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."

There is no reason to address any of your points because you show such ignorance in basic areas of science.

In science, words arent soley defined by the dictionary. Words and phrases have accpeted meanings and additional definitions in the social realm that is academia and science. Ideas, concepts and words have specific meanings inside certain fields that arent fully expounded upon by dictionaries. A dictionary could never cover all the ways scientists use words to represent current concepts.

Scientists know this, and now, you do.

Quote :

" 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"."

the "tiny" amount maker was meant illustrait how you were claiming only small amounts of energy could be harnessed from sunlight, as I labelled the energy of combustion of glucose to show how that this is not a correct way of thinking now that we know planst make huge amounts of energy that plants create from the use of gluocse. yes, i realize that was very misleading.



[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 3:46 AM. Reason : u654]

5/26/2006 3:38:43 AM

i knew you'd back into the "fuck the dictionary" excuse. that's why I chose the definition GIVEN BY CHEMISTRY. dipshit. if that's not the "academic" definition, then please provide one.

Quote :

"now that we know planst make huge amounts of energy that plants create from the use of gluocse"

PLANTS AREN'T "MAKING" ENERGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE CONVERTING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND, THEY ARE CONVERTING IT VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY POORLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5/26/2006 3:46:12 AM

Quote :

"In science, words arent soley defined by the dictionary. Words and phrases have accpeted meanings and additional definitions in the social realm that is academia and science. Ideas, concepts and words have specific meanings inside certain fields that arent fully expounded upon by dictionaries. A dictionary could never cover all the ways scientists use words to represent current concepts."

Check your local text book, proffesors, reasearch articles and experts for the full understanding of what a catalyst is. Its not my job to educate you.

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 3:48 AM. Reason : 523bh]

5/26/2006 3:47:34 AM

Quote :

"if that's not the "academic" definition, then please provide one."

5/26/2006 3:48:32 AM

Its not my job to educate you.



[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 3:52 AM. Reason : plants make sources of energy, of course they do not make it out of nothing.]

5/26/2006 3:49:25 AM

well, if you are going to spout bullshit and claim it's fact, then you sure as hell have to have something to back up your bullshit. I'll take that as a tacit admission of defeat, though. I know it's difficult to defend the beliefs of a field that you know nothing about after however many years of studying it.

btw, if your "reaction" of water and CO2 and chlorophyll really works as you describe it, does that mean I can just take a cup of water and some CO2 and some chlorophyll and stick it in a closet and turn off the light and have have some glucose the next day?

What happens if I stick a plant in that darkened closet? By your bullshit, I'd expect it to be alive in three weeks, cause it's "making energy."

but seriously, please forgive me for taking a definition posited by chemistry as the proper definition of a term and using that definition in a discussion of chemistry. How stupid of me. You are absolutely correct that I just can't depend on academia to provide definitions of things that explain how academia uses a term. or you could just be backpedalling.

5/26/2006 4:00:11 AM

Quote :

"What happens if I stick a plant in that darkened closet? By your bullshit, I'd expect it to be alive in three weeks, cause it's "making energy.""

some would live for months, they would just slow their metabolic rate.

Quote :

" btw, if your "reaction" of water and CO2 and chlorophyll really works as you describe it, does that mean I can just take a cup of water and some CO2 and some chlorophyll and stick it in a closet and turn off the light and have have some glucose the next day? "

photocatalysts require radiation

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 4:14 AM. Reason : 523]

5/26/2006 4:08:34 AM

Quote :

"the "tiny" amount maker was meant illustrait how you were claiming only small amounts of energy could be harnessed from sunlight, as I labelled the energy of combustion of glucose to show how that this is not a correct way of thinking now that we know planst make huge amounts of energy that plants create from the use of gluocse. yes, i realize that was very misleading."

Misleading? You specifically said "you get more energy from the second reaction" which can only be interpretted one way, to mean that plants are getting more energy from glucose than sunlight was absorbed to make it. Meanwhile, at 2% energy efficiency, for every 100J of sunlight absorbed the plant only managed to wrangle 2J of energy out of the glucose.

Your statements were wrong, either by accident or on purpose, they were not mis-interpretted.

5/26/2006 12:04:18 PM

Quote :

"some would live for months, they would just slow their metabolic rate."

in other words, it would die. doesn't sound like an "energy maker" to me...

