Silver Science - Hydrogen from Waste

Congratulations for your self sacrifice Alan Smith now what kind of skilled technicians you need ?

I hope there isn't only speakers and watchers on LF, i'm pretty sure, no...

Quote from Alan Smith

Current status of the H2 project is normal. Normal as for the last year. My technician/data guy is in hospital now, nothing to do with Covid but nevertheless 'out of the game' for a long while. I'm rebuilding the lab, switching over from a focus on process chemistry to analytical chemistry, and re-decorating re-arranging the physical layout too, but I'm working on my own currently as skilled technicians are a sellers market.

The reason for the shift in focus is that the process stuff is now established as solid. The quest now it working on the conversion of the 'technical grade' aluminium hydroxide (TGA) produced at 99.5/99.7 purity to 99.95+ purity, so-called High Purity Alumina, (HPA) for the hydroxide my process produces is sodium - free, which is a better starting point than Bayer-process hydroxide which contains high levels of residual Na as well as other impurities.

HPA is worth anything from 10 to 30 times as much as TGA and the market is predicted to grow by over 1200% by the end of this decade.

Hydrogen a preferred rocket fuel...

....market to grow by over 1200%.

Certainly. Consider Starship launch schedule through the decade.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Hydrogen a preferred rocket fuel...

....market to grow by over 1200%.

Certainly. Consider Starship launch schedule through the decade.

Well, Starship is Meth/Oxy, as is the just-announced Neutron from Rocket Labs.

And Blue Origin as well (if they ever launch!).

For US launches, only SLS is Hydrogen. One launch/yr for several $B.

But this topic should have its own thread, perhaps LENR For Space.

Well all these projects highlight the recent general return to space.

Now all of them are using the H2/O2 combustion which does not allow great efficiency, the payload of these rockets being less than 5% of its total mass, hence amazingly operating costs.

No wonder that only USA and China are suitable for this kind of project.

In a case of LENR for space it should better considering the former US NERVA project.

It was an improvement of the second stage of Saturn 5 in 70s, by a nuclear reactor only used to heat H2 which become the only expansion gas for propulsion.

According to efficiency the rule of specific impulse says we need using the most lighter element and the most hotter.

Specific impulse - Wikipedia

So H2 become the best one in this way even if its running temperature was limited by nuclear matters in our case graphite especially.

If for example this rocket engine could be able to run at almost 4000K, the H2 becoming mono H so lighter than H2 that would have improved the total efficiency by one order again.

The weak point therefore was the shielding needed increasing the reactor total mass by 2.

Even with this bad point this way remained 2X higher in efficiency than all current projects you related here guys.

Now considering the LENR for space, by using a LI7+H reaction we should remove this shielding problem.

Global conclusion by this way of a Lenr rocket engine which only will heat H2, you will be able to take off directly from the ground safety then this way will reach the payload of a common commercial plane.

Quickly a Space shuttle without its main tank or lateral boosters.

Not the same game, guys.. Your great and new Rocket time becoming over........

I already have done calculations in this way so if only 50 grs of powder is able to produce 5Kw, this project is conceivable.

Quote from magicsound

Well, Starship is Meth/Oxy, as is the just-announced Neutron from Rocket Labs.

And Blue Origin as well (if they ever launch!).

For US launches, only SLS is Hydrogen. One launch/yr for several $B.

But this topic should have its own thread, perhaps LENR For Space.

Quote from Cydonia

Now considering the LENR for space, by using a LI7+H reaction we should remove this shielding problem.

Unless I missed something, that would be VERY hot fusion. Lipinski et.al. (Unified Gravity Corp) were trying it but did not succeed AFAIK.

Once in orbit, ion thrusters have by far better specific impulse, and for those you want the heaviest possible ions, like Xenon. Another possibility closer to LENR would be high-pressure electrolysis, to generate H & O from water. Such systems have reached hundred bar output pressure at small commercial scale[1] and much higher in DOE-funded experiments[2]. That's enough to feed a small rocket engine directly (without pumps). In my conception a tiny combustion chamber and large nozzle would give a pretty high specific impulse The fuel is DI water and the power is direct electricity from PV. With the right catalyst, perhaps LENR would even add to the efficiency.

