• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I just got 20 grams of gallium

cool-science-melting-gallium-metal.jpg
 
If you get enough gallium, you could conceivably use aluminum as the "fuel" to keep your house warm in the winter. Gallium + aluminum, then + water = hydrogen (burn for heat) + aluminum oxide, plus you get your gallium back.
 
DrPizza said:
If you get enough gallium, you could conceivably use aluminum as the "fuel" to keep your house warm in the winter. Gallium + aluminum, then + water = hydrogen (burn for heat) + aluminum oxide, plus you get your gallium back.
Click to expand...
What's the catch? Seems like someone would have done it it it were easy.
 
One thing I always wondered is if you could use the heat generated from hydrogen to generate enough power to do electrolysis to produce enough hydrogen to keep the system going. You would just need to keep adding water and possibly a form of electrolyte. Trick is finding a really efficient way of converting heat to electricity though. I don't think a thermocouple or peltier would be enough, maybe some kind of Stirling engine. You'd also need some stored electricity to start the system, so probably a small battery. I imagine we'd all have furnaces that work that way in our homes if that really did work though. Could run straight off the municipal water supply and there would not be much waste product either, maybe minerals and other crud buildup on the burn heads which would require occasional cleaning.
 
Red Squirrel said:
One thing I always wondered is if you could use the heat generated from hydrogen to generate enough power to do electrolysis to produce enough hydrogen to keep the system going. You would just need to keep adding water and possibly a form of electrolyte. Trick is finding a really efficient way of converting heat to electricity though. I don't think a thermocouple or peltier would be enough, maybe some kind of Stirling engine. You'd also need some stored electricity to start the system, so probably a small battery. I imagine we'd all have furnaces that work that way in our homes if that really did work though. Could run straight off the municipal water supply and there would not be much waste product either, maybe minerals and other crud buildup on the burn heads which would require occasional cleaning.
Click to expand...
You're smarter than that. At least, I thought you were smarter than that. If not, look up "conservation of energy."
 
lxskllr said:
What's the catch? Seems like someone would have done it it it were easy.
Click to expand...

You don't find elemental aluminium in nature. It's all oxides, etc, so it's the exact same as hydrogen for fuel: you have to make it before, either from coal/oil or renewable energy.
Then you could use it as some kind of closed loop, think like a solid metal battery, it does sound like a good thing indeed but I guess Gallium's not that much and the whole system is based on it.

Making everything run on lithium batteries has the same limits because there's not that much metal to put in every device/veichle and there will be always less unless we start recycling all the dead cells.
Nature's a big ass in these respects... thermodynamics and conservation of energy too. 😉
 
DrPizza said:
You're smarter than that. At least, I thought you were smarter than that. If not, look up "conservation of energy."
Click to expand...

Technically it's not really a violation though, the water is a fuel source and a consumable. It's kinda like using natural gas to power a pump that pumps natural gas into the system. But the main question is whether or not there is enough energy in the water to to extract said energy from more water. I'm thinking there isin't, or we'd see this concept used everywhere, unless there is a patent on it, that is.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Technically it's not really a violation though, the water is a fuel source and a consumable. It's kinda like using natural gas to power a pump that pumps natural gas into the system. But the main question is whether or not there is enough energy in the water to to extract said energy from more water. I'm thinking there isin't, or we'd see this concept used everywhere, unless there is a patent on it, that is.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's a violation, for sure.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Technically it's not really a violation though, the water is a fuel source and a consumable. It's kinda like using natural gas to power a pump that pumps natural gas into the system. But the main question is whether or not there is enough energy in the water to to extract said energy from more water. I'm thinking there isin't, or we'd see this concept used everywhere, unless there is a patent on it, that is.
Click to expand...
Uhhh, technically it's a huge violation.
Out of curiosity, what do you think becomes of the hydrogen?

Let me summarize what you think is going on:
"Hey, if you mix hydrogen and oxygen, you make water, and it gives off a LOT of energy! So, what we'll do is start out with some energy, separate the hydrogen from the water. Then get a lot of energy when we recombine them!"
You may be thinking, "but what if we combine the hydrogen with something that gives off even more energy than when it combines with water!" Then, that substance would be even more stable than water. <looks around> There's a lot of water on this planet. If you had something, say a substance with one carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms. If you react it with oxygen, you'll wind up with carbon dioxide, water, and a bunch of energy. Thus, this is a lower energy state.

In what I proposed above - producing hydrogen with the gallium - "theoretically" the amount of energy you get from the hydrogen would be equal to the amount of energy required to split the aluminum atom from the aluminum oxide to make the aluminum in the first place. That's not theoretically what happens though - entropy is a bitch. No matter what, you get less energy out than you put in. In this case, if you had a source of aluminum, that would be your fuel. But, aluminum is not a fuel source - it takes a fuel source to make the aluminum, and your raw material is aluminum oxide. (Actually, the raw material is bauxite which contains hydrated aluminum along with some iron oxides.)
 
Hmmm I see, I figured the hydrogen and oxygen would just burn off and be consumed. But I guess it does have to turn into something - does it go back into water? If yes then I see how this would not work.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Hmmm I see, I figured the hydrogen and oxygen would just burn off and be consumed. But I guess it does have to turn into something - does it go back into water? If yes then I see how this would not work.
Click to expand...
You seem to not understand what happens when things burn off. Burning is a chemical reaction. Every atom that you have prior to the reaction, you have after the reaction. They're just recombined into different molecules (or molecules can be broken apart to yield elements.) So, I'm not sure what you are thinking when you say "just burn off and be consumed." EVERY hydrogen atom is still there. EVERY oxygen atom is still there.

If it makes you happy though, I agree with you neighbors to the north that it should be aluminium, not aluminum.
 
Yeah guess it makes sense, atoms can't be destroyed (well they can... but that's beyond the scope here and takes more than a typical reaction), they just get recombined as something else and create a different molecule. Been a while since high school chemistry class but now you're refreshed my memory - you always end up with the same atoms at the end of the reaction. Though, what happens with hydrogen and oxygen when you burn it? Does it turn back into water? If yes then I can see how this would not work as it's already gone full circle, and you can't get more energy out of it.
 
Yes, it turns back into water. It takes X amount of energy to break the bonds. And recombining them yields X amount of energy back. But due to Entropy, you are absolutely going to lose some of the energy in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top