Gravity fed electrical generation system

dehammer wrote:
As for the gas going up the tube, here is what experts say.
Andreas J Schwab, Dr.rer.nat. (equivalent to PhD) in Physiological Chemistry at Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich
Updated May 21, 2016 · Author has 839 answers and 1m answer views
The density of hydrogen and oxygen are 0.0899 and 1.429 g/l at 0 degrees centigrade.
Density for all the elements in the Periodic Table
One liter of water will thus produce 111/0.0899 =1235 liters of hydrogen and 888.81/1.429 = 622 liters of oxygen. Note that according to Avogadro's law, the volume of hydrogen is about twice that of oxygen, because 1 mol of water produces 1 mol of hydrogen and 1/2 mol of oxygen.
Gas Laws

This means at one atmosphere (14 psi) hydrogen from a single liter will take up 75364.32 cubic inches.

A 10000 foot, 1 inch pipe would have 94,248 cubic inches.

This means it would only take 1.5 liters to fill a 10000 foot 1 inch pipe at 14 psi. My design would have it at 30 psi, so it would take 3 liters.

dehammer wrote:
You guys were saying that the gas would not expand into the pipe. "it would remain all at the bottom" you said. According to the experts it will not. I post what the experts say and your response is "sheeeet maaaaan".

dehammer wrote:
As to be expected from trolls, you ignore what real scientist, real experts say.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still think you are using the math wrong... Did you notice the 0 C temperature for the density numbers? So, now you have to add a freezer in to the device. 30 psi isn't 30 gal/minute. You also need to move oxygen with the hydrogen, and only about 20,000 cu/in left in the tube. Guess you need a bigger tube going up...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still think you are using the math wrong... Did you notice the 0 C temperature for the density numbers? So, now you have to add a freezer in to the device. 30 psi isn't 30 gal/minute. You also need to move oxygen with the hydrogen, and only about 20,000 cu/in left in the tube. Guess you need a bigger tube going up...

Into the Night wrote
If he uses an open tube to allow atmospheric pressure to cause the gases to rise, then he loses some of those gases to the atmosphere. They are no longer available to drive the fuel cell, create water, or run his generator.

dehammer wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still think you are using the math wrong... Did you notice the 0 C temperature for the density numbers? So, now you have to add a freezer in to the device. 30 psi isn't 30 gal/minute. You also need to move oxygen with the hydrogen, and only about 20,000 cu/in left in the tube. Guess you need a bigger tube going up...

No, you do not move hydrogen WITH the oxygen, but in a separate, smaller tube.

dehammer wrote:
30 psi is 30 pounds per square in inch. Its pressure. 30 gal/minute is flow rate. They are not the same thing.

dehammer wrote:
The 0°c is a reference point. Increased temperature either increases pressure or decreases density, meaning it would take a larger space.

dehammer wrote:

Into the Night wrote
If he uses an open tube to allow atmospheric pressure to cause the gases to rise, then he loses some of those gases to the atmosphere. They are no longer available to drive the fuel cell, create water, or run his generator.

Any motor, fuel cell or other method would almost certainly require a pump to push the pressure to the proper level for the recombination of 2h2 and o2. Since there would be no other gases in the tubes, as fast as you pull the hydrogen and oxygen out, more gas would take its place.

What you have, is a vacuum at the top, and an over pressure at the bottom. The gas would move on its own.

dehammer wrote:
As usual, you do love to showcase your lack of knowledge.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The PEM fuel cell on the drone is only fed hydrogen, but didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around. Did a little searching, trying to figure it out. Guessing it doesn't need a whole lot of oxygen, and pulling it out of thin air is fine. But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.

