|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 15, 2019 16:12:52 GMT -5
Well I find that encouraging at least. The military industrial complex has no natural predators!  Yeah, it's tragic.. because he does have a lot of good ideas. And he's bold enough to keep pushing at them. It's just that we know the radical ones as well and they are too out there for the British public to believe in. No. I'm sure we're all aware now, that it has to grow it's own enemies  The situation in the UK... Corporate Media attacks on Jeremy Corbyn be like: • Monday- He's a terrorist • Tuesday- He's a pacifist • Wednesday- He's a terrorist • Thursday- He's a pacifist • Friday- He's a pacifist • Saturday- He's a terrorist • Sunday- He's a pacifist I'm pretty busy on twitter lately |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 17:04:56 GMT -5
How would separating water into oxygen and hydrogen solve the problem? Doesn;t the combustion of hydrogen create CO2? I suspect that Laughter's hope for fusion has more potential. The combustion of hydrogen has only water as a byproduct, no CO2 (third paragraph in link). www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/it-s-clean-powerful-and-available-are-you-ready-for-hydrogen-energy/We have virtually unlimited water. The problem is that presently it costs too much to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. I like chemistry, so I have to complain about your statement here. The amount of energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water is exactly the amount of energy you get back by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen - ie, burning the hydrogen. It doesn't matter how much it costs; you will never get more energy by separating water and then re-combining it. All chemical reactions work like this. The process would break exactly even if it were done with perfect efficiency, but nothing is perfectly efficient, so it would actually lose some energy. If you're talking about using the hydrogen in a fusion reactor, that's a different topic. If you're talking about using hydrogen for energy storage and transport, that could also be a thing. Like batteries, it wouldn't produce energy, but it might be a way to carry it around in certain situations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 17:08:24 GMT -5
Yeah, it's tragic.. because he does have a lot of good ideas. And he's bold enough to keep pushing at them. It's just that we know the radical ones as well and they are too out there for the British public to believe in. No. I'm sure we're all aware now, that it has to grow it's own enemies The situation in the UK... Corporate Media attacks on Jeremy Corbyn be like: • Monday- He's a terrorist • Tuesday- He's a pacifist • Wednesday- He's a terrorist • Thursday- He's a pacifist • Friday- He's a pacifist • Saturday- He's a terrorist • Sunday- He's a pacifist I'm pretty busy on twitter lately I love today's great idea. Free Broadband for everyone in the UK paid for by Zuckerberg and Bezos.  .. .. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 15, 2019 20:32:52 GMT -5
I like chemistry, so I have to complain about your statement here. The amount of energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water is exactly the amount of energy you get back by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen - ie, burning the hydrogen. It doesn't matter how much it costs; you will never get more energy by separating water and then re-combining it. All chemical reactions work like this. The process would break exactly even if it were done with perfect efficiency, but nothing is perfectly efficient, so it would actually lose some energy. If you're talking about using the hydrogen in a fusion reactor, that's a different topic. If you're talking about using hydrogen for energy storage and transport, that could also be a thing. Like batteries, it wouldn't produce energy, but it might be a way to carry it around in certain situations. Very good article. The pertinent part is near the end just above the last graph, just before Achieving A Hydrogen - Powered Future. Links on different ways to produce hydrogen, and links within links. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Haven't read the complete article, yet, but this is what I was looking for. Note date Oct. 10, 2019 www.newswise.com/doescience/?article_id=720397&returnurl=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmV3c3dpc2UuY29tL2FydGljbGVzL2xpc3Q="There's been extensive work over the years to develop alternatives to precious metal catalysts for PEM systems. Many have been shown to work in laboratory settings, but Jaramillo said that to his knowledge this is the first to demonstrate high performance in a commercial electrolyzer". The device worked more than 1,700 hours. Goes from pricey platinum to cheap abundant cobalt phosphide as catalyst. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2019 20:57:58 GMT -5
