Quote :

"yes thats true; but the types of energy used to seperate and recombine can be different"

What does that have to do with anything? Regardless of whether it's 50 joules of chemical potential energy or 50 joules of thermokinetic energy, 50 joules is still 50 joules of energy.

Unless you're talking about the type(s) of energy that can be harnessed and put to use from this reaction, all other types dissipating as waste heat.

5/22/2006 9:21:34 PM

Quote :

"What does that have to do with anything? "

practical applications

5/22/2006 9:45:52 PM

my God. practical applications means that what you are proposing IS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE, josh.

"different kinds" of energy doesn't fucking matter. it's all energy. and the net change of a closed system can NEVER be positive. please. retake thermo. twice.

5/22/2006 9:58:53 PM

obviously you haven't taken extradimensional hyperphysics aaronburro

5/22/2006 11:14:28 PM

Of course! I took Extradimensional Hyperphysics last fall and was basically failing the class before we even had the first test, so I had to drop it.

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 11:16 PM. Reason : motha-fuckin' spelling ninja attack! ACHAA!]

5/22/2006 11:16:16 PM

Quote :

"closed system "

ive never seen an engine that was a closed system.....thats a contradiction

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 11:53 PM. Reason : 5]

5/22/2006 11:52:59 PM

anyway, the technology is already beeing implemented, reality says hydrogen energy from water is promising

Quote :

"Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power Hundreds of semitrailer trucks zipping along North American highways are now powered in part by hydrogen. These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist. These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution. "We're saving $700 a month per truck on fuel," said Sherwin Fast, president of Great Plains Trucking in Salina, Kansas. The company tried the HFI system on four trucks and has ordered 25 more. "Drivers like the increased power and noticed there is a lot less black smoke coming out of the stacks," said Fast. HFI is a bolt-on, aftermarket part that injects small amounts of hydrogen into the engine air intake, said Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Steve Gilchrist. Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency. "You get more work from the same amount of fuel," said Gilchrist. This is not a new idea. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology published research on the uses of hydrogen as a combustion-enhancing agent in the early 1970s. But the ability to make hydrogen on the go is novel. The sticking point for hydrogen has always been getting it. Unlike crude oil, natural gas, wind or solar energy, hydrogen doesn't exist freely in nature. It costs $5 a gallon to make hydrogen from natural gas. But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water. "That's a big advantage and a bit of a novelty," said Venki Raman, an expert on hydrogen-energy applications who started Protium Energy Technologies. HFI's manufacturer guarantees 10 percent fuel savings, which likely won't interest car companies or consumers, Raman said. But a reduction of pollution emissions could spur broader use. Trucks with the HFI system produce half the amount of particulates -- microscopic, unburned bits of diesel. The system also reduces nitrogen-oxide emissions, which are major contributors to harmful air pollution, by up to 14 percent, according to Canada's Environmental Technology Verification Program. The HFI units are relatively small and cost between $4,000 and $14,000, depending on the size of the vehicle. "It looks like a good transition technology to hydrogen fuel cells, which are still at least 15 years away from commercialization," said Raman. It will take at least until 2040 before fuel cells begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the National Hydrogen Association, Gilchrist pointed out. "We vehemently disagree with governments picking the fuel cell as the single path to a cleaner environment," he said. Gilchrist recently argued just this point in meetings with California officials, who are considering buying prototype fuel-cell vehicles that will cost more than $1 million each. That money could buy many HFI systems, which would provide "300 times" the air-pollution reductions of one fuel-cell vehicle, he said."

http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,69529,00.html

take the trucks as a closed system; it splits water and burns hydrogen and what happens?

you get an engine with MORE energy.



[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 11:58 PM. Reason : 5]

5/22/2006 11:54:09 PM

Quote :

"yes thats true; but the types of energy used to seperate and recombine can be different"

Alright, but Josh, you must realize that energy is still energy. If you are making your hydrogen from bacterial activity it is still consuming energy, just in the biological form. You are converting biological neutrients into hydrogen. This is not an effective system as I'm pretty sure the bacteria has a limited rate of production and still needs regular refueling, just in the form of neutrients instead of gasoline. Nevermind that biological food tends to have a fairly limited energy density.

Your photo-reactive process of generating hydrogen, assuming it is 100% efficient, won't work because the energy contained in a square-foot of sunlight is very limited, this is why solar powered cars still need batteries that must be charged at night.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/23/2006 12:05:41 AM

Quote :

"you get an engine with MORE energy."

Not more energy. More efficiency. There's a big difference. All the energy in those trucks started from the diesel fuel. The HFI system uses electrolysis as a way of storing energy that would otherwise dissipate as heat loss. It then uses the stored hydrogen in peak usage. Essentially the water acts as a battery, much like I described on the previous page.

5/23/2006 12:15:39 AM

Quote :

"ive never seen an engine that was a closed system.....thats a contradiction"

I don't think any of us have. What's your point?