Was interesting that the 1.5 liter tank of hydrogen could power the drone for over an hour. My batteries barely go 20 minutes, if I ignore the first low battery warning. They also claim a 5 kg payload capacity, think mines about half a pound (not sure what that is in british units to compare) 5 kg = 11 lbs, from a 1 kg spool of filament is 2.2 lbs. Fuel cells are still very expensive, even the toy demo version are a little pricey. While shopping, also found out that hydrogen/oxygen electrolyzers, are no called Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells, which confuses the shopper. Still selling them to improve fuel economy in gas vehicles as well. Stanley Meyers lives on...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Here's an interesting article on hydrogen fuel cells...

https://hackaday.com/2019/05/06/a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-drone/

I fly drones, so that part interests me, but a lot of tech on hydrogen you might be able to use, plus it's a fuel cell. Haven't watched the video yet, it'll take a long time over my internet connection, but should be interesting.

didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around.

Guessing it doesn't need a whole lot of oxygen, and pulling it out of thin air is fine.

But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.

Fuel cells are still very expensive

Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells

dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:

didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around.

It would come out as water vapor.

dehammer wrote:

But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.

Depends on the size of the fuel cell or motor. That is a tiny source, so it would put out a small amount of water.
So you want to make LOTS of water vapor. Take a trip to the Gulf coast. It's easier.

dehammer wrote:
Here is another example. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/water-emissions-fuel-cell-vehicles. A motor vehicle using a fuel cell traveling 60 mph produces, 9kg of water. That's 3.79 gallons. That's 14 liters. A car powering fuel cell is small, only a few inches in size.

And you only need 390 of them in a compact car, such as the Toyota Mirai.

dehammer wrote:
[quote]Fuel cells are still very expensive

The older version used platinum, while newer ones use nickel. That brings the cost down.

dehammer wrote:

Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells

Personally, If I was going to do it, I would build it myself. A low cheaper that way and a lot better control over the amount of fuel it provides.

Here is an example of one available on the market right now. https://www.grainger.com/product/PARKER-Hydrogen-Generator-39T172

Noticed based on the stickers, its about twice the size of a computer tower. This one produced about .1 gallons per minute.

dehammer wrote:
A system that produced 30 gallons per minute would likely be 300 times that size, but how much of it is waste space?

dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:

didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around.

It would come out as water vapor.

Guessing it doesn't need a whole lot of oxygen, and pulling it out of thin air is fine.

A small system would be able to do that.

But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.

Depends on the size of the fuel cell or motor. That is a tiny source, so it would put out a small amount of water.

Here is another example. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/water-emissions-fuel-cell-vehicles. A motor vehicle using a fuel cell traveling 60 mph produces, 9kg of water. That's 3.79 gallons. That's 14 liters. A car powering fuel cell is small, only a few inches in size.

Fuel cells are still very expensive

The older version used platinum, while newer ones use nickel. That brings the cost down.

Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells

Personally, If I was going to do it, I would build it myself. A low cheaper that way and a lot better control over the amount of fuel it provides.

Here is an example of one available on the market right now. https://www.grainger.com/product/PARKER-Hydrogen-Generator-39T172

Noticed based on the stickers, its about twice the size of a computer tower. This one produced about .1 gallons per minute.

A system that produced 30 gallons per minute would likely be 300 times that size, but how much of it is waste space?

dehammer wrote:
sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour.

James___ wrote:

dehammer wrote:
sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour.

You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.

James___ wrote:*interesting things*

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

dehammer wrote:
sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour.

You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.

It takes 237 kJ to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis for 1 mole of water. This is a measured constant.

dehammer wrote:
I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

dehammer wrote:
sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour.

You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.

It takes 237 kJ to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis for 1 mole of water. This is a measured constant.

With the information given, it was for 2 Mol of H and 1 Mol of O.
Heat if converted into electricity would be 1.25v. The pdf also said that the water is almost always a vapour. This means a condenser/heat exchanger would be needed to cool down the water.

dehammer wrote:
I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity.

James___ wrote:

dehammer wrote:
I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity.

Interesting. Would have to wonder about erosion but it might allow for some heat to be removed from the water vapor. Even with steam turbines a condenser is usually used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90

[url] https://understandingchp.com/chp-applications-guide/4-4-fuel-cells/[/url]

dehammer wrote:
One thing I had thought about was to try to find a liquid that had a low vaporization temperature, and use it to exchange the heat from the steam to the turbine rather than directly using the heat though the tesla turbine.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

dehammer wrote:
sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour.