I like chemistry, so I have to complain about your statement here. The amount of energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water is exactly the amount of energy you get back by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen - ie, burning the hydrogen. It doesn't matter how much it costs; you will never get more energy by separating water and then re-combining it. All chemical reactions work like this. The process would break exactly even if it were done with perfect efficiency, but nothing is perfectly efficient, so it would actually lose some energy. If you're talking about using the hydrogen in a fusion reactor, that's a different topic. If you're talking about using hydrogen for energy storage and transport, that could also be a thing. Like batteries, it wouldn't produce energy, but it might be a way to carry it around in certain situations. Very good article. The pertinent part is near the end just above the last graph, just before Achieving A Hydrogen - Powered Future. Quick google checks indicate that water is the product of burning hydrogen in air, so rk's analysis seems unassailable from my superficial understanding. Although I found this to be rather intriguing: "In the liquid state, in spite of 80% of the electrons in H2O being concerned with bonding, the three atoms do not stay together as the hydrogen atoms are continually exchanging between water molecules, due to protonation/deprotonation processes." The gambler in me smells the possibility of a free lunch in there somewhere with the right jigger-ma-whatknot. Maybe somebody gets an epiphany someday that changes the world on a dime. Maybe there's alot more energy in a waterfall or the wave-action of the surf than can turn a paddle-wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2019 21:02:16 GMT -5
heh heh .. and none too late. .. not that there's any real, permanent relative resolution to the underlying problem. ( .. uh-oh .. should I frown instead??  ) The way I understand it a country can only grow stronger through the strength of it's enemies.. so no, while a country continues with a wish to grow in might, which naturally every nation must have a want to experience through one age or another.. the growing of enemies must continue. Seems to me the Tao said as much hundreds of years ago, and that every empire that's come and gone since has seen it's "Hadrian's wall" moment - not to imply that any one given event marks the peak before the final contraction. It's all ultimately just people trying to survive, expressing itself in various ways, in recurring patterns that are perhaps almost inevitable. Read somewhere once that the Buddha allegedly said: "the world is on fire". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2019 21:20:40 GMT -5
Quick google checks indicate that water is the product of burning hydrogen in air, so rk's analysis seems unassailable from my superficial understanding. Although I found this to be rather intriguing: "In the liquid state, in spite of 80% of the electrons in H2O being concerned with bonding, the three atoms do not stay together as the hydrogen atoms are continually exchanging between water molecules, due to protonation/deprotonation processes." The gambler in me smells the possibility of a free lunch in there somewhere with the right jigger-ma-whatknot. Maybe somebody gets an epiphany someday that changes the world on a dime. Maybe there's alot more energy in a waterfall or the wave-action of the surf than can turn a paddle-wheel. heh heh this brought back to mind the following vid that popped up on my feed months ago .. I dare you to refrain from falling in love with her. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 15, 2019 21:20:50 GMT -5
Quick google checks indicate that water is the product of burning hydrogen in air, so rk's analysis seems unassailable from my superficial understanding. Although I found this to be rather intriguing: "In the liquid state, in spite of 80% of the electrons in H2O being concerned with bonding, the three atoms do not stay together as the hydrogen atoms are continually exchanging between water molecules, due to protonation/deprotonation processes." The gambler in me smells the possibility of a free lunch in there somewhere with the right jigger-ma-whatknot. Maybe somebody gets an epiphany someday that changes the world on a dime. Maybe there's alot more energy in a waterfall or the wave-action of the surf than can turn a paddle-wheel. I found another article, dated October 11, 2019. Seems the jigger-ma-whatknot has been discovered. Linked in same post above. Another article, Oct. 24, 2019. Same source as other article, Nature Nanotechnology energypost.eu/hydrogen-electrolysis-cheap-abundant-cobalt-phosphide-can-replace-platinum/~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As an aside, I first learned about the search for this cheaper process in the 1996 film Chain Reaction (in theater) with Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves and was introduced to the awesome actress Rachel Weisz, and have periodically googled the progress since then. www.imdb.com/title/tt00115857/  And BTW, fascinating water link. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2019 21:48:46 GMT -5
Quick google checks indicate that water is the product of burning hydrogen in air, so rk's analysis seems unassailable from my superficial understanding. Although I found this to be rather intriguing: "In the liquid state, in spite of 80% of the electrons in H2O being concerned with bonding, the three atoms do not stay together as the hydrogen atoms are continually exchanging between water molecules, due to protonation/deprotonation processes." The gambler in me smells the possibility of a free lunch in there somewhere with the right jigger-ma-whatknot. Maybe somebody gets an epiphany someday that changes the world on a dime. Maybe there's alot more energy in a waterfall or the wave-action of the surf than can turn a paddle-wheel. I found another article, dated October 11, 2019. Seems the jigger-ma-whatknot has been discovered. Linked in same post above. Another article, Oct. 24, 2019. Same source as other article, Nature Nanotechnology energypost.eu/hydrogen-electrolysis-cheap-abundant-cobalt-phosphide-can-replace-platinum/~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As an aside, I first learned about the search for this process in the 1996 film Chain Reaction (in theater) with Keanu Reeves and was introduced to the awesome actress Rachel Weisz, and have periodically googled the progress since then. www.imdb.com/title/tt00115857/ Pretty sure that the energy accounting for electrolysis will involve the power drawn by the current you need to maintain the effect. But what if some material could be cut that somehow sift out some hydrogen using the kinetic energy of a waterfall or rain or ocean waves? It's probably a really dumb idea for some reason.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 15, 2019 21:54:54 GMT -5