[1] https://thsenergy.com/products…ssure-hydrogen-generator/

[2]https://www.hydrogen.energy.go…7_mittelsteadt_2015_o.pdf

Well LI7+H or simply NiH are enough. The payload in this way will be so highly increased allowing the possibility of a lower reactor temperature.

For example from the moon , the Nasa expected only water steam as fuel because the lower moon gravity.

Nuclear-Heated Steam Rocket Using Lunar Ice

Probably a better solution for Mars too which avoiding the mass transportation of all tricks needed for H2 electrolysis to do CH4.

More a rocket is simple, more is lighter, more is reliable, this is why my simpler and preferred way is the Lenr thermal nuclear rocket.

Lipinski has not yet succeeded another maybe yes..

About ion thrusters yes you reach high specific impulse but only with a very small thrust.

i consider rather the H mono use for thermal rocket more promising because you will be able to combine these 2 solutions ( H mono heated then accelerated by an EM field ) lowering the rocket total mass by several orders.

Quote from magicsound

Unless I missed something, that would be VERY hot fusion. Lipinski et.al. (Unified Gravity Corp) were trying it but did not succeed AFAIK.

Once in orbit, ion thrusters have by far better specific impulse, and for those you want the heaviest possible ions, like Xenon. Another possibility closer to LENR would be high-pressure electrolysis, to generate H & O from water. Such systems have reached hundred bar output pressure at small commercial scale[1] and much higher in DOE-funded experiments[2]. That's enough to feed a small rocket engine directly (without pumps). In my conception a tiny combustion chamber and large nozzle would give a pretty high specific impulse The fuel is DI water and the power is direct electricity from PV. With the right catalyst, perhaps LENR would even add to the efficiency.

[1] https://thsenergy.com/products…ssure-hydrogen-generator/

[2]https://www.hydrogen.energy.go…7_mittelsteadt_2015_o.pdf

Display More

Here my technical proposal for a double stage Lenr/ H2/O2 rocket engine.

First of all the cold H2 is preheated by the Lenr modulus, then a classic combustion between H2/O2 will reach temperature threshold to do H mono, which will be next accelerated by an EM field as described below.

As this design have a double layer, this trick will avoid a critical temperature for the reactor wall, especially when the flux will be accelerated by the internal coil.

next this hot temperature flux will be dissolved as you can see at higher section contributing for an amazing thrust.

This is this kind of technology we need for a simple space plane.

Now, if Nasa staff need the help from another Von Braun they can join me by MP.

AHAHAHHA

DF

My goodness.. Great info. Time for me to study up

My intention was

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Hydrogen a preferred rocket fuel...

....market to grow by over 1200%.

Simply to suggest that the Hydrogen market will not shrink with the advent of atomic energetics from Condensed Matter Nuclear Science technologies thermal or electric.

Space applications and H mining, perhaps, immeasurable at this time.

Quote from magicsound

Once in orbit, ion thrusters have by far better specific impulse, and for those you want the heaviest possible ions, like Xenon. Another possibility closer to LENR would be high-pressure electrolysis, to generate H & O from water.

A water-based ion drive has been developed, funded by the UK Space Agency. It apparently is already in production, with both electrolysis (isp=300 sec) and microwave-based (isp=1000 sec) systems:

URA Thrusters | Space water propulsion

Quote from Alan Smith

... Looks like my plans for a complete turn-around of the lab from process chemistry to analytical chemistry are going to go ahead- and the work on commercial plant design. ...

Wow. Great. Congrats.

"From the can to the tank: NaAlH₄ from recycled aluminum" [perhaps already know], and:

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzacebvym75ose5xdlgyqxmbpkenxxdi2pcshqdh24zb6jjylppvv3mtm?filename=Matej%20Bal%C3%A1%C5%BE%20-%20Environmental%20Mechanochemistry_%20Recycling%20Waste%20into%20Materials%20using%20High-Energy%20Ball%20Milling-Springer%20%282021%29.pdf

Quote from Cydonia

Well LI7+H or simply NiH are enough. The payload in this way will be so highly increased allowing the possibility of a lower reactor temperature.

