Remember me
▼ Content

# Gravity fed electrical generation system

 Page 8 of 11 << < 6 7 8 9 10 > >>
 06-05-2019 05:52 James___★★★★★(5513) dehammer wrote:As for the gas going up the tube, here is what experts say.Andreas J Schwab, Dr.rer.nat. (equivalent to PhD) in Physiological Chemistry at Ludwig-Maximilian University in MunichUpdated May 21, 2016 · Author has 839 answers and 1m answer viewsThe density of hydrogen and oxygen are 0.0899 and 1.429 g/l at 0 degrees centigrade.Density for all the elements in the Periodic TableOne liter of water will thus produce 111/0.0899 =1235 liters of hydrogen and 888.81/1.429 = 622 liters of oxygen. Note that according to Avogadro's law, the volume of hydrogen is about twice that of oxygen, because 1 mol of water produces 1 mol of hydrogen and 1/2 mol of oxygen. Gas LawsThis means at one atmosphere (14 psi) hydrogen from a single liter will take up 75364.32 cubic inches.A 10000 foot, 1 inch pipe would have 94,248 cubic inches.This means it would only take 1.5 liters to fill a 10000 foot 1 inch pipe at 14 psi. My design would have it at 30 psi, so it would take 3 liters. Pleeeze lern somthin', k? Shheez. You posted something, sheeeet maan.What does it mean? Nothing really. How long dos it take for H2 and O2 to convert into H2O and O? How does this influence the flow rate in the riser (gas filled) tube? Does the conversion rate of H2O into O2 and H2 support a flow rate to support the burn rate of H2 and N2? Or does that require a pressure greater than 14.7 psia. PSIA means an absolute pressure of 14.7 psi. 14.7 psi is something that is calibrated as 14.7 psi above atmospheric pressure. Does it matter? If you're burning hydrogen to generate a flow of water then it does matter. Am I having fun with you guys? Yes I am. I find it difficult to believe that everyone doesn't know this sheet. This is why research and development is expensive. It's to find out the variables. If everything was so simple, I dunno, it's a place that exists in fantasy but not in real life. If you don't get it, the gas filled riser tube might be at a much greater pressure than the water side. It's almost sad that one of your critics hasn't pointed this out to you.I'm at the beginning stages of learning calculus but could possibly come up with a rough number for you. This would take into account the difference in molar mass, the number of molecules needed to have a specific pressure, etc. It'd take some time and would only be an outline. This is where you and your friends say how much fun math is and how much you like it. For what you're discussing, if the basic flow rates and pressures can't be evaluated then the idea itself can't be evaluated. Those are what determines the burn rate as well as the condensation rate and what is needed as far as converting water into H2 and O2. None of that has been done yet. And if you missed it dehammer, if maths could support such an idea, then a more economical way of separating H from O might be considered. Or is using platinum economical enough? Reality does suck. Edited on 06-05-2019 05:54 06-05-2019 06:35 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) You guys were saying that the gas would not expand into the pipe. "it would remain all at the bottom" you said. According to the experts it will not. I post what the experts say and your response is "sheeeet maaaaan".As to be expected from trolls, you ignore what real scientist, real experts say. 06-05-2019 07:40 HarveyH55★★★★★(4259) Still think you are using the math wrong... Did you notice the 0 C temperature for the density numbers? So, now you have to add a freezer in to the device. 30 psi isn't 30 gal/minute. You also need to move oxygen with the hydrogen, and only about 20,000 cu/in left in the tube. Guess you need a bigger tube going up... 06-05-2019 09:17 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) dehammer wrote:You guys were saying that the gas would not expand into the pipe. "it would remain all at the bottom" you said. According to the experts it will not. I post what the experts say and your response is "sheeeet maaaaan".It will expand into the pipe, but only so far. This is what the the science of fluid dynamics says. There are no 'experts' in science. The term has no meaning there. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, that's all.dehammer wrote:As to be expected from trolls, you ignore what real scientist, real experts say.True Scotsman fallacy. False authority fallacy. Science is not 'experts'. It is not scientists. It is not even people at all.Science is a set of falsifiable theories.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 06-05-2019 09:19 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) HarveyH55 wrote:Still think you are using the math wrong... Did you notice the 0 C temperature for the density numbers? So, now you have to add a freezer in to the device. 30 psi isn't 30 gal/minute. You also need to move oxygen with the hydrogen, and only about 20,000 cu/in left in the tube. Guess you need a bigger tube going up...A bigger tube won't help. The problem is the weight of the gas in a closed tube. It doesn't rise of it's own accord. It must be pumped.If he uses an open tube to allow atmospheric pressure to cause the gases to rise, then he loses some of those gases to the atmosphere. They are no longer available to drive the fuel cell, create water, or run his generator.