5/23/2006 1:03:19 AM

^i wasnt quoting you

Quote :

"Your photo-reactive process of generating hydrogen, assuming it is 100% efficient, won't work because the energy contained in a square-foot of sunlight is very limited"

limited to what? people can generate all the power they need for their houses year round with a few solar panels. hundreds of people have gone off grid. if you can capture enough energy for a home, you can capture enough energy to split water especially when using an efficient catalyst.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 5:11 AM. Reason : 523`]

5/23/2006 5:10:04 AM

Not a few panels, they covered their entire roof with panels. Plus, a car's roof isn't in direct sunlight all day as trees and bridges obscure energy flow from the sun. The final insult, a car consumes more power in a few hours of operation than the average house does in a week.

5/23/2006 10:17:21 PM

Quote :

"ive never seen an engine that was a closed system.....thats a contradiction"

you have no problem contradicting every other fucking law of nature in this discussion. Why nitpick on useless details when you understand the fucking point of what I am saying?

sure, it's not "closed," but for the purpose of this discussion, IT IS! We're talking about taking water, splitting it up, and then turning those products back into water. Thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, and common sense ALL say that that process is fucking pointless. Show me ANY other process where we do something like that and end up w/ the same thing that we started with. Please, SHOW ME THAT PROCESS. And no, the nitrogen cycle DOESN'T count. I'm talking about a human-run/invented process. There aren't any, and there never will be, because it's fucking stupid and inefficient.

If taking items X and Y and turning them into Z is a good idea, then we'll go find large quantities of X and Y. We won't take Z and split it up into X and Y just for the purpose of creating Z again. And the idea that you will somehow, inextricably get MORE than just Z by combining the elements that you just split up Z from is even more ludicrous.

5/24/2006 1:47:35 AM

Quote :

"Plus, a car's roof isn't in direct sunlight all day as trees and bridges obscure energy flow from the sun"

a house doesnt recieve sunlight all day either

Quote :

"a car consumes more power in a few hours of operation than the average house does in a week. "

you just made that up.

Quote :

"We're talking about taking water, splitting it up, and then turning those products back into water. "

no, you fundamentally misunderstand the topic. once combusted, you have water vapor, a gas. you dont end up with the same thing you started with. if you think a gas and liquid have the same amount of energy, you need to retaked thermo, thrice.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 5:48 AM. Reason : 5]

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 5:49 AM. Reason : 5 ]

5/24/2006 5:46:11 AM

Quote :

"if you think a gas and liquid have the same amount of energy, you need to retaked thermo, thrice. "

What is the chemical symbol of steam? What is the chemical symbol of water?

Again, if you took thermo, you'd know that steam actually has more energy in it than liquid water.

Go put a pot of water on the stove and turn it into steam and go read the meter on your house, after turning everything else off, and see how much energy is required to turn water into steam.

Hell, if your system worked then you could take the steam coming off it and put it into a low-pressure steam engine and get even more power out of your system. And since a low-pressure steam engine gets power by condensing steam into liquid water you'd get your fuel back into a usable form! Your engine could run forever on the same water recycled back and forth!

http://www.keveney.com/newcommen.html

And using the data from page 1:
300000 J/cent___from page one, cost of energy from a power-company
10000 cents/month____assuming a power bill of $100 a month
3000000000 J/month
750000000 J/week
4333333 J/mile____again, from page 1 data, energy consumption per mile for a 30mpg car
173.08 miles
60 miles/hour
2.88 hours

So, yes, to consume the same amount of energy as your house does in a week all you need to do is drive 2.88 hours in your 30mpg car.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 8:29 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/24/2006 8:22:00 AM

Quote :

"What is the chemical symbol of steam? What is the chemical symbol of water? "

H20(g), H20(l)

Quote :

"Your engine could run forever on the same water recycled back and forth! "

of course it could, so long as you had the means to continually split water with light, electricity or heat ect.

Quote :

"And using the data from page 1: 300000 J/cent___from page one, cost of energy from a power-company 10000 cents/month____assuming a power bill of $100 a month 3000000000 J/month 750000000 J/week 4333333 J/mile____again, from page 1 data, energy consumption per mile for a 30mpg car 173.08 miles 60 miles/hour 2.88 hours"

We've all seen electric cars that can run for hours that simply require charging from normal households. You can try and play with number all you want, but people all over the world run their cars from the electricity they get from household hook-ups. electric cars have been around for a long ass time.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 10:11 AM. Reason : 5]

5/24/2006 10:01:44 AM

Quote :

"What is the chemical symbol of steam? What is the chemical symbol of water? H20(g), H20(l)"

He was asking a rhetorical question, and you know it. And once again, you miss the point.

Quote :

"once combusted, you have water vapor, a gas. you dont end up with the same thing you started with."

Most of the time in chemistry, the phase of your product isn't the issue. Whether we get H2O(g) or H2O(l), the only thing that really matters is that we get H2O. It is true that phases can be written into chemical equations, but the most significant piece of information that chemical equations yield are the chemical formulas for all of your reactants and products. So yes, you DO end up with what you started with.

Quote :

"if you think a gas and liquid have the same amount of energy, you need to retaked thermo, thrice."

