I’m not a physicist or chemist, but come from an electronics background, and have done some “amateur” projects in math and linguistics. I’m retired now, and mainly do political and economics blogging. In my blogging, I took a special interest in the energy issue and began a quest to find the best possible means of obtaining and storing energy. The info I was able to find on the web began to look rather grim.

There are multiple complex problems with both the production and storage of energy, which turn out to be distinct issues. And even efficient systems of energy storage tend to be either too heavy to be portable, require exotic materials that will soon become scarce, are too toxic, produce “sludges” or solids that are very difficult to manage or recycle, etc. I also observed that there is a distinction between “soft” and “hard” energy. Soft energy can be used to provide warmth and light in buildings, but you cannot, for example, melt steel with it, and modern industry requires hard energy. Hard energy is intense, or “focused.” For example, bituminous coal does not burn hot enough to melt steel — it’s energy is too soft, so it must be converted to coke, which does burn hot enough — it produces harder energy. A narrow light beam is harder than a wide or diffuse light beam, even if they represent the same quantity of energy — so it can melt substances.

After reviewing many ways to store and use energy, such a burning lithium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, lithium hydride or boron hydride, etc., I found that they generally produce “sludges” or solids, which interfere with their utilization, and are often quite caustic. Many people are trying to find ways to store pure hydrogen, but it easily leaks through containers, and other storage methods require exotic substances or tremendous pressurization. Then I hit upon “high test” (over 60% to 90% pure) hydrogen peroxide, or H2O2, which actually seems to be the most reasonable fuel available. It’s ignition produces only pure water and oxygen. Another other storage possibility would be compressed air, which seems practical in some ways, but its “energy density” is sadly low.

H2O2 is not a “perfect” fuel, but it is pretty good. It always is “contaminated” with some water (H2O), which acts as a mild catalyzer, (normally) slowly transforming it into more H2O and oxygen (O2), but there are many good stabilizers, such as sodium stannate. However, when high test H2O2 rapidly decomposes into H2O and O2, the reaction is very energetic, so energetic that it has been used to power rockets. Yet, in the absence of catalyzers, it is no more dangerous to handle than gasoline. It explodes upon contact with silver (acting as a catalyst), and could probably function as a carbon-free substitute for gasoline in automobiles! The oxygen exhaust would presumably be “sacrificed,” but I think it would be wise to cool, retain and recycle the resultant water vapor.

It seems reasonable to guess that the power of a deuterium-boron fusion reactor could be used to produce H2O2, possibly even directly by projecting electrons and/or X-rays directly into ordinary water! (I have already posted articles about this in Free Speech Zone Blog, Pffugee Camp, and Culture of Life News.) Improved methods of generating H2O2 are currently being investigated by groups of chemists. See:

ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2009):

Gold-Palladium Nanoparticles Achieve Greener, Smarter Production Of Hydrogen Peroxide

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219141507.htm

There does not seem to be a reason to do that, because FF power is on-demand.

There might be a chance that H2O2 production is a good way of capturing the electrical and X-ray energy.

Sometimes energy needs to be portable, and cannot be attached to power lines. Motorcycles are not attached to them, for example.

All sorts of new batteries and fuel cells (some that use H2O2, even) are being invented, but tend to require expensive chemical elements that will soon become scarce.

Basically this depends on which energy storage solution is best for portability. When energy becomes really cheap it is even possible that making petrol fuels from co2 that is captured from air will be economically feasible. Some fuels/batteries are better per weight some are better per volume. Some are better per price, which I hope FF will reduce a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

Might there be a use for something like this in aircraft where the power to weight ratio is all important?
(What are the alternatives for flight when it is realised oil has become too valuable to burn.)

I just have a niggling doubt about H2O2 and its potential in crude weapons manufacture.

Well, my suggestion of using H2O2 for portable power is just the result of a very general survey of the viability of various possible alternatives to carbon based fuels. It would be great if Focus Fusion energy could be used to convert CO2 into, say, methane or propane. It seems important to take account of the fact that batteries and fuel cells thus far developed tend to incorporate exotic elements that may become very scarce in the future.

I think it’s notable that a rocket fueled with, say, high test H2O2 and propane would be operable at “room temperature” (with no concerns about cryogenics), and be (relatively) nearly as efficient as as liquid oxygen-liquid hydrogen vehicle. And so it’s fuel would not leak away in space during lengthy flights.

Also, if it becomes possible to somehow surround a fusion reaction with a sort of “waterfall,” that could conceivably eliminate much of the damage that energetic particles would cause to the interior walls of the reactor. Of course, this is all very speculative.

blues - 26 November 2009 10:18 PM

Well, my suggestion of using H2O2 for portable power is just the result of a very general survey of the viability of various possible alternatives to carbon based fuels. It would be great if Focus Fusion energy could be used to convert CO2 into, say, methane or propane. It seems important to take account of the fact that batteries and fuel cells thus far developed tend to incorporate exotic elements that may become very scarce in the future.

I think it’s notable that a rocket fueled with, say, high test H2O2 and propane would be operable at “room temperature” (with no concerns about cryogenics), and be (relatively) nearly as efficient as as liquid oxygen-liquid hydrogen vehicle. And so it’s fuel would not leak away in space during lengthy flights.

