Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hydrogen Reform (Helium Synthesis).


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 22 February 2017 - 02:56 PM

Hello everybody,

 

I would like to know if it was theoricly possible to technicly convert a Ring Shaped Particle Collider,

alike the design of the CERN's LHC or equivalent drawing, into a Helium generator with the only

feedstocks being Deuterium and Electricity and with modifications that avoid need of total reconstruction.

 

Thanks for reading Friends ! Anybody to heal my fantasy ???



#2 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 22 February 2017 - 05:04 PM

This should interest you :  https://www.thenaked...p?topic=47563.0



#3 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 22 February 2017 - 09:42 PM

I would like to know if it was theoricly possible to technicly convert a Ring Shaped Particle Collider,
alike the design of the CERN's LHC or equivalent drawing, into a Helium generator with the only
feedstocks being Deuterium and Electricity and with modifications that avoid need of total reconstruction.

While I imagine you could use a collider like the LHC to transmute hydrogen into helium, the amount it would generate would be much too little for practical use.

The LHC is capable of producing about 100,000,000 collision/sec. The mass of a proton or neutron is about 1.67 x 10-27 kg. So if you used the most direct fusion reaction, 21H + 31H -> 42He + n (deuterium + tritium -> helium + neutron), and 100% of the collisions produced the reaction, you’d generate about 10-18 kg of 42He per second, or about 3 x 10-11 (0.00000000003) kg/year.

The world rate of helium consumption is about 10,000,000 kg/year.

If you somehow made a fusion machine that could make helium at this rate, you’d have a problem with what to do with all the energy it produces, which by my quick (and possibly flawed) calculation, would be about 3 x 1014 W. That’s about 15 times the total world power consumption.

This suggests though, that, if the world could get close to 100% of its power from nuclear fusion, its by-product helium production would about match the world’s demand. Pretty cool – except that people have been trying to figure out a way to get more energy out of controlled (ie: not a bomb) nuclear fusion than is put in for more than 75 years, and still most experts expect it won’t be achieved for at least 30 years.

Source: LHC machine outreach page “Collisions”, Wikipedia articles Fusion power, Proton, Neutron.
 

This should interest you : https://www.thenaked...p?topic=47563.0

That’s a fun thread, but despite its name, “Can we make more helium?”, it quickly turned to a discussion of an alternative to helium to fill party balloons. My favorite was to fill your party room with a 20% oxygen, 80% krypton mix, so that ordinary air-filled balloons would float. :)
  • Farming guy and OceanBreeze like this

#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 02:24 AM

While I imagine you could use a collider like the LHC to transmute hydrogen into helium, the amount it would generate would be much too little for practical use.

The LHC is capable of producing about 100,000,000 collision/sec. The mass of a proton or neutron is about 1.67 x 10-27 kg. So if you used the most direct fusion reaction, 21H + 31H -> 42He + n (deuterium + tritium -> helium + neutron), and 100% of the collisions produced the reaction, you’d generate about 10-18 kg of 42He per second, or about 3 x 10-11 (0.00000000003) kg/year.

The world rate of helium consumption is about 10,000,000 kg/year.

If you somehow made a fusion machine that could make helium at this rate, you’d have a problem with what to do with all the energy it produces, which by my quick (and possibly flawed) calculation, would be about 3 x 1014 W. That’s about 15 times the total world power consumption.

This suggests though, that, if the world could get close to 100% of its power from nuclear fusion, its by-product helium production would about match the world’s demand. Pretty cool – except that people have been trying to figure out a way to get more energy out of controlled (ie: not a bomb) nuclear fusion than is put in for more than 75 years, and still most experts expect it won’t be achieved for at least 30 years.

Source: LHC machine outreach page “Collisions”, Wikipedia articles Fusion power, Proton, Neutron.
 
That’s a fun thread, but despite its name, “Can we make more helium?”, it quickly turned to a discussion of an alternative to helium to fill party balloons. My favorite was to fill your party room with a 20% oxygen, 80% krypton mix, so that ordinary air-filled balloons would float. :)

I wonder if our new poster is asking if a particle collider could be converted into a tokamak. I should think the answer to that would be an emphatic "no". 



