i do agree with TKE-TEG on the ground that RIGHT NOW isnt quite the best time.

but soon, very soon. i would say 3-5 years, with the proper funding we can have it. if the car has a resuable catalyst, we wouldnt need distro centers bc water is everywhere.



[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 6:44 PM. Reason : -]

9/30/2005 6:44:27 PM

Quote :

"Hydrogen will have to be in compressed liquid form for vehicles the way I see it."

exactly true. it would normally take crap loads of energy to cool liquid hyrdogen to a liquid.

9/30/2005 6:52:25 PM

What the hell is going on this this thread suddenly? Are you people kidding?

Suddenly aaronburro is talking about the weight of fuels or something and Josh is spinning some yarn about carbon nanotubes turning water into hydrogen by themselves. It is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics to be able to spontaneously turn water into hydrogen. Hopefully I have simply misread your statements, but that is what it sounds like you fellas are talking about!

If burning x moles of hydrogen (producing x/2 moles of water) produces y joules of energy, then in order to restore the system to x moles of hydrogen you MUST restore at least the y joules of energy you got out of it.

2H + O = H2O + energy
This equation cannot be violated. You can move either way with varying degrees of efficiency, but you cannot violate it. Whatever you have built out of carbon nanotubes. If the NCSU article is right, then they've increased the efficiency of hydrogen production by 100%, rediculously impressive. However, as I understood the normal process it was about 20% efficient (it took 5 Joules of energy to produce the hydrogen equivalent of 1 Joule). Well, if they're right, now it will only take 2.5 Joules of energy to produce the hydrogen equivalent of 1 Joule.

Even at this impressive level of efficiency, you should note that one gallon of gasoline holds 1.3 x 10^8 joules of energy and to store the same quantity of energy in the form of hydrogen at 40% efficiency would require $7.20 worth of electricity.
(1 gal.)(36 kWH/gal)(8 cents/kWH)(2.5) = $7.20
Compare this to gasoline at $3.00 for the same amount of energy, and we can see where peoples wallets will be going.

On the otherhand, you can use hydrogen in a fuel cell which should get you double the miles per gallon, but as I understand it you can also use gasoline in a fuel cell... either way, I love math and thank you for the oportunity to engage in it.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2005 7:06:49 PM

I wish that there was a more efficient way to generate Hydrogen.

Of course, the reason why it is so hard to prepare Hydrogen is that by mass Hydrogen is essentially the most powerful fuel.

Some companies have some up with creative ways to store it but density always ends up being a problem.

Quote :

"but as I understand it you can also use gasoline in a fuel cell"

If I am not mistaken the gasoline must be distilled at an energy loss (exothermic reaction as carbon is bonded with oxygen producing CO2 - heat is radiated and lost) to extract the Hydrogen. The Hydrogen goes on to power the cell. The high efficiency of the Hydrogen fuel cell beats the low efficiency of the internal combustion engine (~80% vs ~20%) but the "conversion process" factors in to the overall efficiency. For this reason pure Hydrogen is most ideal in a fuel cell because the high initial cost of the fuel cell would far exceed the MPG savings you gain over the life of the car.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 7:23 PM. Reason : vs]

9/30/2005 7:09:10 PM

Quote :

"If burning x moles of hydrogen (producing x/2 moles of water) produces y joules of energy, then in order to restore the system to x moles of hydrogen you MUST restore at least the y joules of energy you got out of it."

i see what you are saying.

but lets remember the definition of a catalyst: something that lowers the activation energy of a reaction.

its not true that the amounts of energy needed to reverse a system is the same as the forward reaction. not at all. thats a basic fundamental principal. the activation barrier for the forward reaction may be a million times lower for the reverse.

heres commentary on the ncsu work

Quote :

