Chemical Forums
Specialty Chemistry Forums => Citizen Chemist => Topic started by: Corvettaholic on April 15, 2005, 03:10:35 PM
-
Here's some interesting stuff I ran into:
http://www.blazelabs.com/n-aquagen.asp
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/bfr10.htm
For those who don't feel like looking at the link, the basic gist of it is have 2 carbon rods, pass low voltage high amperage current between the electrodes to create a plasma. This whole contraption is immersed in water. What is supposed to happen is the heat/whatever of the plasma breaks apart the water. I guess parts of the anode flake off too. Something like H2O + C2 --> CO + CO2 + H2. I know I didn't balance it. But somehow you end up with COH2, and apparently you can burn that in an engine. Possible or a bunch of hooha?
-
It seems as posssible thing. What they actually do is producing of good old "Synthesis gas" - mixture of CO and H2.
Same mix could be produced by exposing of strongly heated carbon to water vapour as follows:
C + H2O= CO + H2
It is ok up to this point.
The only question i was not able to find answer for was the quality of the carbon rods and, consequently, their cost.
Say, you want to produce such quantity of CO/H2 mix that would be equivalent by it's energy to 1 liter of gasoline.
You would need to burn relatively big amount of grafite in this plasma generator. Crude , cheap carbon (coal or grafite) is contents a lot of impurities. Besides you must keep some distanse between electrodes to get the whole invention properly operated. Consequently it have to be pure carbon RODS and not ,say lumps of cheap freshly mined coal.
They have presented nice tables showed that no corrosive gases (like NO, NO2,SO2) could be formed during operation of the device, but still all their data is based on using of pure carbon.
-
You can pickup mostly pure carbon rods from a welding shop, and at low cost too. Figure you use a stepper motor to start the rods right next to each other to initiate the arc, and then slowly pull the rods apart to extend the arc. Maybe have more than 1 pair of rods in there for more production, or would that cause a short?
I'm guessing you could use this stuff in a standard gasoline engine, but you will need to reprogram the ECM. Instead of a 11:1 fuel/air ratio, it'll probably need to be something like 5:1. That, and you'll need beefier fuel injectors.
-
The carbon rods you was talking about are purposed for welding. They do relatively cheap if somebody going to use them for arc welding and not to "burn" them as crude coal instead of gasoline.
The crude cotton is extremely cheap if you intend to make a fabric from it, but it is much more expensive if you want to burn it in a power station instead of an oil.
There is somthing else about the invention:
the mix of CO and H2 is extremely poison (because of CO presents) I only hope noone here (moderator) would concern that topic as dangerous and would lock it forever.
It is also explosive (mostly because of H2) when mixed with air.
It must be transported in heavy stainless cylinders under high pressure (the permission must be obtained from officials to do that, besides no insurance company would want to deal with somebody that drive in a car adjusted with cylinders filled with highly poison and explosive gaseous mixture). It is no hope as well to carry the mix in the liquid state (as propan-butan fuel) due to very low boiling points of the both gases:
b.p. of H2 is -252 oC
b.p. of CO is -191 oC
I think that creators of the device just attempt to sell the patent for continue of development in some huge outfit (like GM) and not to persuade bright individuals to try it in their houses.
-
Can you seperate the H2 and CO when calculating boiling point? Since they're both combined, wouldn't the boiling point be something funny or unexpected? Well if it is poisonous and explosive, thats really no different that gasoline. Gasoline is transported in liquid form, and it blows up quite easily and is also a bad idea to drink it. But transporting gasoline in gaseous form would be a terrible idea, I do understand that. So instead of looking at the boiling point of H2 and CO seperately, if we put them together (COH2) then how do I figure out the boiling point then? According to the links, that is the compound formed, but its not too clear if its a liquid or a gas after its been collected...
-
The poisoness of CO is much higher than every component of gasoline ( mixture of hydrocarbons CnH2n+2). Even tiny leakage of CO would cause serious poisoning. That compound has good affinity for hemoglobin and can prevent from our blood to carry oxygen. It's poison by breathing ,not drinking. (by the way if somebody should attempt to drink liquid CO at -190 oC, he should die immediately not because of it poisoness but due to terrible cold wounds)
Liquid mixture of CO and H2 would behave pretty same to the liquid air (both are mixtures of two low boiling gases-it should begin to boil around -250oC when pure H2 vaporisated and should end up at
-190 oC with distillation of CO.)
There are a lot of methods for separation of H2 from CO:
For example :
CaC2 +3CO =CaCO3 +4C
Ca(OH)2+CO=CaCO3+H2
The mentioned above methods used to remove CO from it's CO/H2 mix in industrial conditions.
I think they have meant CO/H2 mix and not COH2 (formaldehyde H-C(O)H)
-
But I don't want to seperate the CO and H2. But I see your point in it behaving like regular air, meaning it'll be freakishly hard to make it into a liquid. Wonder how much pressure it would take to force it to be a liquid? Probably more than I can make at home. I always remember reading stories about people who die from carbon monoxide poisoning. How much does it take to kill you anyway?
