Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:57:12 -0700
Reply-To: Fryday <fryday@CALIFORNIA.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Fryday <fryday@CALIFORNIA.COM>
Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water (was Re: Attention California
Vanagonites)
In-Reply-To: <61.22840290.2a6025a4@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> If the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen gave off more energy than it
> takes to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water, then there would be no
> energy crisis in California or anywhere else. The world would be a different
> place. Engineers would be able to make a tiny engine out of a few drops of
> water, that would continuously be split and rejoined, providing endless
> amounts of energy.
Well, isn't the whole point to find a process that is more efficient to
separate the hydrogen from the oxygen than to put them back together?
For instance, during combustion a lot of energy is dissipated into heat and
vibration, only so much of it going towards pushing the piston and overall
making the engine run. What if we could make a better combustion engine that
will be more efficient? I'm sure that's what they are trying to figure out all
the time and that's why fuel consumption has been going up since the invention
of the car.
Now, what if we can find a way to improve the efficiency of electrolysis? So
that it takes a lot less electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen
than ever before?
Now, what if the electrolysis process is more efficient than the conbustion
process? Wouldn't you end up with a system that would have a surplus of
energy?
I dunno, seems like that would be the case to me. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
> The simple fact that electrolysis has been thoroughly researched (and
> taught in every high-school science class) and the current level of
> technology is very high, and yet these water engines do not exist, should
> indicate to the non-scientist that you cannot extract more energy from water
> than you put into it.
Wow, so much of innovation -- which typically takes a "thoroughly researched"
idea, and takes it one step further. Christopher Columbus was just one of
those people who though like that.
> I understand the laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps others don't. But
> beyond the academic aspect of it, the proof that this doesn't work is that
> electrolysis isn't used as a power source. Yes, hydrogen is used as a fuel,
> but it is manufactured at a cost. The hydrogen is only used as an
> intermediary to transfer energy.
Interesting. Does that mean that hydrogen fuel cells would be nothing more than
energy transfered from plants running on fossil or reusable energy?
> You cannot get something for nothing.
Of course, but if some of your processes are very inefficient and energy is
mostly lost as heat and vibrations, then finding ways to improve on that
situation will result in having more energy at your disposal.
> Even
> if burning H and O2 made a minute amount of additional energy over
> electrolysis, it would be the biggest thing ever. Free energy!! Perpetual
> motion!! Even if the reaction broke even (energy-wise), the dissipative
> forces like friction and radiated heat would tip the balance.
Well, maybe not, which is where innovation comes in.
200 years ago, I'm sure they thought electricity was more like magic than
something that can be harnessed.
> 85 GL Tiico with many oxygen-related chemical reactions on the body
Wow, would be nice to collect energy from that!! :)
A bientot,
Philippe