"And that is what the scientists discovered when they began running computer models to simulate what would happen if they used the defective nanostructures to break water molecules. The current method for extracting hydrogen from water involves heating water molecules to 2,000 degrees Celsius. The high temperature “breaks” the molecule, and hydrogen is released. “We studied water for many months and ran many different calculations, and we ended up showing that if you want to break a water molecule, you spend a lot less energy if you do it on this defective carbon material than if you do it by simply heating the molecule until it breaks,” Buongiorno-Nardelli said. “You can reduce the energy necessary by a factor of two – you can do it at less than 1,000 degrees.” However, there are still problems to solve before a truly catalytic process can be devised – for example, how to make this dissociation reaction a viable process for hydrogen production. The team hopes to collaborate with other scientists to design and construct a nanoscale chemical reactor that will one day lead to a cost- and energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen. "

Quote :

" It is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics to be able to spontaneously turn water into hydrogen."

not exactly ... you need to input energy ... the question is, how much? right now, at 1,000 degrees it can be. ncsu knocked that figure down from 100. what if we can get it to 500, oven hot? we would just need a little starter electicity to get our motor running, heating ourselves up, then the hydrogen could be burned to maintain that temperture. at high temperatures, it is simply not true that water wont spontaneously become hydrogen and oxygen gas. it will indeed happen also at lower tempertures if the system is modified thru use of a catalyst surface.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 7:36 PM. Reason : 0]

9/30/2005 7:28:02 PM

Quote :

"but lets remember the definition of a catalyst: something that lowers the activation energy of a reaction. "

yes, this is great. find me this catalyst and I'll ask you again WHY THE FUCK YOU ARE CARRYING EXTRA WEIGHT IN YOUR FUEL?

Quote :

"thats completely bogus. With oil, we need to input A TON OF ENERGY to get into a fuel form. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF FRACTIONAL DISTILITATION? I CANT JUST PULL MY CAR UP TO AN OIL RIG CHIEF oil ---(input energy) ---> gas -> ignition water----(input energy)---> hydrogen -> ignition"

thats great. but the energy we put into distilling the oil is NOTHING compared to the energy we get out of the oil in combustion. And THATS what matters. Its that the net equation of distillation and combustion still yields positive energy creation.

Quote :

"Both are the same process. Seperating the hydrogens and oxygens in water is very simliar to seperating the different kinds of hydrocarbons in oil by distilling it fractionally."

NO THEY ARE FUCKING NOT! Obviously you failed CH101 if you can't figure out the difference between splitting a molecule and separating different molecules. Again, E=m*c^2 should be your HUGE fucking hint here.

Quote :

"The point remains that it takes very little energy to get hydrogen from water compared to gas from oil. "

actually, no it doesn't. you've simply said that it is so without providing numbers. More importantly, you haven't compared the net energy gain between the two processes, which is FAR more important.

Quote :

"you just have no clue what your talking about. do you even know what volume of hydrogen gas you can get from 1 gram of water? "

who cares? The point is the ratio of useless weight.

Quote :

"have you ever considered that maybe gas stations would be provided with carbon nanotubes, and they would just add water then setup of fueling station for hydrogen? its just a possibility"

thats great. but thats not a "water powered car" as you said in one of your firsts posts... *cough*youarebackpedalling*cough*

Quote :

"anyways -- youre missing the point ... the reason why water is so perfect is that with 20 gallons of it on board, youve only got an extra 160 pounds, nothing compared to the weight of the car, so dont give me this "OMF SO HEAVY" bullshit --"

yeah, and imagine if you could get RID of that extra 160 pounds of useless stuff! I'm sure that the weight of the gasoline is also nothing compared to the weight of the car. In fact, gas weighs LESS than water, yet we aren't carrying around 8 times extra the necessary weight with gas, are we?

Quote :

"you would slowly exrtact the hydrogen from water AND BURN IT RIGHT AWAY, you wouldnt need advanced storage technology to keep things safe becuase you wouldnt store it. you would need to store just a little bit though. do you undstand now?"

yeah, and thats the ONLY advantage of carrying water on board the car instead of carrying only hydrogen. Thats it!

Quote :

"Anyway, youre not a chemist so I wouldnt expect you to undestand that. One is breaking a molecule, one seperating molecules. The mechanism is different, but regardless, youre making compound A from compound B."

actually, NO! the fact that the mechanism is different is PRECISELY WHY the difference is important. In separating oil, you are NOT getting compound A from compound B. you are getting MIXTURE 1 and 2 from MIXTURE 3. That is uniquely different than getting compound A from compound B. I pray that you figure this out before you get a degree in the very subject where they teach this in the INTRO CLASS.