#5 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1073 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 03:18 AM

That’s a fun thread, but despite its name, “Can we make more helium?”, it quickly turned to a discussion of an alternative to helium to fill party balloons. My favorite was to fill your party room with a 20% oxygen, 80% krypton mix, so that ordinary air-filled balloons would float. :)

 

At $33/gram my quick and possibly flawed math tells me it would cost several million dollars to have 80% krypton gas for a party room. There are cheaper ways to make everyone comatose.



#6 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 04:12 AM

​Thanks CraigD for the fast forward analysis.

 

​But I wondered, if we added to the "Feedstock list" (Electricity & Deuterium)

​a gas like Uranium Hexachloride, could some applied physics experts

​get the Particle Collider to work in less of a vaccum & at hotter temperature ?

​Isn't true that we don't need near perfect vaccum & cold if detection's not the goal ?

Picture a modified LHC that's mixing UH6 gas & Deuterium Inside the Sealded Ring,

then bombarding these energetic particules into the maintained gaseous mixture.

 

I don't really know, maybe an other gas like UF6 would be better...Precisions ???



#7 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 07:33 AM

The world rate of helium consumption is about 10,000,000 kg/year.


 
That’s a fun thread, but despite its name, “Can we make more helium?”, it quickly turned to a discussion of an alternative to helium to fill party balloons. My favorite was to fill your party room with a 20% oxygen, 80% krypton mix, so that ordinary air-filled balloons would float. :)

Priorities, Craig!  Imagine a world without party balloons !  Oh the horrors!



#8 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 09:30 AM

​Hey farming guy, relax you'll get these party balloons in time for the harvest !

 

​No really I get you guys but my mad little tought came more from my anti-bullshit fuse popping.

For whatever reason there was plenty Helicopters flying above my city quite frequently...

These (literal) suckers are not only God-Damn Noisy, but also expensive to fuel for flight !

I'm so sorry for those enjoying them, but scientificly they look obsolete guys.

You need big amounts of a light fuel, 'cause Diesel engines are too heavy,

and even by sacrificing energy density for weight, it still has short flight time...

Staff's noisy, heavy, is extremely energy voracious, and can't be powered with dense fuel

like diesel, why, 'cause it's too heavy for that stupid diabetic hummingbird !!!

 

Sorry about that, but that's the N°1 idea that made me desire Cheap & Unlimited Helium.

You guys will be smart enough to guess the rest, please participate oh you curious people out there !!!

 

God bless America, and Helium Airship Transportation for Civilian, Military & Rescue applications !

Please support the industry by sending party balloons to the dude aka "Farming guy". Thanks a lot !


  • Farming guy likes this

#9 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 01:49 PM

Hydrogen is cheap, just don't use inflammable materials to build your airship, and be very strict in enforcing the no smoking policy!



#10 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 03:16 PM

​Hydrogen is unacceptable in our current hyper-medicalized, hyper-comfortable,

and hyper-safe societies. And I think it's kind of a good thing overall...but limiting in some ways.

​You got to give people, investers, insurances etc a gas that does the job and never explodes.

 

​Me & you can agree, other people may not. It's not a bad thing, take it as a challenge...

​Some people say that if the Gasoline Engine Car was invented today, it would be judged too dangerous

& maybe even forbidden regards current legal policies BULLSHIT ! Everything's freaking forbidden now.

 



#11 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 06:18 PM

​Hydrogen is unacceptable in our current hyper-medicalized, hyper-comfortable,

and hyper-safe societies. And I think it's kind of a good thing overall...but limiting in some ways.

​You got to give people, investers, insurances etc a gas that does the job and never explodes.

 

​Me & you can agree, other people may not. It's not a bad thing, take it as a challenge...

​Some people say that if the Gasoline Engine Car was invented today, it would be judged too dangerous

& maybe even forbidden regards current legal policies BULLSHIT ! Everything's freaking forbidden now.