For example from the moon , the Nasa expected only water steam as fuel because the lower moon gravity.

http://www.neofuel.com/moonicerocket/

Probably a better solution for Mars too which avoiding the mass transportation of all tricks needed for H2 electrolysis to do CH4.

More a rocket is simple, more is lighter, more is reliable, this is why my simpler and preferred way is the Lenr thermal nuclear rocket.

Lipinski has not yet succeeded another maybe yes..

About ion thrusters yes you reach high specific impulse but only with a very small thrust.

i consider rather the H mono use for thermal rocket more promising because you will be able to combine these 2 solutions ( H mono heated then accelerated by an EM field ) lowering the rocket total mass by several orders.

Display More

I totally agree with Cydonia. (This is a very interesting discussion) I have no doubts that cryogenic motors will prevail, including for the first stages.

The problem of adapting the nozzles to the pressure variation during the first kilometers will have to be solved, but there are interesting avenues of research.

The feed pumping problem will also have to be solved. Von Braun and Goddard turbopumps are fine for one use military rockets, but they have a very short lifespan. Let's not talk about the Space X turbopumps, inspired by Russian models, with an oxygen-rich mixture! (I find it hard to understand how they can last longer than a minute. Have you ever done that classic chemistry experiment, which involves putting a red-hot wire in a jar of oxygen? I was used to perform it in front of my pupils. Don't forget put water in the bottom in order to cool the magnetic iron oxide lava that forms! (use an iron fiber sponge to wash the dishes to light the wire.)

What is the point of landing a rocket to retrieve inexpensive aluminum or stainless steel tanks, if you have to throw out half the expensive Raptor engines?

It will also require solving the problem of shock waves during takeoff and landing, which Von Braun and Korolioff had each solved in their own way. We will have to do better.

But we don't go into space because it's easy, but because it's difficult. (It's like research on LENRs)

Regarding ionic engines, the iron laws decreed by Newton are still valid, as for chemical engines: H + ions remain the best propellant, because they can be accelerated at high speed.

Xenon ions are used because they are easy to produce, with acceptable yield. They will probably be replaced quickly by iodide ions, as solid iodine can be stored very easily. (another French trick, invented many years ago ..)

I hope that the Diafluid Effect will -also- make it possible to build very efficient ion engines.

Well fabrice DAVID by my proposal, Rocket time will be over, Elon Musk over too because it will be the space plane arrival ( the real one without lateral boosters or external tank)

Now if you keep the internal temperature under1500K the engineering will be easy, cheaper.

To compensate the relative lack of efficiency of theses engines ( vs the current which run at 3000K).

As space planes will have wings as all planes , by 45° climbing up to 30 kms elevation, they will save fuel to compensate their relative "cold" engine.

Quote from Ahlfors

"From the can to the tank: NaAlH₄ from recycled aluminum" [perhaps already know], and:

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzac…Springer%20%282021%29.pdf

Garbage powder made by ball milling: the perfect fuel for my vortex engine!

(There is no contact between the stator and the rotor, so powdered fuels such as charcoal dust, pieces of old tires, bran, rice husks, sawdust can be used, crushed plastic waste, pyrite etc ...)

I cited these fuels in my patent. I sent a copy to Elon Musk, it would have been a perfect motor as a range extender for the Teslas)

Of course, for this application for electric cars I wasn't suggesting using filthy trash powder, just inferior unleaded gasoline or kerosene. One could even use an inexpensive mixture of all the distillation fractions between C5 and C16, without any reforming.

The engineers at Tesla Motors had to throw my mail in the trash. Pity. Probably green disciples of Mrs Sandrine Rousseau…

(A french liberal politician, Marxist Groucho side)

Je suis tombé par terre,

c’est la faute à Voltaire,

Le nez dans le ruisseau,

c’est la faute à Rousseau.

Frontenac Energy >>> GH Power

https://www.scrapmonster.com/company/frontenac-energy/101476