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 06-05-2019 09:27 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) HarveyH55 wrote:Still think you are using the math wrong... Did you notice the 0 C temperature for the density numbers? So, now you have to add a freezer in to the device. 30 psi isn't 30 gal/minute. You also need to move oxygen with the hydrogen, and only about 20,000 cu/in left in the tube. Guess you need a bigger tube going up...No, you do not move hydrogen WITH the oxygen, but in a separate, smaller tube. You don't have to have a bigger tube, you need two, three counting the water coming down.30 psi is 30 pounds per square in inch. Its pressure. 30 gal/minute is flow rate. They are not the same thing.The 0°c is a reference point. Increased temperature either increases pressure or decreases density, meaning it would take a larger space. 06-05-2019 09:31 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) Into the Night wroteIf he uses an open tube to allow atmospheric pressure to cause the gases to rise, then he loses some of those gases to the atmosphere. They are no longer available to drive the fuel cell, create water, or run his generator.Any motor, fuel cell or other method would almost certainly require a pump to push the pressure to the proper level for the recombination of 2h2 and o2. Since there would be no other gases in the tubes, as fast as you pull the hydrogen and oxygen out, more gas would take its place.What you have, is a vacuum at the top, and an over pressure at the bottom. The gas would move on its own. 06-05-2019 17:20 HarveyH55★★★★★(4259) Here's an interesting article on hydrogen fuel cells...https://hackaday.com/2019/05/06/a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-drone/I fly drones, so that part interests me, but a lot of tech on hydrogen you might be able to use, plus it's a fuel cell. Haven't watched the video yet, it'll take a long time over my internet connection, but should be interesting. 06-05-2019 18:26 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) Interesting tangent. 06-05-2019 18:50 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) dehammer wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:Still think you are using the math wrong... Did you notice the 0 C temperature for the density numbers? So, now you have to add a freezer in to the device. 30 psi isn't 30 gal/minute. You also need to move oxygen with the hydrogen, and only about 20,000 cu/in left in the tube. Guess you need a bigger tube going up...No, you do not move hydrogen WITH the oxygen, but in a separate, smaller tube.You want to quibble over grammar now, troll?dehammer wrote:30 psi is 30 pounds per square in inch. Its pressure. 30 gal/minute is flow rate. They are not the same thing.Then why were you using them as if they were?dehammer wrote:The 0°c is a reference point. Increased temperature either increases pressure or decreases density, meaning it would take a larger space.WRONG. Depends on the substance. Increased temperature of water or rubber DECREASES the space required. Ice has less density than liquid water. That's why it floats.You are still do not understand how gases behave in a closed system of that vertical length.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 06-05-2019 18:54 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) dehammer wrote:Into the Night wroteIf he uses an open tube to allow atmospheric pressure to cause the gases to rise, then he loses some of those gases to the atmosphere. They are no longer available to drive the fuel cell, create water, or run his generator.Any motor, fuel cell or other method would almost certainly require a pump to push the pressure to the proper level for the recombination of 2h2 and o2. Since there would be no other gases in the tubes, as fast as you pull the hydrogen and oxygen out, more gas would take its place.What you have, is a vacuum at the top, and an over pressure at the bottom. The gas would move on its own.No, the electrolysis would stop. You are putting too much back pressure on it to continue at that level of energy input. You would require MORE energy to pump the gases higher.Your fuel cell is starving for fuel to produce the required water as well. Pumping requires energy. You keep spending energy to overcome losses in your machine, but you never describe where all that extra energy is coming from. Not enough is coming from the fuel cell or any generators or any combination of them you use.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 06-05-2019 20:58 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) As usual, you do love to showcase your lack of knowledge. 