I'm curious, what is the advantage of using NaBH4? Whe you said "on demand", it sounds like H2 was being made in the Bronco with on-board battery electrical?
There are weak bonding compounds that can easily store it. This has been around since the 1960s. I'm not buying the "notoriously difficult to store" bit. We are constantly reminded of the Hindenburg disaster to scare us of the dangers of hydrogen. It's a constant theme. We now know the Hindenburg disaster was not an accident, but sabotage.
To be fair, what started the fire for the Hindenburg wasn't the Hydrogen, it was the doping compound being overly flammable. The Hydrogen just made it worse.
That goes along precisely with the PsyOp explanation of an accident due to the so-very "dangerous" hydrogen. The same scare mongering was used to ban Borax in Australia. As natural salt that is safer than table salt. Regarding the Hindenberg, there were 22 photographers present at 7 p.m. May 6, 1937 to film the Hindenburg's arrival. This seems like overkill for an event which had already occurred some 20 times in the previous year at the same field without incident. So why would this typical New Jersey airship landing require 22 separate photographers, five of whom were newsreel photographers?
The Hindenburg was behind schedule by exactly 12 hours. It was supposed to land at 7 am. Both the captain and first officer admitted they were wary of a possible bomb attempt because of tensions with Germany. Sabotage was a serious possibility in those days, yet it was not to be mentioned by the press after the "accident".
Everybody knows what supposedly happened. But not one of the photographers caught the actual "spark" that led to the "explosion". There was plenty of footage of a large fireball above the airship with a portion of the outer skin opened up. There was footage of the poor souls trying to get away from the burning wreckage. But no one caught the spark.
It was the most extraordinary "missed-the-shot" photographic blunder of all time.
The biggest problem with the Hindenburg explosion scenario is that Hydrogen, by itself, separated from oxygen as in a sealed gas cell (Hindenburg had 16 separate cells) does not burn. Hydrogen and oxygen need to be combined stoichiometrically. You would take a sample of water, convert it into a gas thus composing two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. This burns with about seven times the amount of energy than an equal weight of petroleum. But only pure hydrogen was in the Hindenburg.
Blatantly striking a match inside a hydrogen fuel cell would do nothing at all except immediately go out (as soon as the oxygen, in solid oxide form, contained within the match head powder was exhausted.) If a static spark ignited Hindenburg, it would have started burning on the outside of the ship's skin where air containing oxygen could have mixed with the hydrogen escaping from a small leak. Even if there was a static electricity spark, as had never occurred in 30 years of successful operation, how would a flame requiring oxygen burn it's way inside the gas cell where there is no oxygen?
The Hindenburg had instruments that would detect and transmit the slightest changes in gas pressure to the bridge, so any sizable leak would have caused a pressure drop almost immediately and would have been detected.
The pilots would have delayed getting close to any structures and sought to correct the problem. If a spark had then occurred in this split section time window, then we would have seen a small flame on the outside skin burning like the head of a small gas torch where the hole was. But no way could this flame have gone inside the cell, and no way were there any makings of a bomb or explosion there.
Another very large problem with the story of the Hindenburg disaster: The seven year performance of the Graf Zeppelin. This amazing airship proceeded the Hindenburg. Amongst Graf Zeppelin's many incredible aviation feats was her non-stop flight around the world in 1929 carrying 20 passengers! Passenger service using piston driven aircraft did not even offer New York to Paris service until 1939.
Over seven years, Graf Zeppelin logged more than 1,000,000 miles, carried 18,000 passengers in safety and comfort, and made 144 successful Atlantic crossings. Graf Zeppelin used only hydrogen as the lifting material.
Airships are a simple form of anti-gravitation. They are much more efficient for transporting people and cargo than piston driven and modern day aircraft which have to lift such heavy fuel loads and plow through the air to keep them aloft. With a streamlined blimp all one does is cast off a line and let the airship rise. Upon reaching a height of about 500 feet, the engines are started and away they go, like a ship floating in water.
Airship use should have been expanded and continued, but that they were shutdown in favor of inefficient winged aircraft which today consume ungodly amounts of petroleum kerosene, otherwise known as high priced jet fuel.
In 1948, Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller told his CIA interrogator James Kronthal that the Hindenburg was sabotaged, but they never caught the instigator.
