the law of the conservation of energy applies to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes...a system is not neccerarily confined to physics...it's highly prevalent in the study of thermodynamics in chemistry
and as i already said...it's IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy from splitting water than it takes to split the water in the 1st place without the use of electrolysis...and then it takes more to power the electrolysis reaction anyway
the manufacturers themselves say they use a "membrane electrode assembly"...in other words...a sacrificial anode and an electrolysis reaction
hence it's not powered on water...it's powered on electricity...and ironically it takes far more energy to produce that electricity to split the water into hydrogen for the car to burn than it would simply powering it on hydrogen
it seem it's your understanding of physics and chemistry that it flawed....not mine...and not for the 1st time either
i know how to make everlasting free energy to run a car. the car would use pushing and pulling forces on stable objects (using a stretched spring) to push the car. if u STEAL THIS IDEA UR IN TROUBLE. ecleast i know that yous will belive and understand the idea.
The simple statement that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen doesn't give us a very clear picture of what really goes into the creation of a molecule of water. A quick look at the chemical equation for the formation of water tells us more.
2H2 + O2 = 2H2O
It takes two molecules of the diatomic hydrogen gas, combined with one molecule of the diatomic oxygen gas to produce two molecules of water. In other words the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen is 2:1, the ratio of hydrogen to water is 1:1, and the ratio of oxygen to water is 1:2.
There's something more though that doesn't show up in the equation. Energy. The formation of water from it's elements produces, in addition to water, a tremendous amount of energy, 572 kJ to be exact.
2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + ENERGY
This is an example of an exothermic reaction, a reaction that produces energy. It is also an example of what is called a combustion reaction, where a substance (in this case hydrogen gas) is combined with oxygen. You are probably familiar with this reaction through two tragic examples of the unleashed energy of the combustion reaction of hydrogen, the Hindenburg, and the spaceshuttle Challenger.
Hydrogen Fuel?
Yes - hydrogen is a good, clean fuel, producing only water as a by-product. Unfortunately it produces so much energy that it can get out of control, resulting in an explosion. But let's forget about that explosive part for a minute and think about the possibilities - Hydrogen as a New Clean Fuel - it could be the end of the energy crisis - but where would we get the hydrogen?
Can we create Hydrogen from Water?
Oh Yes! It's the same chemical reaction, but run in reverse:
2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2
Notice now that the requirement is for energy to be ADDED TO the reactants. This is an example of an Endothermic reaction. This means that we could use Water as a Fuel! IF (and this is a big if) we could find an easy way to convert the water to hydrogen and oxygen, then the hydrogen could be used as a clean fuel.
One way to convert Water to Hydrogen and Oxygen is through the process of Electrolysis - using electricity as the source of energy to drive the reaction. Let's take a look at what that might look like:
IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"
Isn't this rather circular?
Using Energy to break water to form hydrogen to combine oxygen to form Energy - in this way is rather circular. In fact, because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't break even in this exchange of energy. However, there exist better ways to disassemble water - namely using CATALYSIS.
IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"
What does a catalyst do?
A catalyst is a chemical compound that acts to speed up a reaction, but in the process is not itself changed. Therefore the catalyst, at the end of the reaction, is free to act again to assist another reactant through the reaction.
Catalysts work by lowering the energy barrier between the reactants and the products. In this case:
2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2
where it normally takes a tremendous amount of energy to convert reactants to products - the addition of a catalyst can decrease the amount of energy required and therefore speed the reaction up!
2H2O + CATALYST+ energy = 2H2 + O2 + CATALYST
Does this catalyst really exist?
Sort of...... Have you ever wondered how a plant uses water and carbon dioxide to create glucose and oxygen? This too is an endothermic reaction, an energy producing reaction run in reverse. Normally we would think of using glucose as a fuel, through oxidation we could produce carbon dioxide, water and energy - In fact this is what OUR bodies do to provide us with the energy we need for maintaining all of our bodily functions including THINKING!
Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY
To run the reaction in reverse, the plant utilizes a catalyst - CHLOROPHYLL - and the energy from the SUN to aid in the decomposition of water. While the chlorophyllic reaction does produce diatomic oxygen gas, it does not produce the hydrogen in a gaseous form. The hydrogen released from the water is used for the formation of glucose.
Could we use such a catalyst for converting Water and Sunlight into Fuel?
Scientists often use Nature as a model for the development of new compounds. One such development, which has been studied extensively in this regard, is a molecule known as Rubippy. The structure of Rubippy is shown below. It is similar in structure to the chlorophyll molecule having a metal center (in chlorophyll it's a magnesium ion, in rubippy it's a ruthenium ion) and an attached system of organic rings (in chlorophyll its a porphyrin derivative, in rubippy its a pyridine derivative).
IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"
Acting as "relay" channel for the transfer of electrons, Rubippy has shown some potential to do just that - convert water and sunlight into a clean, seemingly inexhaustible, source of energy. However, while rubippy has shown promise in this regard, it is not a commercially viable enterprise because of it's high cost, instability, and low efficiency.
If Scientists were able to get Rubippy to work, or created a viable alternative, what would we do about the explosion potential of using Hydrogen Fuel?
Good question! Would you believe that it is possible to do the combustion of hydrogen without letting the oxygen and hydrogen come in contact? This can happen in a FUEL CELL. A fuel cell is like a battery - It utilizes a chemical reaction to produce electricity. A drawing of a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell is shown below:
IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"
The kind of fuel cell shown here are routinely used in the space program. If this technology ever becomes viably available to the common person, the estimated cost of a fuel-cell hydrogen powered car would be less than half that of your current gas-mobile. In addition, it would be simpler, require less maintenance, and be environmentally friendly!
Selected by the SciLinks program, a service of National Science Teachers Association. Copyright 1999 - 2002
That Japanese car running on water is so cool! Whne your out of water but happen to need to pee, you will also have new fuel. It runs on anything liquid.
Awesome!
Now all we need is some OIL companies to invest!
__________________ They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority.
if i was you i really wouldn't take science lessons from an art historian
not to mention it's based on Ruthenium which is extremely rare and hugely expensive to produde and you would practically have to destroy half the planet in order to obtain a decent enough quantity
then there's the issue of it being extremely unstable and unreliable
__________________
You come at the King, you best not miss!
Last edited by jaden101 on Aug 10th, 2008 at 04:07 AM
Stop disinfoing this thread Jaden. The truth is out there and in this thread!
Cars that run on water exist. This technology has existed for quite some time.
As i have said many times before....we need some OILcompanies to invest in this technology.
Oww wait, would that mean OILcompanies would run out of business?!!? We cant have that now can we, my fellow OILcompanies. We will have to ridicule this technology and suppress it like theres no tomorrow.
__________________ They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority.
stop talking bollocks and i'll stop calling you out on it...every car that claims to run on water has some undeclared mechanism that means it takes more energy to split the water than it gets from the water...you know it and i know it...you claim to know alot about physics...clearly you know jack shit about anything
hahahaha...the rules of physics dont apply?...the rules of physics always apply...you ultra fail...and what's best is that you know it too but are still desperately trying to pretend you're right so you dont lose face....
You stand behind the laws of thermodynamics. These laws apply to physics and not chemical reactions. Not chemistry laws.
Why can a stick of dynamite explode while no one charged it up with more power than was used to light the fuse? If we were to apply physics to chemistry, dynamite could never explode, yet we all know dynamite says BANG.
See, BANG the dynamite goes.
(please log in to view the image)
This explosion is not possible because Jaden and his physic laws said so, this explosion is an illusion, its not there, you are dreaming.
Ask yourself people, who is lying? Dynamite going BANG or Jaden?
__________________ They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority.
hahaha...your inability to grasp what the laws of thermodynamics are show your inability to grasp basic science
they are for the conservation of energy...regardless of what form that energy is in...all an explosion is is the transfer of energy in the form of heat and "work" to it's surroundings
you only even need to look up the 1st line regarding thermodynamics on wiki
i suggest you look up the works of Josiah Willard Gibbs, Gilbert N. Lewis and Merle Randall for the relationship between chemistry and thermodynamics
here's a little starting point for you to increase your knowledge
Free energy exists, if it wouldnt exist, then why is solar energy possible, why is magnetic energy possible, why is wind energy possible?
There are several more of these "infinite" energies out there such as electromagnetic and gravitational energy. This century will become the age of Free and Clean energy!
Time will tell. And remember folks, once upon a time our Earth was thought to be flat..................
__________________ They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority.
i hope you're right...although whether it will be free is the crux....the machinary to harvest the raw materials needed to built these technologies isn't free...the people required to build and maintain them arent free....
i guess you could work off the theory that if energy is free...then everything that requires energy to build or operate should eventually be free...thus leaving production costs at zero...for everything...and thus eventually negating the need to currency at all...as you'd be able to get everything for nothing
but then the problem would be noone would feel the need to better themselves...who'd want to train for years as a doctor when you wouldn't get any benefits above someone who does nothing to better themselves
obviously this is a different argument altogether though
oh...and yes...i'm not a physicist...i do now have PhD in chemistry...including massive amounts of work of fire investigation and thus thermodynamics. Hess's law, Raoult's law, Henry's law, Dalton's law, Ideal gas law, combined gas law, Van Der Waals constants
all of these use a huge amount of physics and thus i clearly have you spanked in this debate...as usual
i'm sure you'll come away with your stuff about Tesla again though...cut n paste...cut n paste...at least actually learn the science behind what you're spouting eh?
KMC Community Forums
Jul 3rd, 2008 08:34 PM
