Against the flow: Or, Water is an Oxide, people!

I've created this thread to remind some individuals who, while I appreciate their enthusiasm and ability to think forward, seem to be going in the wrong direction, and have been misguided by lack of knowledge in what is going on, and the inability to comprehend what is going on.

A little knowledge is a bad thing. With only a bit of knowledge on a subject, it is easy to start dreaming of possibilities and the amazing things you can accomplish, but this is when it is easy to make mistakes, potentially dangerous mistakes.

With that said, I would like to turn your attention to the nature of water, and with regards to going against the flow of energy to come out 'on top'. It should be well known, I should hope, that water is an oxide. It is, so to speak, "used up". If I can make an analogy to gasoline, once it is burned, the by-product, carbon dioxide, and in incomplete combustion, CO, is also 'used up'.

The resulting exhaust cannot be burned, or re-oxidized in any way. This should be obvious. You may, however, given the right materials, in the right conditions, and with an influx of input energy, reverse that process. You are returning a previously useless material, into a form of energy storage, in the form of chemical energy. But remember, this energy comes at a price. it will often take more a significantly larger amount of energy to "push it up" to that higher level of energy and have it remain stable.

Now, this goes for all materials, water included. Water has 'been used up', it is the most important substance to man, and yet, by all accounts, it is useless as a form of energy storage. To get it to release energy, we must revert it back into a fuel.

And this is where some people have trouble with comprehending the nature of water: hydrogen, as a fuel. Is it a good source of energy? undeniably. Can it be used to power our cars? certainly.

But it is not a prime mover. It is what is termed an Energy Carrier. In the same sense that hydrocarbons do not create energy, so too, hydrogen does not create energy. And remember, water is the oxidized form. It can be considered 'used up'.

I have come across evidence in the past, that in certain conditions, with great care and proper application of new physical principles, water can be coerced to enter certain nascent forms and become dissociated into it's base components, at a lower cost of input energy. Much research has been done in this, and I am quite certain we will reap the fruits of this effort in the near future. Of this i am quite certain.

But to assert that one can simply 'plug in' some crude apparatus to an already inefficient gasoline engine, with the aid of simple homemade electronics, designed by laypeople, can somehow liberate far more energy than input, is really just sheer fantasy. I'm sorry, but it must be said, that even if such a system worked, any gains would be far outstripped by losses in such things as heat, friction, electrical resistance, energy conversion losses, etc, to the point it would be an actual miracle it ran at all.

I'm not here to laugh in your face at misguided attempts, I want to help. I have done research in a similar area before, and I personally would never give someone instructions on doing something such as this. It would waste their money, time, and possibly get them killed. You do not deserve that.

I would suggest that a good understanding of basic physics and thermodynamics be understood before even attempting to try out a system on paper. for safety, and for helping you to understand. It will help you to, if you plan to do so, figure out a way to maybe help start a revolution in this field.

In conclusion, While the impossible may not be impossible, it doesn't mean it's a walk in the park. Examine and think about things you read and make sound decisions. Thank you.

Not sure I get what you are saying,but there is Hydrogen in water which can be used as a fuel.
So water is not "used up"as an energy source.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


It takes more energy to bring it back to that point of use as a fuel than the maximum you can receive from burning, understand?

People mistake hydrogen as something to be 'extracted' from water, the way one would extract oil from the ground, but they do not realize that energy is being input to dissociate water. Water is stable, it does not want to come apart. You must force it apart.

If anyone would like a push in the right direction, I can help you with that.

questions,

h2o2 is reduced to h2o?

energy is released?

and what about reverse?

adding oxygen to h2o is oxidizing it and making h2o2.

maybe that cycle can be used for energy yield? or not practical??

Im not sure why you're presuming no one knows this other than you. You seem to know about the subject, but I would think most people will already understand what you presume they don't.
If this thread is aimed at particular individuals and Im missing something, then I apologies for the pointless post.

reply to post by mcsteve


I apologize if it came out that way. I assume everyone knows this. But some people go right ahead and say "physics is wrong, my way works".

Originally posted by ignant
questions,

h2o2 is reduced to h2o?

energy is released?

and what about reverse?

adding oxygen to h2o is oxidizing it and making h2o2.

maybe that cycle can be used for energy yield? or not practical??

Peroxide requires energy to make.

Adding oxygen to water does not cause it to oxidize.

Some energy is released when peroxide is used to oxidize something else (the weak chemical bond of peroxide is easily reduced to the more stable H2O with the extremely electronegative spare oxygen atom being torn off to bond with just about anything) - but you will, again, have to use energy to break that oxygen away from another element or compound, in such cases.

Originally posted by Conspiritron9000
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

 

It takes more energy to bring it back to that point of use as a fuel than the maximum you can receive from burning, understand?

People mistake hydrogen as something to be 'extracted' from water, the way one would extract oil from the ground, but they do not realize that energy is being input to dissociate water. Water is stable, it does not want to come apart. You must force it apart.

If anyone would like a push in the right direction, I can help you with that.

I think I understand what you are talking about now.
Sorry for my earlier confusion.
Yes it takes as much if not more energy to separate the Hydogen from water.
So far as we have done up till now.

But water still holds the key to massive power in a diferent respect-that of tidal power.
Tidal power,if harnessed correctly could be our "free" energy of the future,as long as the moon and sun keep doing their thing.
Not true free energy though,as it relies upon the forces of our solar system to operate.

Conspiritron9000, how could H2O2 be made with O3 / high voltage. H2O2 in very low concentrations happens naturally, so how can we make it without a big chemical rube goldberg setup?

Originally posted by XL5
Conspiritron9000, how could H2O2 be made with O3 / high voltage. H2O2 in very low concentrations happens naturally, so how can we make it without a big chemical rube goldberg setup?

I would say we harness lightning for the electricity.
Build gargantuan capacitor banks in the ground to store the charge from lightning.
There is your power.

Lightning will not work sadly. The problem is, capacitors do not like to be charged THAT fast. It would be like filling a paper cup with a fire hose. Now if we could expand the avgerage energy of a magnetic pulse so the peak power of a lightning strike could be lenghtened, then the only problem left is the randomness. For the randomness, I would think a strong enough UV laser may work (makes the air conductive).

I'm currently experimenting with something in the field of ultra-high frequency cosmic rays, and their effects on certain materials. I don't know if it will amount to anything, but past experiments seems to suggest so, and rest assured if I find anything, ATS will be first to know - nothing held back.

reply to post by Conspiritron9000


So is this thread about the chemical compound dihydrogen oxide otherwise known as Dihydrogen monoxide aka DHMO?

Frequently Asked Questions About Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to one of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for DHMO:

* Kemp Compliance & Safety MSDS for DHMO
* Chem-Safe, Inc. MSDS for Dihydrogen Monoxide
* Applied Petrochemical Research MSDS for Hydric Acid
* Original DHMO.org Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Dihydrogen Monoxide (html)

Most people have no idea how hazardous DiHydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is!

And did you know that according to one study, 86 percent of the population polled supports a ban on DHMO?

Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.

Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide.

Wow, 86% of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide, but it hasn't been banned yet? Why?

Inhalation of even a small amount can cause instant death, and yet we still allow this to be used in many products we consume:

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.

So, why haven't we banned Dihydrogen monoxide , or Dihydrogen oxide yet?

Aside from the fact you failed to warn about the dangers of DHMO like the death that can result from inhaling it, I agree with your OP. It's already oxidized, whych is why they call it Dihydrogen oxide. You need the unoxidized version of dihydrogen to use as fuel.