Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hydrogen powered/water powered

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Anyone here ever hear of electrolysis? It's the seperating of the oxygen and hydrogen molecules in water.
Combustion is basically oxidation. Oxidation is the combining of an element or compound with oxygen, and breaking it down.
When Hydrogen burns, it oxidates. So the combining of oxygen and hydrogen would make H^2 O.
If this is true wouldn't you have an unlimited cycle of energy if you kept this up?
Any comments?




posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 12:04 PM
link   
From what I understand, it can be done...However, the amount of energy needed to do so is less than the amount of energy given off.



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If I remember correctly the combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen does not produce enough energy (by current technology) to electrolyze the recombined water.

I may be wrong though



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 12:33 PM
link   
It takes more energy to break the water molecule apart than you get from burning it to recombine it.



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It takes more energy to break the water molecule apart than you get from burning it to recombine it.


Are you sure?
Did you made any experiments? It is that easy to check ....

Anyway more was here: xmb.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 01:46 PM
link   
But, what if you didn't use the energy from the combustion to power the electrolysis?

What if you used a battery to start it, and then a alternator kicked in?

Of course you would need a hell of a lot of voltage to make the electrolysis happen fast enough. I've tried it with 12 volt batteries, it's damn slow.

You'd need a lot of volts to make it catch up with the combustion, but I think it can be done. (or I'm gonna try it anyway)



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 07:07 PM
link   
i won't bother to explain why you can't burn hydrogen to make electricity to electrolyze water to get more hydrogen than you had before.

i will comment that i believe the only PRACTICAL solution to replacing fossil fuels is to use nuclear power electrolyze water to make hydrogen. right now, however, we simply don't have the technology to store and distribute liquid hydrogen (VERY unstable = explosive, corrosive, extremely high pressure and low temperature).

i read a very good article explaining impraticalities of a 'hydrogen economy' and if i can find it i will post it here. it was an anti-bush regime article tearing apart the strategy for converting to a hydrogen economy in thirty years. basically making the point that it (the 30 years to convert to hydrogen plan) was only lip-service meant to pacify the public.



[Edited on 14-1-2003 by The General]



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 09:01 PM
link   
ya its possible they've already done it sorry no link! but trust just search on yahoo and you'll find tonnes of stuff i had to do that for a project on "reduction of global warming"



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The combustion reaction of Hydrogen and Oxygen is as follows:

H2(g) + 1/2O2(g) >>> H2O(l) (Delta)H* = -286kJ or basically it gives off 286 kilo Joules. This is 2.5 times greater than the energy produced by combusting natural gas.

However:

H2O(l) >>>> H2(g) + 1/2O(g) (Delta)H* = 286kJ
or basically it takes 286 kilo Joules of energy to break Hydrogen from Water into a gas, this makes sense following the first rule of conservation of energy...

...what is the point of all this? To show you that in a PERFECT reaction at most you break even, never do you get more energy out for what you put in. HOWEVER!!!!! Perfect reactions are probably impossible
And more likely some energy will be wasted on producing steam.
H2O(l) >>> H2O(g) (Delta)H* = 44kJ which means you are losing some energy in the combustion, so never can you have an infinite energy source.

Since the actual electrolysis of water is quite implausible, hydrogen is only a good fuel source, not a good energy source.

Energy sources that are really good are "solar power" "wind power" and such, things where you put in relatively no energy (because nature does it for you) but you can get energy out of it.

But in hydrogen's case, you must put in the same amount of energy as you get out, so you build huge power facilities to electrolysis water into hydrogen gas, and in effect, get a great fuel, more efficient and cleaner than Gasoline.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Here's a good website about using hydrogen.
And there are other methods than electrolysis in obtaining it.

www.eren.doe.gov...



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Now what if you threw it in a vehical? Strapped a couple solar pannels on the top, threw a few batteries under the hood, stuck an alternator in there, and used some(not all) of the hydrogen power to create the electrolysis reaction. Hell you could even through a small wind generator on the vehical too.

The thing would be a boat but I think it sounds like it might work for a starter Hydrogen vehical...



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 01:46 PM
link   
See but now you are slapping on all these different energy sources (wind//solar//the alternater which converts mechanical energy back into electricity) and additional fuel sources (batteries) all to just sustain a reaction to make a fuel source to power your car.

Hydrogen would be a pretty good substitute for gas, but it isn't a great way to get energy


Fusion power on the other hand, if they are able to figure out how to economically sustain a reaction, would be the BEST form of source of energy to date.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Do you know what it is and how powerful is resonance? Do you know stories about soldiers marching on the bridge? Perfect, energy-effective demolition. You had citied by me references to the patents with description of resonance electrolyze. And you are again with solar power.
and wind power


Please click HERE and ask for patent number 4936961 and 6126794

And read.
And post your comment on the subject.
On that subject



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I don't care to post on that Kronos you missed the whole point. The whole point is Hydrogen is a FUEL SOURCE, not an Energy source...if you can electrolyze hydrogen from oxygen using this resonance great, but you still don't have an energy source.

But I know there are many more effective ways to seperate Hydrogen, a reaction using Sulfur is a good one...blah blah, but I have little time so I'll read your resonance later tonight.

But hmm that soldiers marching on the bridge thing, never happend remember...it was a fear and never came true....


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
I don't care to post on that Kronos you missed the whole point. The whole point is Hydrogen is a FUEL SOURCE, not an Energy source...if you can electrolyze hydrogen from oxygen using this resonance great, but you still don't have an energy source....

Shades of doubts? First step out of The Square Box. Great. From where energy is coming - IT IS THE QUESTION.



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Kronos, take a chemistry class and after that a thermodynamics class and open your own eyes.

Also think of this: Suppose you could make energy out of nothing, that means that you could make the energy go to infinity. Figure out for yourself what the consequences of that would be.



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 06:53 AM
link   
HELP ME!!!!!

In the middle of the week i was off sick and missed my chemistry class at college!


I know the topic was about something called Heavy Water, but i don't have anyones phone numbers to get the notes!


PLEASE!!!!!!

Help me? I'm lonly and confused and i've only ever heard of heavy water in Stargate Sg-1!

Get back to me ASAP!
My test is on Friday!!!!!



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Just do a search...

I had that in high school and college a while ago...
The H atom's mass is heavier than usual, If I could recall good, it's do to a extra neutron. But ask TN1 for sure.

D20...



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Heavy water is chemically the same as plain water, but with the two hydrogen atoms (H2O) replaced with deuterium atoms (D2O). Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen; it has one extra neutron. Deutrium atom consists of one proton and one neutron in the atomic nucleus and one orbiting electron. Extra neutron makes heavy water "heavy" (app 10%).
ScienceNet...

Take care...



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Devil'sAdvocate is completely right, producing energy from nothing would be the equivalent of setting off another Big Bang, I don't think the Galactic neighborhood that trys this would be to happy, as their beloved galaxies are quickly blasted to primordial particles.

Oh and to those who thinks virtual particles are completely energy from nothing look again, they only occur in a complete vaccum, the kind you find at the event horizon of a black hole, this is because 2 particles are made from 2 particles of the black hole, the black hole reabsorbs one and the other escapes, so the black hole in a sense, evaporates.

Sincerely,
no signature





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join