Electrochemistry

[P-man]

Alright Uncle Al, looks like we're gonna have to teach you a lesson. You wanna watch the world collapse like a mean aristocrat? Well some of us aren't gonna be as lucky as that! Unless we strive to find a way outta this, everything is gonna collapse. But we can find a way! I believe in hydrogen! I am optimistic! We will strive and hopefully find a way to change the world, even if it does mean destroying the social life of some cultures. It will be for the better.

 

Social collapse around 2015, technological collapse around 2050. The only uncertainty is Bush the Lesser. He has been remarkably successful dragging the date for Ragnarok into the here and now by exhausting all US financial reserves and elasticities. 1929 was small stuff. Have a nice day.

 

Too bad 2005 is the global peak production year. And that if we don't find a way before too long, there won't be a lot of cars on the road... which might be good for the time being. It'll give us time. There are small technologies out there that seem not good enough to last very long but they will buy us time.

 

Let Fate decide the winner, Uncle Al. But for now, it is a mighty war we are fighting.

[UncleAl]

I believe in hydrogen![/snip]

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Richard Feynman. The universe doesn't care what you believe.

[HydrogenBond]

The way I see it is that even if all the iron was present when the earth began to form there is no reason it would be able to phase separate from all the oxygen within the early earth and still leave plenty of water on the surface. If everyone said there was an iron oxide core, that would be hard to refute. That would satisy the stellar spectroscopy. But it would create problems for magnetism which is why it is ignorred.

 

At the densities of an iron core we are not talking about a plasma gas of physics. We are talking about a solid-state chemicial plasma where electron orbitals are maybe touching. This should still follow the laws of chemistry to some extent. Iron plus oxygen, hydrogen, ions equals rust.

[P-man]

There is a way to solve this. If we just put our heads together and think, we can solve this.

[HydrogenBond]

Even if we solve this, this is science (religious) dogma we are talking about. It does not know how to go away without having a profound impact on a lot of other theories which are both directly and indirectly connected to an iron core.

 

Here is a good preliminary exercise. Let us for the sake of argument, assume that the iron core has been disproved. What would be the implications? What conceptual modifications would need to occur within other theories to make them consistent with an earth without an iron core? There is no right or wrong answer, just brain storming.

[UncleAl]

Even if we solve this, this is science (religious) dogma we are talking about.

To the moderator: If this random*person* is allowed to run roughshod over this Forum, so be it. I'm out of here. You are invited to lower your standards until Hypography is the compassionate garbage midden news:sci.physics has become. I am personally disheartened and professionally offended. I'm out of there on Monday morning my time.

 

I'm out of here right now.

[P-man]

Good.

[CraigD]

...I am personally disheartened and professionally offended.

I think the loss of UncleAl, an actual professional chemist, would be a considerable blow to the quality of this forum. I implore him to reconsider.

 

I also believe I can relate to his discomfort, having in my short time here had my fair share of frustration trying to explain the scientifically obvious to people who’s primary motivation appears to be the rejection of any and all conventional Science. Additionally, the possibility that web forums in their current forms are subject to a sort of Darwinian selection process, resulting in them selecting for those who proclaim most and listen least, is alarming and disheartening, to say the least.

 

At the same time, a large reason why I spend time reading and posting at scienceforums, when I could be reading peer-reviewed periodicals and doing serious, private work, is not only to have contact with people who’s understanding of Science closely matches my own, but to have it with those who don’t – the “fringe”, if you will. Sanctioning such people simply because they are in the fringe doesn’t feel right. It’s censorship, a sword that has a tendency to return to wound its user, and one best left sheaved.

 

The only potential solutions to this conflict are: some sort of enhancement to the engine to give thread starters moderator-like control over their own threads; an informal convention of thread starters clearly stating the “ground rules” of a particular thread when starting it; or an enhancement to the reputation system that would keep people with “mutually negative” reputation separated from one another. All involve extra effort and complication for developer/administrators and posters, and have limitations and potentials for abuse, but are the best I’m able to offer.

 

I hope you’ll stick it out, UncleAl. Perhaps a technical solution will prove feasible – I generally have great confidence in technical solutions.

[HydrogenBond]

There are two paths of science one can take. One can teach and learn the exisiting theory without question. This is good for a student who has to takes tests. Or one can question assumptions to see if the assumptions can hold water. This helps further understanding but can also create confusion. UncleAl and I probably agree on basic chemistry theory because I was also educated as a Chemist. But when one reaches areas where no solid proof exists, one should be allowed to make reasonable guesses even if this means not go along with the concensus opinion. On the other hand, students need to first learn from history and tradition; new ideas help one to being able to think outside the box. But students need to know the box first.

