Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [free_energy] power on tap - water powered car?

Expand Messages
  • Dick Seegers
    Maybe this link could provide some useful information http://www.kvab.be/Downloads/Lezingen/Hydrogen_energycarrier.pdf tallex2002
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Maybe this link could provide some useful information

      http://www.kvab.be/Downloads/Lezingen/Hydrogen_energycarrier.pdf

      tallex2002 <altenergynetwork@...> wrote:

      < http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/07/28/1750967.htm >

      Power on tap

      (New Scientist Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) FORGET cars fuelled
      by alcohol and vegetable oil. Before long, you might be able to
      run your car with nothing more than water in its fuel tank. It
      would be the ultimate zero-emissions vehicle.

      While water, plain old H2O, is not at first sight an obvious power
      source, it has a key virtue: it is an abundant source of hydrogen,
      the element widely touted as the green fuel of the future. If
      that hydrogen could be liberated on demand, it would overcome
      many of the obstacles that till now have prevented the dream
      of a hydrogen-powered car becoming reality. Producing hydrogen
      by conventional industrial means is expensive, inefficient and
      often polluting. Then there are the problems of storing and
      transporting hydrogen. The pressure tanks required to hold usable
      quantities of the fuel are heavy and cumbersome, which restricts
      the car's performance and range.

      Tareq Abu-Hamed, now at the University of Minnesota, and colleagues
      at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, have
      devised a scheme that gets round these problems. By reacting
      water with the element boron, their system produces hydrogen
      that can be burnt in an internal combustion engine or fed to
      a fuel cell to generate electricity. "The aim is to produce
      the hydrogen on-board at a rate matching the demand of the
      car engine," says Abu-Hamed. "We want to use the boron to save
      transporting and storing the hydrogen." The only by-product
      is boron oxide, which can be removed from the car, turned
      back into boron, and used again. What's more, Abu-Hamed
      envisages doing this in a solar-powered plant that is completely
      emission-free.

      Simple chemistryThe team calculates that a car would have to
      carry just 18 kilograms of boron and 45 litres of water to
      produce 5 kilograms of hydrogen, which has the same energy
      content as a 40-litre tank of conventional fuel. An Israeli
      company has begun designing a prototype engine that works
      in the same way, and the Japanese company Samsung has built
      a prototype scooter based on a similar idea.

      The hydrogen-on-demand approach is based on some simple
      high-school chemistry. Elements like sodium and potassium
      are well known for their violent reactions with water,
      tearing hydrogen from its stable union with oxygen. Boron
      does the same, but at a more manageable pace. It requires
      no special containment, and atom for atom it's a light
      material. When all the boron is used up, the boron oxide
      that remains can be reprocessed and recycled.

      Abu-Hamed and his team are not the first to investigate
      hydrogen-on-demand vehicles. The car giant DaimlerChrysler
      built a concept vehicle called Natrium (after the Latin
      word for sodium, from which the element's Na symbol is drawn),
      which used slightly more sophisticated chemistry to generate
      its hydrogen. Instead of pure water as the source of the gas,
      it used a solution of the hydrogen-heavy compound sodium
      borohydride. When passed over a precious-metal catalyst such
      as ruthenium, the compound reacts with water to liberate
      hydrogen that can be fed to a fuel cell. It was enough to
      give the Natrium a top speed of 130 kilometres per hour and
      a respectable range of 500 kilometres, but DaimlerChrysler
      axed the project in 2003 because of difficulties in
      providing the necessary infrastructure to support the car
      in an efficient, environmentally friendly way.

      Engineuity, an Israeli start-up company run by Amnon Yogev,
      a former Weizmann Institute scientist, is working on a
      similar strategy, but using the reaction between aluminium
      wire and water to generate hydrogen. In Engineuity's design,
      the tip of the metal wire is ignited and dipped into water
      to begin splitting the water molecules. The liberated hydrogen
      is piped into the engine alongside the resulting steam, where
      it is mixed with air and burnt. Engineuity is looking for
      investors to pay for a prototype, and claims it will be able
      to commercialise its idea "in a few years' time". The US
      company PowerBall Technologies envisages a hydrogen-on-demand
      engine containing plastic balls filled with sodium hydride
      powder that are split to dump the contents into water, where
      it reacts to produce hydrogen.

      Abu-Hamed says the generation of hydrogen for his team's engine
      would be regulated by controlling the flow of water into a
      series of tanks containing powdered boron. To kick-start the
      reaction, the water has to be supplied as vapour heated to
      several hundred degrees, so the car will still require some
      start-up power, possibly from a battery. Once the engine is
      running, the heat generated by the highly exothermic oxidation
      reaction between boron and water could be used to warm the
      incoming water, Abu-Hamed says. Alternatively, small amounts
      of hydrogen could be diverted from the engine and stored for
      use as the start-up fuel. Water produced when the hydrogen
      is burnt in an internal combustion engine or reacted in a fuel
      cell could be captured and cycled back to the vehicle's tank,
      making the whole on-board system truly zero-emission.

