256504_Hydrogen_gen Details not found, show references.
uspn3262872 water_carburetor Partial description by William A. Rhodes, 1966.
uspn3648668_hydro_carb (Hydrogen)Gas operated intern.combust. engine Francisco Pacheco, 1972.
uspn3840454_Hydro_gen Electrolytic Hydrogen Source. J.Jansta & O. Lasota, 1974.
uspn3892653_Hydro_gen Hydrogen generator. Francisco Pacheco 1975.
uspn3910831 hydrogen gen
uspn3942511_Hydrogen_gen_USNAVY
uspn3954592 Water Carb
uspn3980053_Hdro_carb
USpn3980053_WaterCarb
uspn4011843 Water carb
uspn4023545_Water_carb
uspn4064226_SaltWater_Hydro_gen
uspn4074666 carb
uspn4133847 water carb
uspn4146446_Hydrogen_gen
uspn4184931_Water_carb
uspn4292804 Compressed Air
uspn4344831_Water_carb
uspn4368163 carb
uspn4399079 carb
uspn4412521 carb
uspn4424105_SolidState_Hydro_gen
uspn4442801 water carb
uspn4551153 carb
uspn4596119 Compressed air propulsion
uspn4597363_MEmelock
uspn4622944 carb
uspn4702894_Hydrogen_carb
uspn4798661_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn4826581_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn4926831 carb
uspn4936961_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn5005787 oxygen
uspn5076243 carb
uspn5089107_Water_carb_FPacheco
uspn5149407_Meyer_fuel_cell
uspn5244558_Hydro_gen
uspn5244640_Hydrogen_gen
uspn5401371_Membrane_hydro_gen
uspn5515675 Apparatus to convert
uspn5632870_Hydro_fuelcell
uspn5782225 carb
uspn5968325_Auto_electro_hydrogen_gen
uspn6006519 Compressed air-powered engine
usre035237 water carb</HTML>
production of liquid fuel from plastics.
Posted by: Omolola (IP Logged)
Date: September 03, 2004 09:17PM
<HTML>Hi
I am a student in one of the Nigerian polytechnics, carrying out a research on the above subject.pls I need your assistance.</HTML>
I am a student in one of the Nigerian polytechnics, carrying out a research on the above subject.pls I need your assistance.</HTML>
Re: Hydrogen Fuel-burners
Posted by: Tony Christofer (IP Logged)
Date: November 04, 2004 09:03PM
<HTML>I need hydrogen burner for my boiler. 20 HP Boiler water tub boiler.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.