5 Aug
2008
5 Aug
'08
3:29 p.m.
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Pieter Palmers wrote:
If one would be able to extract energy from "burning" water, you would
be right. However, given my science background, I seriously SERIOUSLY
doubt that this is possible. In fact I don't believe it.
From my point of view comparing burning petrol with "burning water"
illustrates a lack of fundamental understanding of chemistry and
physics. Personally, I would only defend statements like those you're
making if I'm VERY sure about them, and know what I'm talking about.
Simply to not make a fool of myself.
Nevertheless I am open for new ideas. It's just that the current
evidence is not convincing at all. Online video's don't provide the
information required to be able to tell whether these claims are
justified. And I'm not saying that these are lies, it's just that I
wonder whether everything is accounted for.
And while we're at the topic of the video's... They don't really give me
a lot of confidence due to the video's posted under the "It had to be
done..." headline. I'm sorry, but the following statement:
"Here’s a few vids of the mighty power of hydrogen explosions. Not an
endorsement of nuclear power but just a reference for anyone who is
doubting the energy contained in Hydrogen."
is ridiculous. It's not because that type of atomic bomb is called a
"hydrogen bomb" that it has anything to do with hydrogen as a power
source. The former is about splitting the hydrogen atom itself, the
latter is about splitting the bonds a hydrogen atom has with other
atoms. Mixing the two as if they are comparable is a very non-scientific
thing, since anybody that knows how these things work should know that
they are not comparable.
Greets,
Pieter
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
In most places water is fairly easy to come by as you only have to wait
for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
If you can burn water directly without having to extract the hydrogen
first then you can utilize it in much the same way we currently use
petrol. i'e once you start the car you will be providing enough energy
to keep the engine running. It's a very efficient form of energy
extraction compared to current standards. On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:23 +1200, Pete Black
wrote:
You mention repeatedly mention that water is an efficient
transportation form of hydrogen. While you are right, it is rather
irrelevant. You don't want to transport water or hydrogen, you want to
transport people/goods/... . You need energy to do this transport.
Hence you have to carry along energy, whatever from it may have.
The problem is that water is a very low-energetic form of hydrogen. In
order to convert it into the high-energetic H2 form you have to
provide at least the energy difference between the two forms. So what
I don't understand in this story is where that energy comes from?
Since electrolysis uses electricity, it probably means carrying along
batteries.
Which leads me to the next surprise... why one would bother to carry
along a battery to provide power for the electrolysis to then use the
resulting gasses to drive an inferior combustion engine. If you carry
along electrical energy anyway, why not use it to drive an electrical
engine? They are far more efficient than a combustion engine.
Some thoughts for the masses, If you want a hydrogen car, you can visit tokyo
and lease one from
Mazda whenever you like.
http://gas2.org/2008/06/20/mazdas-new-premacy-hydrogen-hybrid-rotary-engine…
Interesting link. There is another company in Japan that is releasing a
purely hydrogen run car with no gasoline requirements. The fuel is
water, which is then converted to hydrogen gas via electrolysis and
burnt piped into the engine...