And yet crossing the street to get the mail is more dangerous than ever, and probably the most dangerous thing I do 6 days of the week.



#12 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 11:06 AM

But I wondered, if we added to the "Feedstock list" (Electricity & Deuterium) a gas like Uranium Hexachloride, could some applied physics experts get the Particle Collider to work in less of a vaccum & at hotter temperature ?

Nearly all the helium on Earth is thought to be from the natural decay of uranium and thorium, but the amounts of these radioactive elements is huge compared to the amount you could put in a machine like a particle collider.

You could get small amounts of helium from nuclear fission reactors, but I think (From the lack mention of it in literature, not from doing calculation) the amount is so small that it’s not worth building the reactors to do it.
 

Hydrogen is unacceptable in our current hyper-medicalized, hyper-comfortable, and hyper-safe societies. And I think it's kind of a good thing overall...but limiting in some ways.
You got to give people, investers, insurances etc a gas that does the job and never explodes.

I don’t think hydrogen is unaccepted worldwide, just more limited in its applications than some people wish. For many years, it was considered a promising alternative to petroleum fuels and electric batteries, but since the cost of petroleum has remained low and the cost, energy density, and lifetime of batteries improved, burning hydrogen in engine or using it in electricity-generating fuel cells, both mature but expensive technologies, hasn’t gained much popularity. Hydrogen remains a popular fuel in high-performance rockets, like the upcoming SLS, but outside of rocketry, seems to me to be limited to , like toy rockets and emergency power supplies.

The danger of hydrogen gas is IMHO mostly a myth, due mostly to the spectacular 1937 Hindenburg disaster. At atmospheric pressure, burning hydrogen produces about 1/3rd the energy of burning methane, so doesn’t produce as much heat or explosive energy, so hydrogen gas fires are among the least dangerous. The Hindenburg fire, for all its infamy and spectacle, killed only 35 of its 97 passengers and crew.
 

Me & you can agree, other people may not. It's not a bad thing, take it as a challenge...
Some people say that if the Gasoline Engine Car was invented today, it would be judged too dangerous & maybe even forbidden regards current legal policies BULLSHIT ! Everything's freaking forbidden now.

I’m not aware of any laws in the US forbidding experimenting with various kinds of engines, surface vehicles, or aircraft, as long as they’re done on private land and don’t endanger aircrafts. Laws and regulations become a major time and money expense when you want to use new machines on public roads, sell them, or carry passengers.
 

God bless America, and Helium Airship Transportation for Civilian, Military & Rescue applications !

While there are some cool modern lighter-than-air airships, like especially the semi-rigid Zeppelin NT, I don’t think airship, which these days are of value mostly as advertisements and for sightseeing, have much of a future in transportation, militaries, or rescue.

Airships are inherently slow – The USS Macon, lost in 1935, cruised at 63 and maxed at 87 miles/hr, while the Zeppelin NT cruised at 71 and maxes 77 (though its highest officially recorded speed is 69.6). Though capable of carrying cargo comparable to modern cargo aircraft – the Macon could lift 152,644 lbs, which fully fueled was 100,000 fuel + 52,644 payload, about half of a Boing 747-8’s 500,000 = 378,200 fuel + 121,800 payload – with about 2 times the 747’s payload/fuel efficiency, an tractor+trailer road truck can haul about up to 38,000 = 2000 fuel + 36,000 payload at about the same speed, with nearly 6 times the airship’s efficiency. A railroad train is even more efficient, about 4 times as efficient as a truck.

The only way I can imagine airships successfully compete with trains and trucks is if there were many people someplace with few or no high-speed rail or paved roads. The only scenario I where I can imagine this happening is some sort of Mad Max-esque collapse of civilization where rail and paved roads are desroyed, but somehow the technological and manufacturing infrastructure to build airships survives.

One application where airships may shine is as alternatives to communications satellites. Another is for a few very heavy-lift airships like the Aeros Aeroscraft.

#13 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 04:04 PM

"Mad Max-esque collapse of civilization" sounds exactly where we seem to be heading economicly...