About COH2... are there different ways to arrange the atoms so it acts like something else? So formaldehyde, is that HCOH, or COH2? Formaldehyde is a liquid, right? If it is possible to rearrange the atoms, how does the name change and its behavior?
-
You have to pressure the mix up to 200 -300 atm. to insert it into relatively small cylinder.
From calculations depended on Ideal Gases Low follows, that if you going to carry ,say, 30 kg. of the CO/H2 mixture in your car
(28 kg of CO and 2kg of H2-molar rate has been kept 1/1), under atm pressure you will need huge cylinder with volume of 44800 Lit. (!)
Compressed gases would be inserted into smaller cylinders, for example:
10 atm pressure 4480 Lit
100 atm 448 Lit
300 atm 147 Lit
(such iron ,high pressure cylinder, with capacity of 150 Lit would weigh at least 100 kg)
By the way for obtaining of 28 kg of CO you have to converse in that electrical arc apparatus somthing like 12.1 kg of carbon rods.
-
to put it basically CO is a carcinogenic and can cause cancer even in very low concentrations(~1%) with prolonged exposure. and that is when the CO is quite far from you (consider in the past when ppl had to walk alongside with car exhausts with CO)
isnt it rather than they die from cold, instead their heart activities freezes? i was wondering about cryopreservation, and wondering if the person really dies outright from the cold.
formaldehyde is an organic compound, and has a VERY different bonding from COH2. it is a gas btw, although its boiling point is quite low, being -21 degrees celsius.
-
They have mentioned in the description of the invention that COH2 is CO/H2 gaseous mixture and not somthing else.
CO is not carcinogen , it's poison due to high ability for blockage of hemoglobine (that responsible for transportation of O2 to our cells)
Following concentration of CO in the air are dangerous (versa residense time)
If you are exposed to 0.2 gr. of CO per 1 m^3 of air you are permitted to inhale it no more then 15 min.
Or 0.05 gr. only of CO per one hour of inhalation.
Higher concentration of CO (or more prolongated exposing to it) would cause serious damage for your health (nervous's system etc.)
You has asked about maximal possible number of carbon rods that could be used in home condition for producing of the gaseous mixture. It is depended on a maximal possible curient of electricity avialable in your home. Say, if you can get as much as 60 Amper (with 110 V ) , then it would powered by ~6000W ( with all other electr. users shutted down). Say ,it would be corresponds to 4 rods (and no more) .
I would not advice you to try the invention in your home-too dangerous and almost useless task.
-
Incidentally, how is this reaction any different from the *electrolysis* of water? When you put two carbon rods into a cup of water and run a current through them, you get the same reaction you gave earlier (C + H2O --> CO + H2). It seems to me that the only thing you're changing is the quantity of electricity running through the system. To avoid the afore-mentioned danger concerning the carbon monoxide, just switch the graphite electrodes to something else.
And on another note, you can get four free carbon rods of decent purity from the typical lantern battery. Inside the plastic case are four metal cylinders, each with a graphite rod sticking out. Cut out the plastic around the graphite (it's a little time consuming, but you have to do it), then pull it out of the MnO2 (I think that's what it is) with a pair of plyers. You even get a nice lead wire already attached to it!
-
You are right. By electrolisis of pure water the same products would be obtained (with, probably some extra amount of O2), but whole mechanism of the process is different. The electrical arc produced plasma and actually carbon electrodes are oxidized by it. Even previously heated air and inert gases (isolators at room temperatures) can give plasma of very hight conductivity.
The beauty of the invention is that it makes it possible to produce huge amounts of CO/H2 , using pure water of relatively low conductivity (no need in addition of OH- or SO42- etc)
-
Well why bother with the CO at all? I mean, if you used a different metal for the rod, you might not have to worry about stripping off pieces of the electrode and forming unwanted compounds. This wouldn't be a bad way to generate hydrogen quickly! I understood pyrolysis versus electrolysis as using heat to break apart stuff instead of electricity. In this case they're very related, but would this be considered pyrolysis or just fancy electrolysis? What about using platinum rods? Maybe get hydrogen and platinum oxide?
-
That sounds like a cool reaction. The dangers seam to great. Also what was stated was that it has to be under high pressure. Don't the lighter hydrocarbons have a tendency to vaporize? I believe so. That is cool though.
Note: What happened to your atomic battery Corvettaholic.
-
By design the invention they have succeded in obtaining of reducers as only product of the process.
What i mean is that both CO and H2 are reducers and could be subjected to burning in O2. In most of electrolysis's both oxidizers and reducers are obtained. The simplest case is electrolyses of H2O with using of inert electrodes where O2 and H2 are the products. If you want to get rid of O2 instead of collecting of it ,you have to add somthing to your electrolite that would be easily oxidized by O2 , for example -sodium sulfit (in such case you must use a membrane between two electrolitic cells), or to burn your electrodes (it must be cheap! -carbon or crude iron ) as it is in the invention. By my opinion ,using of extra reducing reagent would make H2 too expensive .
