[NewCandle] Gallium for Al H2O reaction rate

[Nick Reiter]

Sir Jones,

Ya, Pacheco was one of the early puzzlements /
inspirations at least for Sam Faile, when he started
following this whole "thread".

Honestly, hydrogen generation by even novel methods
would not really excite me all that much.  I spent too
many years banging heads with Brown's Gas types and
mystery-electrolyzer salesmen, and grew pretty jaded. 
Whether it comes from chemistry, light, electricity,
or acoustics, under "normal" conditions you simply
have to have that discrete amount of energy to break
that darn bond.  What has kept me fartin' around with
aluminum hydrolysis has been the still unclear notion
that (maybe) if you perform your bond-busting within a
Casimir cavity limited space, such as between layers
of Al foil, you can get away with more yield with less
input energy.  Thats the long and short of it for me
at least, and I'm still not satisfied I have a good
scheme yet to test that hypothesis.  So I'll keep
bubbling away!  The kids are entertained as heck by it
all anyway, if nothing else;)

Gallium just seems SO darned expensive and capricious
in price.  Right now, we are just coming down off a
market rollercoaster for tellurium, which right about
a year ago had me shaking in my boots that the whole
CdTe photovoltaic solar industry might die in infancy.
 And there's mega-oodles more Te than Ga in the earth.
 My own opinion (from knowing a little about GaAs and
CIGS PV solar) is that the cost and availability
projections of Ga by the Purdue group are overly rosy.

crunky N


--- Jones Beene <jonesb9 at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Guys,
> 
> Don't forget Pacheco:
>
http://www.fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/FEV-Pacheco-generator.php
> 
> 
> George- you might want to call Mark Goldes about
> that this you are 
> seriously interested. He told me once that this
> technology goes beyond 
> what you would normally expect to get based on a
> Faradaic equivalence.
> 
> Otherwise - why would anyone go to the trouble ?
> That is, it takes 10 
> kw-hr of electricity to make a pound of aluminum,
> say, and you compare 
> that with using the same 10 kwh in electrolysis
> (~80% eff) then by going 
> through the intemediate step of using the aluminum
> process, then do you 
> actually get significantly MORE hydrogen for your
> trouble?
> 
> Yes. I know that this does not make much scientific
> sense. I recall from 
> reading some of the Pacheco stuff years ago, that in
> fact some labs had 
> confirmed it, however ... and I think Mark has some
> knowledge of 
> positive R&D which wasn't published.
> 
> This is not to say that it was OU - but that the the
> end result of using 
> metals - was more "energy efficient" (but CAVEAT:
> probably not more 
> cost-efficient, as the cost of Al will be at least
> triple the energy input).
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222