[Archive! - page 338
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Water needs to be new every time, and preferably from an open source.
Can you justify, at least in words, how you are going to use less energy in hydrolysis of gas than in burning the gas itself? Basically, this is a veiled scheme for stirring water in a hat:
E1 is the laser energy required to break down a water molecule into oxygen and hydrogen.
E2 is the energy derived from the combustion of hydrogen in an oxygen atmosphere.
Explain how E2 must be greater than E1! The chemical conversion itself is like the wheel of a perpetual motion machine: a circle of conversions from water to water takes place and there is still energy to spin the wheel and feed the excess into the power grid.If there were numbers, you wouldn't be looking for engineers. 490-510nm
No, not a grail - you need new water every time, and very preferably from open sources.
Seriously.
Like the source of a mountain river?
No. Lake, river or sea water, in general, that has been exposed to the sun's rays.
Yessentuki underground doesn't work.
Can you justify, at least in words, how you are going to use less energy in hydrolysis of gas than in burning the gas itself? Basically, this is a veiled scheme for stirring water in a hat:
E1 is the laser energy required to break down a water molecule into oxygen and hydrogen.
E2 is the energy derived from the combustion of hydrogen in an oxygen atmosphere.
Explain how E2 must be greater than E1! The chemical conversion itself is like the wheel of a perpetual motion machine: there is a cycle of conversion from water to water and there is still energy to turn the wheel and feed the excess into the power grid.....A in a mortar, the water should warm up.
Can you justify, at least in words, how you are going to use less energy in hydrolysis of gas than in burning the gas itself? By and large, this is a veiled scheme of muddying the waters:
It's likely that justification for some grant money is required.
Can you justify, at least in words, how you are going to use less energy in hydrolysis of gas than in burning the gas itself? Basically, this is a veiled scheme for stirring water in a hat:
E1 is the laser energy required to break down a water molecule into oxygen and hydrogen.
E2 is the energy derived from the combustion of hydrogen in an oxygen atmosphere.
Explain how in this way E2 must be greater than E1!? The chemical conversion itself is like the wheel of a perpetual motion machine: there is a circle of conversions from water to water and there is still energy to spin the wheel and feed the excess into the power grid.OK, in words:
If a water molecule is supplied with an "extra" quantum of energy by the same solar radiation, for example, this does not necessarily lead to its decomposition into atoms, but simply results in the transfer of one electron into another orbit. Another quantum, another transition... and so on until it disintegrates. Such a "charged" water molecule, when an electric voltage is applied, will disintegrate into atoms lighter than the reference one by exactly as many quanta of energy as it managed to receive during its existence.
Now for the resonance.
Trying to decompose water by constant voltage we involuntarily come to the formula you mentioned, Vasily.
However, imagine that the effect of an electric field would be modulated by the resonant frequency of a water molecule (blue laser), plus the water is already charged from the sun! No perpetual motion machine - just an unconventional (so far) use of solar energy, using H2O as its carrier.
It is very likely that a justification for some grant money is required.