9/30/2005 10:45:23 PM

Quote :

"Anyway, youre not a chemist so I wouldnt expect you to undestand that. One is breaking a molecule, one seperating molecules. The mechanism is different, but regardless, youre making compound A from compound B."

my God, YOU ARE! you should know EXACTLY what we are talking about then. You simply CAN'T change the nature of that process. 2H2 + O2 + energy1 --> H2O + energy2, where energy2 >> energy1. Its EXOTHERMIC. You CANT GO BACKWARDS WITHOUT ADDING ENERGY. period. you can add a catalyst, yes, but all that does is decrease the amount of energy you have to add to the water. Thats great, but you are STILL ADDING ENERGY. And, since your combustion is JUST THE REVERSE OF THIS PROCESS, you will not get back more energy than you put in. Thus, you still need an external energy source in order to accomplish this process.


this picture shows precisely why you can't achieve what you are saying can occur. If you view water as being on the right and 2H2 + O2 as being on the left, then you see that the energy of the H2 and O2 is higher than the energy of the H2O. THATS WHY BURNING HYDROGEN CREATES ENERGY!!! No matter what you do, you will NEVER be able to change that FACT. You simply CAN'T get rid of that hump. if you could, then 2H2 and O2 would react at will in that environment and all go straight to 2H2O. Thus, the only viable method to use hydrogen IN A CAR is to use it in its gaseous from, NOT as water.

9/30/2005 11:04:20 PM

Josh, I'm sorry, but what you are describing is a perpetual motion machine which won't work for very important reasons.

If you take the equation for the hydrogen reaction and flip it around:
H2O + energy = 2H + O
This is an endothermic reaction. That means that you are going to need to be continuously injecting energy into the reaction chamber to keep it at 1000 degrees. The amount of energy required is in proportion to the amount of energy being stored in the 2H + O.

You will have built a machine which turns kinetic energy (heat) into potential energy (chemical). The first law of thermodynamics requires that you cannot get more energy out of your machine than you put in. So, if you use 2H + O = H2O + energy to drive the wheels of the car, you are not using it to turn H2O back into 2H + O. This is even before you realize that the systems efficiencies are less than 100%.

As an example: let us take 1000 joules of potential energy in the form of hydrogen, and run with it:
combustion chamber efficiency: 90% (energy lost to conductance) 1000 joules of potential energy (hydrogen) becomes 900 joules of heat which heats the separator producing hydrogen, 40% efficient. 900 joules of heat becomes 360 joules of potential energy (hydrogen). Process may begin again. After awhile, the system will grind to a halt, as all systems must without external supplies of energy.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ^ beat me to it...]

9/30/2005 11:20:32 PM

LoneSnark, quit trying to make sense. Josh is a chemist. he knows all about these things which conflict with the things taught CH101!

9/30/2005 11:23:01 PM

"Flintstones! Meet the Flintstones! They're the modern Stone Age Fa-Mi-Ly!"

i say we build recumbinant bikes into aero-effeicient automobile frames. hill assist may be an option on future models.

10/1/2005 1:25:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm currently working on a winter solution for my vehicle to keep the oil from gelling. "

add the anti-gel diesel fuel additive they sell at wal-mart.

10/1/2005 2:47:55 AM

Quote :

" my God, YOU ARE! you should know EXACTLY what we are talking about then. You simply CAN'T change the nature of that process. 2H2 + O2 + energy1 --> H2O + energy2, where energy2 >> energy1. Its EXOTHERMIC. You CANT GO BACKWARDS WITHOUT ADDING ENERGY. period. you can add a catalyst, yes, but all that does is decrease the amount of energy you have to add to the water. Thats great, but you are STILL ADDING ENERGY. And, since your combustion is JUST THE REVERSE OF THIS PROCESS, you will not get back more energy than you put in. Thus, you still need an external energy source in order to accomplish this process."

i think i understand what you are trying to say.



statement:

adding energy to create hyrdrogen from water must be the same or less then the energy generated by combusting that hydrogen?

is this what you are saying? i need to be clear on this before we proceed?