06-05-2019 21:49 HarveyH55★★★★★(4259) The PEM fuel cell on the drone is only fed hydrogen, but didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around. Did a little searching, trying to figure it out. Guessing it doesn't need a whole lot of oxygen, and pulling it out of thin air is fine. But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.Was interesting that the 1.5 liter tank of hydrogen could power the drone for over an hour. My batteries barely go 20 minutes, if I ignore the first low battery warning. They also claim a 5 kg payload capacity, think mines about half a pound (not sure what that is in british units to compare) 5 kg = 11 lbs, from a 1 kg spool of filament is 2.2 lbs. Fuel cells are still very expensive, even the toy demo version are a little pricey. While shopping, also found out that hydrogen/oxygen electrolyzers, are no called Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells, which confuses the shopper. Still selling them to improve fuel economy in gas vehicles as well. Stanley Meyers lives on... 06-05-2019 22:11 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) dehammer wrote:As usual, you do love to showcase your lack of knowledge.Insult fallacy. Void argument. No argument presented. You are trolling again.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 06-05-2019 22:12 06-05-2019 22:20 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) HarveyH55 wrote:The PEM fuel cell on the drone is only fed hydrogen, but didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around. Did a little searching, trying to figure it out. Guessing it doesn't need a whole lot of oxygen, and pulling it out of thin air is fine. But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.Was interesting that the 1.5 liter tank of hydrogen could power the drone for over an hour. My batteries barely go 20 minutes, if I ignore the first low battery warning. They also claim a 5 kg payload capacity, think mines about half a pound (not sure what that is in british units to compare) 5 kg = 11 lbs, from a 1 kg spool of filament is 2.2 lbs. Fuel cells are still very expensive, even the toy demo version are a little pricey. While shopping, also found out that hydrogen/oxygen electrolyzers, are no called Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells, which confuses the shopper. Still selling them to improve fuel economy in gas vehicles as well. Stanley Meyers lives on...The term 'electrolyzer' is a meaningless marketing term. A 'fuel generator' is another meaningless marketing term. Even the term 'drone' is a meaningless marketing term. What you are flying is a probably an RC quadcopter. Marketing commonly calls those 'drones'.Electrolysis cells do not produce power. They will consume power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Fuel cells do produce power. They consume hydrogen and oxygen to do it. They do not produce or generate fuel.Marketing departments really mess up the language.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 06-05-2019 22:49 James___★★★★★(5513) HarveyH55 wrote:Here's an interesting article on hydrogen fuel cells...https://hackaday.com/2019/05/06/a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-drone/I fly drones, so that part interests me, but a lot of tech on hydrogen you might be able to use, plus it's a fuel cell. Haven't watched the video yet, it'll take a long time over my internet connection, but should be interesting. The contest is interesting. One thing I tried getting dehammer to understand is that there might be a simple way to create a static head for power generation. And with the contest enough likes = \$500. Maybe next year? Then that way if the money comes from them it'd be free to try. I have a historical project that I'm working on so don't have time for anything else. And with the idea I have, I want to work on things more hi-tech. 06-05-2019 22:56 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) HarveyH55 wrote:didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around.It would come out as water vapor.Guessing it doesn't need a whole lot of oxygen, and pulling it out of thin air is fine. A small system would be able to do that.But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.Depends on the size of the fuel cell or motor. That is a tiny source, so it would put out a small amount of water.Here is another example. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/water-emissions-fuel-cell-vehicles. A motor vehicle using a fuel cell traveling 60 mph produces, 9kg of water. That's 3.79 gallons. That's 14 liters. A car powering fuel cell is small, only a few inches in size.Fuel cells are still very expensiveThe older version used platinum, while newer ones use nickel. That brings the cost down. Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells Personally, If I was going to do it, I would build it myself. A low cheaper that way and a lot better control over the amount of fuel it provides.Here is an example of one available on the market right now. https://www.grainger.com/product/PARKER-Hydrogen-Generator-39T172Noticed based on the stickers, its about twice the size of a computer tower. This one produced about .1 gallons per minute.A system that produced 30 gallons per minute would likely be 300 times that size, but how much of it is waste space? Edited on 06-05-2019 23:05 06-05-2019 23:35 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) dehammer wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around.It would come out as water vapor.Really? Water vapor doesn't fall, dude. There is nothing to power your generator. dehammer wrote:But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.Depends on the size of the fuel cell or motor. That is a tiny source, so it would put out a small amount of water.So you want to make LOTS of water vapor. Take a trip to the Gulf coast. It's easier.dehammer wrote:Here is another example. