Smashing Fossil Fuels.

[Miisa]

Next, the earth is flat.

[disobey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In a word: no. Take a chemistry course and try it for yourself, if you doubt me.

It's a simple experiment, one that you can do in any high school or college chemistry lab. Your proposal does not and cannot work because the proposed procedure consumes more energy than it generates - by quite a lot, actually.

H2O is indeed a chemical compound. And chemically, maybe it can't be done. But as you know, small amounts of oxygen and hydrogen can be created from H2O through electrolysis. But not enough to create enough electricity to keep the process going. Maybe. Because there was a person who claimed to have created a water powered car. And from what I have heard, before he died outside some restaurant, he exclaimed, "I've been poisoned!"

That aside, the kind of process I spoke about couldn't be done in any chemistry lab. At least not one I'm aware of. The temperatures I speak about are more in the realm of the Tokamak fusion reactor. Because 6000 degrees is pretty hot. Also, I told you that I brought up the matter with university physics professor I exchanged emails with. If he had said what you say, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But as things stand, as far as I'm concerned, an H2O molecule breaking apart into hydrogen and oxygen atoms creates its own heat. And it absolutely creates a lot of heat when hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to create H2O. Feel free to disagree all you want.

[ChuckF]

Efficiency can be improved if you pre-treat the water with a water softener. It softens the water by loosening the covalent bonds in the individual water molecules. (When people say they have "hard water" it means that the covalent bonds are too tight.)

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by disobey

Feel free to disagree all you want.

Thank you. I will.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by disobey

H2O is indeed a chemical compound. And chemically, maybe it can't be done. But as you know, small amounts of oxygen and hydrogen can be created from H2O through electrolysis. But not enough to create enough electricity to keep the process going. Maybe. Because there was a person who claimed to have created a water powered car. And from what I have heard, before he died outside some restaurant, he exclaimed, "I've been poisoned!"

That aside, the kind of process I spoke about couldn't be done in any chemistry lab. At least not one I'm aware of. The temperatures I speak about are more in the realm of the Tokamak fusion reactor. Because 6000 degrees is pretty hot. Also, I told you that I brought up the matter with university physics professor I exchanged emails with. If he had said what you say, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But as things stand, as far as I'm concerned, an H2O molecule breaking apart into hydrogen and oxygen atoms creates its own heat. And it absolutely creates a lot of heat when hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to create H2O. Feel free to disagree all you want.

This hypothetical university professor was probably trying to spare your feelings; he didn't point out that separating water into hydrogen and oxygen consumes far more energy than is released when the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined. Or perhaps he figured it wasn't worth the effort of pointing out something that anyone who has taken a high school-level Chemistry course should be well aware of.

Quite a few people have proposed what you're proposing. All tests of those proposals have failed.

But by all means, if you think that you can disprove the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, a smaller-scale test of your idea would be easy enough to set up. By all means, go for it! If you succeed, thus demonstrating that pretty-much all of modern Physics and Chemistry are based on false premises, I can guarantee you'll win a Nobel Prize and become both wealthy and famous.


By the way: electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen is a chemical reaction.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by disobey

You, ARI, But, Fragment and JoeP can all "stick it." (And no doubt you know where) I asked anybody reading my thread to give me some reasons why it wouldn't work. And all I got was bullshit as a reply. Do I need to start a thread and ask if there is anybody at this forum that isn't a troll?

There was a hint in there as to why it won't work, which The Lone Ranger explicated a bit -- not that you understood either the hint or the explanation, you absolute shitwit.

And are you actually threatening to start a new thread? Oh no, please don't embarrass yourself again, cumdumpster!

[disobey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This hypothetical university professor was probably trying to spare your feelings; he didn't point out that separating water into hydrogen and oxygen consumes far more energy than is released when the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined. Or perhaps he figured it wasn't worth the effort of pointing out something that anyone who has taken a high school-level Chemistry course should be well aware of.

Quite a few people have proposed what you're proposing. All tests of those proposals have failed.

But by all means, if you think that you can disprove the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, a smaller-scale test of your idea would be easy enough to set up. By all means, go for it! If you succeed, thus demonstrating that pretty-much all of modern Physics and Chemistry are based on false premises, I can guarantee you'll win a Nobel Prize and become both wealthy and famous.


By the way: electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen is a chemical reaction.

Oh, the professor that I exchanges emails with in this matter was real enough. And if he was trying to spare my feelings, he was doing me quite a disservice. That he replied to me at all to me proves that he wasn't that much of an asshole.

