Ruthenium and Platinum are pretty expensive catalysators.
Instead Platinum we could use Nano-Nickel particles,
but does anybody have a substitute for Ruthenium ?
How does Ruthenium work to split Oxygen into ions ?
Can somebody post the chemical reaction equatations ?
Maybe ruthenium is a catalyst for the production of ammonia from the inert nitrogen in the air intake for this Genepax fuel cell powered car? If true, then this would make this a variant of Stanley Meyer's design.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Catalysts
It's been reported that Stanley Meyers' Dune Buggy did not generate hydrogen from water and then strictly use that hydrogen to run his dune buggy. Nor did Stanley use any exotic technology to generate this hydrogen gas. He generated hydrogen in minute quantity using conventional electrolysis (nothing exotic - yet). Then he filtered the engine's air intake through a metal screen that was designed to do the opposite of a negative ion generator. The screen was positively charged to collect (as in, remove) all of the negative ions from the engine's intake air, thus depleting this air of all of its negative ions, thus rendering this intake air as a body of predominantly, positively charged particles. This air was entering from outside of this normal, dune buggy engine.
It's well known, among those who are skilled in this art, that ammonia has a greater potential for expansion then does oxygen. Yet, we go on putting air into our internal combustion engines expecting miracles!
The next step, was for Stanley's internal combustion engine to pass the small amount of hydrogen (which he was producing on the fly and under the hood as he was driving) past its own metal screen to strip it of negative ions just like the air intake was filtered of its negative ions.
Then, he mixed this (positively charged) filtered hydrogen with the (positively charged) filtered air. An immediate chemical reaction takes place in that the N2 -- the otherwise inert nitrogen gas composing two-thirds of the intake air -- reacts with the hydrogen to produce ammonia. [The exact chemical process escapes my memory, but you get the general idea, right?] Viola! We've just produced a superior fuel!
Now, this ammonia and oxygen combination is fed into a normal, unmodified, internal combustion engine (well, not terribly modified; it might need a few minor timing adjustments to burn this signature mixture of gasses; and there may be some corrosive characteristics that need to be protected against -- I don't know, I'm merely guessing on this point for safety's sake), and then this gaseous mixture is burned to drive the engine's cylinders.
So, yes, it is possible to run an ICE on water alone for hundreds of miles and include hydrogen as part of the process of making ammonia on the fly, but for the purpose of burning -- not the hydrogen, but the ammonia, instead......
Now, you can imagine why some feel that Stanley was murdered just before he was to begin full-scale production immediately after a party in which he was celebrating all of the support he was getting from Big Interests.....[Puff him up, and bring him down -- one of several standard procedures for removing the competition.]
Well, at least Stanley's demise can't stop independent tinkerer's from duplicating his development. We just can't expect to be allowed to mass market this bold concept lest we be stopped as well as Stanley. Ergo, this technology is for our own private use and maybe among a few of our pals, but nothing more popular than this.
Don't be fooled by Stanley not stating the above secret -- to his water fuel engine -- in any of his patents. Stanley's official silence on this subject is no excuse for us believing he didn't use this technique, for he flatly states in other non-patented documentation that it is nitrogen which is the key to his success, not hydrogen.
Hmmmm. To be more precise.....
The negative ions of both the hydrogen produced on board, as well as the intake air for Stanley's Dune Buggy ICE, were independently stripped of their negative charges rendering them positively charged particles.
I don't want to lend the wrong notion that it was the ions themselves which were being removed. Only their negative charge was being removed.
Positively charged hydrogen is merely the catalyst, while ammonia is the fuel.
Since the hydrogen cannot be recycled, it must be constantly generated on board. But the quantity needed is so small, that any hydrolysis production chamber could easily accommodate the needs of this setup without undue strain upon the electrical reserves of the battery supplying the energy for this electrolysis to take place. A single, normal, lead battery might suffice to power both the electrolysis and the two independent ion filtering screens (one for each: hydrogen output and air intake) -- I'm guessing. Nor could there be any undue inconvenience on the part of the tinkerer to come up with this arrangement under the hood.
If I'm not mistaken...
The hydrogen and oxygen produced by electrolysis are kept separate from each other.
The oxygen could be fed into the air intake before it and the air are passed through the positively charged ion screen, while the hydrogen is screened (charged to positive ionization) and then mixed with the positively charged air intake, before entering the combustion chambers inside the car's engine.
I'm not an automobile tinkerer. I'm just guessing.
OK, here are some references....
Sir Humphrey Davey, 1807: "....electrolytic hydrogen will combine with nitrogen in the presence of water, while ordinary hydrogen will not."http://www.energeticforum.com/water-fuel/6431-none-electrolytic-splitting-h2o-13.html#post117538http://waterfuelsecrets.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
A good question posed by someone...
"Do we really want lots of nitrous oxide being produced? It is a major component of smog."
I wonder what amount of nitrous oxide could be produced if ICE's were converted over to ammonia as fuel versus the nitrous oxide already produced by dairy farms?
"The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Occurrence
Hmmm. Seems to be not an issue?....
"....... uncatalysed ammonia oxidation (i.e. combustion or explosion) goes primarily to N2 and H2O."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Other_routes
"Nitrous oxide is a colourless, non-toxic gas with a faint, sweet odour."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Properties_and_reactionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Combustion
I think, in my ignorance, I left out something important to this concern....
Stanley recycled his exhaust, because he wanted the water vapor in the exhaust to support his reactions (see Sir Humphrey Davey's quote above). So, wouldn't this give a greater chance for nitric and nitrous oxide emissions to be reduced?