HYDROGEN HERE!

Every bit of matter in our universe is forged in stars from hydrogen. What it becomes and does is controlled by information. DNA is the information source for all life.

There are actually 3 primordial elements (technically 4, but the 4th was a radioactive one that all decayed away many billion years ago), Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium.

Hydrogen is not a "fundamental" constituent of anything. It's made up of at least three baryons and one lepton, along with various bosons (gluons and photons)
 
Every bit of matter in our universe is forged in stars from hydrogen. What it becomes and does is controlled by information. DNA is the information source for all life.
The first sentence is not true. About 25% is primordial helium, not forged in stars. During the Big Bang nucleosynthesis era traces of lithium were also created, as well as some tritium and beryllium-7 (both unstable and long ago decayed).

Your last sentence is bold to the point of arrogance. We don't even have an agreed-upon definition of life, much less are we in a position to pontificate on what the information source for ALL life consists of. There are a lot of forms of information not contained in DNA anyway -- you are speaking only of genetics.
 
The first sentence is not true. About 25% is primordial helium, not forged in stars. During the Big Bang nucleosynthesis era traces of lithium were also created, as well as some tritium and beryllium-7 (both unstable and long ago decayed).

'Bout the same as I said...I didn't list tritium, as it's still Hydrogen, just a different isotope. Lots of deuterium around from the original nucleosynthesis as well.
 
'Bout the same as I said...I didn't list tritium, as it's still Hydrogen, just a different isotope. Lots of deuterium around from the original nucleosynthesis as well.

But you said three baryons, which would be tritium. Did you mean three quarks? Quarks are not baryons, and there are far more than three, even in vacuum.
 
What I find humorous is that y'all bring up engineering issues as a problem.
The fundamental issue is, other than a lot of hype, what would be the point of using H2 to transport energy? What would be the advantage of solving the engineering problems? How is extracting and transporting H2 better than using methane directly? How is extracting and transporting and then burning H2 better than using electricity directly?
 
'Bout the same as I said...I didn't list tritium, as it's still Hydrogen, just a different isotope. Lots of deuterium around from the original nucleosynthesis as well.
True - I hadn't read your post though, and just replied impulsively to Henning's very misinformed statement.

BTW now that I've read MAKG's post I noted that you did say three baryons and a lepton. I'm guessing you meant three quarks and an electron. The electron is indeed a lepton but quarks are not considered baryons even though they are "heavy" (the root meaning of baryon). The proton is a baryon (as is the neutron, if we're talking about deuterium or tritium).
 
No, the way the industry is coming about is compressed gas, there's just been a tanker design approved. You could use water, but it's a single product commodity where as H2 gives you 3 product where if you count the heat vs what petroleum takes to create, you ship 15kg product for each kg of h2. Also there is greater 'value added' going to H2 due to the new industry that will come about building all the accouterments to the industry. At 6000 psi hydrogen ships quite well, and we have cylinders of all sizes that can handle it from scuba tank size to 1000' tankers.

Again, what volume of liquid hydrogen will give you the same energy equivalence of, say, a gallon of diesel? And to use your number, what volume of hydrogen at 6000 PSI to have the same energy equivelence of a gallon of diesel?

Petroleum doesn't take any heat to create, it exists as it is pumped from the ground.
 
Again, what volume of liquid hydrogen will give you the same energy equivalence of, say, a gallon of diesel? And to use your number, what volume of hydrogen at 6000 PSI to have the same energy equivelence of a gallon of diesel?

Petroleum doesn't take any heat to create, it exists as it is pumped from the ground.

At 10,000 psi, about 6 kg of H2 would require a 69 gallon carbon/aluminum tank that would weigh 230 lbs. That would give you the energy equivalent of about 6 or 7 gallons of gasoline.
 
At 10,000 psi, about 6 kg of H2 would require a 69 gallon carbon/aluminum tank that would weigh 230 lbs.

better show all your work on that one...
 
Petroleum doesn't take any heat to create, it exists as it is pumped from the ground.

Yeah... pumped from the ground. No energy expended there at all. :mad2: It does take a lot of heat to create. Millions of years of heat and pressure. There will always be lots... well some more, in millions of years from now.
 
True - I hadn't read your post though, and just replied impulsively to Henning's very misinformed statement.

BTW now that I've read MAKG's post I noted that you did say three baryons and a lepton. I'm guessing you meant three quarks and an electron. The electron is indeed a lepton but quarks are not considered baryons even though they are "heavy" (the root meaning of baryon). The proton is a baryon (as is the neutron, if we're talking about deuterium or tritium).

You're right. Meant to post a mea culpa for the mistake earlier.

Regardless, Hydrogen is by no means "fundamental".
 
H2 fueled vehicles are a huge profit centre...when you have massive government subsidies underwriting the costs.
 
H2 fueled vehicles are a huge profit centre...when you have massive government subsidies underwriting the costs.
There is that!

From the article I posted:
Toward that goal, the state is spending $200 million to build 100 hydrogen refueling stations, most of them clustered in Los Angeles and around the Bay Area.
 
The fundamental issue is, other than a lot of hype, what would be the point of using H2 to transport energy? What would be the advantage of solving the engineering problems? How is extracting and transporting H2 better than using methane directly? How is extracting and transporting and then burning H2 better than using electricity directly?

Because you transport fuel for electricity and heat, as well as pure water, (the resource that will cause the greatest war the world will ever know in 15-20 years and likely end mankind if we don't first do it combating Islam) for 6% of the mass of the components as shipped individually today.

Using methane directly does not return usable water unless run through a solid oxide fuel cell (which also processes hydrogen) and releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This is actually a good thing if you use methane process fuel cells to power the lights in urban "green houses" converted from unused commercial structures in our cities, keeping the CO2 'in house' for consumption by the plants, this also includes bubbling it through water filled tubes growing algae for high density petroleum products.

Using electricity directly is fine, however we only use 30% of the current production capacity due to 'off peak' periods of low consumption. We can use all those plants much more efficiently if we run them full tilt full time and store the unused electricity as hydrogen, and using the waste heat from both processes to distill the water for electrolysis.

Hydrogen is the key to multi process and transportation efficiency. That doesn't even count the benefits of creating an ever expandable commodity to base a currency on. Since what we are doing hasn't been working particularly well, perhaps we can try something that society has been supposed to do since the inception of money and the three major Abrahamic religions were invented to achieve.
 
Thought you could use this:

No violence needed for payback:

2 Hydrogen atoms were traveling together when one said oops I think I lost my electron. You sure? Yes I'm positive.
 
This thread would be a lot more useful if people would cite their sources. The unsupported assertions back and forth are worthless.
 
This thread would be a lot more useful if people would cite their sources. The unsupported assertions back and forth are worthless.

You need to be a little more specific in what you are having trouble with, as usual a thread in the spin zone has broached many subjects, from fiat currency, to basic thermodynamics and physics to world politics.
 
You need to be a little more specific in what you are having trouble with, as usual a thread in the spin zone has broached many subjects, from fiat currency, to basic thermodynamics and physics to world politics.
Have we had racism in this thread yet?:rofl:
 
Because you transport fuel for electricity and heat, as well as pure water, (the resource that will cause the greatest war the world will ever know in 15-20 years and likely end mankind if we don't first do it combating Islam) for 6% of the mass of the components as shipped individually today.

Using methane directly does not return usable water unless run through a solid oxide fuel cell (which also processes hydrogen) and releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This is actually a good thing if you use methane process fuel cells to power the lights in urban "green houses" converted from unused commercial structures in our cities, keeping the CO2 'in house' for consumption by the plants, this also includes bubbling it through water filled tubes growing algae for high density petroleum products.

Using electricity directly is fine, however we only use 30% of the current production capacity due to 'off peak' periods of low consumption. We can use all those plants much more efficiently if we run them full tilt full time and store the unused electricity as hydrogen, and using the waste heat from both processes to distill the water for electrolysis.

Hydrogen is the key to multi process and transportation efficiency. That doesn't even count the benefits of creating an ever expandable commodity to base a currency on. Since what we are doing hasn't been working particularly well, perhaps we can try something that society has been supposed to do since the inception of money and the three major Abrahamic religions were invented to achieve.

Hydrogen production is inefficient and hydrogen delivery is inefficient, it consumes much more energy than it produces when it is used. Condensing water from burned hydrogen would make the process even more inefficient providing expensive water in places where it can be had for almost nothing. Doesn't make sense Henning.
 
You need to be a little more specific in what you are having trouble with, as usual a thread in the spin zone has broached many subjects, from fiat currency, to basic thermodynamics and physics to world politics.

That's a pretty lame excuse for making claims without citing sources.

What I'm having trouble with is that I don't know who to believe.

And by the way, this thread is not in the Spin Zone.
 
That's a pretty lame excuse for making claims without citing sources.

What I'm having trouble with is that I don't know who to believe.

And by the way, this thread is not in the Spin Zone.
How do you usually base your decisions on whom to believe?

Paraphrased from Matrix 2:

Neo: How do I know if this is the truth? How do I know that this isn't a trap?
Oracle: You'll have to do what I've always expected you to; make up your own damn mind.
 
My sources are the Standard Model of Particle Physics and Laws of Thermodynamics #1-3
 
How do you usually base your decisions on whom to believe?

Paraphrased from Matrix 2:

Neo: How do I know if this is the truth? How do I know that this isn't a trap?
Oracle: You'll have to do what I've always expected you to; make up your own damn mind.

From the Matrix:



Morpheus: What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.
 
You need to be a little more specific in what you are having trouble with, as usual a thread in the spin zone has broached many subjects, from fiat currency, to basic thermodynamics and physics to world politics.
Shouldn't that be Fiat Chrysler currency?
 
Yeah, I'd like to see a source that fiat currency is unconstitutional in the face of the Article I, Section 8 powers of Congress to coin money and emit letters of credit.
 
How do you usually base your decisions on whom to believe?

I'm most likely to believe people whose sources draw conclusions that follow logically from verifiable data. In the absence of that, there may not be a basis for believing either side.
 
Hydrogen production is inefficient and hydrogen delivery is inefficient, it consumes much more energy than it produces when it is used. Condensing water from burned hydrogen would make the process even more inefficient providing expensive water in places where it can be had for almost nothing. Doesn't make sense Henning.

Why would I burn hydrogen for energy? Fuel cells are the way you do this with nearly 70% conversion efficiency to electricity and motive force, more than twice what is available under our current system of fuel use.
 
Why would I burn hydrogen for energy? Fuel cells are the way you do this with nearly 70% conversion efficiency to electricity and motive force, more than twice what is available under our current system of fuel use.

It's no where near that efficient Henning, and you are only talking about energy yield from the H2 in the tank, not the efficiency of producing the H2.
 

Richard, you are right, this is not the spin zone, my apologies. This subject has been beaten to death over there and most of this stuff has been referenced. Let me know if there are any particular comments I made that you question and I will provide either links or rationale...
 
At 10,000 psi, about 6 kg of H2 would require a 69 gallon carbon/aluminum tank that would weigh 230 lbs. That would give you the energy equivalent of about 6 or 7 gallons of gasoline.

Thank you!
 
Back
Top