Yes, the hydrogen was produced in the bronco. Here's a summary-
A novel, simple, convenient, and safe, chemical process generates high purity hydrogen gas on demand from stable, aqueous solutions of sodium borohydride, NaBH,, and ruthenium based (Ru), catalyst. When NaBH, solution contacts Ru catalyst, it spontaneously hydrolyzes to form H, gas and sodium borate, a water-soluble, inert salt. When H, is no longer required, Ru is removed from the solution and H, generation stops. Since this H, generator is safer, has quicker response to H, demand, and is more efficient, than commonly used H, generators, it is ideal for portable applications.
Thanks for your response. You mentioned it being a chemical process. I'm interpreting this as using no electrolysis for this conversion. I sodium borohydride and ruthenium catalyst price prohibited? Why isn't this method on the market?
This is interesting. Do you have some reference info I can read. I'd greatly appreciate it.
I can only speculate but we were a small company that went public and the board brought in a CEO who had worked for a large company (Air Liquide). He brought in quite a few people from Air Liquide, pushed the inventor Steve Amendola to the side and the politics went bad.
One of our problems was bringing down the price of sodium borohydride (which is high) and we never achieved that. We would have probably tried other catalysts than Ru but the sodium borohydride cost was our primary concern.
Steve Amendola was a brilliant chemist and a nice guy. Unfortunately he died from cancer a few years ago. He's the kind of guy you could just call and he would talk to you. His jokes were the best!
You can search for Steve Amendola and hydrogen. Here's a patent
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20070217994
This is interesting, I had a diesel that I used a hydrogen generator on to supplement into the intake and heard about how hydrogen destroys metal. I sold that truck so don't know how that engine paired bc I sold it with 397k miles on it and still ran good
No one really thought about that. Most of the people who worked there were chemists and they think only about chemical reactions. Now that hydrogen powered cars are becoming more popular for development, tests on hydrogen embrittlement are being done. It is bad for the HS steels used in car engines,
I'm curious, what is the advantage of using NaBH4? Whe you said "on demand", it sounds like H2 was being made in the Bronco with on-board battery electrical?
Hydrogen leaks through everything and is notoriously difficult to store. On demand solves on of the biggest hurdles
There are weak bonding compounds that can easily store it. This has been around since the 1960s. I'm not buying the "notoriously difficult to store" bit. We are constantly reminded of the Hindenburg disaster to scare us of the dangers of hydrogen. It's a constant theme. We now know the Hindenburg disaster was not an accident, but sabotage.
To be fair, what started the fire for the Hindenburg wasn't the Hydrogen, it was the doping compound being overly flammable. The Hydrogen just made it worse.
That goes along precisely with the PsyOp explanation of an accident due to the so-very "dangerous" hydrogen. The same scare mongering was used to ban Borax in Australia. As natural salt that is safer than table salt. Regarding the Hindenberg, there were 22 photographers present at 7 p.m. May 6, 1937 to film the Hindenburg's arrival. This seems like overkill for an event which had already occurred some 20 times in the previous year at the same field without incident. So why would this typical New Jersey airship landing require 22 separate photographers, five of whom were newsreel photographers?
The Hindenburg was behind schedule by exactly 12 hours. It was supposed to land at 7 am. Both the captain and first officer admitted they were wary of a possible bomb attempt because of tensions with Germany. Sabotage was a serious possibility in those days, yet it was not to be mentioned by the press after the "accident".
Everybody knows what supposedly happened. But not one of the photographers caught the actual "spark" that led to the "explosion". There was plenty of footage of a large fireball above the airship with a portion of the outer skin opened up. There was footage of the poor souls trying to get away from the burning wreckage. But no one caught the spark.
It was the most extraordinary "missed-the-shot" photographic blunder of all time.
The biggest problem with the Hindenburg explosion scenario is that Hydrogen, by itself, separated from oxygen as in a sealed gas cell (Hindenburg had 16 separate cells) does not burn. Hydrogen and oxygen need to be combined stoichiometrically. You would take a sample of water, convert it into a gas thus composing two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. This burns with about seven times the amount of energy than an equal weight of petroleum. But only pure hydrogen was in the Hindenburg.
