 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Setting water on fire
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Setting water on fire From: Donuel Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:52 AM Last year some of you might remember I proposed using acoustic ultra-ultra sound to seperate H2O into volitile H and O. Basicly it used the standard acoustic mixing machines found in most chemistry labs while using a unique elliptical chamber to magnify the work. The idea was to assist hydrogen fuel cell technology to produce the H gas more efficiently and cost effectively. Yesterday on MSNBC I saw scientists use radio waves to "juice" the water and then touch a match to a small test tube of water and POOF it burst into a 6 inch tall falme that burned steadily. I really think we are on to something big enoough to change the petro energy standard of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:10 AM How much energy does it take to separate the oxygen and hydrogen, vs how much is produces when it it burned? But the idea is a good one: The big problem with hydrogen is the transports and storage, which would be solved by a fuel-cell like sealed system ( or one with only water as the input/output) But why is this method so great? What is wrong with electrolysis? THat seems to work with just two wires and a power source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Donuel Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:20 AM I'm easy. If it can be done cheaper, cleaner and better with electroysis then I'd go with it. It is my "hunch" that small vibrations under certain conditions will do a lot more work than large amounts of electricity. The man who demonstrated his new extreamly efficient electrolosis method has died this year. His work seemed very promising. (there will came a day) Caution - Flammable Water |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Peace Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:26 AM We did that as kids--electrolysis. Hooked a sparkplug into the top of a BIG glass jar, got the hydrogen (I think--I wasn't the brains of the crew) into it, got back a goodly distance, caused a spark and it went boom. It was fun. Well, until our experimentations caused a fire in the field which made the firemen come. We stopped that very day. I am sure somewhere in my subconscious that they are still looking for the culprits so I will sign off. Dave Arnsweller |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: PMB Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:37 AM Don't forget that you can't get out more energy from burning the hydrogen than you put in to electrolyse it. Usually a lot less, the rest of the energy warming the water. Unless of course there's some release of nuclear energy somewhere in there... cold-water fusion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:17 AM Work out a solar component. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: dick greenhaus Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:24 AM You can'y get nuthin' fo nuthin' First Law : You can't win Second Law: You can't break even Third Law:You can't get out of the game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM Why bother? Why not just try a tankful from the Cuyahoga River? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Mr Happy Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:28 AM THere's always dehydrated water tablets...............gettin' me coat! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Donuel Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:33 AM The new more efficient solar cell 'FILM' is thin flexible solar cells that cab be unrolled like paper. Send its electricity to the vibration/fadio wave chamber send the hydrogen to the fuel cell. send the energy to a hybrid vehicle with the new Japanese electric motors in the wheel rims. Making Hydrogen as you drive will help solve the massive infrastructure problem of building Hydrogen stations. 0000000000000000 Home heating and cooling film solar cells to run a small motor that serves as a heat pump in unerground liquid saline tanks. Mandate film solar cells instead of roof shingles. )))))))))))))))))))) Manufacture Lithium battery cells for such solar energy home storage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Donuel Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:35 AM or you can give up and fight perpetual wars for the last million barrels of oil....then get a horse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Greg B Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:49 AM I submit that we need to frame the argument properly. There are two problems being discussed, and sometimes people confuse the two. The first problem is the generation of energy. The second is the storage of energy. I would further submit that the matter at hand has to do with the storage of energy rather than its generation. Fossil fuel powered vehicles (i.e., gasoline and diesel) use energy that is directly generated via internal combustion (leaving aside the energy required to obtain and refine the fuel, which doesn't actually put any energy into the fuel that wasn't latent in the petroleum in the first place). Most alternative energy sources for vehicles, however, involve energy which