Also, do you know what a chamber heated to 4600 degrees would be? Basically it would be a state of relativity. Unless you shot ice water into it, the amount of heat that it would take to break apart the water molecule would be offset to some degree by the heat that the molecule would give off as it broke apart. After all, that is what is going on in a simple campfire. Molecules are being rearranged. Which gives you the heat and flames. And as I pointed out, when hydrogen and oxygen atoms recombine into H2O, they give off heat as well. Which is what made the Space Shuttle engines operate at 6000 F.

Another point is that I had some training as a firefighter. I learned that some fires can get so hot that when you spray water on it, it will cause it to explode. Despite what the professor said, there is energy in that. Eventually, the gasses given off would recombine into H2O. But just maybe, it wouldn't matter. However briefly, there may be enough pressure there to power a turbine.

Next, you would have to be hallucinating to think I have the wherewithal for anything like that. I couldn't even afford to build a pottery kiln. Which operates at much lower temperatures. You also say that electrolysis is a chemical reaction. Maybe in some sort of strict sense. But electricity isn't a chemical. Now if you did the same thing with another chemical, I would call that a chemical reaction. Though this does bring up another point I had to prove somebody else wrong about once. I said that sound traveling through water is considered to be a chemical reaction. I don't know why that is what it is. But that is what it is.

[disobey]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

There was a hint in there as to why it won't work, which The Lone Ranger explicated a bit -- not that you understood either the hint or the explanation, you absolute shitwit.

And are you actually threatening to start a new thread? Oh no, please don't embarrass yourself again, cumdumpster!

You are stupid and insulting too. I think I've had enough of you too. Welcome to ignore land.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I'm Gonna Tell Him - YouTube

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by disobey

Also, do you know what a chamber heated to 4600 degrees would be? Basically it would be a state of relativity.

physics itt

This reminds me of peacegirl talking about how the wave functions freely.

[The Lone Ranger]

You know, you really are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

But this takes the cake:

Originally Posted by disobey

I said that sound traveling through water is considered to be a chemical reaction. I don't know why that is what it is. But that is what it is.

That is the single most ignorant thing I've read in a very long time! Though thinking that reaching a temperature of 4600 degrees has anything to do with relativity is a close second. Thinking that a steam explosion is a chemical reaction is perhaps Number 3.


I implore you: take a basic high-school-level Physics or Chemistry course. Maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

This would be a great custom user title. disobey, you should use it to show how much smarter than TLR you are.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

TLR demoted to !

[ceptimus]

You could start by looking on Wikipedia at the difference between exothermic and endothermic reactions.

If you're trying to get Hydrogen, so you can burn it somehow (using it in a fuel cell is a different form of burning) to release energy, then the product of the burning is water (steam, usually). You can think of water as the ash from the fire when you burn hydrogen.

You're not also going to release energy in the process of splitting hydrogen from water in the first place. The universe doesn't work like that. Hydrogen, in this context, is just a means of storing energy you got from some other source - from wind turbines, or burning coal, or whatever.

Hydrogen is a very inefficient way of storing electrical energy. If you use electricity to charge a battery, and later discharge that battery, you can get as much as 95% of the original energy back - the 5% or so is wasted in heat in the charging and discharging processes. By contrast, the best currently available methods of storing electrical energy in the form of hydrogen, waste about half of the original energy by the time the cycle is complete.

This is why the hype around hydrogen powered cars is exactly that: hype. Most hydrogen made today comes from burning fossil fuels: it creates less carbon dioxide if you just burn those fossil fuels directly in the cars. If and when we have a superabundance of renewable energy from solar panels, wind turbines, or similar, then hydrogen powered vehicles might become a sensible option - could be useful for long distance trucks or aircraft, where battery-powered versions have nowhere near the range, or carrying capacity of the current, fossil-fuel powered, versions.

[Ari]

Oxygen is a proton slut, you’re not getting it away from its protons without giving up something of your own.

Oxygen wanting protons —>

No but seriously, Oxygen being full up with two hydrogens but still trying to attract other protons is why proton carrying substances become acidic in water, *&* oxygen trying to stick itself to another oxygen’s protons gives us hydrogen peroxide.

[disobey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You know, you really are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

But this takes the cake:

That is the single most ignorant thing I've read in a very long time! Though thinking that reaching a temperature of 4600 degrees has anything to do with relativity is a close second. Thinking that a steam explosion is a chemical reaction is perhaps Number 3.


I implore you: take a basic high-school-level Physics or Chemistry course. Maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

So, now you are going to start being an asshole too. Well around here, that would just be following the herd. I have an effect for you. The "Tell me anything I said that you think is untrue effect." Become a victim of the effect as fast as you can.

Now, is it that you think that sound traveling through water being considered to be a chemical reaction is untrue? Others have said that. Until I proved them wrong. Do you want to join them in being wrong land?

Next, what does relativity mean to you. If you are in an environment that is 4600 degrees, that is a relative state. Just as if you were in a spaceship traveling close to the speed of light and your time slowed down compared to time on Earth. If you were on the spaceship, you wouldn't notice it. People around you wouldn't be moving in slow motion. You would be in a relative state. That's what I was getting at with an environment at 4600 degrees. Anything that happened in that state would have that state as its starting point. If oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms split apart or recombined at that temperature, the heat that they gave off would be added to the 4600 degree environment. I can't put it any more simply than that.

Next, I never said anything about a steam explosion. Let alone that it was a chemical reaction. If you want to debate, how about not telling lies first. What I did say that sometimes a fire can get so hot that if you spray water on it, it will explode. Sure, some of the water will instantly turn to steam. But that isn't what causes the explosion. What causes the explosion is some of the water molecules being split into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. It is the same exact thing that goes on in the Space Shuttle engines. Only in reverse. Do you disagree on that fact too?

[disobey]

Originally Posted by JoeP

This would be a great custom user title. disobey, you should use it to show how much smarter than TLR you are.

How about joining in on the conversation in a serious manner. Then, you you disagree with me, I can show how much smarter I am than you too.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by disobey

How about joining in on the conversation in a serious manner.

You first.

[disobey]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You could start by looking on Wikipedia at the difference between exothermic and endothermic reactions.

If you're trying to get Hydrogen, so you can burn it somehow (using it in a fuel cell is a different form of burning) to release energy, then the product of the burning is water (steam, usually). You can think of water as the ash from the fire when you burn hydrogen.

You're not also going to release energy in the process of splitting hydrogen from water in the first place. The universe doesn't work like that. Hydrogen, in this context, is just a means of storing energy you got from some other source - from wind turbines, or burning coal, or whatever.

Hydrogen is a very inefficient way of storing electrical energy. If you use electricity to charge a battery, and later discharge that battery, you can get as much as 95% of the original energy back - the 5% or so is wasted in heat in the charging and discharging processes. By contrast, the best currently available methods of storing electrical energy in the form of hydrogen, waste about half of the original energy by the time the cycle is complete.

This is why the hype around hydrogen powered cars is exactly that: hype. Most hydrogen made today comes from burning fossil fuels: it creates less carbon dioxide if you just burn those fossil fuels directly in the cars. If and when we have a superabundance of renewable energy from solar panels, wind turbines, or similar, then hydrogen powered vehicles might become a sensible option - could be useful for long distance trucks or aircraft, where battery-powered versions have nowhere near the range, or carrying capacity of the current, fossil-fuel powered, versions.

You seem to have gone off on a tangent. I wasn't saying anything about using hydrogen for anything. Reread my thread. What I started out saying that at around 3600 F, around 2% of any H2O molecules will disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Next, if you want to talk about storing energy, a better thread for that would be the one in which I discussed using solar panels. As for hydrogen itself, it is a load of crap for use in cars. Because as you said, it takes too much energy to create. Another problem I have heard of from using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is that it burns too hot.

Though as far as electrolysis goes to create hydrogen, I bandied about some ideas in a book I wrote long ago. One of the ideas I came up with was using permanent magnets as a source of extra power during electrolysis to more efficiently break apart water into hydrogen and oxygen. Though not long ago, out of curiosity, I decided to look that process up. It turns out somebody already patented such an idea nearly 100 years ago. And apparently it doesn't work. Because as far as I know, such a process isn't used in any electrolysis. I don't know why anybody would go through the trouble patenting something that doesn't work.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by disobey

You seem to have gone off on a tangent. I wasn't saying anything about using hydrogen for anything. Reread my thread. What I started out saying that at around 3600 F, around 2% of any H2O molecules will disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Next, if you want to talk about storing energy, a better thread for that would be the one in which I discussed using solar panels. As for hydrogen itself, it is a load of crap for use in cars. Because as you said, it takes too much energy to create. Another problem I have heard of from using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is that it burns too hot.

Though as far as electrolysis goes to create hydrogen, I bandied about some ideas in a book I wrote long ago. One of the ideas I came up with was using permanent magnets as a source of extra power during electrolysis to more efficiently break apart water into hydrogen and oxygen. Though not long ago, out of curiosity, I decided to look that process up. It turns out somebody already patented such an idea nearly 100 years ago. And apparently it doesn't work. Because as far as I know, such a process isn't used in any electrolysis. I don't know why anybody would go through the trouble patenting something that doesn't work.

You said disassociating water at high temperature would release heat. The very first part of my post addressed that. You have it completely backwards. Disassociating water is an endothermic process.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by disobey

Become a victim of the effect as fast as you can.

For the kids in the back, this is narcissistic projection.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by disobey

So, now you are going to start being an asshole too.

No. I'm pointing out an obvious truth. You're incredibly ignorant, yet you seem to think that your opinion on things you demonstrably know nothing about should be taken seriously. You absolutely will not listen when anyone tries to correct your mistakes, no matter how politely. So you're not just ignorant, you're willfully ignorant.

Now, is it that you think that sound traveling through water being considered to be a chemical reaction is untrue?

Because a chemical reaction, by definition involves a rearrangement of chemical bonds, forming new substances. Sound traveling through water does not change or rearrange any chemical bonds. Saying, therefore, that sound traveling through water is a chemical reaction thereby demonstrates that you have no idea what a chemical reaction is.

If you are in an environment that is 4600 degrees, that is a relative state.

No. No it is not.

Einstein's theories [there are two different theories of Relativity, by the way, the Special and the General] have nothing to do with temperature. As anyone with a high school-level understanding of physics knows.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity describe how the force of gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity describes how physical laws are the same in all inertial reference frames, and how the speed of light is a universal constant, regardless of how observers are moving relative to each other.

Neither of the theories has anything to do with temperature being "relative."

Anything that happened in that state would have that state as its starting point. If oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms split apart or recombined at that temperature, the heat that they gave off would be added to the 4600 degree environment. I can't put it any more simply than that.

That has exactly nothing to do with either theory of Relativity, and more to the point, does not establish that temperature (a measure of thermal energy) is somehow "relative."

Next, I never said anything about a steam explosion. Let alone that it was a chemical reaction.

Yes you did, on both counts. You're just too ignorant to know what a steam explosion is.

You said that when water is sprayed on a hot-enough fire, it explodes. That is true. It's called a steam explosion, because the water flashes to steam. You also said that afterward, the gases "recombine into H2O" which would be a chemical reaction.

You're doubly wrong there, because you describe a steam explosion as a chemical reaction when it isn't.

Sure, some of the water will instantly turn to steam. But that isn't what causes the explosion. What causes the explosion is some of the water molecules being split into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Incorrect. That is not what causes a steam explosion. But if it were, that would be a chemical reaction! So again, you're doubly wrong. Besides, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, dissociation of water into hydrogen and oxygen is an endothermic process, not an exothermic process.

It is the same exact thing that goes on in the Space Shuttle engines. Only in reverse.

No, it isn't. A steam explosion is a physical reaction, not a chemical reaction.

Do you disagree on that fact too?

I disagree, because it's not a fact; it's a gross misunderstanding of well-understood and easily-verified phenomena. Something that you'd understand if only you had a high-school-level understanding of physics and chemistry -- something you could learn for yourself by actually doing relevant experiments.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

something you could learn for yourself by actually doing relevant experiments.

This would involve a narcissist being proved wrong, which is not something a narcissist has the mental fortitude to withstand.

[disobey]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You said disassociating water at high temperature would release heat. The very first part of my post addressed that. You have it completely backwards. Disassociating water is an endothermic process.

Yes, I did forget to mention the first part. Sure, it takes outside heat to break the H2O molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. But however it is done, that action, by itself, produces heat. Just as molecules being rearranged in a campfire produces heat. Maybe it doesn't produce the same amount of heat that it took to break it apart to begin with. But it still produces heat. And as I pointed out in my process, the heat would already be there. Then, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms will recombine. That produces a hell of a lot of heat. Far more than what was needed to break apart the H2O molecule to begin with. The proof is the Space Shuttle engines. Combining hydrogen and oxygen into H2O caused the engines to operate at 6000 F.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by disobey

Maybe it doesn't produce the same amount of heat that it took to break it apart to begin with. But it still produces heat. And as I pointed out in my process, the heat would already be there.

the heat is efferent