We don't chop firewood, but we bind it

[renewablejohn]

Argh.

@renewablejohn - where do you think the energy is coming from in your charcoal slurry?

At the beginning of this tiresome interlude on an already bizarre thread I did say "useful energy" in respect of water. If you want to make hydrogen from water, which can then be used as a fuel, you will need to put some energy in. That's how an electrolyser works. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Well I think you could amswer your own question. You dont have to have a liquid for a diesel engine to work. The typical charcoal efficiency of a dry powdered diesel engine is 17.5% whereas the same charcoal used in a water slurry produces a diesel engine efficiency of approx 40%. So please explain as I cannot.

 

[Highland Mule]

Well I think you could amswer your own question. You dont have to have a liquid for a diesel engine to work. The typical charcoal efficiency of a dry powdered diesel engine is 17.5% whereas the same charcoal used in a water slurry produces a diesel engine efficiency of approx 40%.

The clue is in the question. Efficiency = work performed against energy used. The wet system gets more out of the charcoal, by working more efficiently - for the same amount of energy used (available) in burning the same charcoal (nb, as we have been telling you, the water has zero calorific value and has no extra energy input).

Or, to put it another way:

allows it to run more efficiently.

It might help to keep the reaction under control by adsorbing excess energy, the flashing to steam might even help to disperse the carbon in the charcoal, but it certainly doesn't add any extra joules,

but facilitates the charcoal reaction in the process.

So please explain as I cannot.

You got that part correct.

 

[br jones]

Don't cha just love it ,when you think you know something an idiot pops up and makes you laugh

 

[bobk]

I’ll go back to uni (PhD ?) when you learn schoolboy chemistry. Until then, you keep living in your world of make believe and misunderstanding.

So what went wrong ? pm if you're embarrassed .

 

[Highland Mule]

So what went wrong ? pm if you're embarrassed .

Decided I didn’t want to spend another few years learning more and more about less and less, just so I’d end up with a worse paying job at the end. Then got offered a very good graduate position that I couldn’t refuse.

 

[bobk]

Decided I didn’t want to spend another few years learning more and more about less and less, just so I’d end up with a worse paying job at the end. Then got offered a very good graduate position that I couldn’t refuse.

I've got a brother like you .

 

[renewablejohn]

I've got a brother like you .

He is not called Felice Fontana by any chance.

 

[Highland Mule]

He is not called Felice Fontana by any chance.

Josiah Willard Gibbs actually.

 

[renewablejohn]

Argh.

@renewablejohn - where do you think the energy is coming from in your charcoal slurry?

At the beginning of this tiresome interlude on an already bizarre thread I did say "useful energy" in respect of water. If you want to make hydrogen from water, which can then be used as a fuel, you will need to put some energy in. That's how an electrolyser works. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Heading in the right direction but you dont need an electrolyser to turn water into hydrogen.

 

[Highland Mule]

Heading in the right direction but you dont need an electrolyser to turn water into hydrogen.

@New Puritan didn’t write that you did. He wrote that you need to put energy in, and that one way was to use an electrolyser.

You struggling with reading and chemistry now?

Incidentally, you’ll never get back more energy than you put in - that’s the basis of our thermodynamic laws.

 

[renewablejohn]

@New Puritan didn’t write that you did. He wrote that you need to put energy in, and that one way was to use an electrolyser.

You struggling with reading and chemistry now?

Incidentally, you’ll never get back more energy than you put in - that’s the basis of our thermodynamic laws.

And if you could read I did not disagree with New Puritan that you need to put energy in to make hydrogen but the route where discussing is biomass to hydrogen which is a tried and tested method using steam which is a water gas shift reaction. Even giving you a clue with Felice Fontana you just carry on with your mantra that you could not possibly be wrong.

 

[Highland Mule]

And if you could read I did not disagree with New Puritan that you need to put energy in to make hydrogen but the route where discussing is biomass to hydrogen which is a tried and tested method using steam which is a water gas shift reaction. Even giving you a clue with Felice Fontana you just carry on with your mantra that you could not possibly be wrong.

I'm very likely to be wrong, sometimes, but the laws of thermodynamics aren't. And as for clues - have a read about Mr Gibbs and educate yourself.

Again, water has no calorific value, and whilst it can facilitate the liberation of energy from fuel (by various means including gas shift reactions), it adds nothing to all the various scenarios you have mentioned apart from efficiency of the underlying reaction.

 

[renewablejohn]

I'm very likely to be wrong, sometimes, but the laws of thermodynamics aren't. And as for clues - have a read about Mr Gibbs and educate yourself.

Again, water has no calorific value, and whilst it can facilitate the liberation of energy from fuel (by various means including gas shift reactions), it adds nothing to all the various scenarios you have mentioned apart from efficiency of the underlying reaction.

How pathetic. quoting laws of thermodynamics. Its your post 33 which suggested it in the first place by assuming useful energy in water meant additional energy. I am not going to continue with your stupid games. I have already outlined where water can be used for useful energy in the production of steam and water gas shift reaction for producing Hydrogen from biomass. Funny how you have changed your position since point 37.

 

[Highland Mule]

How pathetic. quoting laws of thermodynamics. Its your post 33 which suggested it in the first place by assuming useful energy in water meant additional energy. I am not going to continue with your stupid games. I have already outlined where water can be used for useful energy in the production of steam and water gas shift reaction for producing Hydrogen from biomass. Funny how you have changed your position since point 37.

Assuming you mean posts 33 and 37:

H-O-H is the base energy state though John. You can't do anything chemically to it to release more energy!

No, sorry you're writing nonsense. Water cannot 'produce' energy by being boiled or otherwise vaporised. Even the most basic understanding of entropy would tell you that. Where do you think the energy comes from - splitting bonds or something?

then no, my position hasn't changed at all. Any thought that it might have is purely down to your lack of understanding of the fundamental laws.

 

[New Puritan]

This is astonishing.

@renewablejohn - I know someone who has a perpetual motion machine for sale if you're interested?

 

[renewablejohn]

This is astonishing.

@renewablejohn - I know someone who has a perpetual motion machine for sale if you're interested?

Dont need a perpetual motion machine I already have that using simple steam technology to generate electric 24/7 certainly for my lifetime. Unlike the motor mouths on here who do everything in theory I get on with it and do it in practice. This attitude is not new I have come across idiots like this in the past who worked in the government giving out energy grants for biomass power generation. I was refused as the power plant was classed as to "sophisticated" as it produced Hydrogen for direct injection into the grid. This type of plant is now standard for production of Hydrogen from biomass.

 

[bobk]

Blimey , who would think a pile of sticks could cause so much aggravation .

 

[br jones]

Wonder what sort of string they use ?

 

[New Puritan]

Wonder what sort of string they use ?

Phew! Back on topic. Thanks @br jones ...

 

[br jones]

Phew! Back on topic. Thanks @br jones ...

Let alone what sort of knot !