silicon-nine(nm) here we come, kin to Ice-nine

They don't mention the implications of the thermal reaction. If hydrogen is created that quickly, would it be safe in something as small as a battery where heat can build up quickly?

"The government, man? They've got this car... it runs on water, man! WATER!"

- Hyde

Finely dispersed silicon [url=http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000079095.pdf[/url] and it oxidizes rapidly at air. It creates a voluminous foam with water, which is difficult to separate from gas. Reaction with water is very exothermic - which means, a lotta energy introduced into production of silicon dust will be wasted as a heat during it.

Finely dispersed silicon is pyrophoric and it oxidizes rapidly at air. It creates a voluminous foam with water, which is difficult to separate from gas. Reaction with water is very exothermic - which means, a lotta energy introduced into production of silicon dust will be wasted as a heat during it.

This is exactly the useless research, which will become obsolete with cold fusion technology immediately. After all, whole the hydrogen economics is just a research jobs generating nonsense - if we need to replace the hydrogen with mixture of silicon and water to make it transportable, why we couldn't use the carbon hydrides, i.e. the synthetic gasoline made of coal and water for the same purpose? If nothing else, we could use the existing engines for it without change.

"The Hydrogen Economy" seems to be the only part of the Bush presidency that the progressives have held dear to their hearts yet it has the least basis in reality.

As always, the question is, "How much energy does it take to make the spheres, build the equipment to use it, and dispose of the waste?" Over the life of any energy system that makes use of this method, do we have positive or negative net energy and is it affordable, compared to conventional methods? Until these questions are answered, this is little more than a curiosity.

This is exactly the useless research, which will become obsolete with cold fusion technology immediately.

Yes, we should put all our eggs in one basket that might pay off in 30-40 years.

we should put all our eggs in one basket that might pay off in 30-40 years

We shouldn't throw the most promising egg from the nest, because it could threat the weak hens in next 5 - 7 years (and save the human civilization before global nuclear war for the rest of oil sources). In addition, even without cold fusion it's recognizable quite easily, that the hydrogen technology is research jobs generator only, the silicon-mediated hydrogen technology the more. It's just impressively huge nonsense at so many levels for everybody, who can calculate the energetic effectiveness of the whole process.

interesting result, but never likely to be practical for the reasons illustrated by commenters. Worthwhile reseach certainly, but no furthur funding should be allocated for such a niche fuel with such poor conversion efficiency.

How much energy is required to produce the silicon metal that require to generate same amount of hydrogen that produce the energy needed?

Ug, I was practically yelling at the article to stop telling me it is faster than, just tell me how fast *it is*.
Simple Google look up right? A quick read gives me the impression that pure Si develops a protective layer of SiO2 and is then generally nonreactive to water. Although it is frequently the case that you up the surface area, you up a reaction rate (that is what "activated" charcoal is). So probably this kind of strategy means storing the Si powder away from oxygen.

Would also have been nice to see a comparison of energy density compared with batteries.

I wonder what would happen if they milled silica oxide sand to about the right size particles, then remove the oxygen with pyrolysis. Would the silica plus trace minerals still work adequately without further purification?

Just for clarity's sake: this isn't an energy source. It's more like a battery: you put energy in to create the silicon nanoparticles, then get energy out later on when it comes into contact with H2O.

I'm sure that more energy is consumed creating the nanoparticles than is harvested later by combining them with water. Which is why the scientists involved suggest using it only under select conditions, such as where grid power isn't available.

Even so, there's a lot of research and development ahead to deliver even that much from this research. Combining silicon nanoparticles and H2O generates waste heat and makes a bubbly mess. It'll take some clever designs to make it practical.

At least this works at the laboratory level, which is more than can be said for CF.

aHaaa! ... the 'activator' !!! Hard to believe that this work included a third ingredient: and this fact was not mentioned by anyone here.

That its identity was withheld triggers in me a certain hesitation to accept any thing the article reports!

Until the 'mystery ingredient' is identified the work can not be duplicated in any other lab .. the 'special knowledge' would not exist ..

How many 'con games' have started this way!?

I choose to withhold judgement and to retain my skepticism until full data is forthcoming ..