Add carbon atom to pure hydrogen

[Borek]

As for separating the cathode and anode to achieve individual gas isolation, yes, that works, but the amount of current needed to pull it off is ginormous!

That's an economical argument and it makes sense. But then you say

I must scrub off the oxygen

and from the same point of view - economy of the whole process - it doesn't make sense. You need first something to scrub the oxygen, then you need energy to convert hydrogen to something else. I doubt additional costs are worth additional energy you can get from the system this way. Additional battery to add energy storage seems more logical to me.

 

[MacGyver2]

Borek

We're not talking efficiency here. This is a hobby; who cares about efficiency? If this becomes too large a white elephant, we will use a resistive load as has been done forever. I was just trying to be creative and come up with a new trick, that's all.

And as for scrubbing the oxygen, all one need do is pass the H-O mixture under its own partial pressure through steel wool and it's a done deal. I wish adding a carbon atom was as easy!


. . . . . . Mac

 

[Borek]

And as for scrubbing the oxygen, all one need do is pass the H-O mixture under its own partial pressure through steel wool and it's a done deal. I wish adding a carbon atom was as easy!

And what is a chemistry behind? Is it not reaction of iron with the oxygen? If so, you need to replace the steel wool now and again.

 

[MacGyver2]

True; I've got a shopping bag full! No biggie. . . . . . Mac

 

[Borek]

No biggie, but it makes economy of the process worse again.

 

[MacGyver2]

What part of "economy is not part of this" don't you get? I don't give two hoots about economy or feasibility or anything like that. All I'm after is a quick and dirty way to go from hydrogen gas to methane. That's it! I originally intended this to be less complicated than your hairdo.

Maybe it's not in the cards. If that's the case, I will either resume using a resistive load as a dump load or I'll do something else.

Anyone else out there with a clever idea? . . . . . Mac

 

[Kracatoan]

There are still the issues of radioactivity that lasts millions of years

Actually most nuclear waste isn't all that harmful, a metre or so of concrete provides adequate protection, in fact the British scientist James Lovelock offered to bury Britain's nuclear waste in his back garden, as it could be used to heat his water for free.

The only threat from waste I can imagine is people using it as a "dirty bomb", but that hardly justifies the ludicrous precautions we take these days.

 

[JaredJames]

What part of "economy is not part of this" don't you get?

So you're not discussing something that is part of the OP?

Read back through and you'll note this whole discussion is about large scale processing. What you've done is essentially hijacked the thread.

This particular discussion is regarding performing this process on a commercial scale, for some justification the OP tried to make, which is something reflected in peoples responses (why they keep bringing up economy).

There's no need for such an attitude, given that everyone else hear is still on topic and you are the one who is not.

 

[MacGyver2]

Point taken; I'm new here.

I tried to start what I thought was a new thread, but as it turned out, it attach to this one. I think if you'll read my initial post, it was written from the point of view that I couldn't hop onto an existing thread; thinking I was starting my own thread, I proceed, but it somehow landed here. I didn't design the board, but my apologies anyway. I will try to start a new thread in a different category.

As for the "attitude", again my apologies, my bad. . . . . . Mac