Pretty sure that the energy accounting for electrolysis will involve the power drawn by the current you need to maintain the effect. But what if some material could be cut that somehow sift out some hydrogen using the kinetic energy of a waterfall or rain or ocean waves? It's probably a really dumb idea for some reason. I just browsed your this water link, but I think probably in it will be found just how stable water is and just how difficult it is to separate into hydrogen and oxygen, and so that is, no kinetic process will do it. (But splashing water does make health/beneficial negative ions). I will definitely get back to the link, as the hidden third factor in the formation of water sounds exceptionally interesting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 4:06:48 GMT -5
The way I understand it a country can only grow stronger through the strength of it's enemies.. so no, while a country continues with a wish to grow in might, which naturally every nation must have a want to experience through one age or another.. the growing of enemies must continue. Seems to me the Tao said as much hundreds of years ago, and that every empire that's come and gone since has seen it's "Hadrian's wall" moment - not to imply that any one given event marks the peak before the final contraction. It's all ultimately just people trying to survive, expressing itself in various ways, in recurring patterns that are perhaps almost inevitable. Read somewhere once that the Buddha allegedly said: "the world is on fire". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 5:31:11 GMT -5
... The amount of energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water is exactly the amount of energy you get back by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen - ie, burning the hydrogen. It doesn't matter how much it costs; you will never get more energy by separating water and then re-combining it. ... Very good article. The pertinent part is near the end just above the last graph, just before Achieving A Hydrogen - Powered Future. Links on different ways to produce hydrogen, and links within links. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Haven't read the complete article, yet, but this is what I was looking for. Note date Oct. 10, 2019 www.newswise.com/doescience/?article_id=720397&returnurl=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmV3c3dpc2UuY29tL2FydGljbGVzL2xpc3Q="There's been extensive work over the years to develop alternatives to precious metal catalysts for PEM systems. Many have been shown to work in laboratory settings, but Jaramillo said that to his knowledge this is the first to demonstrate high performance in a commercial electrolyzer". The device worked more than 1,700 hours. Goes from pricey platinum to cheap abundant cobalt phosphide as catalyst. I'm not sure if you're simply throwing out some interesting articles, or if you mean to say they rebut my previous point. I don't know all the ways to produce hydrogen gas. I'm sure there are many. I know about some ways from fossil fuels, for example. I love chemistry and wish I stayed with it instead of getting into a 'career' of programming computers. :/ My main point was that if we're talking about splitting water and then burning it, which is a cycle... 2H 20 → 2H 2 + O 2 (split) 2H 2 + O 2 → 2H 20 (burn) That will, if perfectly efficient, produce zero energy. (With or without a catalyst.) If someone finds an exception to this, then they have found an exception to the laws of thermodynamics for the first time in human history, and that would revolutionize the world. They could build machines that produce infinite amounts of energy from no inputs, for example. Maybe it's possible, but it's a huge claim, and I think a lot of articles and discussions go on about these topics, without people understanding that. This doesn't mean that splitting water is useless. Hydrogen could be used as energy storage. Eg, you have a solar panel, it produces electricity, and if you don't have immediate need for the electricity you store the energy by charging a battery, or by splitting water. Storing hydrogen gas is difficult though. Maybe a second process could turn it into something else like a heavier hydrocarbon. Hey, I just realized I described photosynthesis. That's what leaves do! Nature is awesome. 6H 2O + 6CO 2 → C 6H 12O 6 + 6O 2 (photosynthesis, powered by sunlight, in our green friends) It's similar to the water split, but with the added carbon (C) to make the heavier fuel. Catalysts are interesting and super-useful, but they do not change the overall energy balance of a chemical reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 17, 2019 9:39:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure if you're simply throwing out some interesting articles, or if you mean to say they rebut my previous point. I don't know all the ways to produce hydrogen gas. I'm sure there are many. I know about some ways from fossil fuels, for example. I love chemistry and wish I stayed with it instead of getting into a 'career' of programming computers. :/ My main point was that if we're talking about splitting water and then burning it, which is a cycle... 