Author Topic: Stan used ammonia?  (Read 14324 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Stan used ammonia?
« on: February 15, 2010, 13:39:49 pm »
The theory is that the ionized nitrogen of the ambient is bounding with the hydrogen from our electrolysis proces.

Here some info about the usage of ammonia.

Steve



Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2010, 13:41:20 pm »
Addiction to imported petroleum carries with it huge economic, environmental and national security risks for the United States and other developed countries. The search for a domestically produced, economical and environmentally friendly fuel has led to one acceptable solution, anhydrous ammonia. Also known as "the other hydrogen", ammonia is the closest thing to a perfect transportation fuel.
Ammonia is an ultra-clean, energy-dense alternative liquid fuel. Along with hydrogen, ammonia is the only fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHG) on combustion.

Hydrogen combustion: 2H2 + O2 > 2H2O (water vapor)

Ammonia combustion: 4NH3 + 3O2 >  2N2 + 6H2O (nitrogen and water vapor)

Also, ammonia is...

Practical

Ammonia (anhydrous, NH3) is 18% hydrogen by weight
Ammonia is a liquid fuel at ambient temperatures and moderate pressures (~125 psi)
Ammonia has 52% of the energy density of gasoline, and is over 50% more energy dense per gallon than cryogenic liquid hydrogen
It can be used directly to drive fuel cells, or directly in internal combustion engines (ICE), it can also be used in combustion turbines
Conversions of gasoline and diesel ICEs to run on ammonia are relatively straightforward
Ammonia is easy to store and deliver in large quantities
Ammonia represents a sustainable, carbon-free fuel for back-up and peaker capacity generation
Ammonia fuel can help free us from dependence on imported oil
Available

Current worldwide annual production of ammonia is ~130 million tons, primarily from natural gas and coal; China is the #1 producer at 30 million tons annually
~ 20 million tons of NH3 and NH3-based fertilizers are consumed annually in the US as fertilizer (equivalent in energy to ~3.5 billion gallons of gasoline)
A storage and delivery infrastructure of pipelines, barges, rail and truck already exists for ammonia, with 3000 miles of pipeline in the US heartland; retail ammonia outlets exist in practically every state, 800 outlets in Iowa alone
Ammonia can be produced cleanly from coal and natural gas with carbon sequestration, and also from biomass, renewable energy sources and nuclear power, using nitrogen from the air
Ammonia can also be recovered from agricultural animal waste
Ammonia is also produced naturally in legumes by nitrogenase bacteria
Ammonia is covered as an alternative fuel under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, so ammonia vehicles qualify for fleet sale requirements
Low/Stable Cost

Ammonia is comparable to or lower in price than gasoline on an equal energy basis
Ammonia made using renewable or nuclear source electricity will be more stable in price and will grow increasingly cheaper per Btu versus fossil based fuels
Environmentally Friendly

Ammonia contains no carbon, so releases no GHGs on combustion; also any NOx is easily neutralized
In accident scenarios, ammonia is not flammable and is lighter than air so will dissipate into the atmosphere
Ammonia is not itself a GHG in the atmosphere
Ammonia will not damage the ozone layer
Anhydrous ammonia itself is used as the active chemical reactant in NOx reduction, and CO2 and SO2 capture
 
 
Properties of Selected Fuels in their Liquid State (sorted by H2 Density)

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2010, 13:41:39 pm »
Ammonia Fuel
Yes, we are talking about anhydrous ammonia (NH3) as a fuel and it's the same stuff that farmers inject into the ground as fertilizer.  Because it does not occur naturally in its pure form on our planet and must be manufactured, we can consider it an energy carrier rather than an energy source.  Be that as it may, we will consider anhydrous ammonia as a fuel.

Some might think that ethanol and biodiesel are the ultimate green fuels.  However, there is no way to grow enough biofuel feedstock (typically from corn in the USA) for this fuel to displace petroleum to any great extent.  As crops are grown for fuel rather than food, this diversion of resources places upward pressure on the price of food.   Please refer to an interesting CBC article about agricultural prices  as well as the OECD report entitled "BIOFUELS: IS THE CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE?" found the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations web site:

The OECD has said biofuels may "offer a cure that is worse than the disease they are seeking to heal".

"The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tension that will disrupt world markets without generating significant environmental benefits."

