h a l f b a k e r yNot so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The efficiency of disassociating water might be greatly
increased by using fast pulses of small currents at high
voltages and very small electrodes. Instantaneously,
some molecules are going to be momentarily vunerable
to easy disassociation because of random thermal or
even quantum vibration.
In addition, as hydrogen is liberated, its relative lightness may cause it to move upward, away from more completely relieving the charge
that caused its freedom. The rate of accumulation might be slower than conventional methods but could the above
constitute a sort of 'Maxwell's Demon' of electrolysis?
Maxwell's Demon
http://en.wikipedia...iki/Maxwell's_demon
[normzone, Jul 19 2007]
Tobor the Great
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047590/
[normzone, Jul 19 2007]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
No. In conventional electrolysis, you
are to an extent already using the
random energy distribution of the water
molecules: I imagine that those which
happen to be in a favourable state are
indeed more easily dissociated. But this
leaves behind a population of molecules
which are less easily dissociated - they
are, in effect, colder. It's a bit like
boiling water: you preferentially boil
away those molecules which happen to
be at the upper tail of the energy
distribution, but this leaves you with a
"colder" population. So, you don't win. |
|
| |
I'm not sure why short fast pulses
would help; and I don't think the
liberated hydrogen, on the atom-by-
atom scale you're thinking of, will float
away in any useful way. |
|
| |
Given that the process needs to absorb ambient heat,
it might be slow, as noted. As to how gravity works on h2 molecules, I'm not clear on that point. Do they rise even before becoming a full bubble? |
|
| |
//As to how gravity works on h2 molecules, I'm not clear on that point.// |
|
| |
1) Smaller things jiggle faster and fly farther than larger things when they are collided with, which partly explains it.... hydrogen atoms still fall at 9.81m/s^2, but they also bounce higher and orbit farther up in the atmosphere than their oxygen counter parts, and they bounce a lot with heavier atoms (denser air =smaller mean free path) when they try to come back down. |
|
| |
//Do they rise even before becoming a full bubble?// |
|
| |
2) Yes, sort of, I guess this describes how hydrostatic bouincey works at a nano-scale level too, but in a small amount of liquid with low depths this effect is negligeable unless you have some sort of bose surface tension binding many hydrogen particles together into a nano-bubble. |
|
| |
3. I don't see what this idea has to do with "maxwell's demon" or "perpetual motion" though. Even if 1 photon dislodges 1 hydrogen atom at a constant rate, then you've only gotten 100% efficiency out of this idea, but thermal vibrations will cause one hydrogen to hook up with another oxygen and then just heat up the water more, but more likely the photon would travel through the liquid without knocking any hydrogens loose. |
|
| |
--- maxwell appears to be describing an ideal catalyst |
|
| |
--- electrolysis is already catalysed (and requires current) |
|
| |
--- is the idea to define a light activated catalyst (or perhaps heat activated)? |
|
| |
[Tobes], please describe what you perceive to be the standard method of electrolysis and then explain why the differences you propose improve on standard methods. For example - decreasing electrode size. Why? |
|
| |