Posted on 04/08/2015 8:01:30 AM PDT by rktman
To extract hydrogen from natural compounds such as water, methane, or coal requires very large inputs of energy. Most commonly, hydrogen is produced from methane gas using heat and steam, or by electrolysis of water using large quantities of electricity.
Hydrogen can be used to power rockets, cars, and engines of all types. However, the energy used to produce the hydrogen can never be fully recovered from the energy in the hydrogen. It is thus not a source of energy. It is merely a storehouse for energy – a battery.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“I am not sure what you are getting at. A vertical windmill has been used to propel a ship directly into the wind ...”
Basic laws of physics. If a molecule of air hits an object, its momentum is reduced and the object is pushed in the OPPOSITE direction. So if a ship is pointing directly into the wind, all the force against the ship is directly downwind.
“Go back and listen carefully to the video and follow up with other videos of University research. This is not what I took from it.”
Never mind. If you insist that there are perpetual motion machines, you are ripe to be scammed.
“Anyone with basic understanding to physics and chemistry knows this.”
Unfortunately, there are at least two on this board that insist that perpetual motion machines exist.
That’s a bad comparison, because aluminum is not a fuel. There are endless uses for a versatile material like aluminum, and many of them can make aluminum more valuable than any extraction process. For example, in aviation, the properties of aluminum would make it worthwhile to use even if it cost triple to extract it, because there isn’t a less expensive replacement material that is readily available.
Hydrogen, on the other hand is just fuel. There aren’t many other purposes (at least not where you need pure hydrogen) that can make it cost-effective to use if you can only extract it with an inefficient process. Even in the few cases you could think of, say using it as buoyant gas in dirigibles, there are alternatives that can be used and the technology isn’t very profitable in the first place.
The wind hitting a vertical rotter spins the rotor and drives gears and a propeller which propels the ship into the wind. It is not efficient but it is more efficient than hydrogen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill_ship
http://www.rexresearch.com/flettner/flettner.htm#psm225
Only a few gasses as dangerous as Hydrogen Group B. It can catch fire (almost invisible flame) with little 3 % or a lot of Oxygen (as high as 97%). Consider methane will only ignite from 5 - 15%.
Although a sailboat CAN sail into the wind, just not directly, by using the sail's ability to re-direct the wind's force. You have to follow a zig-zag. Tacking in Sailing
>>...you can not get around the energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from whatever it was bound to.
Anyone with basic understanding to physics and chemistry knows this.<<
Not sure, but I since some understood my post as to convey that I lack understanding in regards to energy in/out theory. I’m not the brightest bulb in the package, but I do hold a degree in the science of electronics and have oh, about 28 years in the field.
I don’t believe my post suggest that this experiment was the Eureka moment in the study of hydrogen extraction. I thought it interesting to have stumbled upon a discovery such as this. Heck, multiple institutions picked up where this fella left off....not discovering it themselves. I find that pretty amazing in of itself.
Throughout my career, I’ve utilized signal generators many times. In the video, they declare the flame measured close to 3k Fahrenheit. The source was not clearly defined, but the signal generator on the bench top did not appear to be a particularly high powered unit based off of the generators I am accustomed to. I’ll have to go back and see if I can identify the make/model and attempt a search for output specs.
I remember those cartoons on the last page of Nuclear Engineering magazines.
They were produced by Matt Groenig who went on to produce the Simpsons empire. It explains whay Bart was a nuke plant operator.
>>Never mind. If you insist that there are perpetual motion machines, you are ripe to be scammed.<<
Huh? what the hell are you tawkin bout? I never made that claim. Whatever...jumpin to another thread, you guyz are wayyyy too smart for me.
H2 as rocket fuel days may be limited.
Elon Musk and others are working on a liquified natural gas motor that will make the parts reusable rather than throw away since CH3 liquifies at much higher temperature. As a fuel, somewhat less specific impulse but not enough to offset the savings.
Yup. I used to work for an electric company that could best be described as the “MetroPCS” of electricity; that is, they quoted you a rate *inclusive* of taxes and fees.
The rate was also locked in for 5 years, as they have massive amounts of capital that is used to buy electricity futures on the NYMEX...with terms that far out into the future, electricity from ALL sources (coal, gas, even solar, wind, nuclear, &c.) can be had for pennies on its future value...and it’s worked out quite well for them.
Even so, “green” energy sources STILL carry a premium on the market—there’s no way around that. (and is reflected on the retail contract)
The only thing that breaks the analogy: Most of its plans are *post-paid*, and obviously require a credit check. (The pre-paid plan requires one of those “smart meters”)
Read or watch “The Water Engine” by David Mamet. Exactly your proposition and the disastrous results for the inventor.
“Also, this is Wikipedia...not sure I’d consider them a reliable source of information.”
Well, in this case, where the claim of net energy gain is scientifically impossible, I think we can take wikipedia as reliable.
1. Your first article says it is propelled by an engine!
2. I quit reading your second article when it mentioned that ‘suction’ propels the foil!
“Huh? what the hell are you tawkin bout? I never made that claim.”
You refuted my posting from wiki and suggested that I review the video again to see what you saw (perpetual motion) in that there was a net energy gain.
One thing that IS reliable is human ingenuity. Time and again, Americans have risen to the challenge.
Could one imagine what folks might achieve if the dollars spent on green energy project were diverted to hydrogen technology.
The experiment in the video, whether we perceive one way or another, shows the potential to agitate hydrogen/O2 molecules to the point of separation. Setting aside energy in/out conversion debate some seem to have gotten stuck, the mere promise of extracting hydrogen as a fuel source is to me very exciting.
Read a story recently of the new naval surface ships converting sea water into fuel. If I remember, it was a hydrogen extraction process.
“The experiment in the video, whether we perceive one way or another, shows the potential to agitate hydrogen/O2 molecules to the point of separation. Setting aside energy in/out conversion debate some seem to have gotten stuck, the mere promise of extracting hydrogen as a fuel source is to me very exciting.”
You can’t set aside the “energy in/out conversion debate”. It’s the only absolutely vital piece of information when considering something as a fuel source. In the case of hydrogen, we already know with absolute scientific certainty that it is impossible to separate hydrogen and get a net energy gain. So there is not even a debate, at least not among people who have taken a basic chemistry course and understood the principle of bonding energy.
“Read a story recently of the new naval surface ships converting sea water into fuel. If I remember, it was a hydrogen extraction process.”
It was a lab experiment. Created enough fuel to fly a model airplane for a short time.
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.