Posted on 01/23/2009 8:13:56 PM PST by OldGuard1
To reverse this process and free hydrogen (and oxygen to that matter) you need to spend a comparable amount of energy. This hydrogen from water will cost you.
Creative and funny but when you add in the costs of Friskies, flea collars, kitty litter and first aid it’s still a negative producer.
I was thinking of something far more radical. If we could harness the energy expended by gerbils trying to escape the confines of deranged humans on the Left Coast...
Seriously though - we’re still stuck in Einstein’s idea of the universe’s laws and no one has gotten out of that. Many have postulated alternate theories and near-ironclad mathematical proof that other means exist. The problem lies in our limited ability to surpass our perception. Our math is exceeding our ability to prove truth because we’re trapped in the limits of where we are (linear time, three dimensions, one vote unless you’re a dead Democrat).
I bet some other “higher” culture is seeing this and loading what serves as their shorts.
Not so, really. It makes an excellent motor fuel, with three and a half times the explosive capacity than gasoline, which is a hydro-carbon, after all... really a method for delivering Hydrogen stored in a carbon bond for storage at ambient temperature. In 1980, my friends and I were experimenting with metal hydrides, like Nickle, and came to the conclusion that it made an excellent way to store energy using non-peak grid resources.
The greenies love it for the same reasons I liked the clean air aspect, in a way, back before it became a fashion statement. It's exhaust is steam, which is ironic. The Global Warming minority is so worried about Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas when water vapor is, by far, the most influential of the greenhouse "gases."
Makes a lot more sense than the ice-slinging, bird-killing windmills city folks want to deploy anywhere in rural areas where people like their peace and quiet.
They sold it to Honda - and Honda is selling it back to us in 10 mpg increments....
No probably about it. It has to.
But that doesn't mean the technology might not be useful as a storage mechanism. Like a pretty high energy density battery.
You still have find some way to provide the energy to "charge" the battery." But that could be a form that would be very difficult and/or inefficient if done on a such a small scale as an individual car. Nuclear, coal, maybe natural gas (although that could be used directly, effeciency might be better with this process as an intermedicate storage technique
Matter begets energy begets matter, etc. as far as we can perceive.
Without perfection there’s always bleed-off during each transition of energy or matter. That’s the atomic level we’re able to know.
Subatomics is where positive and negative mass particles collide, merge and bounce in odd configurations. Hawking postulated that singularities (black holes) are conduits where the negative mass particles are converged and projected to creation of new matter/existence. We need to explore these ideas and we have the means to create tools for that. Our United States took a lead in the 1980s with the Super Collider project, carving out a nine mile trench in Texas where miracles were possible.
Unfortunately political squabbling over kickback revenues killed it, leaving humanity dependent on the third-size Fermi laboratory in Europe - where the US is not on the hot list when profound discoveries are made.
If Islamic millionaires beloved of Jihadists can access this information (we’re talking basic forces of nature) and we can not, why does that trench in Texas remain empty?
Doesn’t that beat the trillions of dollars propping up bad management with no value in sight?
All we really need to do is commercialize the flux capacitor.
Big if.
(insert “Aw Jeez, Not this crap again pic). Yes hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. It just doesn’t happen to be in plentiful supply here on earth in a pure usable form.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781558/posts
That makes more sense. Separating hydrogen from carbon should be a substantially different proposition, energy-wise, than separating hydrogen from oxygen.
It costs you some energy to get the carbon separated from the hydrogen, but you get a lot more back when you combine the hydrogen with oxygen in the combustion chamber.
If you're storing hydrogen bound to oxygen, then breaking that bond to get free hydrogen is costing you at least as much energy as you're going to get back in the combustion chamber, and that's assuming a 100% efficient method of breaking that bond.
Flux capacitor...good one.
The more I read about science and the hierarchy dominating it the more I’m convinced that great insights are quashed and dismissed almost daily. If the scientific community weren’t dominated by selfish and foolish interests we wouldn’t have ridiculous “wind farms” pretending to supplant real sources of power at taxpayer expense (seems climbing up the towers and oiling the gears is one of those jobs Americans aren’t willing to do).
Americans scamming the government’s push for Wind Farms.
Very sad that the scientific community feels compelled to lick their collective finger and hold it up to see which way the political wind is blowing. Then again I can’t recall, historically, when scientists EVER had an upper hand that they fully realized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.