      Hydrogen-on-demand, whether from water or another source,
      could address two of the big problems still holding back the
      wider use of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel: how to store the
      flammable gas, and how to transport it safely. Today's
      hydrogen-fuelled cars rely on stocks of gas produced in
      centralised plants and distributed via refuelling stations
      in either liquefied or compressed form. Neither is ideal.
      The liquefaction process eats up to 40 per cent of the energy
      content of the stored hydrogen, while the energy density of
      the gas, even when compressed, is so low it is hard to see
      how it can ever be used to fuel a normal car.

      Hydrogen-on-demand would not only remove the need for costly
      hydrogen pipelines and distribution infrastructure, it would
      also make hydrogen vehicles safer. "The theoretical advantage
      of on-board generation is that you don't have to muck about
      with hydrogen storage," says Mike Millikin, who monitors
      developments in alternative fuels for the Green Car Congress
      website. A car that doesn't need to carry tanks of flammable,
      volatile liquid or compressed gas would be much less vulnerable
      in an accident. "It also potentially offsets the requirements
      for building up a massive hydrogen production and distribution
      infrastructure," Millikin says.

      There is a potentially polluting step that has to be tackled.
      "You'll need an infrastructure to produce and distribute
      whatever the key elements of the generation system might be,
      " Millikin warns. While Abu-Hamed's scheme still requires a
      distribution network and reprocessing plant, he has devised
      an ingenious plan that will allow the spent boron oxide to
      be converted back to metallic boron in a pollution-free
      process that uses only solar energy . Heating the oxide with
      magnesium powder recovers the boron, leaving magnesium oxide
      as a by-product. The magnesium oxide can then be recycled
      by first reacting it with chlorine gas to produce magnesium
      chloride, from which the magnesium metal and chlorine can
      then be recovered by electrolysis.

      Solar sourceThe energy to drive these processes would ultimately
      come from the sun. The team calculates that a system of mirrors
      could concentrate enough sunlight to produce electricity from
      solar cells with an efficiency of 35 per cent. Overall, they
      say, their system could convert solar energy into work by the
      car's engine with an efficiency of 11 per cent, similar to
      today's petrol engines.

      Experts are sceptical that we'll be seeing cars running on
      water any time soon. "It's not the kind of thing you're going
      to see appearing in a car in five or even ten years' time,"
      says Jim Skea, research director at the UK Energy Research
      Centre in London. For example, DaimlerChrysler is now focusing
      its efforts on cars running on compressed hydrogen because
      filling stations that supply it already exist in some places.

      Proponents of cars that run on water are banking that long term
      the idea will win out. Engineuity's Yogev claims the running
      costs will be comparable to those of today's petrol engines and
      expects to have a prototype built within three years.

      My other car runs on water? Don't bet against it.

      David Adam is environment correspondent for The Guardian
      newspaper in London

      Get your daily alternative energy news

      Alternate Energy Resource Network
      1000+ news sources-resources
      updated daily

      http://www.alternate-energy.net

      Next Generation Grid
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/

      Tomorrow-energy
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/

      Alternative Energy Politics
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/

      Earth_Rescue_International
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Earth_Rescue_International/






      ---------------------------------
      Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1ยข/min.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Sligar
      Seems like a silly semantic argument to me. What immediately powers the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the reagents in the
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Seems like a silly semantic argument to me. What immediately powers
        the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the
        reagents in the reaction. What's actually "used up" or "burned" are
        constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2. It doesn't seem misleading to me
        to say this is a water powered car. Even the least scientifically
        literate member of the public understands water itself isn't flammable.

        velakand wrote:
        > I blame the press mostly. They know that the average scientific-
        > illiterate-on-the-street will buy the untruthful headline "water
        > powered car", but would totally ignore the truthful headline "Boron
        > powered car". So they lie. Simple as that.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • mintowheel
        Thanks tallex for forwarding the good article! Boron sounds like one the best hydrogen sources so far. But why do journalists insist on referring to such
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks tallex for forwarding the good article! Boron sounds like one
          the best hydrogen sources so far.

          But why do journalists insist on referring to such schemes (hydrogen
          generation on demand) as "water powered" ???!!!!!! That makes as much
          sense as referring to a typical internal combustion engine (ICE) as
          "air powered" because it consumes oxygen form the air. We should
          instead focus on which of reactants must be produced from other
          primary sources. For example, with the ICE, the two reactants are
          gasoline and oxygen. Oxygen is plentiful and free, but gasoline is
          not. For the system described in the article, the two reactants are
          boron and water. Water is plentiful and free, but boron is not. The
          title for the article should have read "boron powered car". Everytime
          that sloppy journalists exploit the "water powered" misnomer
          (apparently for hype -- see blooper below), they just contribute to
          scientific illiteracy, and therefore help the scammers.

