Why not make water a fuel. If we separate the H from the O we have fuel and O for the air.

Takes energy to do so, therefore it's not a net energy gain, only a means of energy storage.

Also, you shouldn't release the oxygen. You can use it again to burn the hydrogen. It would be a waste to release it into the air.

Engineers perfecting hydrogen-generating technology
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Researchers at Purdue University have further developed a technology that could represent a pollution-free energy source for a range of potential applications, from golf carts to submarines and cars to emergency portable generators.

The technology produces hydrogen by adding water to an alloy of aluminum and gallium. When water is added to the alloy, the aluminum splits water by attracting oxygen, liberating hydrogen in the process. The Purdue researchers are developing a method to create particles of the alloy that could be placed in a tank to react with water and produce hydrogen on demand.

The gallium is a critical component because it hinders the formation of an aluminum oxide skin normally created on aluminum's surface after bonding with oxygen, a process called oxidation. This skin usually acts as a barrier and prevents oxygen from reacting with aluminum. Reducing the skin's protective properties allows the reaction to continue until all of the aluminum is used to generate hydrogen, said Jerry Woodall, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process.

Since the technology was first announced in May, researchers have developed an improved form of the alloy that contains a higher concentration of aluminum.

Recent findings are detailed in the first research paper about the work, which will be presented on Sept. 7 during the 2nd Energy Nanotechnology International Conference in Santa Clara, Calif. The paper was written by Woodall, Charles Allen and Jeffrey Ziebarth, both doctoral students in Purdue's School of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

Because the technology could be used to generate hydrogen on demand, the method makes it unnecessary to store or transport hydrogen - two major obstacles in creating a hydrogen economy, Woodall said.

The gallium component is inert, which means it can be recovered and reused.

"This is especially important because of the currently much higher cost of gallium compared with aluminum," Woodall said. "Because gallium can be recovered, this makes the process economically viable and more attractive for large-scale use. Also, since the gallium can be of low purity, the cost of impure gallium is ultimately expected to be many times lower than the high-purity gallium used in the electronics industry."

As the alloy reacts with water, the aluminum turns into aluminum oxide, also called alumina, which can be recycled back into aluminum. The recycled aluminum would be less expensive than mining the metal, making the technology more competitive with other forms of energy production, Woodall said

More:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/pu-eph082707.php

This statement: "As the alloy reacts with water, the aluminum turns into aluminum oxide, also called alumina, which can be recycled back into aluminum. The recycled aluminum would be less expensive than mining the metal, making the technology more competitive with other forms of energy production, Woodall said." Is misleading.

The term "more competitive" is a very relative thing. That's because turning aluminum back into aluminum metal takes a HUGE amount of electrical energy. Sure, the process would be cheaper because you don't have to mine it, but that hardly makes it an energy efficient way of producing hydrogen. In fact, I believe that direct electrolysis of water would be more efficient.

how much energy does it take? why not use some energy to get the ball in motion and then use the H to continue the process?

I shouldn't say this...but in future I have seen, many planets of many oceans full civilizations have turned their homelands into deserts, to use water as fuel. Earth will most likely fall the same fate.

how much energy does it take? why not use some energy to get the ball in motion and then use the H to continue the process?

I can't give you an exact number because a lot of the energy used in producing the metal is required just to keep the mass molten! Pound for pound, aluminum takes much more energy to produce simply because the process is entirely electrical.

So, in the end, you've wound up using much more energy in the entire process than you could ever get back from the hydrogen produced. In other words, it's a energy sink - not an energy producer.

The only thing interesting about this particular process is that it's a novelty.

I shouldn't say this...but in future I have seen, many planets of many oceans full civilizations have turned their homelands into deserts, to use water as fuel. Earth will most likely fall the same fate.

Yes, you shouldn't have said it. :D Because the only way to use water as an energy source is by splitting it and burning the hydrogen that come from that. And when that happens, you have your original water right back again. Basic chemistry 101.