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/water-emissions-fuel-cell-vehicles. A motor vehicle using a fuel cell traveling 60 mph produces, 9kg of water. That's 3.79 gallons. That's 14 liters. A car powering fuel cell is small, only a few inches in size.And you only need 390 of them in a compact car, such as the Toyota Mirai.dehammer wrote:[quote]Fuel cells are still very expensiveThe older version used platinum, while newer ones use nickel. That brings the cost down.Making the fuel cell car about the same price as an EV.dehammer wrote: Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells Personally, If I was going to do it, I would build it myself. A low cheaper that way and a lot better control over the amount of fuel it provides.Here is an example of one available on the market right now. https://www.grainger.com/product/PARKER-Hydrogen-Generator-39T172Noticed based on the stickers, its about twice the size of a computer tower. This one produced about .1 gallons per minute.https://www.grainger.com/product/PARKER-Hydrogen-Generator-39T172....and only \$18,000.dehammer wrote:A system that produced 30 gallons per minute would likely be 300 times that size, but how much of it is waste space?Lessee...I would imagine the price would be MORE than 300 times \$18,000. Gee that's only \$5.5 million, at least.Then of course the power it will use doing it.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 00:15 HarveyH55★★★★★(4259) dehammer wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:didn't notice it spraying water everywhere as the flew it around.It would come out as water vapor.Guessing it doesn't need a whole lot of oxygen, and pulling it out of thin air is fine. A small system would be able to do that.But, it also doesn't dump a huge volume of water either, so it isn't likely to 'drop' much water to feed a turbine.Depends on the size of the fuel cell or motor. That is a tiny source, so it would put out a small amount of water.Here is another example. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/water-emissions-fuel-cell-vehicles. A motor vehicle using a fuel cell traveling 60 mph produces, 9kg of water. That's 3.79 gallons. That's 14 liters. A car powering fuel cell is small, only a few inches in size.Fuel cells are still very expensiveThe older version used platinum, while newer ones use nickel. That brings the cost down. Hydrogen Fuel Generators/Cells Personally, If I was going to do it, I would build it myself. A low cheaper that way and a lot better control over the amount of fuel it provides.Here is an example of one available on the market right now. https://www.grainger.com/product/PARKER-Hydrogen-Generator-39T172Noticed based on the stickers, its about twice the size of a computer tower. This one produced about .1 gallons per minute.A system that produced 30 gallons per minute would likely be 300 times that size, but how much of it is waste space?60 MPH produces 3.79 gallons of water, which means nothing of course. You left out how long the car needs to run, to produce 3.79 gallons. Even a distance would quantify, since we could calculate the time, from the rate and distance. This is consistent with most of your calculations, leave out some important parts, that doesn't work for you.Hydrogen generator, .1 gallons per minute. Not very useful, unpressurized, sitting in a container. You'll need to compress it some, so it will move a little, when it's time to go to work. The PEM fuel cell needs to be fed at a specific rate, excess is wasted, to little, it doesn't produce as much electricity. This is one of those parts, that makes multiple drops to similar setups, pointless. 07-05-2019 01:39 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour. 07-05-2019 02:05 James___★★★★★(5513) dehammer wrote:sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour. You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O. Since the density of water is 1.0 g cm−3, this corresponds to 480 cm3, which is almostexactly 1 pint. So, as a rough guide, 1 kWh of fuel cell generated electricity producesabout 1 pint or 0.5 L of water. This is the pdf the info came from. They show a lot of the formulas. The link is to the downloadable pdf. [url] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118878330.app2&ved=2ahUKEwi34Iyl_4fiAhVMPq0KHXBoBfwQFjANegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2WOt2TZk9fBh0H-paeyx1x[/url] 07-05-2019 02:15 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) James___ wrote:dehammer wrote:sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour. You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.It takes 237 kJ to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis for 1 mole of water. This is a measured constant.