          Leo C.

          --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "tallex2002"
          <altenergynetwork@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > < http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/07/28/1750967.htm >
          >
          > Power on tap
          >
          > (New Scientist Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) FORGET cars fuelled
          > by alcohol and vegetable oil. Before long, you might be able to
          > run your car with nothing more than water in its fuel tank.


          "nothing more than water"

          Bzzzzt! Wrong!!! The fuel tank would also need to contain *boron*.


          >
          > While water, plain old H2O, is not at first sight an obvious power
          > source, it has a key virtue: it is an abundant source of hydrogen,
          > the element widely touted as the green fuel of the future. If
          > that hydrogen could be liberated on demand, it would overcome
          > many of the obstacles that till now have prevented the dream
          > of a hydrogen-powered car becoming reality. Producing hydrogen
          > by conventional industrial means is expensive, inefficient and
          > often polluting. Then there are the problems of storing and
          > transporting hydrogen. The pressure tanks required to hold usable
          > quantities of the fuel are heavy and cumbersome, which restricts
          > the car's performance and range.
          >
          > Tareq Abu-Hamed, now at the University of Minnesota, and colleagues
          > at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, have
          > devised a scheme that gets round these problems. By reacting
          > water with the element boron, their system produces hydrogen
          > that can be burnt in an internal combustion engine or fed to
          > a fuel cell to generate electricity.
        • mintowheel
          ... to me ... The boron is used up too, now isn t it? Water powered is definitely misleading. And saying it s just semantics does not do away with the
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, David Sligar <audax22@...> wrote:
            >
            > Seems like a silly semantic argument to me. What immediately powers
            > the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the
            > reagents in the reaction. What's actually "used up" or "burned" are
            > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2. It doesn't seem misleading
            to me
            > to say this is a water powered car.


            The boron is used up too, now isn't it? "Water powered" is definitely
            misleading.

            And saying it's "just semantics" does not do away with the need for
            accuracy. We're talking about science here, not religion. Words have
            very specific meanings. Misusing words to intentionally create a
            false impression equates to a lie. Misusing words untintentionally
            equates to sloppiness (ignorance). We should expect more than this
            from science journalists. But many of them will continue to
            prostitute themselves for the sake of hype. Especially if their
            science-illiterate audiences allows it.


            > Even the least scientifically
            > literate member of the public understands water itself isn't >flammable.


            Correct -- it's the *boron* that is flammable. Hence boron is the
            fuel, which means that we should call it a "boron powered car".

            Leo C.
          • sorenlaf
            ... powers ... to me ... flammable. ... No, not semantics. When we refer to what powers a car, gas, diesel, propane, etc, what we refer to is what stores the
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, David Sligar <audax22@...> wrote:
              >
              > Seems like a silly semantic argument to me. What immediately
              powers
              > the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the
              > reagents in the reaction. What's actually "used up" or "burned" are
              > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2. It doesn't seem misleading
              to me
              > to say this is a water powered car. Even the least scientifically
              > literate member of the public understands water itself isn't
              flammable.
              >

              No, not semantics. When we refer to what powers a car, gas, diesel,
              propane, etc, what we refer to is what stores the energy.

              In a gasoline powered car, gasoline is where the energy is stored.

              The fact that the working fluids are primarily water and CO2 doesn't
              get mentioned. Gasoline is atomized, mixed with air, burned, the
              combustion products are primarily water and CO2, and these are what
              push on the piston.

              Since the boron is where the energy is stored, this is a boron powered
              car, the water is simply a working fluid.


              --Soren
            • velakand
              ... Because that s what the public WANT to hear. It sells newspapers. People love to believe that the skeptics who said you can t run a car on water were
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "mintowheel" <mintowheel@...>
                wrote:
                >
                >
                > Thanks tallex for forwarding the good article! Boron sounds like
                >one
                > the best hydrogen sources so far.
                >
                > But why do journalists insist on referring to such schemes (hydrogen
                > generation on demand) as "water powered" ???!!!!!!


                Because that's what the public WANT to hear. It sells newspapers.
                People love to believe that the skeptics who said you can't run a car
                on water were wrong. When I went into some of the nuttier chatrooms
                last night (on Paltalk and others) this car was being brought up in
                exactly that role. Not one person tried to argue the fact that the
                actual power source is Boron ... they were ecstatic that it was "a
                water powered car that proved the skeptics wrong".


                . That makes as much
                > sense as referring to a typical internal combustion engine (ICE) as
                > "air powered" because it consumes oxygen form the air. We should
                > instead focus on which of reactants must be produced from other
                > primary sources. For example, with the ICE, the two reactants are
                > gasoline and oxygen. Oxygen is plentiful and free, but gasoline is
                > not.


