phatj wrote:

td11 wrote:hmm, i think you're talking about bond dissociation energies-- the O-H bond has a much higher dissociation energy than does the C-H bond.

It's been a long time since I took chemistry or physics, but it sounds like what Bucky is describing violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. You can't convert water into hydrogen (and oxygen) without putting as much energy into it as you'd get back by burning the resultant hydrogen.

Bucky wrote:

phatj wrote:

td11 wrote:hmm, i think you're talking about bond dissociation energies-- the O-H bond has a much higher dissociation energy than does the C-H bond.

It's been a long time since I took chemistry or physics, but it sounds like what Bucky is describing violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. You can't convert water into hydrogen (and oxygen) without putting as much energy into it as you'd get back by burning the resultant hydrogen.

That's what all the pundits are saying. It's all about the viability of a self-sustaining chemical chain reaction such as the phenomeon of combustion. Theory being, the energy is in there (such as with carbon based fuels); it's just a matter of getting it out.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Bucky wrote:

phatj wrote:

td11 wrote:hmm, i think you're talking about bond dissociation energies-- the O-H bond has a much higher dissociation energy than does the C-H bond.

It's been a long time since I took chemistry or physics, but it sounds like what Bucky is describing violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. You can't convert water into hydrogen (and oxygen) without putting as much energy into it as you'd get back by burning the resultant hydrogen.

That's what all the pundits are saying. It's all about the viability of a self-sustaining chemical chain reaction such as the phenomeon of combustion. Theory being, the energy is in there (such as with carbon based fuels); it's just a matter of getting it out.

But aren't carbon based fuels really just stored solar energy from millions of years ago? That is, the sun converted CO2 and H2O into hydrocarbons, and when we burn fossil fuels, we're really just releasing solar energy.

phatj wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Bucky wrote:

phatj wrote:

td11 wrote:hmm, i think you're talking about bond dissociation energies-- the O-H bond has a much higher dissociation energy than does the C-H bond.

It's been a long time since I took chemistry or physics, but it sounds like what Bucky is describing violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. You can't convert water into hydrogen (and oxygen) without putting as much energy into it as you'd get back by burning the resultant hydrogen.

That's what all the pundits are saying. It's all about the viability of a self-sustaining chemical chain reaction such as the phenomeon of combustion. Theory being, the energy is in there (such as with carbon based fuels); it's just a matter of getting it out.

But aren't carbon based fuels really just stored solar energy from millions of years ago? That is, the sun converted CO2 and H2O into hydrocarbons, and when we burn fossil fuels, we're really just releasing solar energy.

That's quite true, but what Bucky is talking about is water, not carbon-based fuels. And the energy isn't "in there" -- that's why water is the product of an exothermic reaction.

You can take the water that results from burning hydrogen and break it down into hydrogen and oxygen again, but you have to put in as much energy as you get out by burning it. Otherwise, you could create a perpetual motion machine.

Woody wrote:If you uses Papyrus or Comic Sans as an e-mail font, you should be fired

phatj wrote:

Woody wrote:If you uses Papyrus or Comic Sans as an e-mail font, you should be fired

Papyrus? Seriously?

Woody wrote:Never in my life have I been so excited to get a B+............................................

lethal wrote:I got into a fist fight in the middle of 6th avenue after work today.