There isn't anybody who has posted in this thread who even came close to saying this (except maybe you). No shit that a gas possesses more thermokinetic energy than its liquid counterpart, even if they're at the exact same temperature (the energy required for liquid-->gas transformation is called the heat of fusion, during which time the liquid/gas remains the same temperature until all of the liquid has been converted to gas).

Quote :

"people all over the world run their cars from the electricity they get from household hook-ups."

He didn't say that you couldn't hook your car's battery supply up to your house, he said that the rate of energy consumption of a car is much greater than the rate of energy consumption of a house. Which brings up another interesting point; if you charge your electric car's battery up at your house, how long is it going to take to charge from, say, completely discharged to fully charged? At least several hours, is my understanding. It isn't like a gas station where it only takes two minutes tops to go from empty to full.

5/24/2006 10:43:24 AM

Quote :

"We've all seen electric cars that can run for hours that simply require charging from normal households."

I was responding to your statement above that I made up my numbers. I did the math and found out my guess was about right. And also what umbrella said above.

Quote :

"of course it could, so long as you had the means to continually split water with light, electricity or heat ect."

But you don't for several reasons:
#1 The amount of energy you are getting from sun-light is not enough to power your damn car, regardless of how you are storing the energy (you will need to draw most of your power from the power grid using such a system)
#2 drawing so much power from the power grid is more expensive than burning regular gasoline, as I demonstrated mathematically on page 1.
#3 Even if it was cheaper, the hydrogen storage system is dramatically less efficient than utilizing lithium batteries.

If you want to sway us, you must demonstrate, mathematically, how all three of these assertions are not true.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/24/2006 11:26:44 AM

you do realize that most solar panel systems (such as the ones at the solar house here at ncsu) are able to store up a heavy surplus of energy, right?

5/24/2006 11:46:15 AM

^what's your point? Either they store that energy in a huge battery, or they feed it back into the grid. Either way, there is no way to store that energy onboard a car without a huge-ass heavy battery or an oversized, inefficient compressed hydrogen gas tank.

And the energy that is produced by solar cells is way more expensive per kJ than energy from a clean-coal power plant that produces almost no pollutants.

5/24/2006 5:53:03 PM

Quote :

"(the energy required for liquid-->gas transformation is called the heat of fusion"

liquid-gas is heat of vaporization. liquid-solid is heat of fusion.

5/24/2006 6:25:33 PM

>.<

You are very much correct, sir. Please excuse my error.

5/24/2006 6:34:21 PM

I can't decide if this is just the worst fucking continuous troll ever or if Josh#'s really is this stupid. Ialmost feel obligated to print out this thread and the previous thread of a similar topic and give it to the Chemistry department and demand that Josh#'s be refused a Chemistry degree until he learns the simple topics from CH101

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2006 8:00:18 PM

I say we build nuclear reactors into cars

5/24/2006 8:03:16 PM

Quote :

"#1 The amount of energy you are getting from sun-light is not enough to power your damn car, regardless of how you are storing the energy (you will need to draw most of your power from the power grid using such a system) #2 drawing so much power from the power grid is more expensive than burning regular gasoline, as I demonstrated mathematically on page 1."

You dont know where the price of gas will go. And sunlight can easily power a car....its already been done.

Quote :

"Most of the time in chemistry, the phase of your product isn't the issue "

its always an issue. i have no clue where you are getting this idea that its not important.


show me one factually incorrect statement ive made? you cannot.

Quote :

" Light Work Better solar nanotubes to split water for hydrogen By Eric Smalley The path to the hydrogen economy is getting visibly brighter--literally. Nano­tubes that break apart water molecules to liberate hydrogen can now do so more efficiently and could soon use the optical spectrum of sunlight. In dissociating water with sunlight, engineers have available three technologies: One is solar cells, which hold the record for water-splitting efficiency but are comparatively expensive. Another approach uses microorganisms, which are inexpensive but so far produce only minuscule amounts of hydrogen. The third option is photocatalysis, which relies on momentarily freed electrons in a semiconductor. Electrons that encounter water molecules replace the electrons in the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. They thus break water apart and generate hydrogen gas. Photocatalysts are potentially less expensive than solar cells and produce more hydrogen than microorganisms....continued at Scientific American Digital "

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=00091FE0-9F9D-1446-9A6283414B7F0000

I continue to post researchers and facts in the field, and you all think your know more then then experts. Ive got news for you, the person with the support of the sicentific community wins.

Quote :

"Electrochemical fuel cells producing power for electric drive motors are now widely seen as a promising possibility"

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=95882642-8C8E-4EE5-977B-D9C6589D764

go ahead and argue with sci am.

Quote :

"New Catalyst Produces Hydrogen from Water"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EE96B-C0B8-1314-80B883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

Quote :

"(the energy required for liquid-->gas transformation is called the heat of fusion"

try and at least know the basics, please.

