Re: TEMPERAMENT vs TEMPERATURE, and fuel cells

From: Mike (n00spam_at_comcast.net)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: 1 Aug 2004 19:56:57 -0700

n00spam@comcast.net (Mike) wrote in message news:<b19f7766.0408011152.6e78295b@posting.google.com>...
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<410CFBE1.99800274@hate.spam.net>...
> > Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > I was reading about fuel cells when I came across this link:
> > >
> > > http://www.benwiens.com/energy4.html#energy1.16
> > >
> > > It was authored in "2002 May 03 by Ben Wiens...applied energy
> > > scientist".
> > >
> > > Section 16 was titled "TEMPERAMENT vs TEMPERATURE". In this section,
> > > Ben was laying the foundation for section 17 "FUEL CELLS vs HEAT
> > > ENGINES" where he explains why fuel cells have an efficiency advantage
> > > over internal combustion engines; i.e. Otto or Diesel cycle power
> > > plants.
> > >
> > > Next, I will mangle section 16 and the first part of 17 down to
> > > represent the key points.
> > [snip]
> >
> > The catalyst elements of fuel cells are irreversibly poisoned by
> > ppm contaminants like CO and SOx.
>
> Some fuel cell types can withstand impurites better than others.
>
> From Ben's link: "A big advantage of the SOFC is that both hydrogen
> and carbon monoxide are used in the cell [3]. In the PEFC the carbon
> monoxide is a poison, while in the SOFC it is a fuel. This means that
> the SOFC can readily and safely use many common hydrocarbons fuels
> such as natural gas, diesel, gasoline, alcohol and coal gas. In the
> PEFC an external reformer is required to produce hydrogen gas while
> the SOFC can reform these fuels into hydrogen and carbon monoxide
> inside the cell. This results in some of the high temperature waste
> thermal energy being recycled back into the fuel.
> Because the chemical reactions in the SOFC are good at the high
> operating temperatures, air compression is not required. Especially on
> smaller systems this results in a simpler system, quiet operation, and
> high efficiencies. Exotic catalysts are not required either."
>
>
> >How much more are you willing
> > to pay for ultrapurification of your already expensive exotic
> > fuels? You will find taht fuel cell emplacments are only
> > economic in two categories,
> >
> > 1) government subsidized, and
> > 2) when costs can be passed onto consumers by a monopoly
> > (power or telephone company backup).
> >
> > Even refineries don't use fuel cells as cogeneration power
> > sources - and hydrogen is as cheap as can be obtained there.
>
> Checkout http://www.batteriesdigest.com/HTMLobj-2027/BD97E.pdf
>
> "The front cover. General Motors (GM) initiates stationary fuel cell
> project with Dow Chemical Company. The Dow facility in
> Freeport, Texas has received and activated the first GM fuel cell
> which will convert hydrogen into about 75 kiloWatts of
> electricity - enough power for about 50 or 60 homes. Over the next two
> years, the amount of fuel cells will be increased to
> generate a combined 35 megaWatts - an amount which could power 25,000
> homes. Tim Vail, GMís director of business
> development for this fuel cell endeavor, says, ìWe (GMís team) are
> taking the same units you would find under the hood of a car,
> and we are putting them in a stationary environment.î The project at
> the Freeport facility will provide GM with a learning
> laboratory to find out about durability of the fuel cells, how
> different types of hydrogen work and how well various elements
> (components) inside the fuel cell function.
> The Freeport site is Dowís largest chemical manufacturing installation
> in the world. When the fuel cell installation is fully
> maximized, it will provide two percent of the power for Dowís
> operations.
> Hydrogen is a natural by-product of Dowís chemical manufacturing. At
> the Freeport plant, 150 million cubic feet of hydrogen are
> produced every day. The fuel cell just installed by GM will utilize
> about 20 million cubic feet of the daily hydrogen produced.+"
>
> >It
> > is much more valuable put into hydrocarbon fuel - and still the
> > most expensive component of that.
>
> Progress is being made on ethanol fuel cells for cars. DOE seems to be
> betting on PEM where "fuels provided by the existing infrastructure
> (gasoline, methanol, ethanol and natural gas) can be processed
> on-board the vehicle to supply hydrogen".
>
> "One of the main problems with any fuel cell is contamination of the
> membrane. So it seems like a great advantage, then, to use a fuel
> source which has been distilled and is 99.9999 % pure. The ideal fuel
> for a fuel cell is ethanol."
> --Illinois Corn Marketing
> Board
>
> I am not an expert on fuel cells; just curious.
>
> >
> > > Hmm, are there any controlled nuclear reactions that produce electrons
> > > with high "temperament energy"? If so, at what temperature?
> >
> > Beta decay, moron.
>
> I hate it when I am a moron.
>
>
> >Beta batteries were hot *** in the 1960s.
> > We can do better.
>
> I know about beta decay but I didn't know that anyone had ever applied
> it to make a battery. Did they line the batteries with lead? Were
> the electrons used directly or was beta-decay used to generate heat
> that in turn drove a thermocouple? How hot were the electrons?

If I knew everything, I wouldn't be wasting my time on this group. I
did some more research and found some links to "betavoltics".

  http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/review/v95/95Tritiated07.pdf

They incorporated tritium into a-Si:H (Hydrogenated amorphous
silicon). This injects electrons with an average energy of 5.7 keV
into a tritiated amorphous semiconductor p-i-n junction.

"The maximum power density Pmax for this configuration
was measured to be Pmax = 0.29 mW/cm2 (per 48 mCi/cm2 per
mm at 20 at. % tritium), which is approximately 16% of the
theoretical maximum attainable power.29 Alternatively, stack-
ing a number of such cells in series and/or in parallel would
require approximately 330 Ci to achieve a 1-mW tritium
powered battery."

This power output was "approximately 16% of the theoretical maximum
attainable power."

Another URL that I found was
http://www.betavoltaic.com/betavoltaic.html

This is a company with a commercial product.

"The BETAVOLT(TM) Power-cell can be factory set for from 1 to 5 years
dependent on expected cell phone lifetime. The power-cell is solid
state in design and the fuel when exhausted is a harmless stable
isotope so the cell can be recycled safely without restriction.

The units will be encased in a LiquidMetal case with a graphite or
bismuth inner coating to ensure that no amount of radiation can reach
the user of the device and to prevent the unit from being tampered
with. This will make the power unit as safe or safer than typical
chemical battery technology systems."

The last URL, http://www.americanantigravity.com/plasmavolt.html
talks about "PlasmaVolt technology".

"The basis for Betavoltaic's technology is a clean, safe version of
stimulated nuclear-decay technology based on the theoretical research
of Dr. Ruggero Santilli and the experimental research of Ted Gagnon.
Dr. Santilli's research had shown that with a specific static-charge
applied to a nuclear isotope it can be made to break down at a
sustained rate in comparison with a control sample.

What this means is that a beta-emitting isotope (one that emits
primarily electrons as it decays) can be forced electronically to emit
the same number of electrons in an hour as it ordinarily might emit in
a year or more. Therefore, instead of a scant-few electrons being
emitted from the isotope under normal conditions, the same isotope in
a charge-stimulated environment may emit enough to actually comprise a
current - perhaps micro amps or even milliamps worth of electricity."

Anybody know anything more about "PlasmaVolt technology"? A
dissenting view can be found at
  http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/Directory/BetaVoltaics/nucleus_resists_stimulation.htm

>
> I know that nuclear powered spacecraft, like Cassini, use radioisotope
> thermoelectric generators (RTGs). RTGs use the heat generated by
> radioactive decay to drive a thermocouple that in turn generates
> electricity. So temperature, not temperament.
>
> As an FYI, Pu-238 is the preferred fuel for RTG's. As it decays,
> Pu-238 emits radiation mainly in the form of alpha particles, which
> have a very low penetrating power. But you knew that.

Quantcast