Dear RichD:
formatting link
Electrolysis = electricity Electricity =/= free The amount of hydrogen liberated during electrolysis represents less energy that it took to make it.
How about this: push both hydrogens into the oxygen nucleus that way you get 0.005 grams per mole of free energy
Of course, I don't know how stable Ne-18 is...
David A. Smith
In sci.physics, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
wrote on Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:57:33 -0700 :
An interesting idea but how much energy per mole would be required to overcome the repulsive potential?
Half-life 1.67 s, capturing an electron to F-18. Ew.
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@sirius.tgsuus8.net...
What is stated is your net output.
Might be slightly lower energy than Ne-18, and you can combine it with fossil fuels to make more Teflon! ;>)
Won't work anyway...
David A. Smith
That doesn;t matter, since electrolysis is a byproduct reaction of every other chemical reaction known, So it's a matter of capturing the free hydrogren, rather than taking notes from idiot chemists with equal signs. Who couldn't solve the problem anyway If Newton gave them the pencil and Madam Curie gave them the answer,
Dear zzbunker:
Apparently you weren't reading with comprehension. Once the battery is fully charged (a few to several minutes), there is no more electrolysis, there is no more free hydrogen. So to get hydrogen after this short period of time, you have to intentionally make it, and this will be at a net loss.
David A. Smith
If he was a businessman he would probably take a nickel loss on everything and make it up in volume sales.
If the issue had something to do with batteries, people might actually pay you for your idiot hydrogen advice.
Let's see, you're proposing something akin to perpetual motion, and it's the rest of the world who are idiots. Yep, works for me. I'm just waiting for the information to be wrested from the electric/oil/nuclear industries, instead of letting them hide it and make bajillions.
Oh, yeah, and your car would run on water if not for BP.
...
Wisecrack reply expected from you. Fill in the blank...
David A. Smith
I'm not proposing anything all like that, Since the only thing morons in sci,chem know about it anyway is morons,, the moron Eve Gene, and magnets.
The world is full of idiots. I suggest you learn to live with the thought. lol
PS: I don't care about an opinion of uniformed dismissal - save the typing kids.
Of course you care about an opinion of uninformed dismissal, you lying cretin -- you just posted one.
You should know !
LMFAO !
He said GE actually.
Graham
You are right, it never left the electric department. My mistake, sorry.
"Hydrogen can be dissociated in an electrical arc in an atomic hydrogen torch. The recombination of the atoms produces a very high temperature, 4000=B0C to 5000=B0C, that can be used for welding."
Yes, the temperature of a hydrogen flame is very high.
This isn't 'free energy' though you idiot.
Graham
It isn't just a hydrogen flame, Graham, it's an _atomic_ hydrogen flame. Much of the energy comes from the recombination of monotomic hydrogen to diatomic.
True enough. The H2 molecules had to first be split with energy from a plasma discharge. No free lunch.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Department ?
GE and GM are entirely different companies/entities.
Utter drivel !
Graham
Nope, he's correct.
The process was invented in 1926 and commonly used until a bit after WWII.
Today it is concidered a niche technique and seldom used.
surely the cost of creating hydrogen from water is the same as the value we get from oxidising hydrogen back into water? could this initial investment of energy not simply be used to power the machine directly by charging bateries for instance?
Dear gubernacullum:
No. No process is 100% efiicient. We get less energy out of hydrogen oxidation than it takes to separate it from oxygen. With losses in both processes that we can do little or nothing about.
It might be possible to store energy by removing hydrogen from oxygen with efficiency greater than charging a lead acid battery. But we will never match the conversion efficiencies of:
- a fly wheel is ~95% efficient in storing mechanical / electrical energy.
- a superconducting magnet is ~99% efficient in storing electrical energy.
Hydrogen is not as easy to carry as "room temperature" liquid fuel. And we are talking about something that Ma and Pa Kettle have to be able to use.
David A. Smith
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required