sci.energy

Dear Eeyore:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message news: @ ...
>
>
> "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 ?

Several industries receive deliveries of LOX for their various
processes. You might have difficulties in finding salable uses
for it in the quantities required to 100% replace automobile
fuel... but you coudl otherwise find uses for it other than
impressive pyrotechnics displays.

David A. Smith