is stored by the vehicle, not generated by it. This is really what you're doing when you transform water into its component parts of hydrogen and oxygen. You put energy in, you get those two elements out. Practically speaking, you can toss off the oxygen because there's no need to carry it with you in the vehicle. Why do that? Well, perhaps because you're now generating your energy in the form of electricity which comes from a resource that's difficult to carry around in a vehicle. There are engineering obstacles to getting adequate solar power, wind power, hydro-electric power, or nuclear power built into the family flivver. And storage batteries have some real down-sides to them as well--- they are heavy, take an unacceptable period of time to charge, etc. So if you use a renewable source of energy to by one means or another produce hydrogen from water, you end up with a somewhat easily transportable (and rechargeable) source of energy. The question at hand is the efficiency of that transformation. In other words, how many ergs does it take to produce 1 erg of energy to move the vehicle. Both transformations must be considered...to hydrogen and from hydrogen. The other piece of that is "how expensive (both in dollars and in environmental impact) is the energy required to accomplish that?" If electricity is cheap enough (on both of the above indices) you may not care that the overall transformation is only 30% efficient (hypothetically). If we find that electricity can be made without limit and/or much expense, and that water is plentiful (and doesn't get used up by the process because it comes out the exhaust of a hydrogen vehicle) and that the engineering needed to transport and distribute H isn't too heavy, cumbersome, or expensive, then we have the wave of the future for powering transport. Another thought problem--- depleted fuel storage issues aside, is solar, hydro-electric, and wind power less contributory to global warming than nuclear? Does nuclear power put heat into the earth's eco-system which otherwise would not exist? Whereas solar, hydro, and wind power simply divert energy that is inherent in the environment in the first place to other uses? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Donuel Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:04 PM Yes indeedy The hidden costs of using Uranium to boil water are not hidden anymore. The hidden cost of cheap oil is not hidden anymore. The hidden cost of storing energy from solar or other collection methods into lithum batteries is not yet known but surely will have its problems. Other means might be fly wheels (no they don't fly) or something I call a heat well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:14 PM The notion that the right frequency, even at low power levels, can cause a disassociation of the triple-bonds between H and O in water is tantalizing. I haven't seen a serious study of the possible combinations of power and frequency done which would dispel the idea or corroborate it. Sonoluminescence works (apparently) entirely because of the frequency, not the energy level, injected into water (or water plus some additive). It produces micro-scale cavitation bubbles which then collapse prodducing very small instances of outrageously high temperatures AND coherent light pulses lasting only nanoseconds. Another reason this is appealing is that the frequencies are near audible sound (low ultrasound). This gives the notion an allure because it seems within reach of any tinkerer. The biggest problem in shifting away from petrochemicals is that have such a delicious energy density. Nothing else comes close, except nuclear power. Just try selling a car with a nuclear gennie in the back. You'd be wiped out in six months, unless you could completely do away with the risks of meltdown and the liabililties of spent fuel particles. Donuelson, did you catch the name of the guy who did the demop with the water? Or can you provide a link? There's plenty of energy in water, don't get me wrong. It's just releasing it. Dem molecules don' wanna let go anytime. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM Maybe you could use a pickle as the storage device............ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Bee Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:47 PM I think I want that horse... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Metchosin Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM My daughter sent me the info on this a few months back Amos You can find out more here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Midchuck Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM If you can separate hydrogen and oxygen by putting less energy into water than you get out of the hydrogen and oxygen when you combine them (i. e. burn the hydrogen), you have done the chemical equivalent of inventing a perpetual motion machine. I'd love to see it happen. It would end all our energy problems for good and all. But I don't believe it. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Rapparee Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:41 PM You can also liberate hydrogen from water by using a piece of calcium or sodium -- but the return on your energy investment (e.g., you have to have a pure metal first) doesn't make it worthwhile. The sad truth is that, energy liberated vs. energy expended to liberate that energy, still have petrochemicals or nuclear coming out ahead of everything else we have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: MMario Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:43 PM with the possible exceptions of some renewable resource biofuels. IF a fast growing easily handled/processed species can be found or developed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: pattyClink Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:15 PM Here's a link I saved a couple days ago. Apparently they are using the technique already to focus heat on cancer cells in some experimental medicine. Much more than theory already. breitbart link |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:39 PM Well, the thing hinges around the difference between just injecting energy, the way a microwave oven effects a potato, or doing something more such that hydrogen bonds are released because of resonance to a frequency (or its harmonic). Understandably, there's no discussion of the frequencies involved, or a mathematical discussion of the harmonics relative to the dimensions of the bond sites. Dunno if there is something going on there or not. The video I saw did not either describe the time and power of the RF output. All I saw was evidence that the test tubes said to contain water/salt water were apparently leaping into flame as though they contained hydrogen or some other flammable gas. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:40 PM A release from Stanford University has some facts about hydrogen generation and use: Hydrogen I noticed some of the google blurbs on hydrogen fuel were ten years old. Progress is being made. Santa Fe, NM, is one smaller city already embarked of fitting some of its trucks with hydrogen capability. Some Swedish buses run on hydrogen. BMW hopes to have hydrogen fuel sources in Germany in 2010. Some Mercedes-BMW vehicles being tested are hybrids. Hydrogen, as a fuel, combines with oxygen to produce water and heat, thus no harmful emissions. Elsewhere, I read that costs of the fuel will be high, but when considered as a percentage of vehicle cost, is manageable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:53 PM You could only get out of burning hydrogen with oxygen to make water, at the very most, as much energy as you put into splitting teh water up to make hydrogen and oxygen. But it doesn't have to all happen in the same place - so you could use the energy in a power station (perhaps using renewables) to split the water, and then burn the hydrogen in a car engine miles away, using oxygen from the air. Which would be a lot easier than carrying the power station around with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: GUEST,petr Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:54 PM the idea of solar pv panels on a car , making electricity and then electrolysing hydrogen for a fuel cell sounds nice, but then one has to consider the efficiency.. (Solar is already low density power so its not going to generate enough power to run a car but considering that most commercially available solar pv - may be 12-14% efficient and then electrolysis which is around 45-50% efficient - you are getting about 6% of the solar energy youll be lucky to run a radio much less moving a car.. instead of electrolysis you would still be better off charging batteries or a compressor .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:28 PM This article from Der Spiegel (in English), a German magazine website, 2006, throws cold water on BMW. Der Spiegel is well-known and can be found on large North American newsstands. Their website, English version, is a good place to get comment on "things German." BMW Hydrogen 7 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM California Governor Swartzenegger's views on luxury cars and a hydrogen-fueled Hummer- Interview Interview with a German magazine, Der Spiegel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:42 PM Any electricity from solar panels would be far more efficiently used to drive the car directly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: dick greenhaus Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:01 PM I like the suggestion that was made some decades ago re. fueling UK railroads: If one plants tall grass along the tracks, a mower on the side of the train would cut it and burn it for fuel. By the time the train reaches the end of the line, the grass has grown again, and the process can be repeated ad infinitum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:10 PM I'm still going with the Cuyahoga River idea myself. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 Sep 07 - 08:57 AM "First Law : You can't win Second Law: You can't break even Third Law:You can't get out of the game." Michael Jackson sung that song in The Wiz... :-) Now it's a Music Thread! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: GUEST,stimulater Date: 14 Jan 08 - 02:17 AM any input about cracking water with solar panels would be apreciated i would like to crack at high pressure still considering what sort of pressure vesel ,insulater designs,and storage issues to consider this is a much better form of storage than batterys ???what pressures do propane cylinders hold?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 Jan 08 - 03:57 AM Guest,stimulator - Be very cautious about comparing hydrogen storage to propane storage. Although the slightly polar character of hydrogen makes it perhaps a little easier to store than helium, despite comparable molecular diameters, either gas passes quite easily through most common materials one might consider using for containement vessels. Even common glass is significantly permeable to both gases. Ordinary metals look more like window screen than like a window pane, since microcracks between grains are superhighways for these tiny molecules. Although helium passes fairly easily through many common materials, hydrogen has an additional feature that makes it very difficult to store economically. Nearly all common vessel materials contain trace materials that can easily combine with hydrogen when sufficient (usually fairly nominal) pressure is applied. A particular problem is with trace amounts of carbon found in all steels. At nominal pressure, hydrogen has a tendency to combine with the carbon to form methane molecules within the grain boundaries of the steel. The methane molecule must attempt to remain in the same space previously occupied by the carbon around which it forms. Since the methane molecule is enormously larger than either the carbon or the hydrogen, it "pushes apart" the grains, creating very high tensile internal stresses. When even small external tension is applied, the materials can rupture like dried up marshmallows. The term applied by stress analysts is "hydrogen embrittlement" and significant study of this phenomenon is suggested before attempting to predict what storage pressures might be useful, or what exotic materials might be needed. "Practical" hydrogen storage for vehicle use has generally resorted to reacting the hydrogen with a combination of metals, to retain the hydrogen in "metal hydrides." The hydrogen can be released from the hydride by simple heating, which can be done more easily than "on the road electrolysis" and with much better flow/release rates. Unfortunately, the temperatures required to "regenerate" the hydrogen from the metal hydride stores is generally fairly high, and safety concerns about explosive gases close to (and inside) glowing hot plumbing have not been resolved. While hydrogen combines (burns) with oxygen to produce pure water, if air is used to supply the oxygen, there will be more nitrogen than oxygen present in the combustion chamber, and NOx pollutants comparable to - and possibly/likely worse than - for common petrol fueled vehicles are likely. With one experimental vehicle for which I've had some first hand reports, since ca. 1966, NOx emissions have consistently been higher than for even '60s era conventional autos. While it sounds simple to just "burn the hydrogen" it actually is quite difficult to get controlled burning in an engine. Very minor deviations from "the right side of stochastic mixture" do result in detonation rather than burning. A problem with the experimental vehicle mentioned was that the detonations frequently (in 1967 when I witnessed a test and still in 1999 when I last talked to one of the engineers) were in - or transmitted to - the intake manifold, and aside from blowing the air cleaner through the hood, the engine quits until the full regenerator and intake manifold can be recharged and the hydrogen flow re-established to begin running again. More advanced vehicle experiments have largely discarded the idea of burning hydrogen in an engine, and most research now is aimed at using hydrogen as fuel for a catalytic "battery" (fuel cell) to run electric traction motors on the vehicle. Although metal hydride storage provides some volumetric efficiency improvement, it appears to be little used, since the "energy density" obtainable still doesn't come close to what's easily achieved with petro fuels. Most such experimentals now use methane or another petro fuel, with a "cracking reactor" to extract hydrogen onboard, and the fuel cell to convert to electric power. Once the cracking reactor, fuel cells, heat exchangers, pumps, thermal conditioners, regulators, controls, safety devices, and ballast batteries are included, most are not as efficient as internal combustion engines, although they may be somewhat (but not perfectly) cleaner. Most are currently NOT cost-competitive with just using rechargeable batteries. If an efficient method of generating hydrogen from water can be found, gaseous hydrogen remains incredibly difficult to store on mobile vehicles. The heat of combustion from "burning" hydrogen with pure oxygen does not compete favorably with burning carbon with oxygen, so enormous storage (volumetric) capacity would be required to equal the range/power of a typical small petrol/diesel automobile. Nearly all "reaction products" of hydrogen with trace elements/compounds expected in a typical operating environment are at least somewhat corrosive (usually acidic) and very strict - and expensive - attention to safe operating life limits and reliable useful life prediciton methods are required. In other words, a few minor challenges do remain. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 Jan 08 - 06:10 AM "a mower on the side of the train would cut it and burn it for fuel." The sad problem with all 'simple ideas'.... the grass, once cut, cannot be burned immediately as it has too much water in it - it must be dried. Attempts to burn wet grass are probably well know to the pyromanics among us - works great as a smoke screen generator! and you lose so much energy from the 'wet burn' that you can probably even extinguish the fire... If you leave the grass (in a very thin layer only!) on the side of the track to dry - if no one steals or nothing eats it - you have to keep turning it so it dries properly without moulding or composting... Not say the the dangers to tramps - refer our extensive database of folk music :-) - walking along the tracks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Donuel Date: 14 Jan 08 - 08:23 AM John I never thought that H engines have the ability to make laughing gas, but you are right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: folk1e Date: 14 Jan 08 - 02:34 PM If you were to generate / split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen the mixture would be explosive not flammable! The second point is that water is in it's lowest energy state (that is why it is water and not something else ..... like its gasses). This means that you can't get anything "out" of it without putting a lot more "into" it first. Nice try though! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:12 PM Not read through the thread I'm afraid so sorry if anyone mentioned it before. Anyone see the documentary on building the city in Toykyo Harbour? One of the alternative energy providers was hydrogen split from the water - with algae! Quite amazing. Dunno how far they are down the line. D. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Tweed Date: 15 Jan 08 - 02:28 PM Metchosin's link has this youtube video, a compilation of several news stories showing John Kanzius demonstrating his machine. Worth a look if you haven't already. Burning Salt Water |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 Jan 08 - 09:41 PM "H engines have the ability to make laughing gas" It's all part of The Great Conspiracy, you see. The world is overpopulated, so there are plans to reduce our number. But if the world can be pumped full of laughing gas, we will not fight, but go happily... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Tweed Date: 16 Jan 08 - 10:03 AM Hmmm...I'm one of the resident idiots of Mudcat, but it seems to me (Tweed bumbles forward shamelessly with uneducated pronouncements), that storage of the finished product is not viable. The hydrogen must be burned as fuel as soon as it's produced, so have they thrown that idea out already or did the researchers go for the gas tank with all the infrastructure involved idea first?? Is there any possibility of super capacitors (smaller and less weight than batteries) being developed to store solar harvested electricity and then be used as onboard cracking power, wherein the vehicle fills up a water reservoir and makes it's own fuel as needed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: dick greenhaus Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:24 PM And we have some waterfront property in Arizona to sell you... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Tweed Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:26 PM Hmmm....okay so that's impossible. Just like it was impossible to shrink a computer that filled three or four good sized rooms into the size of notebook? Circumnavigating the earth?(It's flat, can't be done...) Construct the Brooklyn Bridge? i-phones?? ANY kind of phone for that matter. Solar cells? Fire from stone???? I betcha that the folks who managed to pull off these projects just didn't realize that it couldn't be done and had an unfair advantage over their detractors. Aslo, how much for that Arizona property Mr. Greenhouse? I might live to see that if I take better care of myself. Thanks for the tip. Tweed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: folk1e Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:20 PM No it is not impossible ...... you only have to throw out one or two of the basic laws of Phisics! The Law of conservation of energy and the whole understanding of what happens when you ignite a Hydrogen and Oxygen mix! Please note IT DOES NOT BURN....... IT EXPLODES! Do not try this at home! Then again perhaps it will be a good example if you did, but can you film it for youtube please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: dick greenhaus Date: 17 Jan 08 - 05:46 PM Tweed- If someone can prove that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, fine. Let them prove it--but a quick video under dubious conditions doesn't prove anything. If one could demonstrate that the law of conservation of energy didn't necessarily hold, it would be worth a totally inexpressible amount of money, and be certainly the most important piece of news in the past few centuries. It would be a bad idea to hold your breath until such a thing is demonstrated and verified by independent testers: you'd turn blue and die, and be unable to buy any of that nice Arizona property. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Tweed Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:39 AM folk (limited edition) wrote: Please note IT DOES NOT BURN....... IT EXPLODES Yeah, just like air/fuel mixture in a yore car's engine. And thankya for the good wishes for me to burn in flames for being a physical heretic. ***** Okay Dick, but one tool always begets a better one than the one before it. ***** Aslo, the laws of energy conservation aren't enforced in this world much at all. Count the SUV's out on the interstate next time you're stuck in traffic. Count the number of incandescent light bulbs you got burning right now. For nearly thirty years I've been changing out underground fuel tanks and lines at gas stations and gov't facilities. If they come up with something,easier, better and cleaner, I'm all for it. I like this guy Kanzius. He doesn't throw up his hands and say "I can't do that! " I think someone along the line will use his findings and take it further. You can't have too many tools, whether you do hard work or head work for a living. Tweed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: dick greenhaus Date: 18 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM Tweed- Optimism is fine, but I don't hold out much hope for faith-based physics. If this system works, it should be able to be reproduced by independent experimenters. I'm willing to bet that, if water is actually broken down into hydrogen and oxygen by foe sort of oscillator, the energy you put in will exceed the energy you get out. Considering how important such a process would be if it worked, it shouldn't be difficult to locate any number of independent experimenters. BTW, conservation of energy in the physics sense doesn't refer to using less--it just means that you can't get more energy out of any process than you put in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 08 - 01:27 PM There was no mention in the Kazius YouTube demos of how much energy he was pouring into the ambient field in which the test tube was standing/burning. That he could take the flame and convert it to mechanical motion using a small Stirling engine does not answer the question of energy cost (or energy density). The other point that should be repeated is that aside from sources of energy, efficiency comes from moving energy across time and space efficiently. Solar panels can't drive a car in real time, but they can harvest energy all through daylight hours and store it. Hell, all oil is is a highly efficient way to move solar energy through time and space. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 08 - 02:33 PM OF interest to those curious about these avenues of exploration is the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter. It covers legal and technical developments on these fronts. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 08 - 02:41 PM Something you should also know, from the National Academy of Sciences: "Temperature dependence of the two-dimensional infrared spectrum of liquid H2O D. Kraemer*, M. L. Cowan*, A. Paarmann*, N. Huse, E. T. J. Nibbering, T. Elsaesser, and R. J. Dwayne Miller*, *Institute for Optical Sciences, Departments of Chemistry and Physics, University of Toronto, 80 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S3H6; and Max-Born-Institut für Nichtlineare Optik und Kurzzeitspektroskopie, Max-Born-Strasse 2A, D-12489 Berlin, Germany Edited by Robin M. Hochstrasser, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, and approved November 12, 2007 (received for review June 22, 2007) Two-dimensional infrared photon-echo measurements of the OH stretching vibration in liquid H2O are performed at various temperatures. Spectral diffusion and resonant energy transfer occur on a time scale much shorter than the average hydrogen bond lifetime of 1 ps. Room temperature measurements show a loss of frequency and, thus, structural correlations on a 50-fs time scale. Weakly hydrogen-bonded OH stretching oscillators absorbing at high frequencies undergo slower spectral diffusion than strongly bonded oscillators. In the temperature range from 340 to 274 K, the loss in memory slows down with decreasing temperature. At 274 K, frequency correlations in the OH stretch vibration persist beyond 200 fs, pointing to a reduction in dephasing by librational excitations. Polarization-resolved pump-probe studies give a resonant intermolecular energy transfer time of 80 fs, which is unaffected by temperature. At low temperature, structural correlations persist longer than the energy transfer time, suggesting a delocalization of OH stretching excitations over several water molecules. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Setting water on fire From: Tweed Date: 18 Jan 08 - 02:41 PM >>BTW, conservation of energy in the physics sense doesn't refer to >>>using less Yaz, I know that, Mr. Greenhouse, I was being a wiseass. Aslo, I know that the Sterling engine will not run a pickup truck, but the more things they find out the better the chances are to put these discoveries together to make a solution. Ain't that so? It's pretty late to do anything, but you can't just say fuck it. I got a house about 4 miles from the beach and figure it should be about fifteen years for the ocean to move up to the front yard so yeah, I think about this stuff and hope that physics majors who still can dream will come up with something. |
