Toyota opens its fuel cell patents in bid to make hydrogen cars happen

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Unfortunately hydrogen is not practical to produce. Maybe somebody can use toyotas open patents to come up with something new.

Actually, it is quite simple to produce. The problem is storage. The most efficient way to store hydrogen, was used in hydrogen bombs, therefore the method is illegal for mass production.

If you want to see a cool and easy way to produce hydrogen, search King of Random on youtube.

You can make your own modification to connect to your vehicle (wouldn't do it to a new car) as hydrogen is compatible with our combustion engines. Now, you will need to purchase equipment that can adjust the vehicle's modules as you would be using hydrogen (burns more efficiently) and not gasoline.

Does not work with diesel motors.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: PeterMcFly

I would suggest you carry out some real research rather than repeating those chestnuts put out by Big Oil to help maintain their stranglehold.

Petrol is a hydro carbon, that is, it is made up of chains of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms.

The carbon does not burn, it just adds to pollution. The oxygen is an aid to combustion but once again does not add to the energy output. The energy output comes from Hydrogen.

That's not what my old chemistry text book says - it says that the energy comes from the chemical reaction involved in breaking the carbon chain.

Hydrogen combustion obviously does not break the carbon chain.

Plus energy density is a different question entirely - you can have a very energetic reaction that has less density because the chemicals involved are less dense. According to hte table there compressed H2 has only 1/7th the energy density of petrol/diesel - 5.6 MJ/litre vs 35.8. Liquid hydrogen is a bit better at 8.5 in a 2nd table vs 4.5 at 690 bar and petrol at 34.2...I haven' quite grasped the full difference between hte 2 tables....but it does look like H2 has a much lower density than petrol.

originally posted by: amtracer

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Unfortunately hydrogen is not practical to produce. Maybe somebody can use toyotas open patents to come up with something new.

Actually, it is quite simple to produce. The problem is storage. The most efficient way to store hydrogen, was used in hydrogen bombs, therefore the method is illegal for mass production.

Uh....no!! :/

The "Hydrogen in Hydrogen bombs" is deuterium and/or Tritium - which is pretty much pointless in terms of normal vehicle energy, and fulfills the role of making more neutrons in a H-bomb

Deuterium is not actually "produced" at all - it was all made in the "big bang" and has been hanging around ever since.

Tritium can be produced in nuclear reactions, but to total amount ever produced is apparently about 225kg, of which only 75kg is left because it decays rapidly into Helium-3. He-3 is obviously a favoured fuel for fusion...but I hear we're still a wee way of getting that going properly!

Liquid hydrogen is plenty enough for automotive us in fuel cells or similar.

It would be cool if industry decided that government was NOT the thing to follow, and showed the reality of tech...wouldn't it?

originally posted by: amtracer

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Unfortunately hydrogen is not practical to produce. Maybe somebody can use toyotas open patents to come up with something new.

Actually, it is quite simple to produce. The problem is storage. The most efficient way to store hydrogen, was used in hydrogen bombs, therefore the method is illegal for mass production.

If you want to see a cool and easy way to produce hydrogen, search King of Random on youtube.

You can make your own modification to connect to your vehicle (wouldn't do it to a new car) as hydrogen is compatible with our combustion engines. Now, you will need to purchase equipment that can adjust the vehicle's modules as you would be using hydrogen (burns more efficiently) and not gasoline.

Does not work with diesel motors.

I said it was not practical to produce, that does not mean difficult. The reason it's not practical is because of the amount of energy needed to produce it. You put more energy in than it will ever put out. Add that to the storage issues you listed and you have something that is not practical to produce.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: PeterMcFly

I would suggest you carry out some real research rather than repeating those chestnuts put out by Big Oil to help maintain their stranglehold.

Petrol is a hydro carbon, that is, it is made up of chains of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms.

The carbon does not burn, it just adds to pollution. The oxygen is an aid to combustion but once again does not add to the energy output. The energy output comes from Hydrogen.

Now you want to tell us that pure hydrogen is less efficient by volume. Now, that is true, sort of, until you compress it.

A little knowledge, coming from Big Oil, where the truth is being hidden, is dangerous.

P

Fortunately, you are not dangerous at all. Carbon burns quite nicely and produces a great deal of energy. The pollution that you speak of is CO2 which, amazingly enough, is burned carbon. Diamonds [carbon] burn which makes the "Diamonds are forever" slogan really entertaining.
The heating on expansion of Hydrogen, called the Joule-Thomson effect, is well understood in refineries and chemical plants using hydrogen. Burning hydrogen does not radiate heat [no hot particles] and is not easily visible, so workers looking for a leak walk with a broom in front of them. When the broom ignites, the leak is detected and an igniting worker does not disturb the accident record. Of late, infrared cameras have taken the place of the broom but the problem remains. www.britannica.com...
In many ways, hydrogen gas is safer than hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon vapor hugs the ground and flash-over can ignite the fuel source when the vapor is ignited. Not so for hydrogen, which diffuses rapidly and only becomes a problem in higher concentrations in a closed space. Because a hydrogen flame does not radiate heat hydrogen fires don't spread easily.

Converting the infrastructure to gaseous hydrogen would be expensive. The catch is that to spend 2 trillion to do so would require a market. The market can't develop without the infrastructure, a catch 22. Fuel cells look efficient if one does not include hydrogen production and transport. Then, coupled with materials issues and burning only 90% of the hydrogen input, they don't look so good.

The cheapest hydrogen comes from reforming methane. Electrolytic hydrogen is very expensive and if one has electricity, why go through hydrogen; use the electricity directly.