                Yep. Only on a planet with a hydrocarbon atmosphere would the roles
                be reversed ... on that world, oxygen would be the scarce commodity,
                and your "fuel"-tank would contain oxygen, which you would "burn" by
                reacting it with freely available hydrocarbons from the atmosphere.
                Same reaction, different worlds.


                > For the system described in the article, the two reactants are
                > boron and water. Water is plentiful and free, but boron is not.
                > The
                > title for the article should have read "boron powered car".
                > Everytime
                > that sloppy journalists exploit the "water powered" misnomer
                > (apparently for hype -- see blooper below), they just contribute to
                > scientific illiteracy, and therefore help the scammers.
                >

                Exactly.




                > Leo C.
                >
                > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "tallex2002"
                > <altenergynetwork@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > < http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/07/28/1750967.htm >
                > >
                > > Power on tap
                > >
                > > (New Scientist Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) FORGET cars fuelled
                > > by alcohol and vegetable oil. Before long, you might be able to
                > > run your car with nothing more than water in its fuel tank.
                >
                >
                > "nothing more than water"
                >
                > Bzzzzt! Wrong!!! The fuel tank would also need to contain
                *boron*.
              • Wayne Gage
                ... What immediately powers ... are ... to me ... flammable. ... Ok then the same can be said about gasoline which is a hydrogen rich fuel. The H in gasoline
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, David Sligar <audax22@...> wrote:
                  >
                  What immediately powers
                  > the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the
                  > reagents in the reaction. What's actually "used up" or "burned"
                  are
                  > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2. It doesn't seem misleading
                  to me
                  > to say this is a water powered car. Even the least scientifically
                  > literate member of the public understands water itself isn't
                  flammable.
                  >


                  Ok then the same can be said about gasoline which is a hydrogen rich
                  fuel. The H in gasoline may have been water at one time and when the
                  gasoline is burned one on the byproducts is water.
                  And the least literate may argue that water is burnable.

                  "What's actually "used up" or "burned" are
                  > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2."

                  Not the O2 from water because it combines with the boron: the O2
                  comes from the air.
                • Bob Lerwill
                  It s not Boron powered any more than it is water powered. Both water and Boron are needed to generate the Hydrogen. It would be more accurate to call it a
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's not Boron powered any more than it is water powered. Both water
                    and Boron are needed to generate the Hydrogen. It would be more
                    accurate to call it a Hydrogen powered car with a boron/water storage
                    mechanism.

                    But if you dig deeper, what really powers the car is the source of
                    electricity that recovers the Boron. It could be nuclear, coal, oil or
                    gas. I suppose that if the electricity came from a hydroelectric
                    scheme,then it really would be a water powered car!
                    --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Gage" <waynegage@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, David Sligar <audax22@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > What immediately powers
                    > > the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the
                    > > reagents in the reaction. What's actually "used up" or "burned"
                    > are
                    > > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2. It doesn't seem misleading
                    > to me
                    > > to say this is a water powered car. Even the least scientifically
                    > > literate member of the public understands water itself isn't
                    > flammable.
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > Ok then the same can be said about gasoline which is a hydrogen rich
                    > fuel. The H in gasoline may have been water at one time and when the
                    > gasoline is burned one on the byproducts is water.
                    > And the least literate may argue that water is burnable.
                    >
                    > "What's actually "used up" or "burned" are
                    > > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2."
                    >
                    > Not the O2 from water because it combines with the boron: the O2
                    > comes from the air.
                    >
                  • Wayne Gage
                    My objection is to it being called a water powered car as if water was the energy source. Water is not the energy source.
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My objection is to it being called a water powered car as if water was
                      the energy source. Water is not the energy source.


                      --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > It's not Boron powered any more than it is water powered. Both water
                      > and Boron are needed to generate the Hydrogen. It would be more
                      > accurate to call it a Hydrogen powered car with a boron/water storage
                      > mechanism.
                      >
                      > But if you dig deeper, what really powers the car is the source of
                      > electricity that recovers the Boron. It could be nuclear, coal, oil or
                      > gas. I suppose that if the electricity came from a hydroelectric
                      > scheme,then it really would be a water powered car!
                    • velakand
                      ... Gasoline vehicles are really Air/Water Powered ... the HYDROCARBON compounds in Gasoline were created by ancient forests of plants photosynthesising*. They
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > It's not Boron powered any more than it is water powered. Both water
                        > and Boron are needed to generate the Hydrogen. It would be more
                        > accurate to call it a Hydrogen powered car with a boron/water
                        > storage
                        > mechanism.


