--- Frederick Sparber wrote: > Note the splitting reaction of adsorbed water with co-adsorbed Oxygen on page 331 and the water dissociation energies involved on various metals per Thiel & Madey:
H2O + O ----> 2 OH Wow. Looking ahead, the importance of this technique- which is the use of a highly efficient electronegative metal catalyst, is extraordinary. The metal can possibly be colloidal, and in the 'big picture' this opens the way for the continuous onboard production - in a small reactor on an automobile, of HOOH in very significant quatities using only modest amounts of power from the engine and alternator. Am I missing something? It was proven in the space program that fossil fuels like kerosene (or diesel) will burn as cleanly and more efficiently in HOOH than in pure liquid cryogenic oxygen. The big bugaboo has always been the safety issues of HPT. Not to mention, hydrogen itself can be electrolyzed from peroxide using half the energy (or less) of water. But even disregarding that for a moment, consider this from just the oxidizer angle, assuming the ICE will be using traditional fuel (or biodiesel) Because of the many substantial physical difference of this liquid with water (including a density about 40% greater) this means that peroxide produced in lower concentration in an onboard reactor - but in large quantities, can probably be enriched *on demand* at the engine manifold itself, and therefore that large amounts of HTP - with all its inherent risks, can be avoided. This presents the correlate to the "just in time" method of inventory control. Given the low energy needed to manufacture this oxidizier 'in situ' and in enough quantity (gallons per hour) the next surprising step can now be envisioned. And it is a huge surprise. I have never heard this mentioned before, but it is seems clearly possible at first glance. It is very likely that HOOH can be made in such quantities that air will NOT BE REQUIRED to combust whatever fuel is being used (fossil fuel or hopefully biodiesel). Pressurized oxygen, required to make the peroxide, can be made at home and carried in scuba-type tanks. but NO other oxidizer will be needed ! If that does not strike a chord, then this is a subject which you are probably not tuned-into at a fundamental level. Much of the waste energy in an automobile is related directly to the intake and compression losses associated with using a gaseous oxidizer (air) which is only 20% active (the 80% nitrogen is 'along for the ride' and causes most of the waste). The compressive losses involved with air as an oxidizer are over 50% of all losses - and that is even before the first drop of fuel has been burned. Another way of saying this is that if you are getting 30 MPG then you could easily get 60 MPG if you could eliminate the need to use (compress) a gaseous oxidizer which is only 20% active. In contrast to this, a liquid oxidizer can be injected directly into a 2-cycle engine. No intake manifold, air cleaner, catalytic converter, etc are required! Plus the 4-cycle engine is contra-indicated - cutting the engine size and weight by 40%. Plus - low compression-ratios, which are terrible for using an air oxidizer, work just fine with a liquid, as we are now using a liquid mist not a gas - and it gives a complete burn with zero compression. At least that is my "Eureka Moment" for the day. Hope it is not just "a flash in the pan".... Maybe its time for a double-expresso and a more critical appraisal of the situation. Jones