Blatantly striking a match inside a hydrogen fuel cell would do nothing at all except immediately go out (as soon as the oxygen, in solid oxide form, contained within the match head powder was exhausted.) If a static spark ignited Hindenburg, it would have started burning on the outside of the ship's skin where air containing oxygen could have mixed with the hydrogen escaping from a small leak. Even if there was a static electricity spark, as had never occurred in 30 years of successful operation, how would a flame requiring oxygen burn it's way inside the gas cell where there is no oxygen?
The Hindenburg had instruments that would detect and transmit the slightest changes in gas pressure to the bridge, so any sizable leak would have caused a pressure drop almost immediately and would have been detected.
The pilots would have delayed getting close to any structures and sought to correct the problem. If a spark had then occurred in this split section time window, then we would have seen a small flame on the outside skin burning like the head of a small gas torch where the hole was. But no way could this flame have gone inside the cell, and no way were there any makings of a bomb or explosion there.
Another very large problem with the story of the Hindenburg disaster: The seven year performance of the Graf Zeppelin. This amazing airship proceeded the Hindenburg. Amongst Graf Zeppelin's many incredible aviation feats was her non-stop flight around the world in 1929 carrying 20 passengers! Passenger service using piston driven aircraft did not even offer New York to Paris service until 1939.
Over seven years, Graf Zeppelin logged more than 1,000,000 miles, carried 18,000 passengers in safety and comfort, and made 144 successful Atlantic crossings. Graf Zeppelin used only hydrogen as the lifting material.
Airships are a simple form of anti-gravitation. They are much more efficient for transporting people and cargo than piston driven and modern day aircraft which have to lift such heavy fuel loads and plow through the air to keep them aloft. With a streamlined blimp all one does is cast off a line and let the airship rise. Upon reaching a height of about 500 feet, the engines are started and away they go, like a ship floating in water.
Airship use should have been expanded and continued, but that they were shutdown in favor of inefficient winged aircraft which today consume ungodly amounts of petroleum kerosene, otherwise known as high priced jet fuel.
In 1948, Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller told his CIA interrogator James Kronthal that the Hindenburg was sabotaged, but they never caught the instigator.
Crazy that the whole project got shelved. Imagine we all have personal blimps...better than living in a van!
Also probably safer I'd assume
Yes, the hydrogen was produced in the bronco. Here's a summary- A novel, simple, convenient, and safe, chemical process generates high purity hydrogen gas on demand from stable, aqueous solutions of sodium borohydride, NaBH,, and ruthenium based (Ru), catalyst. When NaBH, solution contacts Ru catalyst, it spontaneously hydrolyzes to form H, gas and sodium borate, a water-soluble, inert salt. When H, is no longer required, Ru is removed from the solution and H, generation stops. Since this H, generator is safer, has quicker response to H, demand, and is more efficient, than commonly used H, generators, it is ideal for portable applications.
Thanks for your response. You mentioned it being a chemical process. I'm interpreting this as using no electrolysis for this conversion. I sodium borohydride and ruthenium catalyst price prohibited? Why isn't this method on the market?
This is interesting. Do you have some reference info I can read. I'd greatly appreciate it.
I can only speculate but we were a small company that went public and the board brought in a CEO who had worked for a large company (Air Liquide). He brought in quite a few people from Air Liquide, pushed the inventor Steve Amendola to the side and the politics went bad.
One of our problems was bringing down the price of sodium borohydride (which is high) and we never achieved that. We would have probably tried other catalysts than Ru but the sodium borohydride cost was our primary concern. Steve Amendola was a brilliant chemist and a nice guy. Unfortunately he died from cancer a few years ago. He's the kind of guy you could just call and he would talk to you. His jokes were the best!
You can search for Steve Amendola and hydrogen. Here's a patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/20070217994
How did you deal with hydrogen embrittlement?
This is interesting, I had a diesel that I used a hydrogen generator on to supplement into the intake and heard about how hydrogen destroys metal. I sold that truck so don't know how that engine paired bc I sold it with 397k miles on it and still ran good
That probably didn't introduce a lot of hydrogen - at least not enough to cause a problem before other things failed.
No one really thought about that. Most of the people who worked there were chemists and they think only about chemical reactions. Now that hydrogen powered cars are becoming more popular for development, tests on hydrogen embrittlement are being done. It is bad for the HS steels used in car engines,
It’ll only be allowed to succeed if Chy-nah controls the world’s ruthenium supply.
The Chinese are already in on it - coming up with different catalyst, e.g. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsanm.1c03067
But it was Steve Amendola who came up with this.