You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.

It takes 237 kJ to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis for 1 mole of water. This is a measured constant.

With the information given, it was for 2 Mol of H and 1 Mol of O.
Heat if converted into electricity would be 1.25v. The pdf also said that the water is almost always a vapour. This means a condenser/heat exchanger would be needed to cool down the water.

No, James. You can't get 3 moles out of 1 mole.
Heat is not measured in volts either.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

dehammer wrote:
I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity.

Interesting. Would have to wonder about erosion but it might allow for some heat to be removed from the water vapor. Even with steam turbines a condenser is usually used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90

[url] https://understandingchp.com/chp-applications-guide/4-4-fuel-cells/[/url]

Heat is not contained in anything. You can't remove it from water vapor or anything else.

James___ wrote: Heat is the flow of energy.

James___ wrote: When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.

James___ wrote: @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Heat is the flow of energy.

When a cue ball hits the three-ball directly and kinetic energy is transferred, this is not "heat."

Heat is not the flow of energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy ... via conduction.

James___ wrote: When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.

No. It is to be said that there was heat, with thermal energy flowing from the higher temperature to the lower temperature.

From the MANUAL:

Heat Content: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat content" is a powerful obfuscation of the term "heat." Whereas "heat" can shift between meaning "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient, the term "heat content" can refer to multiple terms at the same time, greatly minimizing the warmizombie's need to backpedal when questioned about his argument's semantics.

James___ wrote: @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known.

Sigh.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

dehammer wrote:
I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity.

Interesting. Would have to wonder about erosion but it might allow for some heat to be removed from the water vapor. Even with steam turbines a condenser is usually used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90

[url] https://understandingchp.com/chp-applications-guide/4-4-fuel-cells/[/url]

Heat is not contained in anything. You can't remove it from water vapor or anything else.

Heat is the flow of energy.

James___ wrote:
When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.

James___ wrote:
At least now you're back to being yourself.

James___ wrote:
@dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known.
[quote]James___ wrote:
Without knowing how much it has to be cooled, then it's difficult to consider what might be the best way.

James___ wrote:
It would take some reading to have an idea what's been done so far. The exhaust from a fuel cell could power both a turbine and an Atmos clock type arrangement. Temperatures from exhaust vary wildly and optimum seems to be around 1,000° F.
A better electrolysis method might be needed.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Heat is the flow of energy.

When a cue ball hits the three-ball directly and kinetic energy is transferred, this is not "heat."

Heat is not the flow of energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy ... via conduction.

James___ wrote: When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.

No. It is to be said that there was heat, with thermal energy flowing from the higher temperature to the lower temperature.

From the MANUAL:

Heat Content: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat content" is a powerful obfuscation of the term "heat." Whereas "heat" can shift between meaning "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient, the term "heat content" can refer to multiple terms at the same time, greatly minimizing the warmizombie's need to backpedal when questioned about his argument's semantics.

James___ wrote: @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known.

Sigh.

And we were discussing pool, right?

James___ wrote:
I know, you're counting coup like ITN.

James___ wrote:
Kind of why I tend to ignore anything either of you say.

James___ wrote:
I mean to consider how to improve the electrolysis method would be a technical discussion and one that you and ITN aren't up to the task.

James___ wrote:
It's funny but there might be a simple way to generate electricity

James___ wrote:
and desalinate water

James___ wrote:
but that's not something that you guys would care about.

James___ wrote:
Just too stoned to know anything.

James___ wrote: And we were discussing pool, right?

James___ wrote: Kind of why I tend to ignore anything either of you say.

James___ wrote: I mean to consider how to improve the electrolysis method would be a technical discussion and one that you and ITN aren't up to the task.

James___ wrote: It's funny but there might be a simple way to generate electricity and desalinate water but that's not something that you guys would care about.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Just too stoned to know anything.

Never touch the stuff. I don't believe IBdaMann does either.