sci.energy

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:

> Dear Eeyore:
>
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Bill Ghrist wrote:
> ...
> >> Secondly, the fact that the amount of energy
> >> available from a process is less than the input
> >> does not preclude it from having practical uses.
> >> If that were the case then nobody would ever
> >> convert energy from one form to another, .
> >> in a turbine generator, because the energy of
> >> the final product is always less than the energy
> >> ( . heat) used as input. Likewise, there
> >> would be no devices powered by rechargeable
> >> batteries, since you don't get as much
> >> electrical energy out as you put in.
> >
> > Since the output is a highly explosive gas mixture,
> > I fail to see much practical use for the discovery.
>
> *If* there was a reliable / safe / mobile way to store the
> hydrogen, you could "easily" liquify the oxygen, or use the
> different densities to separate the hydrogen from the water vapor
> and oxygen. But will it be more thermally effiicient than a
> storage battery with these extra losses?

To liquefy the oxygen would require huge amounts of energy. That's a pretty
pointless way to separate the 2 gases. And whby would you want LOX ?

Graham