Low energy Input, mass hydrogen output methods in use.

[brian]

[thrival]

Geo:

The amount of H2 may vary, subject to experiments.
The certain difference will be the energetic difference
between the metals you choose. The wider the difference,
the more V you'll generate between each cell, and probably
hydrogen too. I must confess difficulty in reading scientific
tables that list the numbers/differences. Latimer's book
wasn't as clear-cut as I would have liked. Linus Pauling in his
General Chemistry was clear in a simple graph showing
but a few elements. I don't enjoy a lexicon shared only by high
priests of physics.

[Orange_Crusader]

The differences in using other metals or materials would be compounds they from as sulfates (solid or soluble, dissolved), how much energy it would take to split their bonds, and how quickly they would react. Let's see..

For copper, starting with Cu2O. It would take three times the amount of Cu2O to soak up the same amount of O2 as an iron cell (Fe2O3). Copper sulfate is soluble, and when in contact with water, exists as copper sulfate pentahydrate, absorbing 5 water molecules per CuSO4 molecule. Each Cu2O molecule will be able to react with 2 sulfate molecules, which is the same as iron. This makes 2H2 molecules and one O2 molecule for each reaction. Nice. Problem is, that I've seen, iron oxidizes very slowly, even exposed to electricity as we plan to do. I don't think a recharge cycle of a few hours for 450g (a pound) of iron is very practical. I think copper will do better, but marginally so. I don't like to redesign things like this, but it may be in order.

For CuO, another stable form of copper, We'd have half the hydrogen production of iron for the same molar weight (1 mole), so we'd need to double the amount of CuO we use, which would also put our H2 vs. O2 production at 2:1, standard electrolysis levels.

For zinc, which is thankfully more reactive than the above, and slightly more reactive than iron, oxidizing faster than the ones above, would have the same results as CuO, but possibly a faster recharge cycle.

For lead, with its more stable 2+ oxidation state, we would again see the same results, but as it's less reactive than any other metal here, except copper, a slow recharge cycle could be a problem.

Our iron will rust very slowly as well, unless we can very rapidly expose it to a lot of pure O2 (doable, seperated and bubbled through, but it makes the rest of the process less efficient, since part of the products is put bck through the cell. I like the idea, but it's impractical.

[thrival]

Orange:

Linnard's iron experiment made lots of gas in just a 2 liter
soda bottle. I think iron powder is cheaper than copper,
and more negative. And sodium is more positive than
calcium if I remember correctly, but don't have Pauling's
book in front of me. Also the V difference between Fe & Ca
is a good 5V (before adding acid, not sure how that will
affect voltage.) Still that's a pretty high V for just one cell.
A car battery needs 6 cells to reach 12V.

We're not trying to oxidize/rust the iron but make iron
sulfate. When it's not sulfate it's just iron again. Same for
the calcium (or sodium) Once we remove current, the acid
will attack both, no? (My concern with sodium is once separated
from the sulfate, how will it react in the weak acid? Will it explode
as with pure water, or just make H2?)

And to speed H2 production, how about each cell sharing a
common base, like an air-stone? (also our "membrane?") That way
we can keep the materials loose by injecting air at the bottom,
speeding gas release. Wouldn't it be great if we could make the
H2 battery a vapor bubbler as well? Maybe add a reservoir tank
to keep the cells filled, and to route our exhaust, for a closed
loop. In fact the exhaust could power the air-stone. I know
that's adding another order of complexity to the design tho.
I don't know if all these ideas will work, just putting them out
there.

[Orange_Crusader]

Iron oxide should easily be cheaper than copper powder, I think.

Sodium is 1+, and Ca is 2+, in the first and second groups on the periodic table, respectively. Sodium is more electronegative than Ca, by a small amount.

To start with, we'll have iron oxide (cheaper than "pure" iron powder). The acid will make it into a sulfate easily enough, producing oxygen and hydrogen gases (not formed as water, I hope). When recharged, at least a small part should react to Fe2O3 or Fe(OH)2. Just having iron means we'll only make hydrogen. Not bad. But... if there's nothing for the acid to eat away and produce hydroge with, the free Fe2+ will simply attract to the sulfate, no reaction. At least that's my line of thinking at 11PM on a school night. We'll see tomorrow.