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 02:24 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) James___ wrote:*interesting things*Thanks I will take some time to check that out. 07-05-2019 04:33 James___★★★★★(5513) Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:dehammer wrote:sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour. You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.It takes 237 kJ to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis for 1 mole of water. This is a measured constant. With the information given, it was for 2 Mol of H and 1 Mol of O. Heat if converted into electricity would be 1.25v. The pdf also said that the water is almost always a vapour. This means a condenser/heat exchanger would be needed to cool down the water. 07-05-2019 04:47 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity. 07-05-2019 05:44 James___★★★★★(5513) dehammer wrote:I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity. Interesting. Would have to wonder about erosion but it might allow for some heat to be removed from the water vapor. Even with steam turbines a condenser is usually used. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90[url] https://understandingchp.com/chp-applications-guide/4-4-fuel-cells/[/url] 07-05-2019 06:20 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) One thing I had thought about was to try to find a liquid that had a low vaporization temperature, and use it to exchange the heat from the steam to the turbine rather than directly using the heat though the tesla turbine. 07-05-2019 06:41 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:dehammer wrote:sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour. You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.It takes 237 kJ to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis for 1 mole of water. This is a measured constant. With the information given, it was for 2 Mol of H and 1 Mol of O. Heat if converted into electricity would be 1.25v. The pdf also said that the water is almost always a vapour. This means a condenser/heat exchanger would be needed to cool down the water.No, James. You can't get 3 moles out of 1 mole.Heat is not measured in volts either.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 06:41 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) dehammer wrote:I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity.Heat is not contained in anything. You can't convert heat into anything.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 06:42 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) James___ wrote:dehammer wrote:I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity. Interesting. Would have to wonder about erosion but it might allow for some heat to be removed from the water vapor. Even with steam turbines a condenser is usually used. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90[url] https://understandingchp.com/chp-applications-guide/4-4-fuel-cells/[/url]Heat is not contained in anything. You can't remove it from water vapor or anything else.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 06:43 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) dehammer wrote:One thing I had thought about was to try to find a liquid that had a low vaporization temperature, and use it to exchange the heat from the steam to the turbine rather than directly using the heat though the tesla turbine.Less efficient than just using the steam. Heat is not contained in anything.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 07:06 dehammer★★★☆☆(431) ITN at 1:15 07-05-2019 15:34 James___★★★★★(5513) Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:dehammer wrote:sorry, yes, that was suppose to be 3.79 per hour. If you look at my other information it was based on it being 3.79 gallons per hour. You might find this interesting. It's the volume of water generated from generating electricity from the hydrogen. The question then is how much energy does it take to separate the H2 from the O.It takes 237 kJ to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis for 1 mole of water. This is a measured constant. With the information given, it was for 2 Mol of H and 1 Mol of O. Heat if converted into electricity would be 1.25v. The pdf also said that the water is almost always a vapour. This means a condenser/heat exchanger would be needed to cool down the water.No, James. You can't get 3 moles out of 1 mole.Heat is not measured in volts either. I didn't say you did. The values in the pdf I was referring to used those 2 quantities. What you might not have considered is that a mol is Avagrado's number. So if 3 elements combine to create 1 molecule, then what constitutes a mol changes from hydrogen and oxygen to H2O. 07-05-2019 15:39 James___★★★★★(5513) Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:dehammer wrote:I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity. Interesting. Would have to wonder about erosion but it might allow for some heat to be removed from the water vapor. Even with steam turbines a condenser is usually used. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90[url] https://understandingchp.com/chp-applications-guide/4-4-fuel-cells/[/url]Heat is not contained in anything. You can't remove it from water vapor or anything else. Heat is the flow of energy. When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved. At least now you're back to being yourself. @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known. Without knowing how much it has to be cooled, then it's difficult to consider what might be the best way. It would take some reading to have an idea what's been done so far. The exhaust from a fuel cell could power both a turbine and an Atmos clock type arrangement. Temperatures from exhaust vary wildly and optimum seems to be around 1,000° F. A better electrolysis method might be needed. Edited on 07-05-2019 16:36 07-05-2019 17:57 IBdaMann★★★★★(11967) James___ wrote: Heat is the flow of energy.When a cue ball hits the three-ball directly and kinetic energy is transferred, this is not "heat."Heat is not the flow of energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy ... via conduction.James___ wrote: When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.No. It is to be said that there was heat, with thermal energy flowing from the higher temperature to the lower temperature.From the MANUAL:Heat Content: nounIn the Global Warming theology, "heat content" is a powerful obfuscation of the term "heat." Whereas "heat" can shift between meaning "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient, the term "heat content" can refer to multiple terms at the same time, greatly minimizing the warmizombie's need to backpedal when questioned about his argument's semantics. James___ wrote: @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known. Sigh.I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepitA Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddlesClouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy IrisPrinting dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepitIf Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddlesCeist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafnYou are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist 07-05-2019 18:30 James___★★★★★(5513) IBdaMann wrote:James___ wrote: Heat is the flow of energy.When a cue ball hits the three-ball directly and kinetic energy is transferred, this is not "heat."Heat is not the flow of energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy ... via conduction.James___ wrote: When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.No. It is to be said that there was heat, with thermal energy flowing from the higher temperature to the lower temperature.From the MANUAL:Heat Content: nounIn the Global Warming theology, "heat content" is a powerful obfuscation of the term "heat." Whereas "heat" can shift between meaning "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient, the term "heat content" can refer to multiple terms at the same time, greatly minimizing the warmizombie's need to backpedal when questioned about his argument's semantics. James___ wrote: @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known. Sigh. And we were discussing pool, right? I know, you're counting coup like ITN.Kind of why I tend to ignore anything either of you say. I mean to consider how to improve the electrolysis method would be a technical discussion and one that you and ITN aren't up to the task. It's funny but there might be a simple way to generate electricity and desalinate water but that's not something that you guys would care about. Just too stoned to know anything. Edited on 07-05-2019 18:33 07-05-2019 18:39 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:dehammer wrote:I was thinking of having the hot water run though a tesla turbine which would convert some of the heat into electricity. Interesting. Would have to wonder about erosion but it might allow for some heat to be removed from the water vapor. Even with steam turbines a condenser is usually used. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90[url] https://understandingchp.com/chp-applications-guide/4-4-fuel-cells/[/url]Heat is not contained in anything. You can't remove it from water vapor or anything else. Heat is the flow of energy.No, heat is the flow of thermal energy.James___ wrote:When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.Heat is not contained in anything.James___ wrote: At least now you're back to being yourself.Never was anything but, dude.James___ wrote: @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known. [quote]James___ wrote:Without knowing how much it has to be cooled, then it's difficult to consider what might be the best way.Any cooling beyond ambient cooling is going to require energy. Yet another energy loss for his machine.James___ wrote:It would take some reading to have an idea what's been done so far. The exhaust from a fuel cell could power both a turbine and an Atmos clock type arrangement. Temperatures from exhaust vary wildly and optimum seems to be around 1,000° F. A better electrolysis method might be needed.Fuel cells are not electrolysis cells.