Also, if it becomes possible to somehow surround a fusion reaction with a sort of “waterfall,” that could conceivably eliminate much of the damage that energetic particles would cause to the interior walls of the reactor. Of course, this is all very speculative.

You may not have noted that there is no “energetic particle” problem with FF to speak of. A few low-speed neutrons are produced by side-reactions like B-He, but they are readily stopped by water and B10 in a low-tech shell.  Since the plasmoids and pinches are so tiny, there is no “containment” problem to speak of. 

Portable power is indeed critical, and even if batteries do experience the surge to 10X present energy density levels which has been projected for the next few years, liquids have some advantages in some cases. 

As for exotic materials, I anticipate that wide-spread use of FF for desalinization will make available a smorgasbord of elements from seawater.  Boron itself is already a significant “waste product” of some desal plants, e.g. 

And according to http://gas2.org/2008/10/13/lithium-counterpoint-no-shortage-for-electric-cars/comment-page-2/ there is enough Li in 1% of 1% of the oceans to equip almost 2 BILLION TeslaMotors electric cars.  And since it almost completely recycles, that should be enough.  (That’s after using up the lithium in the Nevada Kings Valley deposit, enough for the first 100,000,000 cars.)

A lot of my experience comes from dealing with microwave EMF. We have lots of pretty sophisticated ways of keeping the “antenna patterns” directional. But the constant challenge was always that we would be dealing with “side lobes” of radiation that would always “jump out” in complex ways. I don’t know much about nuclear physics, but it sounds like you are talking about an actual fusion reaction that spits out charged particles in a more-or-less straight line. This is rather hard to understand for someone used to dealing with just EMF.

As for the future of using “brute force” to obtain scarce elements, well maybe. But I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.

blues - 29 November 2009 11:29 PM

A lot of my experience comes from dealing with microwave EMF. We have lots of pretty sophisticated ways of keeping the “antenna patterns” directional. But the constant challenge was always that we would be dealing with “side lobes” of radiation that would always “jump out” in complex ways. I don’t know much about nuclear physics, but it sounds like you are talking about an actual fusion reaction that spits out charged particles in a more-or-less straight line. This is rather hard to understand for someone used to dealing with just EMF.

As for the future of using “brute force” to obtain scarce elements, well maybe. But I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.

Two issues conflated here.  The neutrons are undirected, simply stopped by water and boron.  The FF plasmoid collapses into 2 beams oriented along the anode, with the alpha beam exiting from the top and being directed through a solenoid to trap its current, and the electron beam going back into thermal energy in the plasma.  There are also X-rays, which are also undirected, but are stopped within a “thousand-foil” shell, kicking loose electrons by photoelectric effect to be drained and which constitute the power “profit” of the system, more or less. 

The system for element extraction I was speaking of was meant to anticipate combining desalination with element extraction/refinement. The desal is the big load-consumer in the deal, and will have plenty of customers. Probably the more abundant light ‘metals’ will be the main target. The heavies are still too dilute to pay off or generate substantial volume.

I’m not really versed in the chemistry of peroxide combustion but peroxide was tried and found wanting. Since it gives off oxygen and water it was developed as an ideal submarine fuel in WWII. The trouble was both the Germans and British had problems with on board fires. Instabilities with combustion apparantly. But why go that route when you can electrolize water to produce Hydrogen for combustion or fuel cels?

The chemistry of fuels seems to be a rather odd sort of chemistry, and while I am no certainly expert in it, I did a survey of portable fuel in a very broad context. Hydrogen as a fuel has so far not been working out. Hydrogen gas is called the Houdini of gasses because it readily penetrates just about all materials, the few that it penetrates slowly appear to be rather expensive, and normal valves, etc. are impractical. Plus, it is normally extremely low-density energy; you would need a giant balloon of it to get anywhere in a car with it. It is vastly more energy dense as a liquid, but only so long as you kept it rather close to absolute zero temperature.

As far as fuel cells go, there seem to be 10,000 new designs, bus as far as I can see, none of them is claiming to have over come the severe problem of performance degradation due to contamination of their (generally quite expensive) catalytic elements.

On the other hand, the early difficulties of managing H2O2 really do appear to be largely solved. H2O2 can explode in the presence of certain catalysts, but it is otherwise remarkably stable. The other issue with it is that it generates O2 when it (energetically) decomposes, and the presence of O2 can, of course be quite a fire hazard. But then, so is gasoline. And O2 dissipates very rapidly, and harmlessly in air.

There are some catalysts that cause H2O2 to decompose into H2O and O2, and some that retard this decomposition. Oddly enough, H20 itself is a mild catalyst that causes H2O2 to decompose. Household 3% H2O2 with 97% H20, can easily be stabilized with simple additives. “High test” H2O2 is also very stable, as it contains little H2O. But 50% H2O2 and H2O might cause more rapid decomposition, so it might heat up, boil, and even cause a “boiler explosion.” But if the resulting steam and O2 are allowed to escape, this would be generally self limiting, because since water evaporated significantly more quickly than H2O2, the water would become a smaller portion of the ratio. Also, It would seem that H2O2 and H20 could be separated centrifugally, since H2O2 is about 46% heavier than H2O.

A lot has been learned since WW-II. Here is one experimental new rocket motor that looks very promising (except that the government has decided to neglect funding it, for some inscrutable reason):

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1047