Ionization & Water Fuel

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Enthalpy Of Reaction

Jesus...



I've read the bloody thread OK - and most of it contains no science whatsoever - just conjecture.

I have not seen even one speculative balanced equation for any process put forward. At least if I had a theory I would support it with balanced chemical equations and detail the reactions taking place. There is a complete lack of science here.

And, for your information, I was not talking about H2 from the ambient air. I'm assuming that you've produced H2 and O2 via electrolysis in the first place. Hence we have air, (which is naturally high in N2) that is also now relatively high in H2 and O2 to boot. So as stated previously the Ammonia would be limited by the amount of available H2.

So what reactions take us from this mix of H2, O2 and N2 to Ammonia... and what exactly is the point of it? What energy are you gaining... and from where?

It should not be a difficult question if you know what you're trying to achieve... or indeed if you know what you're talking about.

Farrah

Here is a little bit of chemistry:-

For one of the gaseos mixes been posted on this thread,

-51kj/mol in forming the gas
-622kj/mole when burnt

Oh the - sign in your book would probably be a +, but in the scientific world we use this for an EXOTHERMIC reaction now that is where the excess is

Mike

Mike

[chasson321]

last edit...

[pengrove]

[QUOTE=Michael John Nunnerley;93128]Here is a little bit of chemistry:-

For one of the gaseos mixes been posted on this thread,

-51kj/mol in forming the gas
-622kj/mole when burnt

Oh the - sign in your book would probably be a +, but in the scientific world we use this for an EXOTHERMIC reaction now that is where the excess is

Are you having any problems with nitric acid condensate?

[Farrah Day]

Here is a little bit of chemistry:-

For one of the gaseos mixes been posted on this thread,

-51kj/mol in forming the gas
-622kj/mole when burnt

Oh the - sign in your book would probably be a +, but in the scientific world we use this for an EXOTHERMIC reaction now that is where the excess is

Mike

Well, you're certainly right about one thing Mike, it is a little bit of chemistry... an exceedingly little bit!

Care to elaborate on where this particular 'bit' fits into the sequence of events?

Farrah

[Michael John Nunnerley]

to many chemistry books

But what of the limiting reagent and conservation of mass & energy? http://www.energeticforum.com/92573-post720.html
As the amount of hydrogen is limiting and changing it into something else doesn't do a whole lot of good.

Tim

Hi Tim

I think you have been drawn into the main stream thinking too much, conservation of mass and energy is not in mine, and now I think, not in NASA's book either, as I have posted on another thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...oven-nasa.html

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Well, you're certainly right about one thing Mike, it is a little bit of chemistry... an exceedingly little bit!

Care to elaborate on where this particular 'bit' fits into the sequence of events?

Farrah

At the moment NO

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

date

Well, you're certainly right about one thing Mike, it is a little bit of chemistry... an exceedingly little bit!

Care to elaborate on where this particular 'bit' fits into the sequence of events?

Farrah

Ask me out for a date, I like good food, your paying, you never know what it might lead to

Mike

[sebosfato]

Ok 50kj heat of formation and 620kj heat of combustion

so you are considering you already have the hydrogen free right?

Because if hydrazine is N2H4 you would need 2 moles of molecular hydrogen for 1 mole of molecular nitrogen. Now if you count the 2 moles of hydrogen 286 kj per mole you would have (2moles *286kj /mol )+ 50kj heat of formation you have your 622kj heat of combustion per mole of hydrazine .

so what are you talking about?
where is your energy gain
I think you are just talking about BS.

[Farrah Day]

OK Mike, please yourself.

But I'll elaborate on my problems with this ammonia fuel thing. And this is not to dig and disrupt, insult or offend, it's merely to point out what I consider is being rather conveniently overlooked.

Now, if we started with ammonia and then wanted to use it as a fuel source (a good source of hydrogen), then fair enough. Forgeting the fact that we have to produce the ammonia in the first place, it is the hydrogen content that is the important part. It is the hydrogen we will be combusting. (and so yes, we still have the embrittlement issue).

