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

To: Slings and Arrows; All

A common misperception about electrolysis (likely the process in this system) is that energy is being created.

Water being a molecule has energy stored in its very structure—actually more energy per gallon than a gallon of gasoline.

While the process of releasing that energy stored in water does require energy—and traditional electrolytic methods are notoriously inefficient, there is no reason why, with the proper technology, efficiency can not be reached to release more of the energy stored in water than it takes to “crack” that energy (the hydrogen) out of it.

This is not therefore any violation of the law of thermodynamics—since no energy is being created or added to the whole equation, only released—following standard laws of physics—from storage.

In the same way that a woodstove releases more energy than it is requred to feed it—since the energy is released from the burning wood, so too water, like any chemical, can, theoretically release more of it’s energy than it takes to “feed” the reaction(s) it takes to release it.

I believe hydrogen derived from water, be it in onboard, on demand systems (such as this) or in micro-plants-at-the-filling-station, will be the fuel of the future.

And high oil prices will push the market that direction!

No less than BMW already has a practical hydrogen powered car—and a practical onboard system (if this Japanese invention is not it) cracking water, is not far away.


42 posted on 06/13/2008 12:35:06 PM PDT by AnalogReigns ( Quinque Solor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: AnalogReigns

Briefly stated, a hydrogen-oxygen reaction will never release more energy that it took to release the hydrogen in the first place. In effect, the hydrogen is a way of storing energy. If you have a cheap source of electrical energy (say, a nuclear power plant) you can use the electricty to seperate the hydrogen, and then the hydrogen to power a vehicle, but what you doing is effectively powering the vehicle with the nuclear power plant, and adding an overhead for the conversion. The kicker is whether electricity is cheap enough to make this process (plus the infrastructure outlay) feasible, and for that we’d need a lot more nukes. (Which is a good idea in any case.)


48 posted on 06/13/2008 12:46:30 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("Code Pink should guard against creating stereotypes in the Mincing Community." --Titan Magroyne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: AnalogReigns

P.S. Hydrocarbons, such as gasoline, release their energy through oxidation. Water is already oxidized.


49 posted on 06/13/2008 12:48:45 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("Code Pink should guard against creating stereotypes in the Mincing Community." --Titan Magroyne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: AnalogReigns
While the process of releasing that energy stored in water does require energy—and traditional electrolytic methods are notoriously inefficient, there is no reason why, with the proper technology, efficiency can not be reached to release more of the energy stored in water than it takes to “crack” that energy (the hydrogen) out of it.

You are correct if you are talking about thermonuclear fusion. I really do not think that was a hydrogen bomb they had set up. On another subject I have reduced the price of that bridge in Brooklyn to a mere 10,000 dollars. Please remit you payment to me and your account numbers to my associate in Lagos, Nigeria and we will arrange the transfer to you immediately.

PS The laws of thermodynamics do not take heretics lightly.

80 posted on 06/15/2008 8:58:19 AM PDT by cpdiii (roughneck, oilfield trash and proud of it, geologist, pilot, pharmacist, iconoclast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | 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