Yes, you shouldn't have said it. :D Because the only way to use water as an energy source is by splitting it and burning the hydrogen that come from that. And when that happens, you have your original water right back again. Basic chemistry 101.

...those civilizations went to outerspace, they did not use that water fuel on their planets...all that water went into space, leaving the planet dried up.

Lots of water in space. At least in the outer reaches of the solar system.

That's where most of our water came from, you know.
Comets.

Lots of water in space. At least in the outer reaches of the solar system.

That's where most of our water came from, you know.
Comets.

LUCK ... not all civilizations are that lucky.

Then where did their water come from. Early planets are generally hot and dry, yes? The water comes later after cooling?

Perhaps your third eye has a cataract?

Then where did their water come from. Early planets are generally hot and dry, yes? The water comes later after cooling?

Perhaps your third eye has a cataract?

I think you misunderstood me ... the civilization didnt just dry up and use up their planets resources such as water...they used up everything they could use up in their system and scattered it all around the galaxies as a result of their expansion to seek more resources.

If you are trying to pinpoint me down to a cross of fallacies...the cross does not exist in the first place.

Then this response:
LUCK ... not all civilizations are that lucky.
Makes no sense.

You're backpedaling.

I think you misunderstood me ... the civilization didnt just dry up and use up their planets resources such as water...they used up everything they could use up in their system and scattered it all around the galaxies as a result of their expansion to seek more resources.

If you are trying to pinpoint me down to a cross of fallacies...the cross does not exist in the first place.

Ho-hum. Anything's possible in science fiction. Have you ever tried just staying on topic instead of wandering off through the universe - fact OR fiction???

Then this response:

Makes no sense.

You're backpedaling.

:bugeye: Not all civilizations have water scattered in their star systems. Some are unfortunate enough to die on their own planets without having a chance of escaping...dying in the resources they themselves used up. Civilizations are different...their morals are different...environments are different...some are burnt by their own mother stars, some destroy themselves...others are envaded.

Ho-hum. Anything's possible in science fiction. Have you ever tried just staying on topic instead of wandering off through the universe - fact OR fiction???

well the facts are these...we can use all water of oceans on Earth...than travel to Mars and carry water there (even though there is water on Mars) ... or we can carry some water into space stations...than some water for many spaceships, until cosmic boom appears were many species travel all across the universe carrying something of Earth, until the next after I am awakened from my frozen state I look into a mirror and see the Earth stripped of everything...its oceans go...before the Sun ever got to increase the radius of the habitable zone beyond Earth path'. Fiction it is...but truth it holds within.

well the facts are these...we can use all water of oceans on Earth...than travel to Mars and carry water there (even though there is water on Mars) ... or we can carry some water into space stations...than some water for many spaceships, until cosmic boom appears were many species travel all across the universe carrying something of Earth, until the next after I am awakened from my frozen state I look into a mirror and see the Earth stripped of everything...its oceans go...before the Sun ever got to increase the radius of the habitable zone beyond Earth path'. Fiction it is...but truth it holds within.

Sheesh! Like I said before: ho-hum. Care to do any more fantasizing while continuing to trash what was originally a serious topic???

It would be very wise of us to carry the water with us from Earth to more habitable regions prior to the expansion of the sun, yes?

Sheesh! Like I said before: ho-hum. Care to do any more fantasizing while continuing to trash what was originally a serious topic???

I am not trashing anything...the discussing is still is about water being used as fuel...I am just make a point of the consequences of such an act.

Here is discussion if you see to it:

water used as fuel...energy from nuclear

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/fuelcell.gif

HALE droid ... made by SOCOM uses hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine

http://hydrogencommerce.com/images/AVGlobalObserver.jpg


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/special_ops_hydrogen_3g_hdtv_strato_droid/

Read-Only...well now that I started to talk on the subject of using water and hydrogen from it for fuel...were are you now? seems like only science-fiction makes a discussion worth wile

I am not trashing anything...the discussing is still is about water being used as fuel...I am just make a point of the consequences of such an act.

Here is discussion if you see to it:

water used as fuel...energy from nuclear

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/fuelcell.gif

That's NOT nuclear! It's an ordinary fuel cell and all the original water appears again - none is lost.

HALE droid ... made by SOCOM uses hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine

http://hydrogencommerce.com/images/AVGlobalObserver.jpg


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/special_ops_hydrogen_3g_hdtv_strato_droid/

Yet another vain attempt which causes no loss of the original water!

That's NOT nuclear! It's an ordinary fuel cell and all the original water appears again - none is lost.

I am just showing that as an example of how fuel cell works...gawd :rolleyes:

and suggesting to use energy incoming from nuclear power station generated electrical energy.

Read-Only...well now that I started to talk on the subject of using water and hydrogen from it for fuel...were are you now? seems like only science-fiction makes a discussion worth wile

You're not making any more sense here than you did with your invalid examples that I just shot down.

Yet another vain attempt which causes no loss of the original water!

this is the beginning only...I am showing you the current state of things. In future the spaceships will carry Earth resources beyond the planet.

this is the beginning only...I am showing you the current state of things. In future the spaceships will carry Earth resources beyond the planet.

I believe we all know the current state of things so you are wasting our time with all that stuff.

And sure - we'll carry LIMITED amounts of resources with us. There's plenty of water and minerals located throughout our solar system and beyond.

I believe we all know the current state of things so you are wasting our time with all that stuff.

And sure - we'll carry LIMITED amounts of resources with us. There's plenty of water and minerals located throughout our solar system and beyond.

I wouldnt be so sure of that. Plenty of resources...but first we have to get to them...and travel on regular basis.

You know the current state of things? I was referring to the hydrogen powered UAV...you knew about it before me? :cool:

It will always take 286 kj of energy per mol of water turned into hydrogen, because that's the standard enthalpy of formation of water. There's no way around it. In reality it will take a little more, because your process won't be 100% efficient. If you want to make H2 from liquid H2O, you have to give it 286 kj.

It will always take 286 kj of energy per mol of water turned into hydrogen, because that's the standard enthalpy of formation of water. There's no way around it. In reality it will take a little more, because your process won't be 100% efficient.

yup always that thermal energy that escapes for nothing...

I wouldnt be so sure of that. Plenty of resources...but first we have to get to them...and travel on regular basis.

You know the current state of things? I was referring to the hydrogen powered UAV...you knew about it before me? :cool:

Could be - I read about it over two months ago. Maybe three.

space ice mining. that is the answer to endless water.

space ice mining. that is the answer to endless water.

space ice mining? nothing lasts forever...

and were is this space ice? heh?

I'm not an expert, but I think that until we minimize everything, or find a way of using less energy to get the most effort, we must continue researching.

I'm not an expert, but I think that until we minimize everything, or find a way of using less energy to get the most effort, we must continue researching.

yeah sure...but meanwhile we are still on Earth and lack of resources is felt upon millions.

space ice mining is the mining of ice from other planets. we know there is ice on other planets. there is even ice in the asteroid belt. it will be the way of the future.

This has been bothering me for months. it's simple. use an anode and a cathode to separate hydrogen and oxygen. the will travel through their respected tubes and meet each other recombine and the released energy will be power for the mechanics.

exactly. plus, space ice mining is an excellent means to increase the GNP.

This has been bothering me for months. it's simple. use an anode and a cathode to separate hydrogen and oxygen. the will travel through their respected tubes and meet each other recombine and the released energy will be power for the mechanics.

That's just taking the long way around to say: electrolysis.

Where are you getting the electricity?

just back to that water thing, surley using water for fuel would be crazy when we have so many other sources to use like solar, wind, hydro electric from damns etc, if they can build a tunnell under the english channel to france, i would imagine they could build a few hydro electric plants enough to supply the best part of western europe, i have a few friends only a few mind, that have switched to solar, but they sem to make it so expensive, there is so mch energie out there, but it all boils down to one thing.

BY using electrolysis to break apart the H20 (water) into H (hydrogen) and O (oxygen), and using the H (hydrogen) as the fuel.But it takes more energy to break the molecular bond than you get from the hydrogen.

Sheesh Dragon! Water is actually a pretty common compound universally. Hydrogen is common as...well, Hydrogen, and Oxygen having a low atomic mass is also common, this is a generalization so correct me if i'm wrong but C, H, and O compounds are the most common I would assume, probobally with a large number of Na compunds as well.

As for this "burning up hydrogen nonsense" the byproduct of using hydrogen as a fuel is water, it comes back. Conservation of mass and energy means that we cannot "use up" all of our water doesn't it?

We get water back as showcased by the combustion reaction for Hydrogen.

2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + ENERGY

Hey look! water as a byproduct!? NO WAY!

I don't mean to offend you personally, but from what i've seen your knowledge of Chemistry is a bit...lacking. Well so is mine, but at least I remember basic concepts.

Perhaps to refresh you on said basic concepts you could look at this and stop making ridiculous claims
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/chemistryelectrolysis.html

sorry forgot about the topic at hand. Ah yes, water, I love water. seperating the water is very doable process, the key is to try and get the seperation process cheaper (in terms of energy) so that it can be used much more economically. Although it already costs pennies doesn't it?

sorry forgot about the topic at hand. Ah yes, water, I love water. seperating the water is very doable process, the key is to try and get the seperation process cheaper (in terms of energy) so that it can be used much more economically. Although it already costs pennies doesn't it?

Actually, the heart of the whole thing is that you never get back as much energy as you put into splitting it. Any energy converson process has losses and splitting water and then using the hydrogen are two stages of converson. To put it into common terms, energy-wise you are going in the hole (loosing).

Actually, the heart of the whole thing is that you never get back as much energy as you put into splitting it. Any energy converson process has losses and splitting water and then using the hydrogen are two stages of converson. To put it into common terms, energy-wise you are going in the hole (loosing).

I see, so is the net gain entirely negative? or is it even slightly positive? If so, What are the mechanical reasons that we can't get a net gain? Can the conversion process' be combined at all? Does this sound like a test question?

I see, so is the net gain entirely negative? or is it even slightly positive? If so, What are the mechanical reasons that we can't get a net gain? Can the conversion process' be combined at all? Does this sound like a test question?

It can never be even slightly positive. For example, the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis is between 80 and 94%. Let's be generous and just call it 94%, and that means you've already lost 6% there alone. Now consider the hydrogen - what are you going to do with it to provide useful energy, burn it? If so, there will be wasted heat that cannot be recovered - more loss. And are you burning it to produce steam to run a turbine generator? Not all the heat can be extracted from the steam (more lost), the turbine/generator is only about 85% efficient at the most, so there goes another 15% at least.

Perhaps instead of all that you want to use it in a fuel cell? The MOST efficient ones currently top out at about 85% - a loss of 15%.

So even assuming the best possible conditions and the highest conversion factors (electrolysis with 6% loss and fuel cells with 15% loss) you still have lost 21% of your original energy in those two conversion steps. It's a no-win situation no matter how you arrange it.

It would seem that nuclear energy is still the cleanest and most efficent then wouldn't it. Darn.

It would seem that nuclear energy is still the cleanest and most efficent then wouldn't it. Darn.

Yes, in terms of practicality. Things like solar, etc. are nice but they will never generate enough power to meet the world's growing energy needs.

That's why I keep saying that fission is the best solution for the short term until fusion finally becomes a reality in another 50 years or so. Hopefully, less than that - but fission will carry us far beyond that point anyway.