Quote :

"We're talking about taking water, splitting it up, and then turning those products back into water."

i dont know what system youre talking about. youre going to have to be more specific.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 9:32 PM. Reason : tre42]

5/24/2006 9:10:40 PM

Quote :

"The third option is photocatalysis, which relies on momentarily freed electrons in a semiconductor. Electrons that encounter water molecules replace the electrons in the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. They thus break water apart and generate hydrogen gas."

notice how you dont need to input the amount of energy it would take to electrolyze gasses from water.

you just need the right catalyst that would sepereate an electron for a long enough time; so if this is a perpertual motion machine, then take it up with the experts, im sure they wouldnt laugh at an undergrad whose taken less the 4 credits of chemistry.

its been done by people w/ Ph.D's, published in peer reviewed journals and printed in sci-am. i win.

Quote :

"Conservation of energy still applies; we cannot extract more energy from a system than we put into it."

and please do review the laws of thermodynamics. this isnt one of them.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 9:46 PM. Reason : 5232]

5/24/2006 9:42:30 PM

Quote :

"and please do review the laws of thermodynamics. this isnt one of them. "

coming from someone who needs to retake thermo, that doesn't mean a damned thing to me. If you don't consider the fucking mass of the fuel as an "input energy," then you are dumb as a fucking brick.

Quote :

"notice how you dont need to input the amount of energy it would take to electrolyze gasses from water."

yeah. you just need a spare semiconductor lying around. whew!

Quote :

"And sunlight can easily power a car....its already been done."

really? where is it? Why isn't Ford mass producing them? Why isn't ford even LOOKING INTO BUILDING THEM? Oh, right. Cause ya have to park the fucker in the sun for five days in order to go 200 miles.

Look, no one is arguing that hydrogen can't power a car. Instead, we are all arguing that electrolysis will never be a viable option. You can show all of your stupid ass "research" that you want, but until you understand the basic principle of X and Y from Z being turned back into Z (and that H2O(l) is equivalent to H2O(g)), then all of your research is moot. Sure, if we can find some crazy ass way to make a bunch of Hydrogen from water WITHOUT simply applying electricity, then it'll be great. But I have a funny feeling that if it doesn't exist naturally on the earth, then it can't be done, otherwise it would already have been done and we'd have a lot more hydrogen lying around.

And, in all honesty, your g-versus-l bullshit is just that: bullshit. It doesn't fucking matter, and you know why? Because, according to your argument, H2O(g) is more energetic than H2O(l). What does that mean? Well, that means that there is a net work "loss" in the equation:

2H2O(l) + energy1 --> 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O(g) + energy2

Knowing that g has more thermal energy than l, we must conclude that energy2 < energy1. It is that simple. Short of finding some process that creates massive amounts of hydrogen for us, onboard electrolysis will never work. Go round up your microbes and let them do their thing, and in 50years, you might have enough hydrogen to drive to the store. Short of another power source, electrolysis will never occur on board the car.

Bacteria are not a catalyst. Semiconductors are not a catalyst. Sunlight is NOT a catalyst. A catalyst, by definition, lowers the activation energy needed. It does NOT supply energy to the system. So quit using the improper definition of "catalyst" here.

Quote :

"Electrochemical fuel cells producing power for electric drive motors are now widely seen as a promising possibility"

yes, but they are NOTHING MORE THAN FANCY BATTERIES. They have to be "charged," otherwise they are useless.

Quote :

"its been done by people w/ Ph.D's, published in peer reviewed journals and printed in sci-am. i win."

and yet, there is no viable vehicle power source running on this. There's no HOPE of a viable power source running on this. It's all just fun w/ someone else's money. There's not even a working prototype of a power source. It's just "yaaaaaaay, we made some hydrogen! nevermind how much effort and energy input it took for us to get those couple of diatomic molecules of it!"

5/24/2006 11:07:52 PM

Quote :

"You can show all of your stupid ass "research" that you want"

yea....stupid ass researchers with useless Ph.D's dont know jack compared to an undergraduate with a degree in a different field

Quote :

"Sunlight is NOT a catalyst."

well, in your defense, youve never heard of a photocatalyst. but that doesnt mean things youve never heard of dont exist.

please do some learning;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photocatalysis
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photocatalyst&btnG=Google+Search

Quote :

"Instead, we are all arguing that electrolysis will never be a viable option"

Well, its already being used by truckers. It can never be, when it already is.

Quote :

"Sure, if we can find some crazy ass way to make a bunch of Hydrogen from water WITHOUT simply applying electricity, then it'll be great"

Its aleady been done by photocatalysis, its you against the entire scientific community on this one.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 11:31 PM. Reason : 5]

5/24/2006 11:27:42 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't fucking matter, and you know why? Because, according to your argument, H2O(g) is more energetic than H2O(l). What does that mean? Well, that means that there is a net work "loss" in the equation: 2H2O(l) + energy1 --> 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O(g) + energy2 "

Why is that relevant to the problem of H2 powered cars? Once the H2 burns in the engine, it goes out the exhaust.

5/24/2006 11:34:37 PM

Josh, you wanted to know which statement you have made that was false, try this one:
"once combusted, you have water vapor, a gas. you dont end up with the same thing you started with. if you think a gas and liquid have the same amount of energy, you need to retaked thermo, thrice."

water and steam do contain exactly the same amount of potential energy. steam contains more kinetic energy, to be sure, but this difference is easily rectified by a radiator which can lower the temperature of your steam to match your water.

