CaptainPanic

I have seen many scams on the net... they all seem to: 1. Say that energy is actually for free 2. The fact that we still pay for it is a conspiracy by the oil companies 3. We should buy their revolutionary product from their crappy website 4. They find a lot of resistance from mainstream science and industry, but those are all part of the conspiracy But on a more serious note... Combustion engines produce a lot of waste heat. What if a part of this waste heat is utilized to evaporate a little water to create a bit more punch in the engine? This would of course cool down the gas mixture created in the cylinder... but perhaps the sum of the positive and negative effect still give some extra juice to a car? (And perhaps the water will permanently ruin some parts of the engine?) This is apparently tested in WWII aircraft and in prehistorical tractors, but does anyone know if it also generated more power? (It was used to make the engine run more smooth).

Searching google on [tetrahydrofuran methanol hypochlorite] points me towards the production of hexanitrostilbene (2,2',4,4',6,6'-hexanitrostilbene). This is an explosive used by the military... I don't think I want to be helping anyone to make this at home. Surely this was no homework question. What's the purpose of the reaction you're investigating? Why are you investigating it? Even if you don't want to make some high explosive, the oxidized products of THF are unstable (they are peroxides). Why do you want those?

E = 0.5*m*v^2 So actually it will take 30,000*30,000 = 900,000,000x as much energy (900 million). And I believe there's some quantum kinda problems that say that anything that has mass (that includes you, me and the rocket) that travels AT lightspeed needs an infinite amount of energy. But I can't give you any funny formula's about energy costs at lightspeed. I think talking about lightspeed traveling while we have trouble going to Mars or the moon is like talking about highways and racecars when you haven't even invented the wheel. It's fun, but it makes little sense

Air conditioners are the biggest waste of energy I know of. Please consider buying a commercial one, because the chance is that it's more efficient. When you definitely want to build one yourself, at least make a rough calculation of the price of the energy it will require. Yes, I am one of those treehuggers that wants to save the world, and I frown upon people with air conditioners.

Please use a normal font, and I might consider searching a bit. Big red letters definitely don't motivate me... sorry. Did you try searching google?

Perhaps it would be useful to tell us what else was in the test tube? You mention esters in your title. Esters have a strong smell, and are found in many types of food (fruits, and also synthetic stuff). Esters may dissolve in the water, so perhaps esters were present in the water. But with the limited information in your question, it is hard to give a good answer.

If your second question is: "Will a device capable of going faster than light boost space research?", then my answer is: "yes". For the rest I say: Our modern rockets can go something like 10000 m/s Light travels 299000000 m/s So to go from very fast rockets to lightspeed, we still need to find a way to go about 30000x faster than our rockets.

I'm no expert, but here's my theory: Any animal that attacked humans in the past has been hunted down. This not-so-natural selection has caused animals to watch out for humans. However, this theory seems more applicable to land animals... Ok... (I'm warming up)... here's another theory. Sharks have a 6th sense that can pick up the electric field of fish (prey). The hammerhead shark even has evolved a weird shape head to fit a very large version of this sensor. Perhaps surfers don't have such a strong electric field so that we look like a swimming rock to a shark? Or perhaps we have such a strong electric field that we look like a whale to a shark? Both cases we don't look like food. Just my thoughts... speculation...

First of all: I am not sure about this how it works in practice. What I wrote here might only work on paper (I just don't know)... I think you'll need a couple of fancy catalysts. If you just take some electrodes and stick those into water with CO2 dissolved in it, something will happen, but I doubt you'll reduce the CO2. I think you should take CO2 as starting point, not the carbonic acid. CO2 and carbonic acid are in equilibrium anyway (CO2 + H2O <--> H2CO3) I think this is a set of half reactions that can occur if you apply the right potential (?). CO2 + 2e- + 2 H+ --> HCOOH (formic acid) (google: formic acid CO2) HCOOH + 2e- + 2 H+ --> H2C=O (Formaldehyde, note: toxic!) (google: formic acid formaldehyde, and try to find the reverse reaction (not the oxidation)). H2C=O + 2e- + 2 H+ --> CH4O (methanol, note: also toxic ) Searching Google, I found that finding the oxidation reactions is relatively simple. (Oxidizing is also energetically easier...). The reverse, so from CO2 to methanol, is more tricky.

This "L" will confuse people. L = 1 (dimensionless, i.e. no units)... skip it. It should not be in the formula, unless you intend to use pounds, ounces or some other idiot (non SI) unit for the weight. My advise: use grams. m = mass in [grams] M = molar mass (or atomic mass), in [grams/mole] n = number of moles, in [mole] (number of times you have 6.02*10^23). m = n*M (in words: mass = number of moles * molar mass) The molar mass, as I said before, is something you need to look up in a book or google (wikipedia, then search for "Silver" and read the right side of the page). Ok, I practically gave away the answer here... sorry.

Thanks for the responses! The Roche limit as defined on wikipedia (for those who are also interested, but not familiar with the topic, like me)... [math]d = R\left( 2\;\frac {\rho_M} {\rho_m} \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}[/math] where R is the radius of the primary, ρM is the density of the primary, and ρm is the density of the satellite. - [wikipedia] So you're saying that every particle in orbit around Saturn is one single piece of rock (or whatever material those rings are made of)... none of them are formed by clusters of material, because the rings are within the Roche limit of Saturn? (Single pieces of rock can then withstand the tidal forces... the molecular/crystal bonds of the material itself hold it together). Sounds like if you ever go there with a spacecraft, you should make sure everything is tied down with some strong tape, or the tidal forces will make it move out of its cupboard...

I just can't understand why the rings of Saturn are stable... My knowledge of the theory of gravity, which may be limited, is that there is only an attraction force (when we look at macroscopic things like rocks and planets). These rings seem to defy everything I know of gravity. Why don't the rings form a few moons, or at least larger lumps of rock? Any disturbance in the homogeneity of the rings should irreversibly cause the formation of lumps of rock. There are plenty of disturbances (even from outside, in the form of asteroids and comets), but also moons, and a size distribution in the rocks (they are not all equally big). Can anyone explain to me how the popular sciences see this? (I have read some theories where electricity and magnetism were included together with the theory of gravity to explain it... Then there can be a repulsion force to explain why moons don't form... but it seems this is not accepted by the mainstream science).

Are those the guys of 'the electric universe'? I do believe that the role of electricity and magnetism might be underestimated by popular theories.

I'll just answer the 1st question... I think you have already understood the rest (your guess is right what happens if there is a combustible mixture in the hose, and there's a fire a the end: Kaboom). I know little of flame arresters actually. A flame or fire needs the usual 3 things: 1. Fuel 2. Oxygen 3. Heat Points 1 and 2, fuel and oxygen, are molecules. There is no size limitation there. But the heat becomes a problem when the flame is too small. Very very small flames just cool down too fast. Why? I will simplify things a little. I neglect a lot of things I learned about heat transfer here, and my old teachers would definitely frown upon this... but I think it is simplification that can make this problem look easy: Cooling down happens at the surface of the flame, where the flame meets the outside (cold) air. Let's say that the energy lost to the outside air is proportional to the outside surface of the flame. The heating up of the flame happens inside the flame. Let's say that the energy produced is proportional to the volume of the flame. Area is a 2nd order function of length (or radius). Area is measured in square meters (m2). Volume is a 3rd order function of length (or radius). volume is measured in cubic meters (m3). So, when a radius becomes smaller, the volume is decreasing faster than the surface. The volume decreases be the 3rd order while the outside surface decreases by a second order function. This simply means that the energy produced becomes less faster. The heat loss to the outside air drops too, but not so fast. At some point, the heat loss becomes so much larger (relatively to the production of heat)... the flame goes out. You should realize that air is of course oxygen, and therefore the flame and the air mix quite a bit... and this means that the theory of heat transfer from the flame to the air is a little more tricky than I just described. But I think it still holds that heat transfer is a surface phenomenon. Heat production is a volume phenomenon.

Sounds like someone is learning the concept of a "mole". A "mole" is indeed 6.02 x 10^23. It is just a number. Like a "dozen" (12) and a "gross" (144). This number is just a lot bigger than 12 or 144. So you don't need it to describe an amount of eggs or fruit (a mole of eggs would be a gigantic mountain). Instead it is used to describe amounts of the smallest particles: atoms and molecules. To answer the question: Determine the mass in grams,of 6.02 X 10^23 eggs (sorry) You first need the weight of 1 egg, no? So, I think you can figure out what kind of number you need first before you can solve the problem.

Nice. Hummers suck. US Army fuel guzzlers. Any links, pictures? Or the name of the "Japanese product"?

This seems a relevant news article: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206801669 It says that a new technology can do a hydrolysis of water to hydrogen (and, not mentioned in article: oxygen) at 85% efficiency. (Note: this is only the production of the hydrogen, not yet included is the conversion from hydrogen back to electricity). This new technology is not yet on the market. First application (small batteries) are expected later this year. My personal comment: 85% is nice, but a simple pump can do better. If you compare the energy contained in crude oil, and the kinetic energy you actually find back when you drive a car with a conventional combustion engine indeed makes you cry. It's about 20% I think, no more. I wish I had a decent reference to this... but I don't. - Anyway, for this discussion it seems not relevant, unless you were planning to make methanol for a normal combustion engine. That seems silly. It feels like buying a Ferrari and then putting a horse in front of it...

