CaptainPanic

lol... poor squirrel. If a horsepower is about 750 W, then how much is a squirrelpower? 0.75 W?

I believe that the most important reason that oil and gas are still around is that they cannot be converted to another compound without oxygen... or, at least, they are at chemical equilibrium in their local environment. No energy can be gained by a microorganism for growth in that local environment (in that oil field). For example: anaerobic processes often have methane as a waste product. But in the gas fields, there is only methane. Unless oxygen would be present (and it's not), there is nothing to eat for the micro organisms. The same goes for the others: coal and oil. They cannot react any further. Butanol can also be made by microorganisms, and with the increasing energy prices, this is considered for industrial applications. These microorganisms are used in "ABE fermentation" with ABE standing for acetone, butanol, ethanol. Those are the 3 products.

Umm... yeah... I probably should have checked some definitions before jumping into this discussion. I learned (regarding biodiesel): Triglycerides, as far as I know, are unsaponifiable. Fatty acids are saponifiable (because they can form a soap). It might be possible to make a soap from the triglycerides too, through different synthesis... and I don't know it. I wrote that there are triglycerides and fatty acids in vegetable oil, and that the fatty acids are saponifiable. There are more components, as almost always with things of bio-origin. I meant to say that for biodiesel production, the triglycerides (which do make up the majority of pure vegetable oil, but not 100%) are the good stuff, although you can use fatty acids too. In used kitchen oil, the fatty acids can make up a much larger fraction, and you can still use that for biodiesel, although the synthesis is a bit different. It is common to to a number of tests (by titration) to determine just how much fatty acid is there. Thanks, John Cuthber, for making me explain myself a bit better.

Yay

buttacup, I apologise for the following remark, but could you attempt to write in normal English sentences? With that I mean sentences that follow the grammar and spelling rules that you learned at school? It is difficult to read your posts, and I don't understand much of the last post you made. Also, could you try to write down your ideas in a logical way? I get the feeling that you (and here I apologize again) just get stoned, and write any thought that pops up in your head. Please read your own post before pressing "submit reply".

You can transport the electricity to the gas station, and build a relatively small hydrogen factory on the spot. You don't need hydrogen pipes through the landscape, although you might want to pimp your electricity grid. But indeed, as I explained 2 posts above, you shouldn't make the hydrogen inside the car.

Answer to OP You are right. A supply of electricity (about 50-100 megawatts of it for one gas station) and a bit of water (a few kg/s) would certainly be sufficient. And of course a compressor. I'm not sure about the change in efficiency of hydrogen production by electrolysis if you keep the reactor pressurized. (Ideally, you'd want to make the hydrogen at high pressure, so you can skip the compressor). You should realize that if you go to the gas station, you take 50 liters of diesel in about 1 minute. Let's calculate the power: 50 liters = 40 kg of diesel. The heat of combustion is about 44.8 MJ/kg (diesel). You get 1.79 GJ of energy in 60 seconds. That's 30 Megawatt. I'm sure you do not want a 30 megawatt electrolysis reactor inside your car... it will be big. It will generate heat (from heat and mass transfer limitations, like diffusion problems - electrolysis is not 100% efficient, and just 1% loss is already 300 kW of heating (that's the same as your normal engine of 400 horsepowers)... In addition, you need to make sure that the hydrogen is at sufficient pressure (it needs to fit in a small volume if you don't want to look like a weather balloon on wheels), and that compressor would consume some energy. Perhaps it can be done in the same electrolysis reactor though... I am not sure about that. Anyway, regarding on-board electrolysis, the 50 kg or water are not the issue. It's the extra equipment you need to put in the car that bring up the weight too much. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged About this quote In fact, that is true for everything in the universe. It is 100% logical - if the statement above would not be true, then the perpetual motion device would have been possible. Every process consumes more energy than that it will give off in the form of useful energy. Charging a battery takes more energy than you get from using it. Energy in gasoline is (much) more than you get in the form of kinetic energy when driving. etc. etc. The story about ethanol (although off topic) is also a popular misconception. The statement is right: plants (corn) are not producing more combustible biomass than that there is sunshine. Ethanol from corn is produced with a net gain in energy (if you assume that the sun's energy is for free). I mean: you do not use more fuel to produce the ethanol than what you get as a product... Take the ethanol you produce, subtract all the energy you use, and you will have left over. It's a popular misconception that it actually has a negative effect which comes from worst-case-scenario studies combined with the fact that bad applications of fertilizer can produce nitrous oxides that are also greenhouse gases. http://www.americanfuels.info/2008/09/ethanol-production-more-energy.html