Look, Josh, maybe there is a chance we have misunderstood each other. Taking your photocatalyst, let us assume that the process produced enough hydrogen to generate 1000 joules of energy. You do realize that in order to do this it had to absorb AT LEAST 1000 joules of energy, from whatever source, right? You cannot get more energy out of your "system" than the universe put into it. The energy can be in the form of food, light, electricity, kinetic, radiation, whatever.

Just putting in more liquid water doesn't get you any hydrogen.

5/24/2006 11:43:37 PM

Quote :

"water and steam do contain exactly the same amount of potential energy."

completely false, there is potential energy in the van der wals interactions in water, bc of the close proximity. retake ch101. ideal gasses have no intermolecular potential energy. you must break the potential energy (intramolec) to get a gas. water has some kinetic energy; steam has tons more, true.

Quote :

"but until you understand the basic principle of X and Y from Z being turned back into Z "

look out your window. plants;

Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts) = Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2)

plants use the sun, along with water and co2 to make a FUEL that they use....somehow this sounds familiar? yet you claim its an impossibility.

then they of course;

Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY

THOSE GREEN THINGS VIOLATE YOUR MADE UP THERMODYNAMIC LAWS -- how could plants possibly gain energy in this process? oh thats right.....CATALSYTS (CHLOROPHYLL ) !!!!!!!!!

THIS IS THE EXACT SAME MODEL THAT IVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. Its over. Take a bio course.

Quote :

"taking your photocatalyst, let us assume that the process produced enough hydrogen to generate 1000 joules of energy. You do realize that in order to do this it had to absorb AT LEAST 1000 joules of energy,"

no, because the combustion of hydrogen will yield energy; again, look at plants; do they make only as much fuel as the energy they get from chloroplasts? no, they make LOADS of fuel via catalysis from light.

notice that plants need to keep refueling with water bc it cannot be used again, as its in vapor form; just as ive been saying, its not perpetual bc water is being used as a fuel. if the water could be reused in this type of cycle; plants would be doing it. they dont.

is it not over? can you not now respectfully admit defeat?



[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 12:10 AM. Reason : hr34223]

5/24/2006 11:50:52 PM

Quote :

"the energy required for liquid-->gas transformation is called the heat of fusion try and at least know the basics, please."

I make one little goof-up (which, if you had bothered to read the other posts, I had already acknowledged) and suddenly everything I say is invalid.

Fine, liquid-->gas is heat of vaporization and solid-->liquid is fusion. I got them mixed up, k?

Quote :

"show me one factually incorrect statement ive made?"

Ha! Where do I even start? How about the part where you seem to believe that you can somehow get more energy out of a system than is already in it?

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 12:27 AM. Reason : blah]

5/25/2006 12:26:43 AM

no, the things you said arent invalid becuase of that mistake.

Quote :

"How about the part where you seem to believe that you can somehow get more energy out of a system than is already in it?"

Youve rephrased your statement and what Ive said. This is not what you said before, stop trolling. You never said ALREADY IN, you said, you cant get more energy out then your PUT IN.

My system is a cup of gas. I then add another cup of gas.
I now combust the gas. I now have more energy from the system then I put in.

your quote exacty;

Quote :

"we cannot extract more energy from a system than we put into it. "

nice try; time to admit defeat.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 12:33 AM. Reason : 5]

5/25/2006 12:27:48 AM

Very well, it seems that I failed to explain myself properly.

"We" is a little subjective here. By "we" I either mean us as human beings (ie through man-made, artificial means) or not us (ie, nature, natural means). Regardless of what puts energy into a system, the only thing that matters is that energy gets there in the first place.

We'll take gasoline as an example. The energy that is in gasoline came from the hydrocarbon chains being formed while under tremendous temperature and pressure. The energy that went into generating those conditions ultimately came from the sun, but that aside it took energy to make those hydrocarbon chains. It took energy because those hydrocarbons don't spontaneously form themselves; they are unstable (or at the very least, metastable). Those hydrogen and carbon bonds are such that they won't form on their own without some additional energy input. Therefore, there is energy stored up in those bonds (in the form of chemical potential energy).

But anyway, what is important to understand is that a certain amount of energy went into making that gasoline. I suppose that you and I could have made that gasoline in a laboratory, but regardless of whether you and I do it or whether nature does it, that does not change the fact that energy is required to form that gasoline. That energy is stored in the gasoline. That energy went INTO the gasoline, and you cannot get more energy out of the gasoline than THAT AMOUNT. That is my entire point. You could get more energy than that out of the gasoline, but only if you add more energy to the gasoline, which further proves my point anyway.

So, what I said applies, albeit I will reword it "better." We cannot get more energy out of a system than is put into it.

Is that better, now?

5/25/2006 12:43:37 AM

Yes, now it sounds like something that reflects the conservation of energy; a better way of saying it would be, though

We cannot get more energy out of a system than the total amount in it.