                        Gasoline vehicles are really Air/Water Powered ... the HYDROCARBON
                        compounds in Gasoline were created by ancient forests of plants
                        photosynthesising*. They obtained the Carbon from Carbon Dioxide in
                        ancient AIR, and they obtaining the Hydrogen from H20 in ancient
                        WATER. The car engine eventually burns these hydrocarbons using the
                        Oxygen from present-day AIR.

                        So it would be more accurate to call a Gasoline car an AIR/WATER/AIR
                        powered car.

                        Of course we know that the real source of energy was the sunlight
                        that the ancient plants used to Fix the carbon by photosynthesis.

                        So it's really a LIGHT powered car.

                        Ah, but the sunlight was created by the fusion of Hydrogen into
                        Helium in the sun ... so it's really a FUSION powered car.

                        Ah, but the Hydrogen was created in the big bang from ..........





                        * there are some other theories :)
                      • David Sligar
                        I agree, Bob -- funny how this little discussion has blown up! Not important, but here s another 2 cents. Actually, this is a sun-powered car (water
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 2, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I agree, Bob -- funny how this little discussion has blown up! Not
                          important, but here's another 2 cents.
                          Actually, this is a sun-powered car (water evaporated by the sun
                          condenses, falls into the reservoir, etc.) Or, a Big Bang powered car,
                          since that's where (maybe! LOL) the energy came from in the first
                          place. I can see the ads now: Big Bang Car ready for test drive --
                          Special this weekend only! Enough already??? DS

                          Bob Lerwill wrote:
                          > It's not Boron powered any more than it is water powered. Both water
                          > and Boron are needed to generate the Hydrogen. It would be more
                          > accurate to call it a Hydrogen powered car with a boron/water storage
                          > mechanism.
                          >
                          > But if you dig deeper, what really powers the car is the source of
                          > electricity that recovers the Boron. It could be nuclear, coal, oil or
                          > gas. I suppose that if the electricity came from a hydroelectric
                          > scheme,then it really would be a water powered car!
                          >
                          >



                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • mintowheel
                          Bob, Nice attempt at semantic correctness, but you neglected a very important detail. First, let s write down the chemical reaction equations for the
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 2, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bob,

                            Nice attempt at semantic correctness, but you neglected a very
                            important detail. First, let's write down the chemical reaction
                            equations for the individual steps, and for the net process, that
                            powers the car in question.

                            Step 1) Elemental boron spontaneously reacts with water to produce
                            boric acid and hydrogen gas:

                            4 B + 12 H2O ---> 4 B(OH)3 + 6 H2


                            Step 2) The hydrogen gas from step 1 then reacts with oxygen from the
                            atmosphere to produce water and motive power for the car: (either via
                            a fuel cell or internal combustion)

                            6 H2 + 3 O2 ---> 6 H2O + energy


                            Net Reaction:

                            4 B + 6 H2O + 3 O2 ---> 4 B(OH)3 + energy


                            Note that hydrogen (H2) does not even appear in the net reaction
                            (i.e., H2 is an intermediate, not a fuel), therefore I would argue
                            that referring to the car as "hydrogen powered" seems arbitrary. But
                            should we refer to it as "water powered"? To decide, look at the
                            thermodynamics of the process. A quick glance at the CRC Handbook of
                            Chemistry provides the standard values for the "enthalpy of formation"
                            (aka "heat of formation") for the species in the net reaction:

                            Boron, B, (solid, rhombic)
                            0.0 kJ/mol

                            Oxygen, O2, (gas)
                            0.0 kJ/mol

                            Note that elements in their standard states (i.e., at 1 atm and 25 deg
                            C) by definition always have values of zero for the enthalpy of formation.

                            Water, H2O, (liquid) -285.8 kJ/mol
                            Water, H2O, (gas) -241.8 kJ/mol

                            I don't know whether the liquid or gas (steam) value applies best, but
                            my argument works in either case.

                            Boric acid, B(OH)3, (solid) -1094.3 kJ/mol

                            Now the tricky part -- what do these numbers mean? A pure substance's
                            "enthalpy of formation" specifies the enthalpy (chemical energy)
                            change required to form a substance from its constituent elements.
                            The sign convention used specifies that the enthalpy change equals the
                            enthalpy of the *final* state minus the enthalpy of the *initial*
                            state. For example, the very negative value for water, -241.8 kJ/mol,
                            indicates that water contains less chemical energy than the hydrogen
                            (H2) and oxygen (O2) from which it forms. So remember that more
                            negative values of enthalpy correspond to energetically depleted
                            states (think "ash"). Conversely, more positive (less negative,
                            including zero) values correspond to energetically useful states.