My guess is that Toyota has given up on fuel cells for now, realizing the losing market position, and is using this as a ploy for good press.
If cheap hydrogen was available, the best thing to do would be to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere to hydrocarbon fuels and use that. The CO2 would go around in a loop with the atmosphere as a plenum. The infrastructure would stay as it is, eliminating the logistical problems of a decades-long expensive conversion to molecular hydrogen. As batteries become better, the need for liquid fuels will diminish save for those applications needing a light-weight, high-volumetric-energy fuel source, like aircraft.

How many liters of h2 at 7psi is equal to a gallon of standard gas for a vehicle?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Emeraldous

Years ago, countries used to follow the U.S. lead when it came to innovation, and new technology. Now it seems like we follow Japan's lead.

Well before that it was the UK.

Times change and centers for innovation move on.

Doesnt help that the USA is so petrified of terrorists and drugs that the goverment clamps down on domestic science.

I'm no expert, so I'll just leave these here:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Feasible? Metal Hydrides as a storage mechanism for hydrogen?

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost
I'm no expert, so I'll just leave these here:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Feasible? Metal Hydrides as a storage mechanism for hydrogen?

Reversible storage systems would work with forklifts and things that needed large counterweights that didn't need much hydrogen. The metal hydrides, LiAlH4 and such, react with water to produce hydrogen. They must be recycled from fuel tanks/hydrogen generator reactors because of their cost. Alas, chiseling out solids from your fuel system on refueling is not going to happen. Hydrogen is an exceptionally difficult fuel to engineer around and the best way to use a low cost supply of hydrogen is to reduce atmospheric CO2 to liquid hydrocarbons and burn them again.

I think that they know that Them at the TOP,
will Not let them make money selling the cars.
so they just give what they can away.

a reply to: Emeraldous

If I remember correctly, patents did not used to be indefinite. They used to last 10 years. After that they were open to the public to produce and use as if their own. Of course, government made a change in the law to forever protect ideas by the original party. The entire problem with this is that the corporate structure functions as a person...yet, it is many, many people who collectively work toward an invention only to patent it under their company name. Unfortunately, these people who all contribute rarely get any rights to the proceeds. Even though it took a collective effort to invent, a small group at the top reap the rewards, and keep the rights indefinitely.

I think a true capitalistic market would open patents up for use after a certain period of time. This would prevent exploitation of the public, where others might have the ability to produce the same product for cheaper.

a reply to: ExPostFacto


If you can not make enough money to retire from your idea in the first 13 yrs then something is wrong.
By now the coke cola recipe should be known.lol

originally posted by: deadeyedick
How many liters of h2 at 7psi is equal to a gallon of standard gas for a vehicle?

It is strange that none of the highly educated here want to touch this question.

The 1000:1 ratio does not hold true.

The reason being is that even gasoline in a vaporous state will run engines well beyond that of any carb of injector used now.

To get the correct answer you have to know the total btu's of the gallon os gas and the liter of h2 at 7psi.

You can not use current mpg's of vehicles to get the right answer.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You will have to better state the conditions for an answer to your question.
1. 7psi absolute or 7psi gauge [21.7 psi absolute, ca. 1.5 atm]
2. What is the temperature?

22.4 L of H2 at STP is 2 grams, so the answer is "a big number"

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: PeterMcFly



The carbon does not burn, it just adds to pollution. The oxygen is an aid to combustion but once again does not add to the energy output. The energy output comes from Hydrogen.




P

carbon does not burn? are you high?

carbon to carbon dioxide has a btu value of 14,150 btu's/lb which is a hell of a lot

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: deadeyedick



You will have to better state the conditions for an answer to your question.

1. 7psi absolute or 7psi gauge [21.7 psi absolute, ca. 1.5 atm]

2. What is the temperature?



22.4 L of H2 at STP is 2 grams, so the answer is "a big number"

Hey thank you for the input.
Your figures and my question don't seem to add up. (my ? a bit to vauge)
according to the 11l per gram i figured over 40,000 liters of h2 would eaqual to a gal. of gas.
That is in no way equal in terms of explosive power.
I am still searching but perhaps it may be better to find out how many liters of vaporized gas at combustible mixture is in a gallon of gasoline.
The problem i have with all of this is that i have ran several engines on gas fumes using a gas bong. So i know the same is possible with h2.
Some videos have shown that an average piston in an engine can be used effectively with a 7psi x 1/8in. inlet of h2
In other talk places it has been said that around 700l of h2 would be equal to a gal. of gas.
I suppose the best way to figure it would be in btu's vs ft. lbs for the piston.
either way math is not my strong suit
If one knew exactly how many liters of h2 or hho per min. an engine on average would need then it would be a great step

Hydrogen fuel cells were never really a great idea.

There are other types of fuel cells that work a lot better like alcohol fell cells.
Direct-ethanol fuel cells or DEFCs
Reformed Methanol Fuel Cell (RMFC) or Indirect Methanol Fuel Cell (IMFC)
Reformed butanol fuel cells RBFC. butanol can also be used to replace gasoline in regular engines.

All these would need no new fueling equipment as they can be pumped using regular gas station pumps.

Hydrogen needs very expensive fueling stations and transport trucks

a reply to: deadeyedick You have to compare the heats of combustion of hydrocarbons and hydrogen and calculate the weight of hydrogen needed to equal the heat of combustion of a gallon of gasoline. Once you know this, it is easy to calculate the volume at any pressure using ideal gas laws. For better numbers, the math gets more complicated, especially at higher pressures, but ideal gas laws will give a good ballpark number.
Hydrogen flames behave differently than hydrocarbon flames but hydrogen will work just fine even when the engine is not optimized for hydrogen.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would be cool if industry decided that government was NOT the thing to follow, and showed the reality of tech...wouldn't it?

Yes it would! Our economy cannot take sharp corners (read as too quick changes), look at the blow back Apple gets when they come out with new tech every 6 months