Why is water not used as fuel?

[JoeMoma]

Yes it takes some energy but it also produces more energy than it uses.
The ashes analogy is way off base. There is no fuel in ashes but there is very clean energy in hydrogen

No it doesn't.

 

[rupol2000]

What do you think light is? What do you think heat is?

There is no need to "think" anything, it is well known.

 

[rupol2000]

The combination of hydrogen and oxygen, when separate, contains energy. The process of combining them releases that energy, with water remaining as a by product.

The water does not contain the energy that the hydrogen and oxygen that make it up did, when they were separate.

To separate water back into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put back that energy. Assuming 100% efficiency (which never happens in real life) you would have to put as much energy into water, to break it into hydrogen and oxygen, as what you would get by burning that hydrogen and oxygen, turning it back into water.

Do you have specific data? Will the energy that will be spent on the water decay using electric current exceed the energy of burning the released hydrogen? Has anyone already considered and verified this in experiments, or is it just speculation?

 

[rupol2000]

As far as I know, so far, Mankind has only been able top get fusion to happen in a manner that requires both deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium (even heavier hydrogen).

Making fusion happen in a controlled manner is very difficult. Maintaining the conditions in which fusion can happen have, so far, required us to put more energy into it than we've been able to get back out.

The only way that we've been able to get more out of fusion than what we have to put into maintaining the conditions necessary ends up looking something like this:

View attachment 647846

thermonuclear fusion is not a chemical process of combining hydrogen and oxygen. Why are you talking about it here?

 

[rupol2000]

It will never be possible to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen, and to get back more energy by burning the hydrogen and oxygen, than what had to be put into decomposing the water.

Why do you think so?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

On May 2, 1800, Anthony Carlisle and William Nicholson decomposed water into hydrogen and oxygen using electric current.

220 years have passed since then and no one has even tried to do it on a large scale!!!!!

The volatility of hydrogen is problematic

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you have specific data? Will the energy that will be spent on the water decay using electric current exceed the energy of burning the released hydrogen? Has anyone already considered and verified this in experiments, or is it just speculation?

It's basic physics.

If a reaction releases a certain amount of energy, then reversing that reaction requires the same amount of energy to be put back into it. There is no way around this.

Chemically bonding hydrogen and oxygen releases energy, and produces water. To break that water into hydrogen and oxygen requires putting the same amount of energy back into it, that is released when they are combined.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

thermonuclear fusion is not a chemical process of combining hydrogen and oxygen. Why are you talking about it here?

It's the only way to get energy out of water—use the hydrogen in it as fuel for thermonuclear fusion.

We're a very long way from making this happen in a practical manner.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

There is no need to "think" anything, it is well known.

Not to you, apparently. (Your Poe game is weak, however).

 

[rupol2000]

It's basic physics.

If a reaction releases a certain amount of energy, then reversing that reaction requires the same amount of energy to be put back into it. There is no way around this.

Chemically bonding hydrogen and oxygen releases energy, and produces water. To break that water into hydrogen and oxygen requires putting the same amount of energy back into it, that is released when they are combined.

So far, you have not provided any specific data proving that the release of hydrogen from water is equal to the energy from its combustion, in addition this is electrochemistry and not physics

 

[rupol2000]

It's the only way to get energy out of water—use the hydrogen in it as fuel for thermonuclear fusion.

We're a very long way from making this happen in a practical manner.

You are talking nonsense. Hydrogen is released galvanically and "until" it was done in 1800

 

[james bond]

I can't believe this is a question in the science forum. Water is what humans and other animals NEED and it is used as fuel lol.

 

[rupol2000]

Not to you, apparently. (Your Poe game is weak, however).

Will you answer the question or will you wag your ass?
A wave and thermal motion of particles are different things, do you need to explain this or what?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Will you answer the question or will you wag your ass?
A wave and thermal motion of particles are different things, do you need to explain this or what?

I've already spoken to both these aspects. Sorry you didn't understand any of it.

Stop wasting people's time.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So far, you have not provided any specific data proving that the release of hydrogen from water is equal to the energy from its combustion, in addition this is electrochemistry and not physics

Your profound ignorance is not my responsibility.

 

[rupol2000]

I've already spoken to both these aspects. Sorry you didn't understand any of it.

Stop wasting people's time.

go fuck yourself cretin.

I asked you, where does thermodynamics consider this? You screwed up.

 

[Quasar44]

Water is super stable and takes far more energy to put in than get out