They do add reducers in to electrolitic sell if the product of the oxidation is usefull for something.
-
Well since there isn't an extra reducing agent, wouldn't this be a really cheap way to produce H2? The only thing you're really expending is water (cheap) and carbon electrodes (cheap). If you had an electrode that wouldn't burn up though... then just the water would be expended. Right? Any idea what would be a good conductor to use that would carry high amperage current to break apart water, and not burn itself up?
About the atomic battery: its on hold. I got a call from the NRC and they told me I can't have a license. To get the stuff I need, it'll take a bit more money that I have. Still waiting for my house refinance to go through so I can pay off the corvette (and fix it), then I can go get a bunch of old radium clocks. Once I get those, I'll be asking plenty of questions about radium salts ;D
-
Diluted water solutions of NaOH are very good conductors of electricity. The only products of electrolyses of such solutions are O2 and H2.
-
Thats one way to get hydrogen, but then I have to buy the NaOH which is more expensive than tap water. I'd love to use tap water to get hydrogen, because in AZ our water supply is subsidized by the federal government so we get cheap water. Not good water, but cheap water. If you let it sit out overnight and check it in the morning, you'll see floaties. I know water by itself is a crappy conductor, but with enough amperage it should work. So long as you start with the electrodes really really close to each other so it won't take as much power to get the arc started, then you can draw the electrodes away from each other to extend the arc. So long as it doesn't get extinguished, plain ol water should be a good enough conductor.
All that heat from the plasma... does the heat itself break apart the water or just the insane amount of current? It'll be running over 30 volts, and I know thats more than plenty for electrolysis. The amperage will also be over 50 too, I think. I really need to build a specialized power supply for this... time to go transformer hunting.
-
From what they claimed in the invention it seems likely to be burning (oxidation) of carbon electrodes by water rather than usual electrolyses. The tips of the carbod rods getting overheated by the arc and easily react with water to give CO/H2 mixture.
If you are serious about all of that stuff ,I would like to give you some general information about common used electrodes :
The Anode would be made up from following materials:
Graphite ,Pt, Iron oxides (good and cheap thing, but there would be a problem to produce compact electrode from it), Pb ( would be found in old car accumulator batteries), Pb oxides, Ni and it's oxides, Ti.
The Cathode commonly produced from stainless steel.
The Anode is the electrode where oxidation is taken place and, consequently , that electrode must be much more stable for corrosion than Cathode where reducing process is actually carried out.
During electrolyses of pure water ,O2 and H2 are only compounds formed ,if materials for both cathode and anode has been properly chosen.
O2 would be collected on Anode and H2 on Cathode.
The two gases must be evacuated via separated pipes, compressed and collected in different cylinders.
-
All the described above is good only for common electrolyses and not for arc making, where for example Pb Anode would be immediately melted up due to the very low melting point of that metal.
-
So titanium would be the way to go? Maybe I can find some electrodes on ebay...
-
Titanium is very expensive is it not. If you have a rocket lying around you can go to the moon and get some though. Beat the rest of the world back to the moon. Be the first civilian to the moon without government funding.
-
You can try Ti (melting point 1600 oC, high resistance to the certainly tipes of corrosion) to make up your Anode and stainless steel for Catode, but one couldn't help asking what for, for Good sake? All you going to collect are well known , very cheap and useless for home needs ,O2 and H2. There still would be danger ,this time not from poisoning by inhalation of CO, but from explosion of H2 -air or H2-O2 gaseous mixtures. Besides you have not got proper machinery to compress the gases.By the way the only thing , concerned electrolysis, that would have been worth dealing with in home condition, would be producing of Ni and Cr coating of stainless steel and coper parts of cars and sanitary devices (taps , pipes etc).
A lot of the pplz has been doing such jobs in their sheds in the past (and i belive now days as well). The such bissness needs a lot of experience, but if somebody getting serious about it (read the manuals , study principles of practical electrochemistry ), then even somebody that has not got especial education in the field,after years of hard working would be able in the end to turn to real profi in the electrolitic coating and make good money or at least to turn his house or car to unbelivable beautiful Ni/Cr shining pieces.
It is nice to be scientist and to search for newest inventions , but the base line is what is ones aim except to natural curiousity would be.
-
Oh there is no useful purpose at all to this invention. Its just natural curiousity, like most of my contraptions. The atomic battery is along the same lines, but I need more funding to test that one out. Proof of concept is all I need to be happy... at first.
-
Can i ask how you are preventing the electrolysis of water whilst executing the pyrolysis experiment?
Wont you be mixing Hydrogen and Oxygen, within the gas you are trying to produce.
Isn't that a bit risky for storage?