Having an enclosed system for this would be pretty cool, the O2 is bubbled through (if needed). Gives us max. surface area to react at once, and if we can route half of the O2 produced to a cell that's recharging, the same idea will speed up recharging, larger surface area.

Sodium in this environment can't exist as a standalone element, there's no chance of it exploding on us. It will become sodium hydroxide, a rather strong base. I wonder how our acid will react to that (no time to type it out now or think about it much).

I'll have to look up Linnard's experiment, not familiar with it off the top of my head (heard of it though). I've got some reading to do, I think, Linnard and reaction-related.

[thrival]

[Dm66]

[Orange_Crusader]

[thrival]

[thrival]

[geotrouvetout]

[thrival]

[zendog]

Hi all-

I am relatively new to this hydrogen making game and to this forum so I hope you may be patient with me a bit. I want to say first off that its all very fascinating stuff and I enjoy very much reading all of the input from everyone. I have read all of this thread several times but there is so much info that one can become confused by the time he reaches the end again. That's where I am at now -confused but interested!
Ok so to recap a bit here Alaska star says at one point-

"the preliminary tests in a 5 gallon bucket, containing aproximately 1 gallon of fluid, and my catalyst material simply (and literally) dropped into it, and a lid fastened quickly thereafter, makes aproximately 114.288 CUBIC FEET of hydrogen in 8 minutes. afterward i am left with a bucket full of fertilizer, and water, i just pour the water off, and let the crystals dry out. makes for good tomatoes in arctic climates. "

So, here he is making nearly 15 cu.ft/min of hydrogen gas and winding up with fertilizer and water. No mention of sulphuric acid or any oxides that I can tell. No pulsing, no zapping, no heating - just dumps it all in the bucket, slams a lid on it and runs for cover. So, reading all of the comments I haven't seen where this puzzle was solved. Perhaps someone can explain it to me?
I know there is talk of several different systems but I somehow missed how where all of a sudden it all jumps to needing 2 metals in sulphuric acid with special membranes etc required. If we dump gypsum into sulphuric acid we don't end up with just water and fertilizer do we?
Can anyone tell me what alaskastar is mixing in his 5 gallon bucket?

much appreciated

[thrival]

zendog:

AlaskaStar left it for us to figure out, but he suggests more than
one method or material.

Almost any metal in volume, dumped into dilute sulfuric acid,
will make lots of hydrogen, and any number of mineral sulfates
are/can be used as fertilizer.

Two metals aren't needed to do this, but the advantage of using
them are you can recover all the electricity used to charge the
cell (in effect a rechargable battery) AND make hydrogen. If
you want to just throw your material away as fertilizer after
you've made hydrogen, go ahead. Some of us would like to
use it over and over. And just one metal in weak sulfuric acid
doesn't also make electricity, but two do. That's what a battery is.

[zendog]

Thanks Thrival-

Yes, I see why you are wanting to use two metals to get electricity produced. I think that's pretty cool.
I was just curious as to what alaskastar was referring to since he said he could "just dump out the water" afterward. Guessing that he wouldn't just dump out sulphuric acid onto the ground would he?
I have just got myself some sulphuric acid- 95% concentrated- can't seem to find gypsum around these parts believe it or not but hopefully will be able to find some plaster of paris.
Am I understanding this correctly?- If I were to run a single metal process like lets say iron in the diluted sulphuric acid - then could I place a piece or pieces of iron(filings) into the solution, which would then produce hydrogen gas, right? then what I am left with is iron oxide in the sulphuric solution? So, at this point when its finished producing hydrogen gas, then could I place in my lets say copper electrodes to give it some DC current for a while and the iron oxide will return to iron, FE? and then shut off the electric current and start producing gas again? is this right?
Also wondering if there would be any sulphur fumes created in the process?

appreciate the advice before I start my experiments