budullewraagh Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 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"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Not when you take away manufacturing, packaging and transport costs, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 energy is everywhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erebus Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 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:)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I'm thinking it probably takes more energy than 1:1 annihilation can provide to make 1 atom of anti-hydrogen. A lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuzi Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Science Ape! Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 That film Chain Reaction was really cool. Anyone see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now