[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ?]

10/1/2005 10:18:26 AM

He is saying the following, please excuse the copious amounts of corrections needed:


adding[The] energy [added] to create hyrdrogen [hydrogen] from water must be the same or less [more] then [than] the energy generated by combusting that hydrogen?

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2005 10:43:09 AM

you can take a one of those Toyota Prius's and take out the spare tire and put in about 10 battery units and the car runs like a normal car and gets about 200 miles a gallon. Someone told me you can do this for 500 bucks.

10/1/2005 2:22:36 PM

but then you're SOL if you get a flat tire

10/1/2005 2:28:34 PM

hahahahaha. its funny that you tried to posit to me the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I was saying, Josh... Please, do us all a favor and take a class in thermo-dynamics before you "graduate." Hell, retake CH101. You need to get these basics down before you graduate and fuck something up in the real world.

10/1/2005 2:33:59 PM

Quote :

"add the anti-gel diesel fuel additive they sell at wal-mart."

I was thinking more along the lines of a heater inside the vegetable oil tank or an inline heater, but i'll give that a try.

10/1/2005 4:06:17 PM

Quote :

"The first law of thermodynamics requires that you cannot get more energy out of your machine than you put in."

FALSO

1st law of thermo:

delta(U)=Q+W
W is defined as the work done on the system instead of work done by the system
or "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed"

you CAN get more energy out of a system then how much you put in. what if...
oh i dont know... the system has shit load of energy and you add one joul. youre saying i can only get one joul from the system...why? ....why? thats insane. it makes no sense. I only need to chew an apple but i get shit loads of energy once digested.

Quote :

"thats great. but thats not a "water powered car" as you said in one of your firsts posts"

Show me where i said that? Oh wait, you cant. Regardless, hydrogen is a valid source of energy that can be used to power cars and can be probably easily be extracted from water.

Quote :

"THATS WHY BURNING HYDROGEN CREATES ENERGY!!! "

Who says we are burning hydrogen?



You dont burn hydrogen in water powered fuel cells.

Quote :

"H2 + O2 --> H2O + energy2"

FALSO

Sometimes. Depends what temperature you are at. It depends what pressure you are at. It depends. It depends. It depends.


Lets examine a biological catalyst;
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/26938a.pdf

Quote :

"Since we examined the characteristics of a bioreactor system for stage 1 last year, this year we studied the activity of hydrogen production in the isolates of Arthrospira. It was found that the cells produce hydrogen under anaerobic (100% nitrogen) and dark conditions. This suggests that the hydrogen production is due to reversible hydrogenase. The activity of hydrogen production was ca. 1 mmole hydrogen/12 hr/mg dry weight. "

I win.


[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 6:11 PM. Reason : -]

10/1/2005 6:10:04 PM

Quote :

"the system has shit load of energy and you add one joul."

guess what that is? Q, YOU DUMB FUCK! jeez.

Quote :

"I only need to chew an apple but i get shit loads of energy once digested."

Yeah, CAUSE THE APPLE HAD THE SHIT LOADS OF ENERGY IN IT! chewing it only helped you get it to your stomach.

Quote :

"Show me where i said that?"

First page, dumbass.

Quote :

"water powered cars are the best bet for the future."

Quote :

"You dont burn hydrogen in water powered fuel cells."

yeah, its also not a "water-powered" fuel cell either. look at what is coming out in the picture... WATER AND HEAT...

Quote :

"FALSO Sometimes. Depends what temperature you are at. It depends what pressure you are at. It depends. It depends. It depends. "

WRONGO. ITS ALWAYS TRUE-O. If you are at different termperatures, all you are doing is changing the starting temperature of the water and the final temperature of the hydrogen and oxygen. Seriously, you haven't even BEGUN to adress the picture that I posted above concerning catalysts. instead, you've just decided to go ahead and say that thermo-dynamics AND THE SUBJECT WHICH IS YOUR MAJOR is wrong. If you want to even begin to try and say that the equation is false, then you've got to come up with a source that shows otherwise. otherwise, we'll just stick with the equation that thermo-dynamics and chemistry and CH101 give us.

btw, yer biological catalyst has shown nothing. If the hydrogen was appearing FROM WATER with NO EFFORT EXPENDED BY THE ORGANISM, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately, thats not what that brief says. All that says is "hydrogen can be extracted from water..." well, no shit, sherlock!

