The biggest con of all.

a reply to: NoMoreFools

Slow smolder apparently, they need heating for the hydrogen to be steadily gathered out.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: anonentity

its Lithium Alunminium Hyrdride right
and I remember Bob had to write to the government to get access to it because it can be used to make rockets for weapons.

So yeh , they control it for that reason , but they probably just say that because they know that it would replace petroleum in cars

you can order any amount you want even from ebay.


LAH is not a controlled substance in anyway.

it is used in chem labs in chem 101 for crying outload.


they use it in subs and spacecraft in case of emergencies and is safe enough to use in medical equipment, you know the machines people have in their homes to make oxygen, it FULL of LAH


more BS from bob

a reply to: noscopebacon

www.fuelcellstore.com...

a reply to: Grenade

yep there it is.


if you buy the LAH yourself and make the vessels its would still be expensive, that would be the only barrier to entry i could image.


the one thing you would have to watch for is a run away reaction(if it gets wet) and it could get hot enough to start a fire.


its the same thing that saved apollo 13 from running out of air.

in fact they think a russian sub that sunk was due to this chemical coming into contact with water that had oil in it and set the cabin on fire due to all the oil around.

Post removed by staff.

a reply to: bluemooone2

The biggest problem with hydrogen is the fact it's so small it will leak out of all but the best designed systems.

a reply to: thov420

using dense metals and PTFE coatings and gaskets it is pretty easy to reangle gases

or they can store in a metal hydride(a solid) or liquify it again.

obviously there will be losses if you are transferring it outside a pressurized system but most He setups are made to mitigate losses at all costs.

look at MRI's they aren't venting mass amounts off He

originally posted by: anonentity
Is this the big con Hyride being made unobtainable by the defense industry when it is safe? Thus unobtainable for general use.

I don't have any problem with using hydrogen if it can be done safely and economically. But there are problems with the hydrogen molecules being so tiny they are prone to leaks, and the storage energy density is not that great. Lazar's Corvette had what little small trunk there was filled with hydrogen tanks, I guess he doesn't need to carry luggage.

Anyway hydrogen can be stored in tanks like that, but Bob Lazar's claim that he's manufacturing the materials to put inside the tanks using a backyard particle accelerator is quite dubious as physicist Tom Mahood pointed out, though he says people shouldn't be impressed by a backyard particle accelerator, since they aren't hard to make, they would just take a really long time to manufacture substances.

Looking at the Bob Lazar story from the perspective of 2018

Oh, and if you’re impressed that someone has their very own particle accelerator, well…you shouldn’t. Way back in the early 1960s Scientific American published an article on how to make a “homemade atom smasher”, AKA, particle accelerator.

So yes he had a particle accelerator, but did he really use it to manufacture the material in those tanks in his Corvette? I'm very suspicious of that claim and so is Tom Mahood:

Wired magazine did a piece on Lazar in June of 2006. In it he has yet another particle accelerator which he says he uses to produce a compound for gaseous hydrogen storage. This is a pretty farfetched claim, as the ability to make useful quantities of the compound would take forever with an amateur particle accelerator.

What's really ironic is that Bob Lazar has said almost the same thing as Tom Mahood about particle accelerators talking a really long time to manufacture any appreciable quantities of a substance, because he uses this same argument as Mahood that you can use a particle accelerator to make an atom or two here or there of element 115, but you can't produce massive quantities of a heavy element with a particle accelerator. But, he also makes the conflicting claim that he can make mass qantities of lithium hydride using a particle accelerator?

Lazar talks about how difficult it is to synthesize appreciable quantities of materials with particle accelerators

So at time index 1:45 we have Lazar telling us how difficult it is to synthesize appreciable quantities of a material using a particle accelerator, yet he contradicts himself when he wants us to believe that he is doing just this, synthesizing appreciable quantities of a material in his particle accelerator? Engage your brains folks, this is a two-faced claim and the claims contradict each other.

I suppose Lazar believers don't bat an eye at this contradiction because they have already overlooked a dozen or so other problems with Lazar's claims if they believe him, but as that article linked above by Tom Mahood says, Lazar does mix in a bit of truth here and there to keep the easily fooled to think there's something to his half-bull# claims. The sliver of truth in this particular scenario is that there is a particular material that can be used in the manufacture of thermonuclear bombs, and yes there may be some restrictions on that, but it's not to push people into electric cars, the idea of the restriction is to limit proliferation of thermonuclear bombs.

Lazar talked about Lithium 6 being the restricted material as stated in the text near the end of the video in the opening post. Here's an article about North Korea manufacturing Lithium 6 to use in thermonuclear weapon production (but they aren't doing it with a particle accelerator like the one in Lazar's back yard, or any other kind of particle accelerator):

North Korea’s Lithium 6 Production for Nuclear Weapons

Available information strongly indicates that North Korea has built and is operating a lithium 6 production plant that is part of its nuclear weapons effort. The plant is suspected to be located at the Hungnam Chemical Complex near Hamhung on North Korea’s east coast. Lithium 6 is a critical raw material needed for the production of single-stage thermonuclear and boosted fission weapons.

So if they aren't making it with a particle accelerator, how do they make it? Well they don't actually "make" it. It occurs naturally, but in low abundance, so what they do is use a process called "enrichment", which is a restricted technology as far as bomb-making enrichment applications go:

Lithium 6 is a stable isotope that exists in nature. However, it has a relatively low natural abundance of 7.56 percent in natural lithium, for the bulk of lithium is lithium 7. For use in nuclear weapons or tritium production, the lithium 6 fraction must be typically increased to 40-95 percent of the lithium via a chemical enrichment process. If the lithium 6 is for tritium production in a reactor, the fraction of the lithium 6 in the targets placed in the reactor is limited to about 40 percent to prevent failure of the targets. For use in nuclear weapons, a 95 percent fraction of lithium 6 is desirable.

So that's how it's done, not using a particle accelerator. Even Bob Lazar told us particle accelerators aren't viable for producing appreciable quantties of materials, but he wants us to believe he did just that in his back yard? Saying it's far-fetched is an understatement.

The title of that video linked in the OP is so ridiculous when it says "Still think he's not legit..."? Playing that video saying Lazar is producing material with his particle accelerator, and the other video linked above where Lazar says such a thing can't be done in any appreciable quantities should be enough top prove Lazar is not legit, he's even contradicting himself!!! But I think there must be a religious aspect to those who believe Lazar or something, since no amount of facts like this seems to matter to those who "have the faith" to believe him.

originally posted by: bluemooone2
Thank you for the post and I wish that more people knew about this. I have been saying that we should use hydrogen since high school chem class in 1978. This seems like a logical option. I have a few questions for Bob if he is still a member here and I hope that he will answer them. Is the hydrate as hard to make as I think that it may be ? And how long will it last with average use ? If anyone else knows please let us know. Thanks in advance

The problem is the recycle. Spent LiAlH4 is a complex mix of salts that would have to be removed from the reaction vessel and recycled. This is energy intensive and would require a two way transportation cycle; one to deliver the compound to a sales point and one to haul the now more massive product back to the recycle plant. This solution is a 100% losing proposition. IF there was cheap H2 available, the best use would be to reduce atmospheric CO2 to methanol and use that as a fuel. This recycles atmospheric CO2 indefinitely, uses a liquid with known properties, and avoids a lengthy transition to a completely new infrastructure.