Regarding stopping in space (or at least slowing down) The law of physics that you need is: Action = Reaction. So, if you push in one way, your body will move back the other way (like a recoil of a gun). Imagine you're moving through space in the direction of Mars. Mars is straight ahead. You fire a gun at the direction of Mars. The recoil of the gun will then actually slow you down a little. Keep firing, and eventually you will stop. Rockets don't use bullets. Rockets shoot with hot gas. But the mechanism is the same. So, to slow down you have to turn the rocket around, and fire it with the back-end pointing forward. Regarding gravity In space there certainly is gravity. If you are in orbit (making circles around the earth), you have two forces on you: 1. Gravity, as always. 2. The centripetal force (hope I got the name right)... You can see this force in action if you tie a stone (or something else) to a rope, and swing it around you. The faster you swing it, the larger the force on the stone, the "heavier" it becomes. It wants to go straight, but the rope keeps it in its "orbit" around you. In orbit, you also have this centripetal force. The circles you make are a lot larger, but also the speed you have is a lot larger. And you cannot go straight in orbit, because gravity keeps you close to earth (gravity is acting as the rope). Funnily, the earth itself is also in orbit around the sun. And the moon is in orbit around the earth. They are all experiencing two forces: the one resulting from the speed they have around the other... and gravity. As long as those are equal, the orbit is stable. Regarding friction You're right. It is a safe assumption to say that there is zero friction. There are some particles, there is a little friction, but it is very very close to nothing.

the water is in your product, and you want it out. If you bring your product into contact with salty water, the water in the product is attracted by the other water. Simply said: water molecules like other water molecules. The hydrogen of one molecule is attracted strongly by the oxygen of another molecule (this is called a H-bond). Making the water salty increases the polarity of the water phase. This attracts the water even more. You're basically doing an extraction. You're extracting water from a product. But your solvent that you use for the extraction is water. To find out which kinds of molecules like which kind of other molecules, I suggest you investigate the concept of "polarity". The extraction of water doesn't work with every product. for example, if there's water in ethanol, washing with salty water will create a big ethanol-water-salt mix, and a very sad you.

Liquid pumps (especially big industrial pumps) can easily reach 80% efficiency. My sources for this are Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook (7th edition, section 10 page 25), and some mechanical engineers who are both my colleagues and friends. (Sorry that I cannot link to either of those). Small pumps suffer from problems in the electric engine where a lot of heat is created. But energy storage should at least store the energy output of 1 windturbine (2 MW peak power), so I consider this large. The turbine also can reach the efficiency I stated in my previous post. 80% is feasible even for small scale turbines. Actually, making hydrogen is also no 100% efficient process. Fuel cell technology (sustainable power -> electricity -> hydrogen -(fuel cell)-> electricity -> moving car) looks at 50% efficiency. Only very large systems can reach higher efficiency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell - please look at "system efficiency" to see the efficiency of the entire cycle). My personal conclusion is that hydro power is easier to use for energy storage. It is a proven technology that is already applied in cost-effective large scale projects (all hydro dams in the world). Fuel cells are a very good solution in transportation.

Lol, my view is completely opposite from yours. I think we should try not to risk our climate and our one and only planet. We know how to rebuild an economy (western civilization at least has done this several times, in the 1930's, after WW2 - ok, ok, I may oversimplify "rebuilding the economy", but the massive devastation that stopping using fossil fuels will cause is also overestimated by economists)... The thing is: we don't know how to rebuild a climate. I just hope that that 747 was not flying on some stupid oil that comes from a tropical country where forest was burned to make space for plantations. Nothing wrong with higher prices, nothing wrong with bio-fuels, very many things wrong with burning forests.

It's a matter of giving it a go, and if that leads to nothing: start over again (and don't keep half your results). As soon as you get about 4-5 letters right, the rest will follow without any trouble.

One quite old technology to store energy (used for at least 100 years) is height. Hydro dams store lots of energy (their energy buffer can last for a year, which is more than the stores of fossil on the surface. Only fossil fuels in the ground exceed this energy storage). The good thing is that pumping water to a higher altitude is quite efficient. Making it come down through a turbine is also efficient. I think 80% for both processes is reasonable for a long term (so 64% efficiency for first storing and turning it back into electricity - higher should be possible with current (2008) technology though). The geology of the earth enables us to build a few more hydro dams than we already have, and even if that is not possible, we can create some circular dams. (The Netherlands is already seriously considering this... http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/noorden/groningen/article2872248.ece - not a great link, and it's in Dutch... but references are important in science!). Only if we discard bio-fuels as an option, and we still want hydrocarbons as a fuel for transportation, then I'd go for something like the schemes proposed here (although when it is from nuclear (nucular) power, I won't call it "bio" anymore).

The Dutch wikipedia states that researchers have actually made an aerogel with a density of 1 kg/m3 (air is 1.2 kg/m3). It is stated explicitly on the wikipedia site that this aerogel is lighter than air. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel The researchers who accomplished this work at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From their own website (quoted): "We make silica aerogels in a patented process that begins with a partially hydrolyzed silica solution to which we add water, a solvent, and a basic catalyst to form a gel. We then remove the solvent by supercritical conditions in an autoclave and replace it with air. LLNL's process takes a few hours; other methods can take days or weeks. Moreover, the process is flexible enough to let us produce aerogels with a wide range of densities�from 0.7 to 0.001 g/cm3." https://ipo.llnl.gov/technology/profile/aerogel/Terms/index.php

I'm sorry to say that I have read your post 3 times now, and I still don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about a new technology?