10/1/2005 10:41:48 PM

Quote :

""Energy can neither be created nor destroyed""

This is our point, Josh-o. Your system did work pushing the car down the road. That work was generated by a fuel cell which turned the potential energy of the 2H + O into H2O and kinetic energy (heat) and electricity, which then drove the motor.

Now, after this process completes, the potential energy held in the hydrogen (now in the form of H2O) has been reduced. Josh, how are you supposing we restore the potential energy to the hydrogen?

As even you said, energy cannot be created. As such, the potential energy of the hydrogen in our closed system cannot increase without drawing down either potential or kinetic energy from elsewhere.

At this point, we have thorougly explained this simple concept to you, Joshy. If you are a chemist, do seek out advice from your academic peers or faculty. I simply cannot fathom a chemist suffering from such misunderstanding.

10/2/2005 1:20:57 AM

Quote :

"If you are at different termperatures, all you are doing is changing the starting temperature of the water and the final temperature of the hydrogen and oxygen."

nope.

water will spontaneous turn into hydrogen and oxygen in the right conditions. high temps is one.


^look;

2H + O (from atmosphere) -> H2O

H2O-> 2H + O

this isnt a closed system. the oxygen in the second system isnt used to create water. the oxygen from the atmosphere. your entire argument isnt valid becuase the 1st law explicity states it applies to CLOSED systems. yours is not.


[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 4:24 PM. Reason : -]

10/2/2005 4:22:18 PM

Anyway, you call all give up with retarded 'its not possible shit'

Its already been done.

Quote :

"The proprietary generator takes about six minutes to begin producing hydrogen from water, to run the alternator. It takes about three minutes to stop running. The battery they anticipates using can run the car for about 6-7 minutes before requiring charge. "This is more than ample time for [the hydrogen generator] to be up and going", said Froats. According to their press release issued yesterday, they anticipate that "the project can provide an alternative to large electric vehicle battery systems and thereby eliminate the need to recharge via electricity produced from the burning of fossil fuels." Downtime attributed to recharging goes away. ."

http://pesn.com/2004/06/10/HydrogenElectricCar/

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=5858

Quote :

"With the exception of our hydrogen generation system, all of the technology involved in making this automobile a reality is already proven. As we know from our research and development findings, our on board hydrogen generation system can economically produce the required hydrogen. As well, by producing electricity while underway, the range of the vehicle can be greatly enhanced which overcomes the limited range problem associated with existing electric vehicles. That, coupled with an affordable, non-polluting, electrically powered automobile, can assist in reducing automobile emissions. It is the Company's intention to have a demonstration vehicle this year." said Blaine Froats, Chairman of Alternate Energy."

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 5:02 PM. Reason : =]

10/2/2005 4:51:52 PM

http://www.cleanwatts.com/technology/default.asp

also have produced electricity from hydrogen extracted from water.

go tell them its impossible

Quote :

"AEC further validated our proprietary process when its hydrogen successfully powered the Astris' 1kw golf cart on September 16th, 2003 using hydrogen derived from water with no other energy input."

this technology has been around for 2 years.

plenty of videos, patents and press releases.


[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 5:03 PM. Reason : -]

10/2/2005 4:59:16 PM

it wouldnt produce enough energy to run a flashlight, but it could be the simplest free-energy machine ever...

10/2/2005 5:29:20 PM

^we've already got those

10/2/2005 5:40:35 PM

what are they called?

10/2/2005 5:44:54 PM

My car runs on broken dreams

it's almost emission-free, you guys should look into it

10/2/2005 5:59:47 PM

Josh, you posted incorrect equations. You left out energy! Plus, your accusation that it isn't a "closed system" is rediculous. When we produce hydrogen from water we get oxygen, just bottle that up and keep it around so it can react with the hydrogen, a closed system!