Quote :

"photocatalysts require radiation"

you mean like SUNLIGHT? so in other words, sunlight is NOT a catalyst. got it

5/26/2006 2:25:13 PM

radiation is considered a catalyst.... in synthetic chemistry, for example

5/26/2006 5:20:09 PM

haven't read your response yet. I'm just posting this before I bust out laughing

5/26/2006 5:24:46 PM

OK. so, is hydrogen combustion an example of "synthetic chemistry?"

AND, can sunlight be the "catalyst" for a reaction involving sunlight?

5/26/2006 5:25:55 PM

Quote :

"the "tiny" amount maker was meant illustrait how you were claiming only small amounts of energy could be harnessed from sunlight, as I labelled the energy of combustion of glucose to show how that this is not a correct way of thinking now that we know planst make huge amounts of energy that plants create from the use of gluocse. yes, i realize that was very misleading."

Misleading? You specifically said "you get more energy from the second reaction" which can only be interpretted one way, to mean that plants are getting more energy from glucose than sunlight was absorbed to make it. Meanwhile, at 2% energy efficiency, for every 100J of sunlight absorbed the plant only managed to wrangle 2J of energy out of the glucose.

Your statements were wrong, either by accident or on purpose, they were not mis-interpretted.

5/26/2006 6:06:07 PM

Quote :

"OK. so, is hydrogen combustion an example of "synthetic chemistry?""

not really, no. synthetic chem is just a popular field where radiation is used as a catalyst, not the only one. notice how i said "example"

Quote :

"can sunlight be the "catalyst" for a reaction involving sunlight?"

yes radiation can be a catalyst

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=reactions+catalyzed+by+radiation&btnG=Google+Search
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=light+catalyzed+reactions&btnG=Search

dozens of examples here.

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 6:15 PM. Reason : 523]

5/26/2006 6:09:17 PM

Quote :

"not really, no. "

then what is the relevance? if it doesn't apply to what we're talking about, then you are just being elusive.

Quote :

"yes radiation can be a catalyst"

NOT WHAT I ASKED. i asked if SUNLIGHT is a catalyst for a reaction INVOLVING SUNLIGHT

5/26/2006 8:07:56 PM

i already answered that question

Quote :

"if it doesn't apply to what we're talking about, then you are just being elusive."

it does apply. thats why i stated it.

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 8:40 PM. Reason : 5]

5/26/2006 8:39:58 PM

Quote :

"i already answered that question"

unfortunately you didn't. All sunlight is radiation but not all radiation is sunlight. Plus, my question was specific to reactions that involve sunlight.

Quote :

"it does apply. thats why i stated it."

so, synthetic chemistry applies to things that aren't related to synthetic chemistry. got it!

5/26/2006 9:19:30 PM

uh. okay.

i have no clue what you are talking about.

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 9:26 PM. Reason : 523]

5/26/2006 9:26:16 PM

at least you finally admit it.

5/26/2006 9:33:34 PM

nobody else knows what the hell youre talking about either, champ.

Quote :

"can sunlight be the "catalyst" for a reaction involving sunlight?"

if you cant figure this one out or yourself, youve got a problem.

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 9:50 PM. Reason : 5]

5/26/2006 9:48:40 PM

Quote :

"radiation is considered a catalyst.... in synthetic chemistry, for example"

Wow, another statement that is just simply wrong. In order for a catalyst to be a catalyst it must not be destroyed in the process of reaction. A stream of radiation cannot help but be destroyed in any reaction that involves it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst

And again, Josh has not addressed our concerns. As he now freely admits that plants cannot extract more energy out of glucose than was consumed in the production of that glucose, will he now also conceed that any automobile cannot extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen?

(transformation would be taking natural gas and turning it into hydrogen, a process that claims an energy conversion efficiency of 70%)

5/26/2006 11:10:52 PM

damn you, Lonesnark. I was waiting for JoshIdiot to try and tell me that since sunlight was a reactant that it was a catalyst

5/27/2006 1:18:14 AM

Quote :

"Wow, another statement that is just simply wrong. In order for a catalyst to be a catalyst it must not be destroyed in the process of reaction. A stream of radiation cannot help but be destroyed in any reaction that involves it."

Oh yea....wiki really has a reputation for being factual. I shudder to think
any would actually use information from them in a debate.



I thought you said a catalyst lowers the activation energy?
Oh wait no ... you said it just speeds up a reaction?

The one you posted is ONE of many definitions.

Oh thats right.... there are many definitions of a catalyst.
This is fairly remedial knowlege.




The fact that you are also dont understand how that word is used in chemistry
indicates that you dont have a firm grasp on the basics.