                            My point: Boron supplies *all* of the energy required to drive the
                            net reaction, therefore it makes no sense to refer to the process as
                            "water powered". Boron has to give up much chemical energy in order
                            to rip protons off of water. Recall that water is a very stable
                            compound (i.e., has a very negative enthalpy of formation;
                            "ash-like"). Water does not give up those protons easily.
                            Thermodynamically speaking, boron is at the peak of the "chemical
                            potential hill", while water is halfway down the hill (and boric acid
                            is way down in the valley). Of course water is still a prerequisite
                            for the reaction since it supplies the protons (H nuclei) appearing in
                            the final product B(OH)3. Water supplies atoms, but not energy.
                            "Boron powered", not "water powered".

                            By the way, note the super negative (ash-like) enthalpy of formation
                            for the overall waste product, boric acid: -1094.3 kJ/mol. Achieving
                            an economical boron-based chemical cycle -- converting B(OH)3 back
                            into B -- will require some clever chemical and technological and
                            tricks. I haven't read the details yet, so I don't presently have an
                            opinion about the inventors' suggestions for regenerating boron. But
                            it certainly sounds interesting.

                            Leo C.



                            --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > It's not Boron powered any more than it is water powered. Both water
                            > and Boron are needed to generate the Hydrogen. It would be more
                            > accurate to call it a Hydrogen powered car with a boron/water storage
                            > mechanism.
                            >
                            > But if you dig deeper, what really powers the car is the source of
                            > electricity that recovers the Boron. It could be nuclear, coal, oil or
                            > gas. I suppose that if the electricity came from a hydroelectric
                            > scheme,then it really would be a water powered car!
                            > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Gage" <waynegage@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, David Sligar <audax22@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > What immediately powers
                            > > > the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the
                            > > > reagents in the reaction. What's actually "used up" or "burned"
                            > > are
                            > > > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2. It doesn't seem misleading
                            > > to me
                            > > > to say this is a water powered car. Even the least scientifically
                            > > > literate member of the public understands water itself isn't
                            > > flammable.
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Ok then the same can be said about gasoline which is a hydrogen rich
                            > > fuel. The H in gasoline may have been water at one time and when the
                            > > gasoline is burned one on the byproducts is water.
                            > > And the least literate may argue that water is burnable.
                            > >
                            > > "What's actually "used up" or "burned" are
                            > > > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2."
                            > >
                            > > Not the O2 from water because it combines with the boron: the O2
                            > > comes from the air.
                            > >
                            >
                          • mintowheel
                            I regret that I must reply to my own post in order to make a correction. I must concede that water does contribute some of the chemical energy for the over all
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 2, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I regret that I must reply to my own post in order to make a correction.

                              I must concede that water does contribute some of the chemical energy
                              for the over all net reaction. My previous statement should have said
                              boron supplies *more* of the energy, not *all*. But I would still
                              argue for the characterization "boron powered" since boron does
                              supplies more of the energy.

                              Also, since many different hydrogen-producing chemical reaction are
                              known, involving many different metals and compounds, should we just
                              refer to them all (i.e., any system consuming water as a reactant) as
                              water powered? Too broad of a label. Not very specific.

                              Leo C.