That said, you are obviously a joker, laughing your ass off while we sit here and try to disprove the impossible.

If you are right, Joshy, I guess we can give up on physics and the like. Power our entire planet off a single bucket of water which we very quickly run through your machine again and again.

You must be joking, because an honest chemist doesn't believe in perpetual motion machines, which is what you are proposing here. So, you've had your fun, now please admit you were kidding so I can start laughing along with you instead of crying at the rampant ignorance infecting my species.

10/2/2005 7:34:04 PM

perpetual motion has never been disproven, just ignored because it isnt seen in our VERY LIMITED laws of physics

10/2/2005 7:40:50 PM

On another note, and please forgive me if this was mentioned before,

BioDiesel is proving to be a very effective and feasible alternative power for vehicles,

NCSU is already using it to power wolfline buses

and you can already purchase it at a few local gas stations

http://www.biodiesel.org/

10/2/2005 7:51:36 PM

i wont be impressed until they make a car run on other bio liquids

piss into the tank

10/2/2005 7:56:29 PM

NADA, IM BUYING A COMMANDER 7 , 5.7L HEMI WHEN I GRADUATE

10/2/2005 8:39:01 PM

Quote :

"You must be joking, because an honest chemist doesn't believe in perpetual motion machines"

you are consuming water in the process. you are consuming hydrogen. the water isnt recycled. the hydrogen isnt recycled. its not perpetual becuase youre inputing a fuel; ouputing energy.

thats why its not a perpetual motion device.

but i guess its time you join salsburybot, because there are dozens of press releases, demos, videos, patents and prototypes; so im sure its all a big conspiracy and not just that you dont understand physical chemistry.


[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 9:19 PM. Reason : - ]

10/2/2005 9:09:40 PM

10/2/2005 9:13:32 PM

Quote :

"your accusation that it isn't a "closed system" is rediculous. When we produce hydrogen from water we get oxygen, just bottle that up and keep it around so it can react with the hydrogen, a closed system!"

well...i mean...the way you think it should work isnt the way it does work. they expend the water. you must refuel the car.

Quote :

""What comes out the tail pipe is a mist of water," said Blaine Froats,"

the water for starters is a vapor.
you arent recycling the water. ones a liquid, ones a vapor.

its NOT a closed system. again; oxygen from the atmosphere is used, and water vapor is expelled.


you do know there is a difference between water liquid and water vapor?

water is a primary fuel, hydrogen is the secondary fuel, vapor is the emmision. OK???? there is no free energy. its not perpertual.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 9:30 PM. Reason : -]

10/2/2005 9:27:54 PM

Holly shit! Now I know you're joking !!!!!

Quote :

"you do know there is a difference between water liquid and water vapor?"

Yes, a few measily degrees, that's what the cars radiator is for! All you have to do to regain the water is cool down the steam!

Are you telling me that you honestly believed your design was not a perpetual motion machine because you couldn't fathom putting a condenser on the vehicle?

Quote :

"water is a primary fuel, hydrogen is the secondary fuel, vapor is the emmision. OK???? there is no free energy. its not perpertual."

In other words, water is the primary fuel AND the waste product. Do you not see the contradiction here? You are not destroying anything that you do not later put back together.

10/2/2005 10:15:59 PM

and that vapor emmision contains water from the atmosphere. its not the same water you poured in.

10/2/2005 10:16:04 PM

Now what are you smoking? Where did water from the atmosphere come in? Did it rain while I was away?

What you system seems to be implying:
Inputs:
1000 mols of water in the tank
1000 mols of oxygen from the atmosphere
A preheated separator

Outputs
1000 mols of water, only now a vapor and expelled out the tail pipe for no good reason
1000 mols of oxygen released into the atmosphere for no good reason
A still heated separator (magic)
kinetic energy in the form of heat (friction, steam, etc)
electricity used to drive the car down the hill

This equation seems VERY one sided. You are creating energy from nothing! In the end, you have everything you started with AND MORE! You did not destroy mass (e=mc2), you did not increase entropy (H2O is a highly stable molecule, which is what you started with!) In fact, you created order out of nothing in the form of heat and electricity.