...




again, back to my final point; (plants MAKE a fuel then BURN that fuel; you said that this could never work)

Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts/TINY AMOUNT) = Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2)

then

Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + TONS OF ENERGY

how do you explain it loanshark?
how is this possible given you say this is not possible;

water(l) ---(little photo energy) ----> gasses

gasses ----lots of combustion energy---> water(g)


while you get more energy from the second reaction;
its not like youre creating it from nothing; it was energy
that was in the system to begin with.

thats why its not perpetual motion, or violating of conservation of energy,
the system starts with a lot of energy.



[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 1:11 AM. Reason : -05642]

5/25/2006 12:49:10 AM

^ It would be impossible to make a car, no matter what it's powered by (except for magic and love), to work like that though. I think that's where you lost everyone.

5/25/2006 2:33:25 AM

Quote :

" Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts/TINY AMOUNT) = Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) then Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + TONS OF ENERGY"

Gee, how do I explain it... Easy, you are wrong, dead wrong, uber dead wrong. Assuming these are the complete equations then the item named "TONS OF ENERGY" must contain the same joules of energy compared to the item named "ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts/TINY AMOUNT)" otherwise the equation is not balanced. For example, ignoring activation energy, such a reversible reaction does not require two equations but just one where the "=" is replaced with bi-directional arrows, thus imply that the following is true:

Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts/TINY AMOUNT) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + TONS OF ENERGY

Quote :

"completely false, there is potential energy in the van der wals interactions in water, bc of the close proximity. retake ch101. ideal gasses have no intermolecular potential energy. you must break the potential energy (intramolec) to get a gas. water has some kinetic energy; steam has tons more, true."

You seem to be implying here that it should somehow require the application of energy to turn steam into water when in reality all that is required is the extraction of kinetic energy from steam to turn it into water. We call them condensers, low-pressure steam engines, even a radiator could do it, all simple machines that extract energy from the process of turning steam into water. Am I correct in guessing your implication or are you going to continue dancing around issues and not answering them? Do you believe that the application of energy is required to convert steam into water?

5/25/2006 9:02:54 AM

Quote :

"Assuming these are the complete equations then the item named "TONS OF ENERGY" must contain the same joules of energy compared to the item named "ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts/TINY AMOUNT)" otherwise the equation is not balanced."

The equation isnt balanced, plants get energy from glucose made from a photocatalyst, they rely on that net energy gain for life. if you think this doesnt happen (and youve been saying its impossible to make a fuel and then use it and get a net energy gain when using a catalyst), then i suggest you write the authors of every modern biology text book. this model of photosynthesis is perhaps the most studied thing in plants. im sorry you never learned about it. im sorry you dont accept photosythesis, but its validity is not a subject of dispute, ergo, a model engine that works in a similar way is technogically and demonstrably feasable. you lose.

Quote :

"Do you believe that the application of energy is required to convert steam into water?"

Right now, in your room, there is water vapor in the air. Can you please extract it and place it into a cup for drinking without doing any work? No, you cannot. Vapor will sometimes condense, if the concentration is high enough, and you have time. You cannot extract it all if you wanted too, without energy. You could extract SOME, sometime, depending on conditions (temperature/concentration/ect).

Quote :

"^ It would be impossible to make a car, no matter what it's powered by (except for magic and love), to work like that though."

it was impossible that man could fly, it was impossible that man would walk on the moon. scientists have learned to not what is impossible, only what is unlikey.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 10:26 AM. Reason : hjfy4]

5/25/2006 10:17:33 AM

Quote :

"again, back to my final point; (plants MAKE a fuel then BURN that fuel; you said that this could never work)"

BTW, I don't believe anyone here has said a statement such as this is false. What we said was that you cannot get more energy by BURNing that fuel than was required to MAKE that fuel. The types of energy are easily changed but the quantity is incontrovertible. If burning 2H2 + O2 produced 2H2O and 100J of kinetic energy then to turn 2H2O back into 2H2 + O2 requires AT LEAST 100J of light, 100J of kinetic, 100J of chemical, whatever, but it requires at least 100J of energy.

5/25/2006 10:26:07 AM

Quote :

"If burning 2H2 + O2 produced 2H2O and 100J of kinetic energy then to turn 2H2O back into 2H2 + O2 requires AT LEAST 100J of light, 100J of kinetic, 100J of chemical, whatever, but it requires at least 100J of energy."

Every plant says youre wrong.

Quote :

"What we said was that you cannot get more energy by BURNing that fuel than was required to MAKE that fuel."

Plants rely on photosythesis for net energy gains. Youre still wrong. game. set. match.

Quote :

"If burning 2H2 + O2 produced 2H2O and 100J of kinetic energy then to turn 2H2O back into 2H2 + O2 requires AT LEAST 100J of light, 100J of kinetic, 100J of chemical, whatever, but it requires at least 100J of energy. "

Its simply not true. You make things up, I restate current research. Say it all you want, but researchers have already use a photocatayst which only required sunlight. Youre not smarter then the experts. Your statemenst reperesent a sophmoric understandind of thermodynamics.

Quote :

"Bacteria are not a catalyst. Semiconductors are not a catalyst. Sunlight is NOT a catalyst."

-aaronburro

This is what people think who agree with you Loneshark. They lack introductory knowledge of chemistry and physics. They speak as though they just learned what a catalyst is.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 10:49 AM. Reason : 099]

5/25/2006 10:32:16 AM

Quote :

"Plants rely on photosythesis for net energy gains."

To the plant, yes, not to the universe. The sun expended a LOT more energy into the plant than the plant has utilized.
Think about it, a tree sits in sunlight 365 days a year, with leaves a lot of that time, why does a plant NEED to violate the laws of physics to be alive? The sun is putting out lots of energy, if the plant was able to capture 1% of what hit it that it would be plenty for life.

Quote :

"Right now, in your room, there is water vapor in the air. Can you please extract it and place it into a cup for drinking without doing any work? No, you cannot."

Sure I can. All I need to do is suck all the energy out of the room. If my room is floating in space then I can just turn off the heater and wait, after enough time the temperature will drop sufficiently for all the water to condence and then freeze. But that was not the point, you have danced around it again. "Steam" is not the water vapor in my room. "Steam" is when the air is super-saturated with water far and beyond its ability to be held because the water is too hot to condence.

For example, you can see it working. Go to a stove, put on a tea-pot and heat it to a nice boil. This will give you a supply of steam. Now, take a pot and fill it with cool water from the sink and place it in the channel of steam. You will see the steam condense on the bottom of the cold pot. If you could capture and extract the heat out of all the steam, back to room temperature, then it would all condense back to water.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/25/2006 4:19:10 PM

^but thats not the system that we're reffereing to, the water engine would output vapor to the atmosphere (it has too, the engine must exhaust); it would dissipate and not saturate the atmosphere, thus you couldnt get it back into liquid for without adding energy

Quote :

"Sure I can. All I need to do is suck all the energy out of the room"

Yes, you would need to remove teh air of water vapor to drive the equilbrium. But that would take energy.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:38 PM. Reason : 423fss]

5/25/2006 4:36:00 PM

Quote :

"but thats not the system that we're reffereing to, the water engine would output vapor to the atmosphere (it has too, the engine must exhaust"

Why? simply collect the steam into a sealed metal container with metal fins to dissipate the heat, returning the steam to a liquid.

Back to your "Photosynthesis miracle" where you claim plants are deriving more energy from photosynthesis than was imparted by the environment (efficiency ratings 101% and above), plug "Photosynthesis energy efficiency" into google.com and note how none claim efficiency greater than 100%:

Quote :

"Photosynthesis is the most important biological process on Earth. It serves as the World's largest solar battery. The primary reactions have close to 100% quantum efficiency (i.e., one quantum of light leads to one electron transfer); and under most ideal conditions, the overall energy efficiency can reach 35%. Due to losses at all steps in biochemistry, one has been able to get only about 1 to 2% energy efficiency in most crop plants. Sugarcane is an exception as it can have almost 8% efficiency. However, many plants in Nature often have only 0.1 % energy efficiency. "

http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/whatisit.htm

5/25/2006 4:59:56 PM

Quote :

"plants are deriving more energy from photosynthesis than was imparted by the environment"

no, my point was;

Quote :

"plants use the sun, along with water and co2 to make a FUEL that they use."

you were saying you could not take something, make a fuel from it, then use that fuel and convert it back into the what you made the fuel from (becuase you wouldnt get any more energy then you started with), yet nature does this every day, the energy comes from the catalyst, chloroplasts, analgous to the semiconductor photocatalysts that were cited on page 1.



[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 5:15 PM. Reason : fwe3]

5/25/2006 5:12:03 PM

Fuck, Josh, you will NOT get more energy than you started with. If your plant is only 2% energy efficient then your completed equations are this:

Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + 100J of sunlight = Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2)

then

Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + 2J of life energy + 98J of wasted energy

THIS set of equations are balanced and make logical sense.

5/25/2006 5:24:39 PM

Quote :

"you have no problem contradicting every other fucking law of nature in this discussion. Why nitpick on useless details when you understand the fucking point of what I am saying? sure, it's not "closed," but for the purpose of this discussion, IT IS! We're talking about taking water, splitting it up, and then turning those products back into water. Thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, and common sense ALL say that that process is fucking pointless. Show me ANY other process where we do something like that and end up w/ the same thing that we started with. Please, SHOW ME THAT PROCESS. "

^thank you for showing aaronburro how wrong he is.


but yes, that kind of equation about represents what photosynthesis is and how one could get energy from water to run a car in an analgous way. you would would get a net increase in energy from a catalyst. and before you criticize light as a poor source of energy, lets remember that it kindof is the primary energy source that sustains nearly all life as we know it, directly or indirectly.




[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 5:43 PM. Reason : p785gf]

5/25/2006 5:41:23 PM

Thank god, Josh has finally conceeded. Catalyst or no, he no longer believes you can achieve energy efficiencies greater than 100%.

As per a "water powered system", here are the equations for that:

2H2O + 100J of light energy = 2H2 + O2 (catalysts are not listed with reactants but separately)

2H2 + O2 = 2H2 + O2 + 30J of electricity + 70J of waste heat

(units are wildely not to scale, I suppose we should multiply the reactive molecules by a large constant)

5/25/2006 5:53:27 PM

Quote :

"Catalyst or no, he no longer believes you can achieve energy efficiencies greater than 100%. "

show me where i said otherwise?

5/25/2006 5:58:23 PM

Quote :

" Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts/TINY AMOUNT) = Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) then Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + TONS OF ENERGY""

This strongly implies that "ENERGY(sunlight/chloroplasts/TINY AMOUNT" is less energy than "TONS OF ENERGY", especially combined with your statement "you get more energy from the second reaction".
If you get more energy from the second equation then you have received more energy out of the system than was put into it, thus implying an energy efficiency rating above 100%.
For example, if you second equation produced 20J of usable energy, while the first equation only consumed 10J, then your evident energy efficiency rating is 200%.

5/25/2006 6:33:42 PM

Quote :

"This is what people think who agree with you Loneshark. They lack introductory knowledge of chemistry and physics. They speak as though they just learned what a catalyst is. "

Quote :

"cat·a·lyst Audio pronunciation of "Catalyst" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ktl-st) n. 1. Chemistry. A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process."

Please, josh, show me where in this definition that it claims that ENERGY is a CATALYST. It's sad that you are getting a degree in this and you don't even understand the intro course material.

Quote :

"thank you for showing aaronburro how wrong he is."

soooooo, Snark pointed to a natural process that humans do involuntarily and it somehow provides proof of a process that humans voluntarily do? hmmm........

Quote :

"and before you criticize light as a poor source of energy, lets remember that it kindof is the primary energy source that sustains nearly all life as we know it, directly or indirectly."

I know, because heaven forbid that evolution make it such that lifeforms use the only energy source available to them, no matter how great or not great it is

Quote :

"it was impossible that man could fly"

really? did men grow wings? as far as I can tell, men still can't fly. Airplanes can, though

Quote :

"moron: Why is that relevant to the problem of H2 powered cars? Once the H2 burns in the engine, it goes out the exhaust."

keeping up the ol' namesake, I see. The reason it is relevant is if the ultimate equation yields a net work loss, then we are just spinning our wheels. Yes, the gas is exhausted, but I stated that the exhausting of the gas is unimportant when compared to the energy that is "lost" in that scenario which translate into a net loss of work. Unless of course you don't understand the chemical formula for the combustion of Hydrogen...

Quote :

"Its aleady been done by photocatalysis, its you against the entire scientific community on this one."

really? Where are these vasts hydrogen deposits, then? Cause I sure as hell don't see them. Quit strawmanning me, jackass. I never said that you can't make H2 from water. Rather, I said that you can't make it in enough quantities via a natural process to make hydrogen power viable. of course, you don't even understand the basics of the degree you are trying to obtain, so how can I expect you to understand elementary logic?

Quote :

"Well, its already being used by truckers. It can never be, when it already is. "

remind me again what is powering that electrolysis? oh yeah, gas, NOT HYDROGEN FROM WATER. THAT'S MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT!

Quote :

"well, in your defense, youve never heard of a photocatalyst. but that doesnt mean things youve never heard of dont exist. "

are you trying to argue that SUNLIGHT is a PHOTOCATALYST? because, if you look at your own bloody link, you'll note that it says that a photocatalyst is the acceleration of a photoreaction IN THE PRESENCE OF A CATALYST. How the fuck can sunlight accelerate a sunlight reaction? No, the photocatalyst accelerates the reaction that is already occuring with sunlight, dipshit. and to think, you are the one getting a degree in this shit.

Quote :

"yea....stupid ass researchers with useless Ph.D's dont know jack compared to an undergraduate with a degree in a different field "

they've got a hell of a lot more sense than a stupid assed undergrad in the same field who doesn't even comprehend the basics of that field, that's for damned sure. Then again, you are the one claiming that their work does something that I doubt they ever claimed it would. Namely, that it will allow us to violate the laws of physics and chemistry and thermodynamics and...

Quote :

"http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EE96B-C0B8-1314-80B883414B7F0000&sc=I100322"

you actually linked to that? Are you that fucking stupid? Did you read the fucking article? Here's a hint, idiot:

Quote :

"The big question is, of course, whether it would be economically viable to create organosilane fuels in the quantities necessary to power a world full of [fuel-cell] cars," Abu-Omar says. "As of right now, there simply isn't enough demand to make more than small volumes of this liquid, and while it's a relatively easy process, it's not dirt cheap." One of the drawbacks, the team reports, is the high cost of the organosilane starting materials. But if the silicon byproduct can be sold or recycled efficiently, the new approach could be economically feasible."

oh shit. you mean we have to actually MAKE THIS CATALYST? it isn't readily available out in nature? Where are we going to get the ENERGY REQUIRED to make this stuff and to KEEP MAKING IT? *cough*perpetual motion*cough*

5/26/2006 3:29:51 AM