Quote :

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

Im still waiting for you to revolutionize chemistry as we know it with this amazing thesis.

[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 8:48 AM. Reason : 423]

5/27/2006 8:37:49 AM

Josh, you are one smug bastard, which sucks because you are also a complete idiot. If you lower the activation energy of a reaction then holding all else equal it will react faster! Those two statements are different ways of saying the same thing.

Look, it isn't hard. Just go into google and find us a credible academic definition that allows for the catalyst to be destroyed in the reaction. Instead of just proclaiming our links wrong why not provide some of your own? Go ahead, do the search. I have, and every single one says the catalyst must remain unchanged by the reaction. Otherwise it would be called a reactant, not a catalyst.

And again, Josh has not addressed our concerns. As he now freely admits that plants cannot extract more energy out of glucose than was consumed in the production of that glucose, will he now also conceed that any automobile cannot extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen?

[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 9:15 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/27/2006 9:10:54 AM

Quote :

"Look, it isn't hard. Just go into google and find us a credible academic definition that allows for the catalyst to be destroyed in the reaction."

Quote :

"Although the catalyst (C) is consumed by reaction 1, it is subsequently produced by reaction 2, so for the overall reaction:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst
id never use wiki, but since you wanted ANY source. there you have it.


There you have it, the catalyst is destoryed. It is then, regenerated.


many organic reactions will consume, abosrb radiation, then re-radiated that energy.

[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 10:14 AM. Reason : 523]

5/27/2006 10:05:39 AM

While the reaction may be advanced by radiation I highly doubt that it will then re-radiate the energy in the same form or at the same energy.

Thus the radiation is changed leaving us to consider it a reactant.

5/27/2006 10:43:40 AM

So, Josh, you are arguing that the light absorbed by the plants is later re-emitted like a Homogeneous catalyst? Last I checked, while a plant is consuming glucose it isn't emitting radiation in equal parts to what it absorbed.

And again, Josh has not addressed our concerns. As he now freely admits that plants cannot extract more energy out of glucose than was consumed in the production of that glucose, will he now also conceed that any automobile cannot extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen?

[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/27/2006 10:45:56 AM

It depends on the reaction.

5/27/2006 10:46:55 AM

So, Josh, you are arguing that the light absorbed by the plants is later re-emitted like a Homogeneous catalyst? Last I checked, while a plant is consuming glucose it isn't emitting radiation in equal parts to what it absorbed.

Fine, Josh, give me a reaction that will allow an automobile to extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen? In other words, describe a system that attains an energy conversion efficiency greater than 100%.

5/27/2006 10:51:35 AM

Quote :

"So, Josh, you are arguing that the light absorbed by the plants is later re-emitted like a Homogeneous catalyst?"

Where did I say that?

5/27/2006 12:33:24 PM

Quote :

"There you have it, the catalyst is destoryed. It is then, regenerated."

holy fucking shit, you are a moron! LOOK AT THE FUCKING TOP OF THE GOD DAMNED PAGE WHERE IT DEFINES A CATALYST!!!

Quote :

"Although the catalyst (C) is consumed by reaction 1, it is subsequently produced by reaction 2, so for the overall reaction:"

that's what fucking matters. it's a catalyst FOR THE OVERALL REACTION, dipshit. jesus christ! I am officially going to print out this thread and give it to the Chemistry department. You need to understand the FUCKING BASICS of your degree

5/27/2006 6:51:48 PM

Quote :

"FOR THE OVERALL REACTION,"

first time youve used that lauguage....before, you said, 'reaction', not 'overall reaction'

5/27/2006 7:15:12 PM

give me a fucking break, man. you are really reaching, and you fucking know it. YOU are the one who brought up the ridiculous notion of the Homogeneous catalyst reaction and then tried to apply that to a fucking hydrogen combustion reaction.

admit it, you've fucking lost. pick up your balls and go the fuck home!

5/27/2006 11:25:11 PM

The experts agree with me, photocataysts can extract hydrogen from water

5/28/2006 7:52:06 AM

Quote :

"Water is in the lowest energy state possible (chemically speaking, thermal energy is a different matter), and so you cannot make it go to a lower energy state. Therefore you cannot extract any further energy from water. "

Funny.... and sad.

Quote :

"Well, in H2O, the atoms are bonded such that their bond energy is negative. Yes, it is possible to have negative energy"

Very funny because you speak as thought you didnt know all chemical bond have negative potentials.