 

The earth's core seems to be the tender spot. Maybe the difference is that I see the earth as an integrated whole instead of discontinuous. UncleAl is a smart guy and he has his own way of looking at things.

[infamous]

Nothing. First World civilization will collapse after the planet is exhausted of its minable dense energy reservoirs. The first big hit will be Baby Boomer retirement in America and Europe imploding the Welfare State by 2015. The second big hit will be the end of recoverable petroleum by 2050. The rational act is to build nukes, many many nuclear power reactors with full fuel recycle, and stop burning petroleum. That may give another 20 years to discover a way out in physics. Or not. Controlled fusion is hopeless crap.

 

1929 was small stuff. Have a nice day.

For someone that seems to have all the answers Uncle, you reek of absolute pessimism. I'm sure your data is fairly accurate, I've become accustom at trusting your figures. However, I don't think our chances will improve if we just throw up our hands and submit to what seems to be inevitable. I for one am not ready to crawl in a hole and pull it in around myself.

[infamous]

For someone that seems to have all the answers Uncle, you reek of absolute pessimism. I'm sure your data is fairly accurate, I've become accustom at trusting your figures. However, I don't think our chances will improve if we just throw up our hands and submit to what seems to be inevitable. I for one am not ready to crawl in a hole and pull it in around myself.

Every fool knows you can't touch the stars, but it doesn't stop the wise man from trying............Harry Anderson

[P-man]

I have devised an experiment to prove that nickel catalysts in PEM fuel cells can work if the hydrogen is made from electrolysis. This will help fuel cells make a entrance into the worls of transportation by greatly lowering their cost. Here it is:

 

First I make hydrogen through electrolysis and collect it in a test tube.

 

Now this test tube is special because I've rigged it like a mini fuel cell. To stop the hydrogen from coming out of the test tube, I made this little assembly that ressembles the MEA in PEM fuel cells. It's a nickel plate with a plastic sheet under it and a wire connecting the catalyst exposed to the hydrogen to the plastic exposed to the air.

 

Theoretically, the hydrogen should get split by the nickel into its protons and electrons. The protons go through the plastic, but since the electrons can't they take the wire to make it to the other side and react with the oxygen in the air. So I should feel moisture on the outside of the plastic, right? Or around it, at least.

 

I haven't done this yet but I plan on doing it ASAP.

 

As you can see, the hydrogen has to be pure or it will destroy the nickel. The problem with making H through steam reforming, (which is right now the cheapest way to so it), is that it leaves impurities such as CO in the H. This wrecks the nickel. However H made through electrolysis is pure.

[CraigD]

Theoretically, the hydrogen should get split by the nickel into its protons and electrons. The protons go through the plastic, but since the electrons can't they take the wire to make it to the other side and react with the oxygen in the air. So I should feel moisture on the outside of the plastic, right? Or around it, at least.

My understanding of the working of a proton exchange membrane is that the metal “dopant” layer must be very thin, with no air gap between it and the polymer layer, and that the polymer must be chemically special, such as DuPont Nafion. I predict, therefore, that a sandwich of even a foil-thickness layer of metal over an ordinary waterproof plastic won’t work – that is, that it will fail to produce any measurable electrical current.

 

However, if nothing else your experiment will be good fabricating practice, and might work for unpredicted reasons. Good luck to you!

 

Rather than feeling for moisture on the outside of the plastic, which might result from an accidental touch or condensation, I recommend you measure the actual current in the wire. If you don’t already have one, low amperage testers are available at retail electronics stores for pretty cheap.

 

I’m generally skeptical of your claim that hydrogen produce by electrolysis will perform much differently in a PEM fuel cell than hydrogen produce by other methods, for the following reasons:

• Some prototype self-contained hydrogen-making/fueling stations use electrolysis, but make no claims that this results in “better” hydrogen than other methods (eg: Honda’s Torrance, CA facility)
  
• Pure hydrogen is very reactive, so is very difficult to keep pure. So, regardless of how you generate it, much of the engineering difficulty will be in keeping it from reacting during storage and delivery, and purging its storage and delivery system of contaminants.
  

However, your self-starting experimental style is to applauded and supported, so consider yourself applauded and supported by me!

[P-man]

Thank you for your advice. I have a few questions, though.

 

What is the difference between PVC and Nafion?

How much do amperage testers and/or voltmeters cost?

 

Thank you once again.