​I think 21st century technology applied to Airships is going to destroy totally Jet Turbine Planes, MY BET !

 

"alternatives to communications satellites" pretty good exemple I agree 100% !!! (even heard WiFi-Max soon)

​The possibility of remotely commanding the Balloons to descend and reach base for servicing is awesome !

​You don't send expensive robots for repair, you don't risk failure to deliver satellites, no atmosphere re-entry...

 

As far as energy density is concerned, you can imagine a dimethyl ester fuel cell powering carbon fiber propellers.

It is hard not to think about using microwaves as an energy efficient lifting, balancing & grounding mechanism.

You would have a big balloon, inside of which multiple smaller helium balloons occupying almost all the space,

leaving only a small thickness filled with Deuterium that would be microwaved to contract or retract the Helium...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#14 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 27 February 2017 - 02:45 AM

Nearly all the helium on Earth is thought to be from the natural decay of uranium and thorium, but the amounts of these radioactive elements is huge compared to the amount you could put in a machine like a particle collider.

You could get small amounts of helium from nuclear fission reactors, but I think (From the lack mention of it in literature, not from doing calculation) the amount is so small that it’s not worth building the reactors to do it.
 
I don’t think hydrogen is unaccepted worldwide, just more limited in its applications than some people wish. For many years, it was considered a promising alternative to petroleum fuels and electric batteries, but since the cost of petroleum has remained low and the cost, energy density, and lifetime of batteries improved, burning hydrogen in engine or using it in electricity-generating fuel cells, both mature but expensive technologies, hasn’t gained much popularity. Hydrogen remains a popular fuel in high-performance rockets, like the upcoming SLS, but outside of rocketry, seems to me to be limited to , like toy rockets and emergency power supplies.

The danger of hydrogen gas is IMHO mostly a myth, due mostly to the spectacular 1937 Hindenburg disaster. At atmospheric pressure, burning hydrogen produces about 1/3rd the energy of burning methane, so doesn’t produce as much heat or explosive energy, so hydrogen gas fires are among the least dangerous. The Hindenburg fire, for all its infamy and spectacle, killed only 35 of its 97 passengers and crew.
 
I’m not aware of any laws in the US forbidding experimenting with various kinds of engines, surface vehicles, or aircraft, as long as they’re done on private land and don’t endanger aircrafts. Laws and regulations become a major time and money expense when you want to use new machines on public roads, sell them, or carry passengers.
 
While there are some cool modern lighter-than-air airships, like especially the semi-rigid Zeppelin NT, I don’t think airship, which these days are of value mostly as advertisements and for sightseeing, have much of a future in transportation, militaries, or rescue.

Airships are inherently slow – The USS Macon, lost in 1935, cruised at 63 and maxed at 87 miles/hr, while the Zeppelin NT cruised at 71 and maxes 77 (though its highest officially recorded speed is 69.6). Though capable of carrying cargo comparable to modern cargo aircraft – the Macon could lift 152,644 lbs, which fully fueled was 100,000 fuel + 52,644 payload, about half of a Boing 747-8’s 500,000 = 378,200 fuel + 121,800 payload – with about 2 times the 747’s payload/fuel efficiency, an tractor+trailer road truck can haul about up to 38,000 = 2000 fuel + 36,000 payload at about the same speed, with nearly 6 times the airship’s efficiency. A railroad train is even more efficient, about 4 times as efficient as a truck.

The only way I can imagine airships successfully compete with trains and trucks is if there were many people someplace with few or no high-speed rail or paved roads. The only scenario I where I can imagine this happening is some sort of Mad Max-esque collapse of civilization where rail and paved roads are desroyed, but somehow the technological and manufacturing infrastructure to build airships survives.

One application where airships may shine is as alternatives to communications satellites. Another is for a few very heavy-lift airships like the Aeros Aeroscraft.