Quote :

"There is no more potential energy left in water by itself. "

Van der walls forcees are covered in CH101. Laugh.

Quote :

"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."

Into to biology, welcome to photosynthesis.

Quote :

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

True. Its ALWAYS an issue.

Quote :

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

no comment.

Quote :

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

Made up stuff is always funny.

Quote :

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

You too must meet Mr Van der Walls



Its like half the things you say in your arguments are based on science you made up.



[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 9:26 AM. Reason : 0 ]

5/28/2006 9:23:25 AM

Quote :

"The experts agree with me, photocataysts can extract hydrogen from water"

And the experts agree with me: it's not viable.

Quote :

"Into to biology, welcome to photosynthesis. "

Into to logic. I said "HUMANS."

Quote :

"Made up stuff is always funny. "

it's even funnier when it's not made up and it's the degree you are getting that you don't understand.

Quote :

"Its like half the things you say in your arguments are based on science you made up. "

It's like everything in your argument runs contrary to the science in the degree you are attempting to obtain.

5/28/2006 7:05:11 PM

Quote :

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

Well if you are annihilating the water then the phase it starts in is insignificant

5/28/2006 7:11:29 PM

Quote :

"Water is in the lowest energy state possible (chemically speaking, thermal energy is a different matter), and so you cannot make it go to a lower energy state. Therefore you cannot extract any further energy from water. Funny.... and sad."

How is the truth funny and sad?

Quote :

"Well, in H2O, the atoms are bonded such that their bond energy is negative. Yes, it is possible to have negative energy Very funny because you speak as thought you didnt know all chemical bond have negative potentials."

The only one in this thread who appears to have not known that chemical bonds have negative potential is you.

Quote :

"There is no more potential energy left in water by itself. Van der walls forcees are covered in CH101. Laugh."

Fine, there's no more positive potential energy. But don't pretend like you didn't know what I was talking about.

Oh wait.

Quote :

"Most of the time in chemistry, the phase of your product isn't the issue. True. Its ALWAYS an issue. "

I see what you did there. And no, really, most of the time phase isn't the issue. The thing that matters 99 times out of 100 in a chemical equation is the chemical formula of all the reactants and products involved. Whether H2 and O2 gas make H2O gas or H2O liquid, H2O is still being produced. If you were arguing from the perspective of thermodynamics and what all of the energy involved goes into doing, then you'd have a case for the importance of the phase of water.

Quote :

"the energy required for liquid-->gas transformation is called the heat of fusion no comment."

I could've sworn you already "called me out" for that one and that we already had this discussion.

aaronburro is correct, you're trying your damnedest to reach for anything you can cling to. You aren't so much tearing anybody's arguments apart as you are nitpicking conventions and semantics. That isn't an argument, that's a show of how desperate you are to keep up the illusion that you know what you're talking about. Everyone here has continuously corrected you and explained to you why you are in the wrong, and yet you still cling to this notion that you somehow know more than the rest of us. I find it curious as to how you've made it as far in your degree as you have when you consistently bungle the very basics of what you should know.

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 7:41 PM. Reason : blah]

5/28/2006 7:38:21 PM

Quote :

"How is the truth funny and sad?"

ahahahahaha. well....looks like your still dont know.

Quote :

"Water is in the lowest energy state possible (chemically speaking, thermal energy is a different matter)"

why dont you explain further on this statement? i could use another good laugh.

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 7:54 PM. Reason : 5423]

5/28/2006 7:52:12 PM

Fine, Josh, give me a reaction that will allow an automobile to extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen? In other words, describe a system that attains an energy conversion efficiency greater than 100%.

5/28/2006 8:32:14 PM

that's like asking salisburyboy to post a rational thought

5/28/2006 8:44:21 PM

^^why?

^where is that explanatoion?

5/28/2006 9:17:40 PM

Quote :

"ahahahahaha. well....looks like your still dont know."

Then how about you giving me the correct explanation, seeing as you think that you know what it is.

Quote :

"why dont you explain further on this statement? i could use another good laugh."

What the hell is there to explain? IT'S FREAKING WATER! WATER CANNOT EXIST IN ANY OTHER CHEMICAL STATE! NAME FOR ME ANOTHER ATOMIC ARRANGEMENT FOR H2O THAT ISN'T THERMODYNAMICALLY UNSTABLE! AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT IT CAN EXIST AS ICE, STEAM OR LIQUID, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PHYSICAL STATE OF WATER, NOT THE CHEMICAL STATE. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ARE ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT IN THIS ARGUMENT!