Pure vegetable oil consists of triglyceride esters of fatty acids (that's a glycerol with on the -OH spots 3 ester groups of the fatty acid). It very often also contains the free fatty acids. The fatty acids can saponify (meaning that if you add a base (e.g. NaOH) it will form a salt, which is commonly known as "Soap". Yes, that's the stuff you can theoretically wash your hands with, although much better soaps exist. This is an important thing in biodiesel production. (The catalyst in that reaction is NaOH, and the presence of fatty acids will react with the catalyst, thus making it inactive). I have no clue about UV protection, but you can always just throw olive oil over your skin, and sit in the sun. If you still get a sunburn, then it has no effect

Very often, universities in the Netherlands have their masters in English. Of course Dutch is still the main language, but the large amount of foreigners make English a very common language, also in non-work places where you might meet colleagues (canteen, bar). They can also help with accommodation because there are lots of foreign students who need some help. I'm afraid that I am no longer working at the university, and my company has no place for trainees at this moment.

It depends on what you call "physics". Heat and mass transfer, and thermodynamics are physics in a way because there are not necessarily any chemical reactions involved. But you will never see me do the classical physics (calculating forces, friction, acceleration, ballistics... no funny stuff with balls thrown by people at an angle of 45 degrees ). Simple example A simple example is: you have a kettle, and you need to boil water. How long does it take until the water is hot if you heat it with a gas fire? Then you start determining the power of the gas (combustion, that's chemistry). Then you determine how fast the heat will transfer to the metal of the kettle (that's heat transfer). You take into account that the whole combustion process has all kinds of movement of gases (flow dynamics and mass transfer). You determine the heat transfer from the metal of the kettle into the water. You determine how fast the water heats up. Factory And then you do that a hundred times, and with different materials than water, include some more fancy reactions than methane combustion, you make sure it is optimized (the least possible energy for the most possible products) and you call it a chemical factory ... eeh... except that you still need to actually build it. (The study allows you also to work in the detailed design, and actual construction of the factory - it's optional for the hands-on people). Luckily we don't have to do all the calculations by hand anymore. There exist programs that do most of the calculations for us. My studies included some biochemical engineering as well... so I am able to work for example on the design of bio-ethanol factories (second generation, no food will be converted to ethanol in my designs). But a micro-organism is still a bit of a black-box... meaning that I know what goes in and what comes out, and how fast that all happens... but that's it Did that answer the question?

If you are interested in buying lab-quantities, then have a look at one of the chemical suppliers. Sigma Aldrich is one. If you are looking for bulk prices (if you're interested in 100 ton or more), then look at the magazines: for example Chemweek, ICIS. You'll have to subscribe to get this info. Sadly, bulk prices of chemicals are negotiable when you buy them, and for that reason companies don't put prices on their own websites. The average bulk price is calculated by previously mentioned magazines... but they demand some money because they have to do a bit of research to get the number (and they list thousands, so in all that is a lot of work).

The Pelton wheel that you're planning to use is the easiest to construct from simple materials. Also, considering the fact that you probably won't have a huge difference in height (and therefore a low pressure of the water) will mean that you don't need to go for some advanced design like a Kaplan turbine or Francis turbine (both often used in hydropower)... although these are used up to quite minimal height differences of 3 meters (and more). The other two examples are better, more efficient, and therefore the preferred choice for Megawatt to Gigawatt hydroelectric installations. But: you must buy this, you cannot design it yourself so easy. The reason is simple: if you don't get the angles, curves and dimensions right, it won't be efficient. And to get it right you need some classes in fluid dynamics and a fancy computer to do the calculations for you (or lots of trial and error). I think that an electric generator will have an optimum production at a certain rotation? (I'm no expert on this)... perhaps you can focus on that? Make your water wheel efficient by not spilling any water... ok, that's rather obvious, but you still need to do it

LOL Note to self: Don't ever ask DrP to fix a bike.

that thing looks crazy! Wonderful! I hope that the assumptions used in the design will one day come true. Assumption: "assuming future advances in magnetic superconductivity" (so I guess it does not actually work). Read more (the assumption can be found on the picture itself): Still, quite a nice thing to look at and dream about. Whether I'd trust it to climb a mountain with me sitting on it? Hmm... perhaps I'd go for old skool [edit] And a bit of IXQuicking (alternative for Google) found that the design is form 1988... lol. It's 20 years old (link provides no picture, but the designer's names are similar).

Taking a break from work to post here (there's always time for that and for coffee, luckily). Checking again some threads where I posted before. Reading the reply to my short summary how to get to the moon: That's motivating. I'm struggling to finish a single small project. The guy doesn't waste any text, (or even capital letters), but just gets to work. I hope it's true.

That is just the coolest reply on this forum yet. I explain that you need a 100m tall rocket, going 11000 km/s, two launch moments, nightmare calculations, and you just reply: Awesome attitude.

