On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:09:31 +0000 (UTC), "Nigel Kerr"
<nigel.kerr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:uincu1tco0kmb14qoh45vlu3htgcdgehqm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:57:14 +0000 (UTC), "Nigel Kerr"
>> <nigel.kerr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob P" <ctcboater@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >news:OcaFf.10620$NS6.4049@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>To understand how these water-fuel systems work, it helps to begin
by
>> >> >>realizing that ordinary water is actually a "battery" containing
vast
>> >> >>amounts of energy. Water is H2O - two parts hydrogen combined with
>one
>> >> > part oxygen. And, as President Bush says, hydrogen is an
excellent
>> >fuel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The amount of energy in the water molecule is thus vast, and has
>> >> > absolutely nothing to do with the amount of energy it takes to
break
>> >down that
>> >> >>molecule. This is an extremely im****tant point, as so many people
-
>even
>> >> >>scientists - are unclear on this concept. And yet if we can find
an
>> >> >>economical means to break down the water molecule, our energy
>problems
>> >are
>> >> >>over.
>> >> More B.S.
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> Oxygen and Hydrogen combined as water are both at close to their
lowest
>> >> energy state. That's why water is so stable. The energy it takes
to
>> >> separate water into it's components just coincidentally happens to
be
>> >> the energy generated by hydrogen burning or combining in a fuel
cell.
>> >>
>> >> This is High-school-chemistry-level stuff.
Ok, two reactions here - 2HOH -> 2H2 + O2 which is the electrolysis to
storage
and then O2 + 2H2 -> 2HOH
which is the combustion. Same bonds broken, same made, so the bond
enthalpies cancel.
As it happens though, its
498 + 2(435) - 4(427)
1368 - 1708
-340 KJmol^-1
in other words, roughly (because I used average bond enthalpy figures)
340 kilojoules of energy is released from the combustion of one mole
of oxygen and two of hydrogen. however, you'll not get this much
USABLE energy out, because of heat loss through conduction. so you'll
get less out, and consequently, it'll take more than 340KJ to make a
mole of oxygen and two of hydrogen. Use the energy to drive an
electric motor for your car. instead of putting 10KW into the
electrolysis and getting maybe 6 out from the hydrogen combustion, get
some high end motors and put it insto that, and get 8-9 out there
instead.
>> >>
>> >> In other words, the only separating process that's valid here is the
>> >> separation of a sucker's money from the sucker.
>> >
>> >How much does solar energy cost?
>>
>> From a solar electric cell? It's pretty expensive and not competitive
>> in most cir***stances -- maybe 21-25 cents per kW-hr. (Anyone's
>> welcome to correct me on these and the other figures in this post --
>> I'm not an expert and I've found that they vary from source to
>> source.)
A little aside that was thrown in to one of my lectures at university
(a few years back now) was that it takes more energy to create a solar
cell, than that cell will produce in its lifetime. Admittedly, I
ahven't kept pace with developments in solar cell manufacturing, but
it is something to bear in mind. Thus, they're not usefull as an
initial generator, but should be used instead as aa replacement source
for end-stage power. The City police use solar pannels atop their
mobile speedcheck unit. saves having to hook it up to the city power,
or have huge batteries in it.
<snip>
>> Josh
>>
>> "Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe: And if then you doe not
>like him,
>> surely you are in some manifest danger, not to understand him." -
Heminge
>and Condell
>
>Josh
>I have only just seen your last 2 posts drop in there seems to be some
>delays between the groups
>alt.autos.kitcars,alt.bio.technology,alt.current-affairs.muslims,alt.religio
>n,alt.solar.thermal,alt.technology,alt.technology.misc.
>
>25c per kWh for a photo cell seems to be a lot of money surely there is a
>high initial cost but they run for a long time.
>I know it would be nice not to be dependant on Iran I well understand
that,
>but in order to stop use of oil they will have to use something similar
or
>nuclear power which is staring up a lot of crap now.
Nuclear power isn't so bad. You get shows like ast year's '24' which
protray bad things happening. It was, of course, an impossible
situation. It would have happened that way in a Chernobyl style
reactor, but nothing that is in operation in the US or UK would have
acted like that. In afct, cut down on the water supply to the reactors
there, and the reaction stops. WAter is the moderator used to slow the
neutrons down enough to ensure a chain reaction. No water, no
neutrons, no neutrons, no chain reaction. The ONLY danger is suddenly
dumping all the water out at once - which leads to overheating, and
the melt-down, but there are, afaik, at least 7 systems all seperate,
to prevent that from happeneing, including 2 which are entirely
manual.