                              --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "mintowheel" <mintowheel@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > Bob,
                              >
                              > Nice attempt at semantic correctness, but you neglected a very
                              > important detail. First, let's write down the chemical reaction
                              > equations for the individual steps, and for the net process, that
                              > powers the car in question.
                              >
                              > Step 1) Elemental boron spontaneously reacts with water to produce
                              > boric acid and hydrogen gas:
                              >
                              > 4 B + 12 H2O ---> 4 B(OH)3 + 6 H2
                              >
                              >
                              > Step 2) The hydrogen gas from step 1 then reacts with oxygen from the
                              > atmosphere to produce water and motive power for the car: (either via
                              > a fuel cell or internal combustion)
                              >
                              > 6 H2 + 3 O2 ---> 6 H2O + energy
                              >
                              >
                              > Net Reaction:
                              >
                              > 4 B + 6 H2O + 3 O2 ---> 4 B(OH)3 + energy
                              >
                              >
                              > Note that hydrogen (H2) does not even appear in the net reaction
                              > (i.e., H2 is an intermediate, not a fuel), therefore I would argue
                              > that referring to the car as "hydrogen powered" seems arbitrary. But
                              > should we refer to it as "water powered"? To decide, look at the
                              > thermodynamics of the process. A quick glance at the CRC Handbook of
                              > Chemistry provides the standard values for the "enthalpy of formation"
                              > (aka "heat of formation") for the species in the net reaction:
                              >
                              > Boron, B, (solid, rhombic)
                              > 0.0 kJ/mol
                              >
                              > Oxygen, O2, (gas)
                              > 0.0 kJ/mol
                              >
                              > Note that elements in their standard states (i.e., at 1 atm and 25 deg
                              > C) by definition always have values of zero for the enthalpy of
                              formation.
                              >
                              > Water, H2O, (liquid) -285.8 kJ/mol
                              > Water, H2O, (gas) -241.8 kJ/mol
                              >
                              > I don't know whether the liquid or gas (steam) value applies best, but
                              > my argument works in either case.
                              >
                              > Boric acid, B(OH)3, (solid) -1094.3 kJ/mol
                              >
                              > Now the tricky part -- what do these numbers mean? A pure substance's
                              > "enthalpy of formation" specifies the enthalpy (chemical energy)
                              > change required to form a substance from its constituent elements.
                              > The sign convention used specifies that the enthalpy change equals the
                              > enthalpy of the *final* state minus the enthalpy of the *initial*
                              > state. For example, the very negative value for water, -241.8 kJ/mol,
                              > indicates that water contains less chemical energy than the hydrogen
                              > (H2) and oxygen (O2) from which it forms. So remember that more
                              > negative values of enthalpy correspond to energetically depleted
                              > states (think "ash"). Conversely, more positive (less negative,
                              > including zero) values correspond to energetically useful states.
                              >
                              > My point: Boron supplies *all* of the energy required to drive the
                              > net reaction, therefore it makes no sense to refer to the process as
                              > "water powered". Boron has to give up much chemical energy in order
                              > to rip protons off of water. Recall that water is a very stable
                              > compound (i.e., has a very negative enthalpy of formation;
                              > "ash-like"). Water does not give up those protons easily.
                              > Thermodynamically speaking, boron is at the peak of the "chemical
                              > potential hill", while water is halfway down the hill (and boric acid
                              > is way down in the valley). Of course water is still a prerequisite
                              > for the reaction since it supplies the protons (H nuclei) appearing in
                              > the final product B(OH)3. Water supplies atoms, but not energy.
                              > "Boron powered", not "water powered".
                              >
                              > By the way, note the super negative (ash-like) enthalpy of formation
                              > for the overall waste product, boric acid: -1094.3 kJ/mol. Achieving
                              > an economical boron-based chemical cycle -- converting B(OH)3 back
                              > into B -- will require some clever chemical and technological and
                              > tricks. I haven't read the details yet, so I don't presently have an
                              > opinion about the inventors' suggestions for regenerating boron. But
                              > it certainly sounds interesting.
                              >
                              > Leo C.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > It's not Boron powered any more than it is water powered. Both water
                              > > and Boron are needed to generate the Hydrogen. It would be more
                              > > accurate to call it a Hydrogen powered car with a boron/water storage
                              > > mechanism.
                              > >
                              > > But if you dig deeper, what really powers the car is the source of
                              > > electricity that recovers the Boron. It could be nuclear, coal, oil or
                              > > gas. I suppose that if the electricity came from a hydroelectric
                              > > scheme,then it really would be a water powered car!
                              > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Gage" <waynegage@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, David Sligar <audax22@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > What immediately powers
                              > > > > the car is hydrogen, which comes from water. Boron is one of the
                              > > > > reagents in the reaction. What's actually "used up" or "burned"
                              > > > are
                              > > > > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2. It doesn't seem
                              misleading
                              > > > to me
                              > > > > to say this is a water powered car. Even the least
                              scientifically
                              > > > > literate member of the public understands water itself isn't
                              > > > flammable.
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Ok then the same can be said about gasoline which is a hydrogen
                              rich
                              > > > fuel. The H in gasoline may have been water at one time and when
                              the
                              > > > gasoline is burned one on the byproducts is water.
                              > > > And the least literate may argue that water is burnable.
                              > > >
                              > > > "What's actually "used up" or "burned" are
                              > > > > constituents of water, i.e. H2 and O2."
                              > > >
                              > > > Not the O2 from water because it combines with the boron: the O2
                              > > > comes from the air.
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • Bob Lerwill
                              Thank you, Leo, for putting some figures on the chemistry of what goes on in the car. I understand why you say it is a Boron powered car, (or Boron/Water) but
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 3, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thank you, Leo, for putting some figures on the chemistry of what goes
                                on in the car. I understand why you say it is a Boron powered car, (or
                                Boron/Water) but I think we are trying to answer different questions.

                                You are adressing the scientific question of where the energy is
                                stored in the car. I am looking at the strategic question of where do
                                we get the energy from to run the car in the first place. For an oil
                                powered car, we drill for the oil, but there are no deposits of native
                                Boron we can mine to fuel "Boron powered cars".

                                In the overall picture, Boron is only an intermediary. That is why I
                                object to it being called a Boron powered car. It is not just
                                "semantic correctness". The way we use language affects perception of
                                technology by the scientificly illiterate in positions of influence
                                (i.e. politicians). For example I personally have always objected to
                                the phrase "oil production" when what is clearly meant is "oil
                                extraction". The former suggests no end to the process. Talk too much
                                of Boron powered cars and they might think our future transport energy
                                problems have been solved!

