Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Hydrogen Fuel | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 8 2008, 04:41 PM (297 Views) | |
| HoosierLars | Nov 11 2008, 04:59 PM Post #16 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Did you watch the video, Dreachon? This isn't research, this guy has solved the room temperature fusion problem, and the reactor fits into a handy little metal box you can put on a table. The torch flame is cool to the touch, but if you put it next to something you want to burn, it becomes "as hot as the surface of the sun." This is some good shit. And on a serious note, I'm 100% for alternative energy research and developement, but 100% against bullshitting con artists. |
| |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Nov 11 2008, 05:00 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
Ok, people put on your scientist hats. It takes a net of 118 kcal to decompose 2 moles of H2O into its elements. Actually it more than that but some of the extra energy is given back as the atoms immediately bond together to form molecules of H2 and O2. The bond energy of the H-O bond is 110 kcal. The bond energy of H-H bonds is 103 kcal. The bond energy of the O=O bonds is 116 kcal. The decomposition of 2 molecules of water requires breaking 4 H-O bonds and thus the input of 440 kcal. The formation of 2 moles of hydrogen yields 206 kcal (2 x 103). The formation of 1 mole of oxygen yields 116 kcal. The difference between The energy released (206 + 116 = 322 kcal) and The energy consumed (4 x 110 = 440 kcal) Gives us the net energy consumed - 118 kcal. Now how much energy do we get when we burn the H2 gas? The bond energy of H-H bonds is 103 kcal. The bond energy of the O=O bonds is 116 kcal. The decomposition of two H-H bonds and one O=O bond requires 222 kcal. The formation of 2 moles of water yields 440 kcal (4 x 110). The energy released (440 kcal) and The energy consumed (206 kcal + 116 kcal = 322 kcal) 440 kcal released - 322 intput into the system Gives us the net energy released - 118 kcal. I am sorry but it takes as much energy to tear down water to O2 and H2 as is gained by burning the hydrogen gas. Unfortunately much of the free energy is given off as heat, which is hard to create electricity from. Would someone please tell me again where the free energy this system uses to initially split the water molecules apart is coming from? |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Nov 11 2008, 05:11 PM Post #18 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Thank you, it's nice to hear another voice of reason here, Eel. Converting water to hydrogen gas and oxygen gas can be compared to pushing a weight up a hill. You've increased the energy state by storing energy in the chemical bonds, and now that energy can be recovered by letting the weight lower back down the hill. Unfortunately, there are frictional and other losses, so you end up with less energy than you started with. It's really not that complicated, nature always wants to minimize the energy of any system. Water represents the minimal energy state, and you can't get any "free" energy from it. The way to get energy form water is to let mother nature evaporate it, lifting it up into the clouds to increase its potential energy, and then capture it in rivers and lakes that can release the water through turbines to generate electricity. Edit: Eel, this is especially impressive because I know CS majors only need to take truck-driver physics to graduate. I used to give my CS roommate much crap over that. :D Edited by HoosierLars, Nov 11 2008, 07:34 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Nov 11 2008, 08:10 PM Post #19 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
I'm not sure what all the chemistry proved. Just about any process uses more energy then it releases, right? We don't get as much energy out of burning oil as there is in the oil itself. Of course it loses energy. And note, I'm not saying this particular video is legit, but I am saying we need to keep researching alternative fuels. And Lars, maybe I misinterpreted it, but your quote "liberal argument that we can abandon proven energy sources like oil, coal, and nuclear. In the liberal world of fairies and pixie dust (sorry, but my nirvana imagery sucks ass compared to OldSchool's) we can run our energy dependent economy on solar panels, windmills, and water powered engines. And we can travel around being pulled by unicorns that eat grass and shit candy." sure made it sound like you perfectly content to just keep drilling for oil. |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Nov 11 2008, 10:24 PM Post #20 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Dreachon, Maybe we will be able to replace most of the oil, natural gas, and coal that we burn today during our lifetimes. One thing's for sure, our standard of living depends on a lot of affordable energy, and currently we have no known replacement for fossil fuels on the horizon. |
| |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Nov 11 2008, 11:32 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
It is not meant to prove anything. It just says there is no free energy to be had in the reaction. The hydrogen-hydrogen bonds act like a battery, they store energy. That being said, you have to get the energy to split the water apart and store the energy from somewhere. This is why a fusion reactor would be a great device. There is an immense amount of energy released in a fusion reaction. While having a reactor in a car is obviously impractical, it would be an easy thing to store some of that energy by splitting apart water and burning the hydrogen. Too bad fusion reactors don't yet exist, and there is not a whole hell of a lot of free hydrogen molecules for the taking in useful quantities. Now for the downside, if you use an unclean power source to get the energy to split the water(coal, gasoline, etc..) then you have not changed your carbon footprint at all. I certainly agree that alternative energy sources are needed, but we need also beware the snake oil salesmen along the way. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Nov 11 2008, 11:46 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
At one point I was sure I wanted to be a Chemical Engineer. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| Maker13 | Nov 12 2008, 02:10 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Coach
|
Actually, Purdue CS doesn't require any physics. Or chem. We have to take 4 lab sciences of our choosing. It's a great system. I took AP Physics in high school so that was an easy class. I stepped out and took one psuedo-challenging class in Electrical Computer Engineering, but that ended up being a blast. We built a simple computer (could do basic addition/subtraction) out of microprocessors, logic gates, and wires for the final project. And then I took 2 astronomy classes. Went to 2 lectures (the first day of each), had the lab carry over from the first to the second so I didn't even have to sit in on that, and got the easiest As of my collegiate career. And I'm graduating from the School of Science! Now the math, that more than makes up for it... |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Nov 12 2008, 11:03 AM Post #24 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
I just remember thumbing through my CS friend's physics book and ridiculing it. Of course he demeaned my programming skills, but it was all good. |
| |
![]() |
|
| chops1221 | Nov 12 2008, 01:04 PM Post #25 |
|
Coach
|
You didn't use any microprocessors in EE270. You don't get to play with those until EE362. :P Dave Meyer is my hero though. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Maker13 | Nov 12 2008, 08:51 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Coach
|
Guess you can see how much I payed attention and retained knowledge from that class. What are the little programmable chips that we used called? I was shocked every time I went to lecture and that guy was still in the front. I'm pretty sure he could forever end Brum/Aaron's argument about dinosaurs with first-hand accounts of the situation. But the dude knew what he was talking about, which always impressed me since it was a lot of technology going on and he was approx. 8,000 years old. |
| |
![]() |
|
| chops1221 | Nov 13 2008, 01:21 AM Post #27 |
|
Coach
|
Haha, yea, I'm in one of his classes right now and he still knows his stuff. Also doesn't like Joe Biden. |
| |
![]() |
|
| chops1221 | Nov 17 2008, 02:16 AM Post #28 |
|
Coach
|
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/11/12/plasma-plants-vaporize-trash-to-generate-energy/?rss Just saw this and it reminded me of this thread. Seems like it's not cost-effective yet and requires a ton of energy to start up, but once it gets going the only input required is more trash. Unfortunately 60MW isn't going to power very much. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Nov 19 2008, 09:22 PM Post #29 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
If we wanted to depend on fossils for our future, we would have elected McCain. |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Nov 19 2008, 09:27 PM Post #30 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Good luck powering your car with change, hope, and water gas. I'll go with more nukes and drilling while we continue to research and develop alternative sources. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:16 PM Jul 10
|











7:16 PM Jul 10