I know the French have really jumped on board with building more nuclear reactors, but Germany is doing just the opposite and pushing coal for some reason. I think it has something to do with environmentalists. Here in Kansas where I live, we have had a contract to build a nuclear plant for quite some time now, but instead they are gonna build a coal one and even send OUT the power, but the CO2 emissions go on our record.:bawl:

I know the French have really jumped on board with building more nuclear reactors, but Germany is doing just the opposite and pushing coal for some reason. I think it has something to do with environmentalists. Here in Kansas where I live, we have had a contract to build a nuclear plant for quite some time now, but instead they are gonna build a coal one and even send OUT the power, but the CO2 emissions go on our record.:bawl:

The good news is that world-wide there are something like 167 nuclear plants either being planned for or in the approval process. There are several in the U.S. alone and Japan is also joining the rush.

The people - and governments - have slowly come to realize that it's the ONLY way to increase energy output without generating excess CO2. There's no real alternative at all waiting in the shadows. Yes, coal is pretty cheap and we'll still have to deal with it for a very long time.

I see, so is the net gain entirely negative? or is it even slightly positive? If so, What are the mechanical reasons that we can't get a net gain? Can the conversion process' be combined at all? Does this sound like a test question?
To put it simply, the only energy that you can get back from burning hydrogen and oxygen is the energy that you put there with electrolysis. So you can't get back more energy than you put in, any more than you could get more energy out of a rechargeable battery than you added to it when you charged it.

To put it simply, the only energy that you can get back from burning hydrogen and oxygen is the energy that you put there with electrolysis. So you can't get back more energy than you put in, any more than you could get more energy out of a rechargeable battery than you added to it when you charged it.

But the bigger - and even more important truth - is that you can never get back all that you put in in the first place.

If the hydrolysis of water is so inefficient, then how come they use it in space rocket fuels?

If the hydrolysis of water is so inefficient, then how come they use it in space rocket fuels?

Simple. Cost isn't the main consideration - energy density is.

To put it simply, the only energy that you can get back from burning hydrogen and oxygen is the energy that you put there with electrolysis. So you can't get back more energy than you put in, any more than you could get more energy out of a rechargeable battery than you added to it when you charged it.

Using wind, water or sun to make hydrogen wouldn't cost that much to build the devices in order to produce the hydrogen. Once it was built it will last a very long time, like windmills, photovoltaic solar cells and dams that use water to produce electricity.

Here is but another methold to extract the hydrogen from water.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo&feature=related

Using wind, water or sun to make hydrogen wouldn't cost that much to build the devices in order to produce the hydrogen. Once it was built it will last a very long time, like windmills, photovoltaic solar cells and dams that use water to produce electricity.

Here is but another methold to extract the hydrogen from water.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo&feature=related

We've already discussed that video. It's just another case of getting out less energy than is put into the system. No help there.

If the hydrolysis of water is so inefficient, then how come they use it in space rocket fuels?

They don't. Hydrogen is obtained by cracking it out of hydrocarbons, usually natural gas and propane. Then cooling to the liquification temp. They get the oxygen by cryogenically liquifying air and distilling. (iirc nitrogen boils easier than oxygen)

Yes, of course because if we are to colonize mars ( another planet of the habitable zone) we will have to find an external source for water, no matter what state of entropy, until we can stabilize Mars's atmosphere and terrain

I think that if we mix a salt with water, we can make a perfect electrolytical solution for power. We can increase the attraction between the molecules of the salt with the van der waals forces of the water molecules by heating the solution. The process's proliferation would immediate from heat energy maybe from a substance that can easily absorb energy and then intensify, sort of a natural battery with made parts:eek:

I think that if we mix a salt with water, we can make a perfect electrolytical solution for power. We can increase the attraction between the molecules of the salt with the van der waals forces of the water molecules by heating the solution. The process's proliferation would immediate from heat energy maybe from a substance that can easily absorb energy and then intensify, sort of a natural battery with made parts:eek:

And what will all this accomplish?

Regardless of which salt you choose to use, you will wind up producing only a tiny amount of hydrogen and oxygen and a LOT of the hydroxide of the metallic component of the salt and a fair amount of the non-metallic component of the salt. For example, take common table salt - sodium chloride. The primary products will be chlorine gas (bad stuff!) and sodium hydroxide (also bad stuff!) and the hydrogen produced will be negligible. Basic chemistry 101.