I even toyed at one point about increased teleprescence in UK nuclear
facilities, and spent a little time with the nuclear safety arm of the
Health and SAfety Inspectorate , but it came to naught, at present.
There is, of course, the problem of waste. however, a friend of mine,
down at the RAL by oxford si working on a project (The Neutreno
Factiory) which may give possible sollutions, in the form of whats
known as "Accelerator Driven Transmutation Systems" - basically a
proton accelerator bombarding waste. Could be potentially usefull in
generatong new fuel frm old. Here's a thread on it from the projects
forum -
http://stephenbrooks.org/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/144606111/m/7441084321
(actually, the project is a doistributed computing project - the first
'second generation' project, which mimics evolution to work its magic.
Works very well, considering each of the 4 sub-projects has only got
between 200-300Ghz working on them, are 10^600 possible permutations,
and each sim takes my dual P3-550 about 2 hours to do.
Projects homepage is www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1/
>Here in the UK we would have no chance with solar power and as for wind
not
>so many people like those noisy things about. I believe the next place
they
>are going the use wind turbines is out at sea.
>
>So for the UK all solar solutions would have to be taken care of abroad
>which is why I say Iraq or Iran etc.
>Also much of Europe is being flooded with economic migrants just like you
>have from Mexico, but ours are from Iraq, Iran, and Eastern block
countries.
>So as far as Iran and Iraq etc goes if they had the stuff we would keep
>investing in their countries and hopefully keep their population over
there.
>Also if they don't have it they will continue to supply oil to third
world
>countries and maybe China who is using as much as they can get.
>
>I know what you mean with the water car about perpetual motion that was
my
>first reaction when I saw it over 10 years ago, but there are people who
>have spent a lot of time looking at this and still believe in it.
>It is very easy to just say it's impossible and they are all con men but
>many people have said this about stuff throughout history (yes and many
>times it was true but not all the time).
>http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/07/07/6900032_Earth2012_WaterCar/
>
>Until recently I was starting to believe the water car was just a myth
but
>now I see it was apparently true but how many car batteries they had in
the
>boot may never be known.
>
>Recent research in space has shown up large bodies of water entering the
>earth's atmosphere I have seen it on NASA video but where is it coming
from
>and why only to earth and not the moon?
>Also I am told water should va****ise in space when the sun hits it so how
is
>it getting here.
'the sun hitting it' is not exactly true. The sun is a star, like any
other, a standard G2 main fuson sequence star. Look at the centauri
system (well, ahve to be in the southern hemisphere for that) which
also has a star similar to ours, as one of the 3, abhelt 90% the sun's
size. Would ice in earth orbit, with the earth blocking the sun melt,
because of beta centauri's light? Of course not, its all about light
density.
Melting ice is space is common, thats what comets are after all.
Comets are, losely described, "dirty snowballs" and, as they near the
sun, and the light intensity increases, melt and blow off outer
layers. That is what makes the tail of the comet 9and why the tail
always points away from the sun. Again, putting it simply. now, its
hitting the moon as much as its hitting earth, or rather with a
frequency reletive to their sizes and gravity wells. They hit the moon
alright - where do you thin the craters come from? however, two things
combine to make it 'dissapear' from the moon.
1) impact heat.
They're quite massive, and going fast. When they hit, they generate
heat. This vapourises much of the ice, especially because of
2) extremely low pressure
As pressure decreases, so does boliing point. Thats why you never put
milk in tea on an aircraft - the water making the tea boiled at about
83C, so its just not hot enough, and makes the tea go nasty. the low
bailing point means that theres no liquid water, it either freezes, or
sublimes. Well then, where does the water vapour go? low gravity is
the reason why the moon has no atmosphere. AMrs too. The low escape
valocity of such planets means that the they are below, in many cases,
the RMS velocity of the particles. In other words, gravity just isn't
strong enough to hold onto them.
>So the only answer to me is it is from earth in the first place maybe
>escaping gas combining back into water then re-entering the atmosphere
but
>that has little to do with our subject just stating that there are
strange
>things about water even though we all take it for granted.
Nah, thers water everywhere. Thats what the kupier belt is mainly
composed of.
>
>Yes I know I am leaving my self open now for more smart arse comments
from
>others so go for it!
Smart arse? me Nigel? never!
K`T
>
>Nigel.
>
>
>
>
|