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 18:47 Into the Night★★★★★(18685) James___ wrote:IBdaMann wrote:James___ wrote: Heat is the flow of energy.When a cue ball hits the three-ball directly and kinetic energy is transferred, this is not "heat."Heat is not the flow of energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy ... via conduction.James___ wrote: When energy moves from water vapor to another medium then it can be said that "heat content" has moved.No. It is to be said that there was heat, with thermal energy flowing from the higher temperature to the lower temperature.From the MANUAL:Heat Content: nounIn the Global Warming theology, "heat content" is a powerful obfuscation of the term "heat." Whereas "heat" can shift between meaning "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient, the term "heat content" can refer to multiple terms at the same time, greatly minimizing the warmizombie's need to backpedal when questioned about his argument's semantics. James___ wrote: @dehammer, the amount of heat content of the water vapor would need to be known. Sigh. And we were discussing pool, right?No.James___ wrote: I know, you're counting coup like ITN.Try English. It works better.James___ wrote:Kind of why I tend to ignore anything either of you say.Because you ignore science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.James___ wrote: I mean to consider how to improve the electrolysis method would be a technical discussion and one that you and ITN aren't up to the task.It takes 237kJ per mole of water to break it up into hydrogen and oxygen. That is a measured constant. It doesn't change.James___ wrote: It's funny but there might be a simple way to generate electricityElectrolysis cells don't generate electricity. They consume electricity.James___ wrote:and desalinate waterYou could boil it. It's easier. Or, you could wait for nature to desalinate water. That's what most people do.James___ wrote: but that's not something that you guys would care about.Of course we care about it. It's the source of most of the fresh water on Earth.James___ wrote:Just too stoned to know anything.Never touch the stuff. I don't believe IBdaMann does either.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 07-05-2019 19:10 IBdaMann★★★★★(11967) James___ wrote: And we were discussing pool, right? We absolutely were discussing pool the moment I used it as an example.James___ wrote: Kind of why I tend to ignore anything either of you say.This is an odd way of ignoring me, but feel free to continue.James___ wrote: I mean to consider how to improve the electrolysis method would be a technical discussion and one that you and ITN aren't up to the task.I'm not sure you have any basis for that conclusion. 1) You haven't asked any questions and 2) you have made numerous errors that have been corrected by Into the Night and myself and you have not once thanked either of us.I'll go so far as to say that you are clearly not interested in any sort of technical discussion since you summarily dismiss all the most valuable input which happens to be coming solely from Into the Night. James___ wrote: It's funny but there might be a simple way to generate electricity and desalinate water but that's not something that you guys would care about. Have you asked or are you just assigning positions?I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepitA Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddlesClouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy IrisPrinting dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepitIf Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddlesCeist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafnYou are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist 07-05-2019 19:17 James___★★★★★(5513) Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Just too stoned to know anything.Never touch the stuff. I don't believe IBdaMann does either. dehammer, This is like my work on a historical project. I am pretty much working on my own. This allows me to try and enjoy what I'm doing. With a better method of electrolysis, it would start with understanding the basics https://www.instructables.com/id/Separate-Hydrogen-and-Oxygen-from-Water-Through-El/ And then the question becomes how to improve the efficiency of this process.An improved method could allow for cars to eventually generate their own fuel. with safety being a consideration a generating plant might be better. And if an efficient method is realized then that could be the clean energy source that world is hoping to find. Attached image: Edited on 07-05-2019 20:04
 Page 8 of 11 << < 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Remember me

Related content
 Threads Replies Last post Power Generation/Distribution 178 22-04-2022 16:12 Define 'gravity' 5 07-04-2022 23:40 I The Savior Messiah Can Present The Perfect Balance New World Economic Financial System 1 14-03-2022 14:17 Understanding The Modern Slave Economic System As Of 2022 0 13-03-2022 10:35 The True Reason Behind The Russia Ukraine War Is The Great Economic Reset System 0 13-03-2022 06:45
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know

Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact