Any ideas for how to make it work?

 

Personally, I think that it would work if people at r&d could figure out a catalyst for the decomposition of H2O.

 

does that make sense? if not, do you have any other suggestions? if so, any idea what the catalyst could be?

Any ideas for how to make it work?

 

Personally' date=' I think that it would work if people at r&d could figure out a catalyst for the decomposition of H2O.

 

does that make sense? if not, do you have any other suggestions? if so, any idea what the catalyst could be?[/quote']

 

Ultimately, no matter what you do, you are goiong to have to put in at least as much energy to form the hydrogen as you get when you burn it.

 

The best you can hope for is that the energy you use isn't taking away from another source - i.e. you use 'waste heat' or hydro when there's little demand or something like that.

 

Hydrogen isn't an energy souce. It's a storage medium - think of it as a battery.

i know that. nothing creates energy...unless it's nuclear fission/fusion. the bond energy of H2O can be used, then H2O can be formed once more by energy from another source...that's what i was thinking of

He means it's not an alternative source of energy compared to current methods of generation - it's more like a means of moving petrochemicals around without using petrochemicals.

 

For governments, it's a relatively easy way to look like you're investing in cleaner fuels, even though what you are actually promoting is a cleaner engine. Ultimately the by-products are the same (or worse, considering the manufacture and transport costs for fuel cells.)

not necessarily. perhaps we're on a different page.

 

imagine this: we have a compound that is in liquid state at room temperature and decomposes at a temperature greater than 125 F. this compound decomposes to form two gases. of course, these two gases could combine to form the original reactant. now, imagine that we could find a compound that could catalyze the synthesis reaction.

 

would that not yield an energy "profit"?

Not when you take away manufacturing, packaging and transport costs, no.

not necessarily. perhaps we're on a different page.

 

imagine this: we have a compound that is in liquid state at room temperature and decomposes at a temperature greater than 125 F. this compound decomposes to form two gases. of course' date=' these two gases could combine to form the original reactant. now, imagine that we could find a compound that could catalyze the synthesis reaction.

 

would that not yield an energy "profit"?[/quote']

 

In an absolute sense, no. There has to be an energy input somewhere in the catalyzing reaction. What you want is something that's going to be at 125 F anyway, and use that.

energy is everywhere...

If I remember correctly, researchers at CERN have been developing several Hydrogen antimolecules through the use of particle accelerators. If they figure out a formula for mass production of these units, through the method of matter->energy conversion coinciding with the matter/antimatter anihilation law, we could use this high-energy biproduct to fuel rockets. Hydrogen Rocket Fuel(HRF:)).

I'm thinking it probably takes more energy than 1:1 annihilation can provide to make 1 atom of anti-hydrogen. A lot more.

Well in theory a catalyst should lower your initial energy use, but I think the chance of finding a catalyst for hydrolysis will be extremely small.

right, if one could do the following reactions:

 

2H2O+(x energy) --(catalyst a)-->2H2+O2+(y energy)

2H2+O2+(z energy) --(catalyst b)-->2H2O

 

where z<y, we would have a profit of energy. of course, this would come from the surroundings but hey, it doesn't really change much. i suppose this system would make for a good refrigerant.

Well in theory a catalyst should lower your initial energy use, but I think the chance of finding a catalyst for hydrolysis will be extremely small.

 

No, a catalyst lets you "sidestep" activation potentials. It doesn't let you ignore conservation of energy.

That film Chain Reaction was really cool. Anyone see it?