2H 20 → 2H 2 + O 2 (split) 2H 2 + O 2 → 2H 20 (burn) That will, if perfectly efficient, produce zero energy. (With or without a catalyst.) If someone finds an exception to this, then they have found an exception to the laws of thermodynamics for the first time in human history, and that would revolutionize the world. They could build machines that produce infinite amounts of energy from no inputs, for example. Maybe it's possible, but it's a huge claim, and I think a lot of articles and discussions go on about these topics, without people understanding that. This doesn't mean that splitting water is useless. Hydrogen could be used as energy storage. Eg, you have a solar panel, it produces electricity, and if you don't have immediate need for the electricity you store the energy by charging a battery, or by splitting water. Storing hydrogen gas is difficult though. Maybe a second process could turn it into something else like a heavier hydrocarbon. Hey, I just realized I described photosynthesis. That's what leaves do! Nature is awesome. 6H 2O + 6CO 2 → C 6H 12O 6 + 6O 2 (photosynthesis, powered by sunlight, in our green friends) It's similar to the water split, but with the added carbon (C) to make the heavier fuel. Catalysts are interesting and super-useful, but they do not change the overall energy balance of a chemical reaction. I am talking about taking water, H2O and dividing it into hydrogen and oxygen. We start out with water, a virtually unlimited supply in lakes and oceans (and bear in mind we are not talking about water necessarily pure needed for human consumption) which contains tremendous potential energy, but that energy is, as you show, chemically bound, essentially almost unavailable. Scientists have been able to do this for many years through electrolysis. However, there has been essentially no net gain from an economic standpoint because the costs of separating water into H and O, and then using hydrogen as a fuel, have equaled out. But the two links show we have essentially solved the riddle of the cost effectiveness. There has been millions of dollars spent in research on a more economical means to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. The Nature Nanotechnology article (the source for both links) shows a new decidedly less expensive means of separating water into H and O. Cobalt Phosphide is used instead of platinum as a catalyst. Just one reason this new technology is so promising is because of the possibility of eliminating the transport of energy problem. For example, concerning electricity, you have an electrical grid that transports electricity from the point of generation to homes or businesses which use the electricity. In the case of oil. You drill for oil at the source. The oil has to be transported to a refinery (ship or pipe usually) and then the final product, gasoline for example, has to be transported usually via trucking to the point of purchase by a customer. With this new technology, for a customer with need of a great supply, they can build the mechanism described in the article right at their plant, yes they incur the costs of building the producing-hydrogen power plant, but eliminate the costs of delivery of electricity and gasoline described above. And again, the benefit of using hydrogen as an energy source, no CO2 as a byproduct, only water. No added greenhouse effect. I know a considerable amount about entropy. It's the most fascinating subject in physics as far as I'm concerned. If I had come to learn of its importance in my twenties (and I should have come to know this from my interests) I would probably have made it my life's work. (Entropy essentially concerns the meaning of life, that is, how life is, how life exists). I know that it is physically impossible to make a ~perpetual motion machine~. And so that's not what I'm talking about. Does that get us any closer to mutual understanding? Einstein showed us matter and energy are equivalent. And so eventually physicists learned how to unleash the energy in certain types of matter (uranium). Similarly, is there or is there not tremendous potential energy in water? (as hydrogen). If you think this us a futile quest I suggest you contact Stanford and graduate student McKenzie Hubert and Jaramillo. (Nature Nanotechnology November 2019 article). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 17, 2019 10:15:22 GMT -5
Additional information about hydrogen fuel cells (one use of hydrogen). chfcc.org/resources/hydrogen-fuel-cell-benefits/An interesting fact. BECAUSE OF the constraints of entropy, gasoline in an internal combustion engine is about 25% efficient. Entropy presents an unsurpassable limit to gasoline efficiency. But the article says hydrogen can reach an 80% efficiency. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 13:33:22 GMT -5
If you think this us a futile quest I suggest you contact Stanford and graduate student McKenzie Hubert and Jaramillo. (Nature Nanotechnology November 2019 article). There are two different quests... 1. Make electrolysis more efficient. Yes, they're doing that. It could be useful for storing energy in hydrogen and burning it later. Or using the hydrogen for something else. It is not futile. 2. Use hydrogen derived from splitting water as a *source* of energy. This is against the known laws of physics. Not going to happen. I'll bet my life savings on it. Do you see the difference? A unit of energy is a Joule (J). If you spend 100 J dividing the water, you will get back less (say, 80 J) from burning the hydrogen. It doesn't matter how efficient the initial electrolysis was, you will never get more than you put in. You need to get energy from somewhere *else* to split the water (nuclear, fossil fuel, solar, etc). It's *not* just a matter of research, time, and money to eventually figure out a way to get the balance to come out in our favor. It's the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of matter and energy. |
|
.. 
