Gumby79, I took a good bit of physics in college and some of the things you've said directly contradict what I learned there. I've also taught chemistry. I was wondering if you could clear a few things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79
The Hocus Pocus mumbo jumboxis the cutting edge of plasma science. There still submitting new words to Webster to described the different aspects of plasma..
The difference between HHO and H2 is simple
H2 is a highly reactive element in gas form (as it applies in this conversation)
HHO is H2O in plasma state . H2O is a moleculein the 4th phase. ... plasma.
Notic the different shape .
|
I was under the impression that the definition of plasma was when atoms enter a charged state and
molecular bonds disassociate. Therefore, there is no "HHO plasma molecule". HHO would instead be two hydrogens and an oxygen moving independently of each other. Can you give a citation showing that molecules can exist in a plasma state? Or did you not mean that HHO is in a plasma state, but rather that it's simply a molecule with a different shape - which would be called an isomer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79
The extra attached electrons release more energy escaping orbit than it takes to enter orbit. Eg it takes more energy to escape Earths gravitational force than it takes to enter. Shoemaker-levy 9 took 0.0 enregy to enter Jupiter's atmosphere but released astronomical amounts of energy. Had levy 9 come in the right angle speed ect ect, it would have been a new moon on the first pass or 10+ on the 2nd pass..
|
The amount of energy released by entering Earth's gravitational field is exactly the same as the amount needed to escape it. Shoemaker-levy 9
released energy as it entered Jupiter's atmosphere, and would have needed the same amount to escape it again. The nearest equivalent to HHO would be to go to Jupiter, build a rocket and carry a chunk of it into space, only to drop it back into the planet. The net energy is exactly the same because you're starting and ending with the same thing, but you've also used energy in creating the rocket and thus are coming out with a net negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79
In order for ignition to occur the extra electrons most both reach escape volisity.
|
In a sense. Combustion (again as I understand it) happens when you have enough energy to overcome the chemical bonds, and then the atoms rearrange themselves into a lower energy state than they were before:
Turning H20 into a plasma, then "combusting" it back to H20 forms the same bonds again, so the exact amount of energy needed to overcome the bonds is released again. This is why hydrogen can make a good battery. However, to my knowledge, you can only get out of it what you put into it, due to the laws of physics and the nature of chemical bonding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79
Your stand seems to be:
It's a brake even technology. You don't lose efficiency, but you don't gain so its a waste.
My stand is:
I agree.
If the charging efficiency improved 5% (from 7%to 12%),however, this would become a viable technology .
Gumby Stay Flexible.
|
Even if you could convert water to hydrogen completely without loss, and then put it in an engine where it turns back into water again, you would still gain absolutely nothing from the chemical reactions. You add X energy to break water's chemical bonds, then put it back together and gain X energy, for a net change of zero. Again, this is why fuel cells are a thing; you can use energy somewhere else, where it's cheaper to make or use (your home electrical grid for instance) and then release that energy in your car to move it around. You're not gaining any energy.