Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017
     
    I make it 65 litres.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017 edited
     
    Really?

    How did you arrive at that figure?

    (I'm not quibbling over the new definition of SP as 100 kPa rather than 101.325 kPa)

    Don't both hydrogen and oxygen exist in nature as diatomic molecules?

    http://nobel.scas.bcit.ca/chem0010/unit7/mole8.htm
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017 edited
     
    .5 mole of O2
    1 mole of h2

    R=8 Pa m^3 moles^-1 M^-1

    atmospheric pressure 100kPa
    Room temp 273K or is tbat freezing. I always forget.

    And a factor of 2 error somewhere I believe.

    PO2+PH2=1 atm = (nO2+nH2)RT/V
  1.  
    Heh.... so my point should be obvious. Do you expect the same total volume from H, H and O, as you would have if the evolved gas is H2 and O2?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017
     
    No because the number of moles of each would be different. How would you maintain the gases as atomic H and atomic O?

    I'm out of my depth here. Very long time indeed sknce I looked at any chemistry.
  2.  
    Posted By: AngusNo because the number of moles of each would be different. How would you maintain the gases as atomic H and atomic O?


    Exactly!
    So until the combined Boyle-Charles-GayLussac law is repealed, the proponents of "HHO" have either to show that the volume of evolved gas is greater than that predicted by freshman chemistry, or give up the idea that there is something special, other than ordinary H2 and O2 in stoichiometric proportion, coming out of their electrolysis cells.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Posted By: AngusNo because the number of moles of each would be different. How would you maintain the gases as atomic H and atomic O?


    Exactly!
    So until the combined Boyle-Charles-GayLussac law is repealed, the proponents of "HHO" have either to show that the volume of evolved gas is greater than that predicted by freshman chemistry, or give up the idea that there is something special, other than ordinary H2and O2in stoichiometric proportion, coming out of their electrolysis cells.


    Demonstration by contraposé (indirectly). I like it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Posted By: AngusNo because the number of moles of each would be different. How would you maintain the gases as atomic H and atomic O?


    Exactly!
    So until the combined Boyle-Charles-GayLussac law is repealed, the proponents of "HHO" have either to show that the volume of evolved gas is greater than that predicted by freshman chemistry, or give up the idea that there is something special, other than ordinary H2and O2in stoichiometric proportion, coming out of their electrolysis cells.


    Don't forget Dalton for the partial pressures.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017
     
    I vaguely recall that the stuff is supposed to implode forming water and a vacuum. Thermodynamically unique, that.
  3.  
    Posted By: AngusI vaguely recall that the stuff is supposed to implode forming water and a vacuum. Thermodynamically unique, that.

    Well, that's what H2 and O2 do, isn't it? And if the mixed gas is the product of electrolysis and there isn't anything else in there, and you spark it, it will implode leaving "nothing" behind except the same quantity of water (as vapour) which was originally electrolyzed, I think.

    The thermodynamically unique bit is the claim that this implosion, or slower burning as in a torch, releases more energy than it took to electrolyse the water in the first place. I think.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinit will implode leaving "nothing" behind except the same quantity of water (as vapour) which was originally electrolyzed, I think.


    I think it would explode to make water vapour that would fill the space. I take "explode" as the sudden release of energy in some form. In this case - molecular velocity.
  4.  
    I fail to see why free energy would be a bad thing
  5.  
    Right. After all, having to provide fuel for the War Machine is a real drag on resources. Think of how groovy it would be to have all tanks, drones, armoured personnel carriers, humvees and fighter jets powered by UFEUs (universal free energy units) instead of petroleum products.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2017
     
    Free energy would be a bad thing because it would be worse than the almost free energy we already have. The planet would light and heat up like a christmas tree on fire in no time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2017
     
    Word.