5/28/2006 9:42:06 PM

Quote :

"Yes there is. But chemically speaking, plain ordinary water is at the lowest possible energy state it can attain. In fact, for the water molecule to occupy any other state will necessarily place it into a higher energy state, but the only way for this to occur is to add energy into the water molecule. The reason gasoline has such a high energy content is because it's in a very high energy state, ie it's in an energy state that is greater than the lowest energy state it can occupy. Below the lowest energy state that is possible, there is simply no usable energy for you to use. You can't just say "well there's a bond between these two hydrogen atoms and this oxygen atom, therefore I have energy I can use." No! Water is in the lowest energy state possible (chemically speaking, thermal energy is a different matter), and so you cannot make it go to a lower energy state. Therefore you cannot extract any further energy from water."

Heres that whole speil for completeness. But yea, your ramblings were as good as I thought they would be.

Heres your answer....get ready for it.....



Chemicaly speaking, liquid water is less stable then the H2 and 02 gasses. The diatomic gasses are the most stable forms of their respective elements, much more stable then when they exist as water.



Also, heres some new information for you. When extracting energy from gas, which has lot of energy, you change its chemical composition and rearragne its chemical bonds. Just in case, you didnt know.

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 10:47 PM. Reason : pj]

5/28/2006 10:22:06 PM

Quote :

"Chemicaly speaking, liquid water is less stable then the H2 and 02 gasses."

Has the definition of "stable" been changed? Last I checked we don't need any warning labels on our water tanks, but our hydrogen tanks must be properly stored and labeled. Water is not combustable, H2 + O2 is.

LoneSnark:
And again, Josh has not addressed our concerns. As he now freely admits that plants cannot extract more energy out of glucose than was consumed in the production of that glucose, will he now also conceed that any automobile cannot extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen?

Josh:
It depends on the reaction.

LoneSnark:
Fine, Josh, give me a reaction that will allow an automobile to extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen? In other words, describe a system that attains an energy conversion efficiency greater than 100%.

Josh:
Why?

Because you said it depends on the reaction, thus you implied that you could. Is it too much to ask you to do something you said you could do?

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 11:18 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/28/2006 11:14:34 PM

Quote :

"So, Josh, you are arguing that the light absorbed by the plants is later re-emitted like a Homogeneous catalyst? Last I checked, while a plant is consuming glucose it isn't emitting radiation in equal parts to what it absorbed."

I was responding to this question.

And stability is not the same thing as flamability, thermo stability has to do with overall energy content.



[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 11:22 PM. Reason : u764]

5/28/2006 11:21:37 PM

Either way, the stability of the input, water, and the output, water, is the same, therefore no-net energy has been drawn from this "instability" of water, as you put it. So, even if you are right, and you are not, the relative stability of water is completely irrelevant to the system, potential energy was not utilized. As such, the only remaining source of energy is the inputs we provide (light, electricity, heat, etc) thus all the energy output came from these provided inputs,

Fine, Josh, give me a reaction that will allow an automobile to extract more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen? In other words, describe a system that attains an energy conversion efficiency greater than 100%.

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/28/2006 11:45:45 PM

You dont need to do that to get energy to run a car, you need an efficient photocatalyst, which current research suggests is not far off.

5/28/2006 11:48:16 PM

So, Josh, you fully recognize that you can never get more energy out of hydrogen than was consumed (or transformed) in the production of that hydrogen?

If you had just said that three pages ago then none of this discussion would have been necessary.

Oh, and admitted that steam can easily be converted to liquid water.
Oh, and admitted that Glucose reactions do not achieve energy conversion efficiencies of >101%
Oh, and admitted that a car requires far more power than the average house (remember the difference between "power" and "energy"?)

But no, you insisted on making ambiguous statements such as:
"thats why its not perpetual motion, or violating of conservation of energy, the system starts with a lot of energy."

And statements that were just false, not misunderstandings, not oversimplifications, just plain wrong:
"take the trucks as a closed system; it splits water and burns hydrogen and what happens?
you get an engine with MORE energy."
"once combusted, you have water vapor, a gas. you dont end up with the same thing you started with.[water]"
"you get more energy from the second reaction"
"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"

5/29/2006 1:19:04 AM

if you assholes put even 1% of the energy you put into posting into science we would be able to run the world on MOTHERFUCKING DREAMS

5/29/2006 2:27:04 AM