Posted on 05/14/2012 7:04:30 AM PDT by Red Badger
“Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide.”
ROFLMAO!
Cute! I love it!
Cheers
so it’s still an energy losing proposition...
You had a 8” floppy on an XT? Don’t you mean 5.25”.
Did you also own a Delorean with a flux capacitor??? ;^)
It's not really a source, more like a different sort of battery. It still takes electrical energy to split the water molecule. More electrical energy than you'd get back burning the hydrogen,, or using a fuel cell to recombine the hydrogen with O2 to produced electricity, What will be the source of the electricity? Nuclear is nasty, coal is unthinkable, oil.. oops that's the problem it's supposed to be solving.
Wind that's the ticket.. Uh, no. Not enough potential energy available, and the Kennedy's won't allow it in their backyard anyway, only in yours.
Now that said, if we'd mass produce nuclear reactors, maybe using the Navy designs, it would be a good way to run your car on nuclear energy, either by burning it, or turning it back into electricity.
Yes, but you can't run the process in your car, because it takes a source of electricity. If you could generate electricity in your car, you just could just run the car on that. So you have to generate the hydrogen off vehicle, and store it on the vehicle, before it's burned or used in a fuel cell.
Yes, but you can't run the process in your car, because it takes a source of electricity. If you could generate electricity in your car, you just could just run the car on that. So you have to generate the hydrogen off vehicle, and store it on the vehicle, before it's burned or used in a fuel cell.
Yes, but you can't run the process in your car, because it takes a source of electricity. If you could generate electricity in your car, you just could just run the car on that. So you have to generate the hydrogen off vehicle, and store it on the vehicle, before it's burned or used in a fuel cell.
No that would displace the bears, or cougars, or whatever lives in the caves now.
They want us to die off.
That's because you left out the need for electricity in addition to the catalyst. However the catalyst could be used for the reaction running the other way, converting the hydrogen and oxygen back to water, and electricity.
Wow, it’s so awesomely cheap! All we have to do is retool everything including the entire transportation support infrastructure. When all that’s added in, how cheap is it? Not very.
It's just as well - reading is for sissies anywise.
—discovered to sustainably split hydrogen from water, AFreeBird wrote:
You had a 8” floppy on an XT? Don’t you mean 5.25”.—
Yes. We had 8” ones at work for whatever we were using there (other than Incoterms and Maestro keyboards, I don’t remember the names). But this one has the smaller “real” floppy.
Well, it's a little more complex than the way you put it.
Keep in mind that a catalyst doesn't execute a reaction itself, it simply acts to lower the transitional state energy "hump," thereby allowing reactions to require less energy, and therefore occur much faster than otherwise.
Also, because of the laws of thermodynamics, part of the heat energy generated by combusting the H2 will be lost as waste heat, and that's even if you could capture the rest of the heat and cycle it back into the system, which you probably can't since the system works on hydrolysis (requiring electrical energy, not just "any" old ebnergy).
—Did you also own a Delorean with a flux capacitor??? ;^)—
Oops. :-)
Actually, when I came here it was 1996 in my home universe, but 1976 here. I got them confused. ;-)
All conversions are energy losing propositions. Second law of thermodynamics. (but non thermal processes are generally much more efficient)
1st law. You can't get something for nothing. 2nd law, you can't even break even.
—However the catalyst could be used for the reaction running the other way, converting the hydrogen and oxygen back to water, and electricity.—
I just assumed that would be a peripheral function of the motor in the first place, much as a car’s motor runs the alternator.
The reason I called it similar to perpetual motion is that I would think that the hydrogen and oxygen could be converted from water vapor to water with a simple condensation coil and the electricity could be generated by the engine with, well, an alternator.
The impact is that it produces more energy than it takes in and I assume the magic happens in the catalist, producing more hydrogen/oxigen for combustion and power generation than it needs for the chemical reaction in the first place.
I still remember waiting for 20 minutes while "Tunnels of Doom" loaded from my tape drive to my TI-99 4A.
Does this process harm the bald eagle (see earlier post)?
The is the assumption, not the reality.
Catalyst only reduces the energy required for the chemical reaction to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water. It does not reverse or eliminate the need for input energy. The system is still a net loss, or rather electricity is converted to heat in the process.
TANSTAAFL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.