However, this is not the case here. As far as I can tell, people here are intending to use energy to produce H2 and O2 from an electrolyser, then somehow take the O2 out of the air to leave N2 and then work hard to use this H2 and N2 to create NH3. Why?

We had the hydrogen in step one, creating ammonia will not increase the amount of available hydrogen! In fact all that has been achieved in this scenario is a pointless waste of energy. Creating ammonia is a step backwards. It gains you nothing, and to go to all this trouble for a net energy loss makes no sense whatsoever.

I hope at least some of you can see what I'm getting at here.

And if you don't agree with me, at least have the decency to put forward a scientific argument to counter what I've said.

Farrah

[Farrah Day]

Ask me out for a date, I like good food, your paying, you never know what it might lead to

Are you flirting with me Mike? Naughty, naughty... please try to stay on topic!

[Aaron]

mass & energy

But what of the limiting reagent and conservation of mass & energy? http://www.energeticforum.com/92573-post720.html
As the amount of hydrogen is limiting and changing it into something else doesn't do a whole lot of good.

Tim

2.) The Einsteinian Lie has succeeded in instilling a mind virus in most everyone and also in confusing Main Stream “Scientists”, who today waste billions of dollars of funding each year, only to chase their own tails in a canonic sequence.

Chris determined that it was starting to exhibit the effects of synthesis of electrical energy from the electrostatic field. This is a result of the variation of capacitance (C in Farrads) with respect to time (T in seconds) which results in a negative conductance G (in Siemens). Hence the generation of electric energy.

There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…

Tim, for your consideration.

[Aaron]

embrittlement

Now, if we started with ammonia and then wanted to use it as a fuel source (a good source of hydrogen), then fair enough. Forgeting the fact that we have to produce the ammonia in the first place, it is the hydrogen content that is the important part. It is the hydrogen we will be combusting. (and so yes, we still have the embrittlement issue).

You still have completely ignored all the points I put to you. If you have
the courage to answer them, you might get answers to the next parts.
Like Tim, if you want answers, it isn't going to be done on your terms,
period.

When you run a car on gasoline, (put Farrah Day's quote here).

When you run a car on gasoline (heptane), "it is the hydrogen content that
is the important part. It is the hydrogen we will be combusting. (and" so yes, we still have the embrittlement issue)."

Are you sure about that? There are differences - maybe you can explain
why there are not the same embrittlement issues with gasoline - according
to your quote, your logic, gasoline should cause the same embrittlement
issues as straight hydrogen/oxygen. Does it or does it not and why does
it or why doesn't it?

[Aaron]

thanks Slovenia

Hi Aaron,

You've got a wonderful thread here. There is so much incredible information within this thread and there is a lot here to digest. Each time I go back and scan through it, I find something I overlooked before. Thanks so much for starting this thread and for all your very astute explanations.

Best Regards,
Slovenia

Thanks Slovenia

I'm happy that someone sees some value in the sharing here.

[Farrah Day]

Blimey you're hard work Aaron.

It was you that brought up the hydrogen embrittlement issue in the first place, stating it as a reason why we could not run an ICE on H2 alone, not me... remember? Look back through the thread!

You still have completely ignored all the points I put to you. If you have
the courage to answer them, you might get answers to the next parts.
Like Tim, if you want answers, it isn't going to be done on your terms,
period.

What points exactly... courage to answer what? What are you talking about??

You're yet to put forward a scientific explanation for anything you've proposed... and yet I'm the one that has to provide the answers? Jeez!!

What is your problem? You seem to have issues with me simply because I'm asking quite legitimate questions that you simply don't have answers to. If I'm so out of line with what I'm saying explain why, and stop being so deliberately evasive.

I'd settle for any answers on anybody's terms!

I'm sure I'm not the only one that wonders where the merit in creating on-demand ammonia lies.

Farrah

[chasson321]

last edit...