10/2/2005 10:32:52 PM

Im sorry you dont understand how it works. Since the technology has already been demo'ed, I dont feel the need to continue to educate you.

10/3/2005 8:03:35 AM

Have you never heard of a con-man?

You are too trusting Joshy. Give me enough time and I'll show you a car that runs on NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. The tank of hydrogen was secretly hiden under the back seat or the separator was nothing more than a chemical battery, he just told you otherwise.

I guarantee the vehicle as you have described it does not work because if it did it would be a perpetual motion machine, or worse.

The only way, in this universe, to get a net energy flow out of water is through fussion thanks to e-mc2.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 8:43 AM. Reason : .]

10/3/2005 8:40:02 AM

its not perpetual motions. its called energy from fuel. anyway fine whater, its all a big conspiracy.


its not perpetual becuase you must continue to replace the expent liquid water, and the metal catalyst eventually wears out also.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 9:08 AM. Reason : -]

10/3/2005 8:44:49 AM

i cant figure out what point loneshark is arguing anymore

10/3/2005 8:59:53 AM

That Josh8315 is precluded from existance because of the first law of thermodynamics.

10/3/2005 11:11:50 AM

when are we going to learn how to exploit human souls as a viable power source?

10/3/2005 11:17:41 AM

^ they wouldnt power a flashlight either

10/3/2005 2:20:55 PM

Quote :

"By providing energy from a battery, water (H2O) can be dissociated into the diatomic molecules of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). This process is a good example of the the application of the four thermodynamic potentials. The electrolysis of one mole of water produces a mole of hydrogen gas and a half-mole of oxygen gas in their normal diatomic forms. A detailed analysis of the process makes use of the thermodyamic potentials and the first law of thermodynamics. This process is presumed to be at 298K and one atmosphere pressure, and the relevant values are taken from a table of thermodynamic properties. 0.5 O2 Change Enthalpy -285.83 kJ 0 0 ?H = 285.83 kJ Entropy 69.91 J/K 130.68 J/K 0.5 x 205.14 J/K T?S = 48.7 kJ The process must provide the energy for the dissociation plus the energy to expand the produced gases. Both of those are included in the change in enthalpy included in the table above. At temperature 298K and one atmosphere pressure, the system work is W = P?V = (101.3 x 103 Pa)(1.5 moles)(22.4 x 10-3 m3/mol)(298K/273K) = 3715 J Since the enthalpy H= U+PV, the change in internal energy U is then ?U = ?H - P?V = 285.83 kJ - 3.72 kJ = 282.1 kJ This change in internal energy must be accompanied by the expansion of the gases produced, so the change in enthalpy represents the necessary energy to accomplish the electrolysis. However, it is not necessary to put in this whole amount in the form of electrical energy. Since the entropy increases in the process of dissociation, the amount T?S can be provided from the environment at temperature T. The amount which must be supplied by the battery is actually the change in the Gibbs free energy: ?G = ?H - T?S = 285.83 kJ - 48.7 kJ = 237.1 kJ Since the electrolysis process results in an increase in entropy, the environment "helps" the process by contributing the amount T?S. The utility of the Gibbs free energy is that it tells you what amount of energy in other forms must be supplied to get the process to proceed. Reverse process: Hydrogen fuel cell Index Internal energy concepts Electrochemistry concepts Reference Schroeder Ch 5 HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave Go Back Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hydrogen and oxygen can be combined in a fuel cell to produce electrical energy. A fuel cell uses a chemical reaction to provide an external voltage, as does a battery, but differs from a battery in that the fuel is continually supplied in the form of hydrogen and oxygen gas. It can produce electrical energy at a higher efficiency than just burning the hydrogen to produce heat to drive a generator because it is not subject to the thermal bottleneck from the second law of thermodynamics. It's only product is water, so it is pollution-free. All these features have led to periodic great excitement about its potential, but we are still in the process of developing that potential as a pollution-free, efficient energy source (see Kartha and Grimes). Combining a mole of hydrogen gas and a half-mole of oxygen gas from their normal diatomic forms produces a mole of water. A detailed analysis of the process makes use of the thermodynamic potentials. This process is presumed to be at 298K and one atmosphere pressure, and the relevant values are taken from a table of thermodynamic properties. Quantity H2 0.5 O2 H2O Change Enthalpy 0 0 -285.83 kJ ?H = -285.83 kJ Entropy 130.68 J/K 0.5 x 205.14 J/K 69.91 J/K T?S = -48.7 kJ Energy is provided by the combining of the atoms and from the decrease of the volume of the gases. Both of those are included in the change in enthalpy included in the table above. At temperature 298K and one atmosphere pressure, the system work is W = P?V = (101.3 x 103 Pa)(1.5 moles)(-22.4 x 10-3 m3/mol)(298K/273K) = -3715 J Since the enthalpy H= U+PV, the change in internal energy U is then ?U = ?H - P?V = -285.83 kJ - 3.72 kJ = -282.1 kJ The entropy of the gases decreases by 48.7 kJ in the process of combination since the number of water molecules is less than the number of hydrogen and oxygen molecules combining. Since the total entropy will not decrease in the reaction, the excess entropy in the amount T?S must be expelled to the environment as heat at temperature T. The amount of energy per mole of hydrogen which can be provided as electrical energy is the change in the Gibbs free energy: ?G = ?H - T?S = -285.83 kJ + 48.7 kJ = -237.1 kJ For this ideal case, the fuel energy is converted to electrical energy at an efficiency of 237.1/285.8 x100% = 83%! This is far greater than the ideal efficiency of a generating facility which burned the hydrogen and used the heat to power a generator! Although real fuel cells do not approach that ideal efficiency, they are still much more efficient than any electric power plant which burns a fuel. Comparison of electrolysis and the fuel cell process In comparing the fuel cell process to its reverse reaction, electrolysis of water, it is useful treat the enthalpy change as the overall energy change. The Gibbs free energy is that which you actually have to supply if you want to drive a reaction, or the amount that you can actually get out if the reaction is working for you. So in the electrolysis/fuel cell pair where the enthalpy change is 285.8 kJ, you have to put in 237 kJ of energy to drive electrolysis and the heat from the environment will contribute T?S=48.7 kJ to help you. Going the other way in the fuel cell, you can get out the 237 kJ as electric energy, but have to dump T?S = 48.7 kJ to the environment. "

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html



thats the nail in the coffin. ok, hyperphysics is the largest and most respected physics site on the net. they agree you can expend hydrogen to get energy, and there are dozens of peer reviewed studies showing you can get extract hydrogen from water with little to no energy as long as you have the right catalyst. or you can do it electrochemically. anyways, i dont know you keep saying water is the by product and you could just recycle it, ive said this a million times, water vapor is formed. you cant recycle that without doing work on the vapor to get it back to being a liquid.


its. over.


[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 8:42 PM. Reason : -]

10/3/2005 8:13:23 PM

Idiot. Did you read your own post? Even if I accept it as completely true, it sides with me:

Quote :

"So in the electrolysis/fuel cell pair where the enthalpy change is 285.8 kJ, you have to put in 237 kJ of energy to drive electrolysis and the heat from the environment will contribute T?S=48.7 kJ to help you. Going the other way in the fuel cell, you can get out the 237 kJ as electric energy, but have to dump T?S = 48.7 kJ to the environment. ""

To produce the hydrogen, you put in 237 kJ of energy. Going the otherway around, you got out 237 kJ as electric energy. Yes, this would mean the system is 100% efficient, so be it. But it is NOT producing a net flow of energy. You only get OUT what you put IN, or 237 kJ of energy.

Now, this still sounds fishy, a machine which is capable of 100% efficiency is fanciful. But it is much better than trying to tell us you have a machine which is capable of 300% efficiency.

10/4/2005 10:14:44 AM

10/4/2005 4:25:35 PM

What we really need is a car with an engine that produces more energy than it consumes

why hasn't anybody thought of this yet?

10/4/2005 5:24:03 PM

^ If you believe me, Josh8315 has.

10/4/2005 5:46:49 PM