What you call "pompas arrogent self impotant" is called "focussing on science". Science is really simple: there is a theory, which you can prove. You have examples, experiments, etc. If your idea does not have any examples, or if you cannot test it, then it's not science. Many people come to this forum with an idea that seems nice in their head. But the first question they always get (not only you, but everybody) is "Prove it!". That is not "pompas arrogent self impotant", but that is "scientific". Yes, scientists will always come to the point. It is our job.

Just ask! There are plenty.

Chemical engineering. That will enable you to design the chemical factories. It does not include as much chemistry, and more things like thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer and kinetics... There are plenty of jobs for chem. engineers. 1. Work as a conceptual process designer for sustainable energy (designing chemical factories for products from a sustainable origin (often biomass or waste)) - that means that if somebody gets new results in a lab that are nice, then I step in to do the very first thinking of how a process should be. Usually it won't work, but I give valuable info back to the lab, which enables the lab guys to do important tests which help me again in designing version 2 of the factory. And at the end of a project, we have something that can work (most of the time ) and earn money (half the time ) 2. Love it. I make the world cleaner and I even get paid for that! I'm proud to do the work I do. I constantly learn. I work in international teams, and get to visit other companies/universities abroad (in Europe). 3. Chemical engineering, specialized (Masters) in chem. process design 4. First bachelor, then masters, can't be bothered with a PhD (don't want to be on the same topic for 4 years). 5. Mechanical engineering or applied physics - yes, I know I am very biased about engineers - sorry about that Hope that helps. And btw, the chemical industry is one of the finest examples of the global economy, so broaden that horizon. The world has more big industry than New York and California!

Your brother has thought of the risk, and came up with: The chance of an ignition is small (it's never zero), and if it happens, I want to avoid an explosion. I will accept that there will be fire inside the house though. And you say: The chance of an ignition is unknown (but not zero), and if it happens, it should be outside and away from anyone (still without explosion). That's quite simple, isn't it? You have to choose between those two. Risk assessment in a nutshell The definition of "Risk" is simple: Determine the chance (which is not zero), and determine the effect. Multiply the two, and be done. Many people only focus on minimizing the chance, which is fine. But minimizing the effect can improve safety faster sometimes. You can minimize the effect of an accident by doing it outside, or perhaps by reducing the amount of gunpowder in the ball mill.

It's not the world destruction that is coming from the Middle East that requires direct attention from the president. It's oil. And apparently, president Obama intends to get this oil with friendly talks rather than military invasions. And I applaud that. And in case you hadn't noticed, the US army is occupying (assisting in bringing democracy to) two countries in that region. Again, that makes the region very important to the president of the USA. So, perhaps the Middle East is more important to the US than you like? Anyway, actually giving the 1st speech to that channel was a very important message to the region. President Obama takes it serious.

If you completely oxidize any hydrocarbon (containing C, H, possibly O), then there will be only 2 products: CO2 and H2O. Therefore, all the hydrogen (H) will form water (H2O) All the carbon © will form carbon dioxide (CO2). Now all you have to do is to calculate the amount of H and C in the palmitoyl coA to get the answer. Note that there is already a little oxygen on the fatty acid (the acid group), so if you need to know how much oxygen you must add, subtract those oxygens to get an answer to that.

Lol... a typo or mistake almost brought internet to an end? How cool. Big events usually start with very small things...

I agree. I checked them all.

The escape velocity of the earth is 11000 m/s (11km/s). The velocity you wrotre, 17000 mph (or 7.6 km/s) won't be enough. You're asking about the time to launch to get the right trajectory, I guess? Here's a picture of a trajectory to the moon (keywords in google: trajectory apollo, then go for pictures). You can see that there are in fact 2 launch moments: 1. The lift off, to get into the right orbit. 2. The second launch to get out of orbit, and go to the moon. And sorry for not providing equations for this. I don't know them. The mass of the rocket definitely matters a lot. You wrote 1.5 tonnes (1500 kg, please use SI/metric units, rockets have crashed because units were mixed up). Is that the mass including fuel, or excluding? More than 90% of the mass of the rocket is fuel (google for saturn V to get an idea: a >100 m tall rocket, for such a small lunar lander). So the calculations for the thrust of the rocket must take into account the changing mass. Keywords are "specific thrust" and "specific impulse". I think you have to make a force balance, including the thrust, and gravity. Then solve that along the trajectory including the changing mass (I've never done this myself, but I think you'll end up with a differential equation that is dF/dx, with F = force, x = trajectory, and also ballistics equations - I ask a physics expert to comment on this if possible). Probably, you should include 3 length units, either in the xyz, or polar coordinates. Then you get a set of equations which need to be solved simultaneously... Anyway... it's too much for me to solve here (I'm supposed to be working on different topics than this ). Good luck, if you get some result, please post it! And if anyone thinks that they have a better answer, I thank you in advance. Here are some links for specific thrust and impulse: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/specth.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/ienzl.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_thrust