In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:24:14 -0400: Hi, [snip] ><mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > >> Over the long haul, it's going to need to come from electrolysis anyway. >> That's >> where most of our hydrogen is. It doesn't need to cause explosions if done >> correctly. > > >Of course. Over the short-haul too. But it should be done at specialized >facilities by experienced people.
...or dedicated specialized equipment should be acquired, and trained people hired. Essentially what I'm saying is that a company that is going to make it's business from selling devices that use Hydrogen as fuel, should probably invest in the means of producing it. >Do-it-yourself or automated electrolysis >equipment has been tested. It often explodes. It is really bad idea when all >you need is a tiny amount anyway. Who said anything about "do it yourself"? I didn't mean to imply that every device sold should have an electrolyzer included. What I meant was that the factory could have a dedicated unit that they used to produce bottled Hydrogen for inclusion in the devices. That would mean that they didn't need to store large amounts of the gas, as they could produce it at the same rate at which they sold it (bottled). > > > >> As to purity, I seriously doubt that the purity need be any less than >> that obtained from natural gas (once again, if done correctly) . . . > > >Not according to Mizuno, who is an expert. He designed elaborate equipment >to purify hydrogen that was already commercial grade. Unless I'm mistaken, commercial grade is what you get in bottles. It comes from natural gas, and is usually contaminated with hydrocarbons (+ perhaps some Helium). IOW Hydrogen from electrolysis may well be more pure, not less. >Doing it "correctly" >is the key point. It cannot be done correctly with a small-scale, automated, >do-it-yourself machine. Perhaps this will be possible in the future. There >is no need for it now. Commercial-grade hydrogen from a tank will not add >any measurable extra cost to a cold fusion device. > > > >> . . . and I don't >> think purity is of such a concern for the Rossi device anyway, judging by >> procedures used during testing. > > >Mizuno, Storms and others have told me that purity is always an issue. Also, >Rossi's tests have been short, and in the laboratory. These are crude >devices with bad performance. For a cell that will run in an automobile, an >airplane or factory for years flawlessly, you want the cleanest, best >materials you can get. You're guessing here. :) The truth it that neither of us knows what effect impure Hydrogen has in Rossi's device, or for that matter whether or not it makes any difference. > > > >> Furthermore, it may eventually even prove >> possible to ensure that any impurity comprises the catalyst itself, so that >> it >> may even be beneficial. >> > >In that case you would want carefully controlled dopants added to the >hydrogen. Not random contamination. ...I was thinking more along the lines of which chemicals are used during electrolysis to provide conductivity. If e.g. NaOH is used, then some of it may get carried along with the gas, and end up in the device, where it could potentially function as a Mills catalyst. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
