Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nov3
Look, I don't know where you got the idea that I said it takes less than the bond energy to break a molecular bond. (Unless you are using that as the red herring for your argument.) All I said was that we can put energy into a substance, initiating a reaction which will release more energy than we put in. This happens every day in a car cylinder. You, on the other hand, said that the laws of physics prove it is impossible to "get" cheap hydrogen. Then you quoted energy conservation, but didn't indicate where that proved your point.

Refer to thermonuclear fusion: Two particles have a given amount of internal energy by themselves. When these particles are together, and provided with so much energy that the nuclei are fused, a new particle is formed out of the two, which has a much lower internal energy than the two on there own. This difference in energy is released, and is MUCH greater than the energy required to heat up the particles in order to fuse them together. Hence the concept of fusion as an energy source. Does this violate the first law of thermo? NO.

It is possible that you and I are arguing over different things. But it is definitely not a waste of time to look for a good way of extracting hydrogen from water. If a natural source of energy (like the sun) can consistently provide enough energy so that what we have to provide in the form of electricity or heat is less than that provided by the hydrogen product, it would indeed be worth it.
91 posted on 02/06/2004 1:55:20 PM PST by Flightdeck (Death is only a horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: Flightdeck
I hope we are on the same page here because though I don't consider myself an expert on all engineering matters I am pretty sure I am right here. Breaking water down requires energy. When it is burned we get the energy back. With losses included we are better off skipping the step. Now this is a novel idea but the energy flux from the sun is not that great and the environmentalists are not going to let us carpet the country in solar collectors to get enough energy to be meaningful. Then you add the storage and transportation issues and this thing is a mess.

And that term is negative in many reactions!

92 posted on 02/06/2004 2:12:11 PM PST by Nov3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson