Quote:
Originally Posted by repurplecirculation
Those formulas are just the standard textbook formulas in chemistry (assuming no losses and a perfect world) based on molar masses of ideal water at 1ATM 25deg C. By no means does this imply 100% conversion efficiency in the real world (why I specified that most are lucky to approach even 50% in traditional electrolysis). Just like in fusion or fission (atomic level) reactions, molecular reactions can have apparent violations of CoE (in reality, basic chemistry equations do not include every nuance that may be present in a reaction - e.g. energy trapped/released from a sympathetic vibrating lattice, spin conversions, magnetic bonds, etc.).
|
Except you are mixing chemistry with nuclear physics. Chemists generally ignore lattice vibration, spin conversion and magnetic bonds because they do not affect the outcome on a macro level in most situations as the ones we are discussing. I assure you that molecular level vibration, spin and magnetism, etc. , is important and is occurring during electrolysis and combustion. However, they cancel out statistically, so that we may ignore them in mass/molar calculations. On occasion, they do come into play. The difference in spin energy for para/ortho hydrogen has to be taken into account in the million pound fuel tanks used in space launch rockets. But, for the molar amounts we are talking about, it can be ignored.
Also, the other posters are correct in questioning your positive outcome. Check your ending states. The exhaust has to be in a gas phase and as such will not release as much energy as the exhaust in a liquid or solid phase.