JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 22,968
- 10,694
No it doesn't.Yes it takes some energy but it also produces more energy than it uses.
The ashes analogy is way off base. There is no fuel in ashes but there is very clean energy in hydrogen
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No it doesn't.Yes it takes some energy but it also produces more energy than it uses.
The ashes analogy is way off base. There is no fuel in ashes but there is very clean energy in hydrogen
Do you have specific data? Will the energy that will be spent on the water decay using electric current exceed the energy of burning the released hydrogen? Has anyone already considered and verified this in experiments, or is it just speculation?The combination of hydrogen and oxygen, when separate, contains energy. The process of combining them releases that energy, with water remaining as a by product.
The water does not contain the energy that the hydrogen and oxygen that make it up did, when they were separate.
To separate water back into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put back that energy. Assuming 100% efficiency (which never happens in real life) you would have to put as much energy into water, to break it into hydrogen and oxygen, as what you would get by burning that hydrogen and oxygen, turning it back into water.
thermonuclear fusion is not a chemical process of combining hydrogen and oxygen. Why are you talking about it here?As far as I know, so far, Mankind has only been able top get fusion to happen in a manner that requires both deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium (even heavier hydrogen).
Making fusion happen in a controlled manner is very difficult. Maintaining the conditions in which fusion can happen have, so far, required us to put more energy into it than we've been able to get back out.
The only way that we've been able to get more out of fusion than what we have to put into maintaining the conditions necessary ends up looking something like this:
View attachment 647846
The volatility of hydrogen is problematicOn May 2, 1800, Anthony Carlisle and William Nicholson decomposed water into hydrogen and oxygen using electric current.
220 years have passed since then and no one has even tried to do it on a large scale!!!!!
Do you have specific data? Will the energy that will be spent on the water decay using electric current exceed the energy of burning the released hydrogen? Has anyone already considered and verified this in experiments, or is it just speculation?
thermonuclear fusion is not a chemical process of combining hydrogen and oxygen. Why are you talking about it here?
There is no need to "think" anything, it is well known.
So far, you have not provided any specific data proving that the release of hydrogen from water is equal to the energy from its combustion, in addition this is electrochemistry and not physicsIt's basic physics.
If a reaction releases a certain amount of energy, then reversing that reaction requires the same amount of energy to be put back into it. There is no way around this.
Chemically bonding hydrogen and oxygen releases energy, and produces water. To break that water into hydrogen and oxygen requires putting the same amount of energy back into it, that is released when they are combined.
You are talking nonsense. Hydrogen is released galvanically and "until" it was done in 1800It's the only way to get energy out of water—use the hydrogen in it as fuel for thermonuclear fusion.
We're a very long way from making this happen in a practical manner.
Will you answer the question or will you wag your ass?
A wave and thermal motion of particles are different things, do you need to explain this or what?
So far, you have not provided any specific data proving that the release of hydrogen from water is equal to the energy from its combustion, in addition this is electrochemistry and not physics