"When such impacts as soil acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel."

The holy grail of "green" fuels is hydrogen, an element that is also very scarce in its pure form on earth.  Green in the sense that it is produced from renewable sources, the most common being the electrolytic cracking of water.  Hydrogen may also be produced from "brown" sources such as the refining of petroleum.  Brown in the sense that byproducts of this production are greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution.  Almost all of the world's H2 is produced by steam reforming of natural gas, or as by-products of petroleum refining. Very little is currently produced by electrolysis although there is no technical reason that it can't be produced in large-scale wind farms in the US Midwest or even Patagonia.

Why would anyone consider using anhydrous ammonia rather than hydrogen?  Hydrogen, after all, contains more LHV (lower heating value) energy than ammonia (51,500 BTU/lb vs 7,987 BTU/lb or 119.93 kJ/g vs 18.577 kJ/g) on a weight basis.  However, on a volume basis ammonia is a much better hydrogen carrier than even liquefied hydrogen.  The energy density of liquefied hydrogen is 8,491 kJ/litre compared to ammonia's 11,308 kJ/litre.   Although ammonia contains 17.65% of hydrogen by weight, the fact that there are 3 hydrogen atoms attached to a single nitrogen atom allows ammonia to contain about 48% more hydrogen by volume than even liquefied hydrogen.  That is to say, a cubic meter of liquid hydrogen contains 71 kg of hydrogen compared with 105 kg for liquid anhydrous ammonia.

Hydrogen's physical properties make it very difficult to handle.  Because it is such a low density gas, very high pressures must be used to transport compressed hydrogen gas and this results in very low energy densities:

48,900 Btu/ft3 gas @ 3,000 psig & 60 ?F
121,000 Btu/ft3 gas @ 10,000 psig & 60 ?F
in metric, this is:

1,825 kJ/litre gas @ 200 barg & 15 ?C
4,500 kJ/litre gas @ 690 barg & 15 ?C
The low energy density of compressed hydrogen gas makes storage and transport very expensive.  Transporting compressed hydrogen gas any significant distance by truck can consume more energy in diesel fuel than what is contained in hydrogen.  Liquefied hydrogen is obviously more energy dense than compressed hydrogen gas but a significant amount of energy must be expended to liquefy hydrogen and keep it refrigerated because its boiling point is ?423 ?F (?253 ?C).  Liquefaction requires about 30% of the energy content of liquid hydrogen while compression to 800 bar requires about 10-15% of energy carried by the hydrogen.

Hydrogen's molecules are very small and difficult to contain.  Hydrogen will slowly leak out from hoses and its rate of leakage is much higher than larger molecule gases like ammonia and propane.  Hydrogen also causes embrittlement in metals which requires periodic replacement of metallic tubing, valves, and tanks.

Hydrogen is typically transported as a compressed gas and a 40 ton truck that can carry 26 tons of gasoline can only carry about 400 kg (0.4 tonnes) of compressed hydrogen due to the weight of the high pressure hydrogen tanks.

Ammonia, in comparison, stores and handles very much like LPG.  Its boiling point is -33.35 ?C (-28.03 ?F).  Propane, the main constituent of LPG, has a boiling point of -42.07 ?C (-43.73 ?F).  On a hot day, a tank of NH3 at 50?C (122?F) will have a pressure of 2032 kPa (295 psi) compared with propane at 1729 kPa (251 psi) so it is important to keep these fuels out of the sun.

The design pressure of both anhydrous ammonia and propane tanks (with a corrosion allowance) is 250 psi which corresponds to a temperature of 44?C (111?F) for ammonia and 47?C (116?F) for propane.  If these tanks were designed to the 312 psi (propane tank without a corrosion allowance), that corresponds to a temperature of 57?C (135?F) for ammonia and 60?C (140?F) for propane.

As for fuel properties, let's compare some relevant fuels:

Property Ammonia Hydrogen Propane CNG / Methane Ethanol Gasoline Diesel
Energy Density LHV (BTU/gal) 40,571 30,459 @ -423?F 84,500 19,800 @ 2400 psi   116,090 ~129,050
Energy Density LHV (MJ/litre) 14.1 8.4   23.3 21.1 29.8 35.8
Minimum Ignition Energy (mJ) 680 0.011 - 0.017   0.28 - 0.3 n/a 0.8 n/a
Octane Number 130+ 130+ 104 105 -  122   87 - 93 N/A
Auto Ignition Temperature (?C) 630 500   580 363 246 - 280 210
Flash Point (?C) 11 -253   -188 13 - 17 <-40 >62
Latent heat of vaporization (BTU/gal) 3356 N/A 775 N/A   ~900 ~710
Boiling Point (?C) -33 -253   -162 78 126 287
Critical Temparature (?C) 132 -240   -83 -- -- --

Using anhydrous ammonia as an engine fuel is not a blue-sky concept.  There are already three companies in the business of building NH3-fueled engines or NH3 engine conversions: Hydrogen Engine Center, Hydrofuel Inc., and NH3CAR.

For more information, please visit the following links:

http://www.nhthree.com/ (Coming soon!)

Ammonia Fuel Network

Iowa Energy Center's Biomass Energy CONversion facility (BECON) Ammonia Site

Raso Enterprises' Ammonia Fuel Forum

Potential Roles of Ammonia in a Hydrogen Economy

The Ammonia Economy

Ammonia: Key to US Energy Independence

AIR LIQUIDE's Gas Encyclopaedia - Ammonia

R.M. Technologies Technical Information

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2010, 16:07:09 pm »
Interesting, however, Stan only ionizes things for the Hydrogen Fracturing Process, so if you are thinking it's actually ammonia fuel coming out out the Hydrogen Fracturing Process then you have to ignore the results he was getting, 44,000 - 108,000 barrels of oil worth of energy per gallon of water, with his actual device in 87-88, and then he talks about 2,500,000 barrels of oil worth of energy per gallon of water, maximum yield.

Not to mention the temperatures he is getting of over 20,000 degrees... that doesn't happen with ammonia, I'm sure.

If you want to test this theory, you are going to have to build a Hydrogen Gas Gun and then run some tests on the chemical composition coming out. :)

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2010, 17:17:28 pm »
Interesting stuff Steve
As always its all about the Joules per Liter; not per Kilogram.

The question is:
How do you get your 3 H's to hook up with 1 N?
How do you figure Stan used to produce and use NH3?
 :)

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2010, 17:49:25 pm »
The theory behind all this is that hydrogen that is released by help of the electrolysis proces is capable of bonding with other atoms.
 
Nitrogen atoms have five electrons in their outer ring, but they have room for eight electrons there.
Because that nitrogen atom is an electron negative atom and the hydrogen is a positive atom, they can bond.
you will get NH3 = ammonia......yes sir.

So, now you have 2 atoms. One who is big and can use extra electrons and who is chasing towards those extra electrons and one small hydrogen atom with his own little electron.
Guess who wins the battle?

Stan explained this proces very precise in his video.
The nitrogen atom acts the same as an oxygen atom. Both want extra electrons.
That poor little Hydrogen atom........Some of it will go towards the oxygen atom and become water and some will become ammonia or even something else...

You are right. We dont know what kind of gass we will have, if we dont test the gas in a lab.

All we can do is make an ionizer for air and see if the engine reacts of the ionized air. If it does, then its time to go to a lab for some tests.

Steve









Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2010, 15:31:40 pm »
Stan had his gasses tested after they were, made at a lab,and it came out two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen.It's in the videos and the evaluation report to.
No mention of ammonia.
Don

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2010, 18:34:28 pm »
Stan had his gasses tested after they were, made at a lab,and it came out two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen.It's in the videos and the evaluation report to.
No mention of ammonia.
Don

Just because Stan doesn't discuss ammonia - the ace in his sleeve, that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Anyone can use their nose to verify ammonia creation - it doesn't take very much.

Davy 1807 - "nitrogen will bind to electrolytic hydrogen in the presence of water" when it normally
won't bind to other hydrogen.

Search Storch & Olson, etc... it is all spelled out in no uncertain terms.

I think it assumes a lot that Stan's patents, etc.... can be taken word for word. He obviously
wants to protect his intellectual property. Also, if you go on anything based on everything he
says in his own documents, you get the corresponding results - hence, lack of water powered
dune buggy replications anywhere.

All the people that are getting results - real thermal release just just fast quick hho popping,
are creating ammonia point of use.

Study Langmuir.

And release energy potential from ammonia? Use real plasma ignition and not regular spark.