I note your remarks on hydrogen for transport fuel. However I was interested to read a few days ago that Shell (my former employer) has started installing a network of hydrogen fuelling stations. Evidently they think this technology may still be competitive with recharging of electric batteries -or at least has enough of a chance that it is worth putting a toe into the water commercially with it.  



#15 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 27 February 2017 - 10:54 AM

"hydrogen fueling stations" "may still be competitive with recharging of electric batteries"

​That's what these "hydrogen economy" scientific crowds don't seem to get very well...

​People don't want Hydrogen, they want cheap Cars which means fuel or battery.

As my Pseudonym whispers, I'm a big believer of Hemp based Carbon-Fiber,

​and I think it's the big step toward very cheap & very fast rechargeable batteries !

 

​If these guys want to put a network in place, they better understand that Hydrogen

​is not something to deal with directly, you better throw the dirty job on the hands

​of dudes called Carbon & Oxygen to form molecules much easier to handle, store and transport 

like Methane (Natural Gas substitute), Methanol (Gasoline subs) or Dimethyl Ester (Diesel subs).

 

If I'm rich and feel bored, I would do exactly like Shell, except that the Hydrogen Station would only

provide "high speed" & "low speed" battery charges for all electric cars and certainly not soldering gas...

 

PS : If our smart scholars were not evil, all Power Plants would be Gas powered and would store Carbon !

That way we could dedicate all of our Hydro-Dams to Hydrogen Electrolysis, Hydro-Carbon synthesis,

and it would produce massive quantities of medical Oxygen as a by-product !!!



#16 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 28 February 2017 - 02:14 AM

"hydrogen fueling stations" "may still be competitive with recharging of electric batteries"

​That's what these "hydrogen economy" scientific crowds don't seem to get very well...

​People don't want Hydrogen, they want cheap Cars which means fuel or battery.

As my Pseudonym whispers, I'm a big believer of Hemp based Carbon-Fiber,

​and I think it's the big step toward very cheap & very fast rechargeable batteries !

 

​If these guys want to put a network in place, they better understand that Hydrogen

​is not something to deal with directly, you better throw the dirty job on the hands

​of dudes called Carbon & Oxygen to form molecules much easier to handle, store and transport 

like Methane (Natural Gas substitute), Methanol (Gasoline subs) or Dimethyl Ester (Diesel subs).

 

If I'm rich and feel bored, I would do exactly like Shell, except that the Hydrogen Station would only

provide "high speed" & "low speed" battery charges for all electric cars and certainly not soldering gas...

 

PS : If our smart scholars were not evil, all Power Plants would be Gas powered and would store Carbon !

That way we could dedicate all of our Hydro-Dams to Hydrogen Electrolysis, Hydro-Carbon synthesis,

and it would produce massive quantities of medical Oxygen as a by-product !!!

What makes you think hydrogen cars would be expensive compared to electric ones? I would have  expected them to be cheaper. 



#17 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 28 February 2017 - 06:22 AM

​Yes it can come to mind, Hydrogen is pretty easy & plenty in Space.

​But welcome to planet Earth my friend ! Hydrogen flees from our atmosphere...

 

​I remember seeing a Hydrogen Car made by Toyota. Cost was 1 MILLION dollars...(laughters)

​I admit that one was a strange model that stored "liquid hydrogen" (-270 C) on board (no comment).

​The ones that weren't big freezers on wheels had instead a fuel cell made of a precious metal (Platinum),

​and costed around 100 000 dollars which is just a little bit less stupid but not yet on target so to speak.

 

​The best compromise I've heard yet, was a harmonious blend of all preceding propositions.

​You make electric cars with simple batteries and no giant freezers or precious metals to cut costs.

Afterward you extend a network of "hydrogen stations" assuming refrigeration & Platinum fuel cells,

so that the costs are slowly assumed by the consumers on the long run everytime they refuel vehicles.

 

​In a Platinum fuel cell, you're right, it's hydrogen that we want, but carbon bonds reduce the intensity

​of the refrigeration needed which reduces greatly the costs of long term storage at the Pump...

​'cause you can't force anybody to buy your electrons versus someone else's...it's just scientific politeness ! lol