• RNAi [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Molecular hydrogen (H2) and molecular oxygen (O2) are more "energetic" than water (H2O). More exactly, their molecular bonds have more "stored energy" than the molecular bonds of water. When you mix the two they fucking explode and form water. Then, you can turn water into H2 and O2 again, but for it to happen you need the energy back. If you used it to move a piston, that water is gonna be water.

    Energy needs to come from somewhere.

    "Oh but the material of the 'water fuel cell' use Nanotechnology(TM) to split H2O into H2 and O2". Ajah, the only way for that to happen is the material providing the energy to "split" the water and then form the energetic bonds H-H and O=O. In that case the material would be the fuel, (and will of course be finite), not the water.

    "Oh but this nanomaterial is actually a catalyzer of the reaction of water splitting". Yes, that exists and is well known, but no matter how good the catalyzer is, you still need the energy back.

    • garbage [none/use name,he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      i'm really not enlightened to this kind of shit and you'll be wasting your time trying to explain it to me. but from my understanding, hydraulic fluid is locked into a tube. there is not much chemistry to it. all i know is that it can create a lot of pressure, enough to lift thousands of pounds.

      feel like someone smart could maybe be able to slowly release that pressure into moving pistons efficiently.

      • RNAi [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        Yes, that's steam power, or just hidraulic transmission of force. Water and vapor are good to move energy, but you won't get energy from the molecules like you do with gasoline. Unless you make the atoms explode, but that's atomic energy. And it's particularly "un-practical" to get atomic energy from water.

        For example, the energy of a sea wave is just the water being moved by the wind, which is caused by the sun heating up the atmosphere unevenly, and the wind is actually just molecules distributing that thermal energy as evenly as possible.

        The energy of a river, is just water going downhill, "liberating" gravitational energy, again molecules distributing energy as evenly as possible. How did the water got up? It was heated and/or evaporated thanks to the sun and wind (aka the sun) and rained on top of a mountain. So the source of energy is again the sun. Why not saying gravity is the source of energy? Cuz gravity is a really fucking weird thing and you might think the smart nerds have it figured it out, but you go to college and in every new Physics semester you keep learning the smart nerds actually don't have it figured it out completely, FUCKING SHIT MAN. But anyways, gravity is not the source of energy.