• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Conservation Of Energy - Broke?

Migrated topic.
C

Cheeto

Rising Star
I have read and fully understand wiki's version of conservation of energy, a learned one new thing to share with poeple i've been talking to. Chemical Afinity is not gas, please read about it if you want to disagree. Electrical energy cannot convert to a chemical, therefor in the conversion of water to gasses the gasses source is the water molecule. Meaning no Electrical Energy --> HHO Energy? HHO is not an energy, it contains energy. The electrical energy would convert to work(Spliting Molecules and Thermal Energy. But this isn't the point of this post.

I think i found a way to break the Conservation Of Energy, really. Though it is funny, not saying it dosen't work in most casses, but its funny becaue it still may hold up, just in a much different way. Let me explain.


-Because no matter how much oxyhydrogen you have, it only takes 1 spark to start burning the gas, so we will put that small amount of energy to the side, forget about it!

-When oxyhydrogen burns ofcourse you get the same results as burning hydrogen, since it takes oxygen from the air to burn, which is a result in water. Oxyhdrogen burns and converts 100% to water.

-This i urge you to think about and try to understand, if wiki is correct on this matter then i am correct. Oxyhydrogen is a gas which contains a fixed amount of energy, when you burn it and convert it to water you do this.
---100%/E--To--Heat--To--100%/E
Thermal Energy Gained
Oxyhydrogen --Burning--> Water

:) Do you see what i see? You keep 100% of the energy, 100% of your Oxyhydrogen converts back to Water, which still holds the same amount of energy. But, you gained Thermal Energy

But that process stands alone, thats how it breaks the law. A trick i thought of also is that to burn your gas again you have to put energy to work spliting molecules, but even in this case in my own theory i think you can possibly find a loop to actully gain energy not through souly conversions of energy, but doing work to gain energy, well, hard to explain how i think it. But either way just as this loop is a theory of mine, its not been declaired impossible, only by conservation of energy, which may i add i think i read though it is widely used it is theory its self. May be wrong about that, don't bite my head off, just talking and learning.

Please really think about this, i do understand whats going on here and see this law being broke in the simple conversion of oxyhydrogen to water by burning, generating free thermal energy in the process. You only put in a spark of energy for any amount of burning gas and get lots of thermal energy for free because all your gas converts to water and still contains 100% of its energy.
 
Infundibulum said:
OK, let's start simple this time, one point each time. Let's go through some questions

1) do you know what type of energy oxyhydrogen has?
Click to expand...

Well, its not really a matter of having energy. Its just a couple of chemicals/elements, when heat(The spark) is applied, it is then burning. You put in a single spark of thermal energy to start a contstant chemical reaction, constant as long as you have fuel((2)Hydrogen) and oxidant((1)Oxygen). Yes the reaction is chemical affinity, but the gas its self before the reaction is not chemical affinity. And this is proof by you needing water in the equation of electrolisys to get the two gasses, 2:1, Oxyhydrogen. You cannot convert energy to gas, eletricity cannot convert into an element. For the rule to apply, remember every energy can convert to the other forms, can you make elements with electricity?

By the the way, i'm not arguing, if you have time, tell me when it sounds possible, and if it dosen't, fully explain in a logical way how it is different and how it really works, state all energy types breaking down the whole process to make sence with what you say. I like learning things, but they have to make sence to me for me to believe it.
 
Wrong. Oxyhydrogen has some type of energy that is utilizable. Which energy is that?

Do you want to think it a bit more or should I give the answer?

It is imperatively important to take these things into consideration. This is how you will understand the system better. If you spend electrical energy to make oxyhydrogen, you should somehow give oxyhydrogen some energy (or "store" some energy in oxyhydrogen) that can later be used to make kinetic energy.

Which energy oxyhydrogen has?
 
Infundibulum said:
Wrong. Oxyhydrogen has some type of energy that is utilizable. Which energy is that?

Do you want to think it a bit more or should I give the answer?

It is imperatively important to take these things into consideration. This is how you will understand the system better. If you spend electrical energy to make oxyhydrogen, you should somehow give oxyhydrogen some energy (or "store" some energy in oxyhydrogen) that can later be used to make kinetic energy.

Which energy oxyhydrogen has?
Click to expand...

I don't know, that dosen't sound quite right, but i should figure it out if your correct, the element hydrogen does not stroe energy like a battery, its energy is caculatable by knowing only how much oxyhdrogen you have, as with a battery you have to check and see how much energy it is storing.


Electrolysis: From Wiki - Under Hydrogen Econmy

The predominant methods of hydrogen production rely on exothermic chemical reactions of fossil fuels to provide the energy needed to chemically convert feedstock into hydrogen. But when the energy supply is mechanical (hydropower or wind turbines), hydrogen can be made via high pressure electrolysis or low pressure electrolysis of water. In current market conditions, the 50 kWh of electricity consumed to manufacture one kilogram of compressed hydrogen is roughly as valuable as the hydrogen produced, assuming 8 cents/kWh. The price equivalence, despite the inefficiencies of electrical production and electrolysis, are due to the fact that most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels which couple more efficiently to producing the chemical directly, than they do to producing electricity. However, this is of no help to a hydrogen economy, which must derive hydrogen from sources other than the fossil fuels it is intended to replace

"which must derive hydrogen from sources other than the fossil fuels it is intended to replace".

Once again to get pure hydrogen uses alot more energy than oxyhydrogen because of seperation sitiuation, then the energy to make Oxyhydrogen depends on the device used.

I don't know, what form of energy is it. I would figure its a chemical, so chemical energy right? But what of the case of hydrogen and oxygen being elements? You can't store electricity as elements, so are you sure your understanding it fully. Or am i missing something again?
 
Also, what about like i stated eariler, when you burn oxyhydrogen it converts 100% of the oxyhydrogen back to water, if your heat something with the flame you get free thermal energy if the energy is still in the water which it its because it still contains hydrogen and oxygen, your not charging up water, your spliting water molecules. Does waters hydrogen and oxygen molecules contain less energy than the molecules as a free gas?
 
Again no.

Oxyhydrogen has potential energy. Check the link to the wikipedia article that may be useful. Haven't read it though.

Potential energy is the energy stored in some system. This system may look inert to our eyes, however under certain conditions it can give this energy back.

The best example is the spring example. One can take a spring, then squeeze it and "fix" it in this position. The spring has stored some energy (the energy I inputted to change its shape. It looks fairly inert and totally devoid of energy, but it does have energy! This is called potential energy because the spring under certain conditions can release it.

Simply put, release the spring and boioing! it will start moving. It's potential energy manifested as kinetic energy. It moved. And according to the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy I spent to squeeze it converted to potential energy in the spring. And when the spring was released it gave out this potential energy as mechanical energy.

Another example is when I lift an object from the floor and hold it up. I spent some energy to take this object this high. This object now has "potential energy". If I release it it will fall down. It's potential energy will convert to kinetic energy.

And oxyhydrogen is the same thing. Electrical energy (from the battery) is spent to split the water molecules, and effectively passes energy to oxyhydrogen. Oxyhydrogen holds potential energy, which is released under certain condition. The conditions in this case (analogous to releasing the spring) is to compress them and use a spark. They will rapidly combine to give water, which is thermal energy (and pushes the piston to make it kinetic energy).

There are no energy gains at all. You get as much as you put inside in the beginning, but basically you get out less because our systems are not perfectm there are always energy losses.
 
I guess i see what your talking about, i see how you see it and it makes sence. So its not that Oxyhydrogen Cars wouldn't be efficent, but that so far there are not good enough devices that convert at least most of the eletrical to potential energy(Stored Energy). Because combusting power is better at pushing than eletrical, the hho thing would work if the generator was 80% or better correct?
 
Oxyhydrogen burns and losses energy as heat while converting to water which then the electrical energy needed to split the water molecule and give the hydrogen and oxygen back there energy as a single elment molecule, or something like that?
 
HaHaha I assure you just by reading wiki you are not going to disprove the views of contemporary physics, even quantum mechanics supports the conservation of energy. The production of water from oxyhydrogen is an exothermic reaction. Thus energy stored in the atoms are released. This released energy is what sustains the reaction and allows it to continue from the initial spark. The system has energy stored within it ... potential energy but also energy stored in the bonds H2 and O2.... the electric energy is only needed to start the reaction, after which energy from within the system can continue the reaction. Wood also only requires an initial spark to ignitie it. The initial spark merley acts to provide the initial energy needed to jump over the energy barrier. This is called the Activation energy. If there was no energy barrier these processes would be happening sponaneously. Check out electron tunneling effects in which cases atoms can tunnel through energy barriers so long as certain conditions are met. This is some what similaur to what you are talking about.

If you are really interested in these process check out the relationship between energy and mass (E=MC2). Particle acceleraters actually create mass from the kinetic energy of two particles being smashed together. Thus mass is just another form that energy can take.
 
I was just thinking and trying to understand. I have enough information about it, i uderstand now how the energy stays in the equation for the most. Truly i wouldn't want to go to far into it, takes up alot of time.
 
The flow of energy through any isolated system is a fascinating process. That intiail energy supplied by the spark sets of a cascade of energy transformations. The point of the conservation law is that at the end no energy has been created or destroyed it has only taken new forms. THere are many known forms of energy, kinetic, potential,thermal, mass, electromagnetic, gravatational, elastic... Thus no system can create or destroy energy, in an isolated system which we are not, energy flows through many different forms, it is stored within the molecules, created by forces present, there is potential energy present. BUt no matter what none can be created. When you take a book and put it on top of a dressor, you have created potential energy due to the force of gravity acting on the book. However you expended energy in the form of motion created by exothermic chemical reactions to pick the book up and place it on the dresser. Furthermore this wasn't a perfect 1:1 ratio a great deal of energy was lost as heat (thermal energy). Only some of the initial chemical energy went into the potential energy of the book however no energy was lost it just changed forms.
 
It is fascinating stuff although I understand how it is intimidating to most. But you should check it out it wouldn't take too much time and it has relavance to a lot of things. Best of luck.
Electron tunneling is cool stuff and is similaur to what you are talking about because it appears that sub atomic particles can break some of the rules.
 
Oxyhydrogen would be stored in two seperate containers. O2 in one H2 in the other. The gases would be released together and ignitited to form a flame. This is used in welding and such oxyacetyllene (spelling) is also used . Storing them together would be very dangerous.
 
I don't understand what's going on here. I don't understand the initial post. Cheeto, were you suggesting that oxyhydrogen could be combusted producing water and that the energy created would convert the water back into H2 and O2 perpetually? And what is HHO? Do you mean water? In that case it would be either H2O or HOH (to illustrate molecular structure).

I see how the conversation evolved, but don't understand exactly what is being discussed. The conclusion seems to be that if you ignite flammable gas it releases energy. Fuels such as hydrogen or oxyhydrogen (which is just O2 and H2) are supposedly inefficient as the energy used isolating these molecules exceeds the energy produced in the combustion reaction. Systems cannot, in reality, be closed (excluding the entire physical universe) so there's no way this could work.
 
"as the energy used isolating these molecules exceeds the energy produced in the combustion reaction"


I was wrong in my thinking of conservation when i started the post. But what you say is only true at the moment, because HHO Generators trun water into Oxyhydrogen gas(2H:1O Ratio) its really only a matter of them being efficent enough for this to work, so its well in the range of reality. Its not a fixed thing that the energy used isolating Oxyhydrogen(2:1 Gas) exceeds the energy produced in the combustion reaction, this is only true for the moment.

"Systems cannot, in reality, be closed (excluding the entire physical universe) so there's no way this could work"

What did you mean here? I don't understand what your saying. Keep note that my origanal post
i was missing something about the conservation of energy. But say you can split water molecules with a 100% energy efficiency HHO generator, then why wouldn't it work? Then you get all your electricity turned into gas with no energy loss, you would want gas over electricity because gas is better for the job, as far as moving cars and big trucks.
 
What is zero point energy. How can certain materials combined constantly release samll amounts of energy forever, like certain types of crystals and menerials in combination.

Also, dosent every atom contain shit loads of energy, that means everthing in existence is full of energy correct? Example being when you split an atom it releases all its energy, meaning it contains energy.
 
Back
Top Bottom