                                The scientific question which I think is very relevent to this Boron
                                chemistry Hydrogen storage method is this: how efficient is it? The
                                biggest technical problems yet to be solved in Hydrogen fuelled cars
                                is the cost, weight safety and efficiency of the hydrogen storage
                                method. On the face of it, Boron/water would be good on cost weight
                                and safety, but how does it compare in terms of efficiency to the
                                current leading technology, Metal Hydrides? I would love to know how
                                much of the energy used in converting B(OH)3 into B gets recovered in
                                the car (assuming a 100% efficient fuel cell for comparison purposes).
                                I understand, anecdotally, that the best metal hydride systems are
                                only 60% efficient. If Boron/Water compares well with this, we might
                                well see this technology becoming important. Should I buy shares?

                                --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "mintowheel" <mintowheel@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Bob,
                                >
                                > Nice attempt at semantic correctness, but you neglected a very
                                > important detail. First, let's write down the chemical reaction
                                > equations for the individual steps, and for the net process, that
                                > powers the car in question.
                                >
                                > Step 1) Elemental boron spontaneously reacts with water to produce
                                > boric acid and hydrogen gas:
                                >
                                > 4 B + 12 H2O ---> 4 B(OH)3 + 6 H2
                                >
                                >
                                > Step 2) The hydrogen gas from step 1 then reacts with oxygen from the
                                > atmosphere to produce water and motive power for the car: (either via
                                > a fuel cell or internal combustion)
                                >
                                > 6 H2 + 3 O2 ---> 6 H2O + energy
                                >
                                >
                                > Net Reaction:
                                >
                                > 4 B + 6 H2O + 3 O2 ---> 4 B(OH)3 + energy
                                >
                                >
                                > Note that hydrogen (H2) does not even appear in the net reaction
                                > (i.e., H2 is an intermediate, not a fuel), therefore I would argue
                                > that referring to the car as "hydrogen powered" seems arbitrary. But
                                > should we refer to it as "water powered"? To decide, look at the
                                > thermodynamics of the process. A quick glance at the CRC Handbook of
                                > Chemistry provides the standard values for the "enthalpy of formation"
                                > (aka "heat of formation") for the species in the net reaction:
                                >
                                > Boron, B, (solid, rhombic)
                                > 0.0 kJ/mol
                                >
                                > Oxygen, O2, (gas)
                                > 0.0 kJ/mol
                                >
                                > Note that elements in their standard states (i.e., at 1 atm and 25 deg
                                > C) by definition always have values of zero for the enthalpy of
                                formation.
                                >
                                > Water, H2O, (liquid) -285.8 kJ/mol
                                > Water, H2O, (gas) -241.8 kJ/mol
                                >
                                > I don't know whether the liquid or gas (steam) value applies best, but
                                > my argument works in either case.
                                >
                                > Boric acid, B(OH)3, (solid) -1094.3 kJ/mol
                                >
                                > Now the tricky part -- what do these numbers mean? A pure substance's
                                > "enthalpy of formation" specifies the enthalpy (chemical energy)
                                > change required to form a substance from its constituent elements.
                                > The sign convention used specifies that the enthalpy change equals the
                                > enthalpy of the *final* state minus the enthalpy of the *initial*
                                > state. For example, the very negative value for water, -241.8 kJ/mol,
                                > indicates that water contains less chemical energy than the hydrogen
                                > (H2) and oxygen (O2) from which it forms. So remember that more
                                > negative values of enthalpy correspond to energetically depleted
                                > states (think "ash"). Conversely, more positive (less negative,
                                > including zero) values correspond to energetically useful states.
                                >
                                > My point: Boron supplies *all* of the energy required to drive the
                                > net reaction, therefore it makes no sense to refer to the process as
                                > "water powered". Boron has to give up much chemical energy in order
                                > to rip protons off of water. Recall that water is a very stable
                                > compound (i.e., has a very negative enthalpy of formation;
                                > "ash-like"). Water does not give up those protons easily.
                                > Thermodynamically speaking, boron is at the peak of the "chemical
                                > potential hill", while water is halfway down the hill (and boric acid
                                > is way down in the valley). Of course water is still a prerequisite
                                > for the reaction since it supplies the protons (H nuclei) appearing in
                                > the final product B(OH)3. Water supplies atoms, but not energy.
                                > "Boron powered", not "water powered".
                                >
                                > By the way, note the super negative (ash-like) enthalpy of formation
                                > for the overall waste product, boric acid: -1094.3 kJ/mol. Achieving
                                > an economical boron-based chemical cycle -- converting B(OH)3 back
                                > into B -- will require some clever chemical and technological and
                                > tricks. I haven't read the details yet, so I don't presently have an
                                > opinion about the inventors' suggestions for regenerating boron. But
                                > it certainly sounds interesting.
                                >
                                > Leo C.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.