Solar paint converts moisture into H2 and O2:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-solar-endless-energy-vapor.html

I wonder how they separate the H from the O. It must be a mixture of both, the resultant.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-solar-endless-energy-vapor.html

I wonder how they separate the H from the O. It must be a mixture of both, the resultant.

Somewhere in the video they show that "they can split the water atom into oxygen and hydrogen".

Water atoms? That sounds very advanced! What atom number might that be?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Somewhere in the video they show that "they can split the water atom into oxygen and hydrogen".

Water atoms? That sounds very advanced! What atom number might that be?

The writers need to learn a bit of science, eh.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I wonder how they separate the H from the O. It must be a mixture of both, the resultant.

Simple, H2 is much lighter and will rise to the top.

I hate this sort of nonsense whenever I see it used:

Researchers have developed a solar paint that can absorb water vapour and split it to generate hydrogen - the cleanest source of energy.

Hydrogen is NOT 'the cleanest source of energy'. It is one of many clean fuels and fuels are one of several sources of energy. Simple electricity from solar panels is just as 'clean' if not cleaner (depending on what is being measured)

As for this:

"Our new development has a big range of advantages," he said. "There's no need for clean or filtered water to feed the system. Any place that has water vapour in the air, even remote areas far from water, can produce fuel."

Absolute nonsense. The amount of water vapour in the air is minuscule.

In addition, apart from separating the two gasses, hydrogen then needs to be compressed and stored. So although the overall idea may be a good one, it is not as simple as they make out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As for this:

"Our new development has a big range of advantages," he said. "There's no need for clean or filtered water to feed the system. Any place that has water vapour in the air, even remote areas far from water, can produce fuel."

Absolute nonsense. The amount of water vapour in the air is minuscule.

In addition, apart from separ ...[text shortened]... nd stored. So although the overall idea may be a good one, it is not as simple as they make out.

They better not make out! They can get fired🙂 Seriously, if the paint is on a vertical surface, how would you separate the O2 from the H2? Seems like it would need quite a bit more infra structure than they imply in the piece. I thought about using electric charge but I think both molecules are neutral so would not be effected by electric fields.

Magnetic separation? Still, they are neural molecules.

Collected and separated centrifugally? That would work since O2 is several times heavier than H2.

Originally posted by sonhouse
They better not make out! They can get fired🙂 Seriously, if the paint is on a vertical surface, how would you separate the O2 from the H2?

I would merely put a piece of glass in front of it to keep the gasses in, then have an extractor at the top to suck off the hydrogen.

I believe though that for higher purity, fine membranes are used:
http://www.powerandenergy.com/hydrogen-extraction-products/hydrogen-separators/

Of course overall, what we need to know is whether the whole process is cheaper than solar panels for a given power output.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course overall, what we need to know is whether the whole process is cheaper than solar panels for a given power output.

Has anyone done any research as to how much O2 is stripped from the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels? Say O2 % before 1700 V now?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Has anyone done any research as to how much O2 is stripped from the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels? Say O2 % before 1700 V now?

It would be insignificant. O2 goes into CO2, some of which is absorbed by various processes and some stays in the atmosphere. But overall, a fraction of a percentage difference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would be insignificant. O2 goes into CO2, some of which is absorbed by various processes and some stays in the atmosphere. But overall, a fraction of a percentage difference.

I guess it is a balance between O2 produced by plants and such and O2 burned by whatever means.

Originally posted by FabianFnas

Water atoms?

This could be the start of a whole new pseudo-science just like the old 'memory water' pseudo-science crap.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I guess it is a balance between O2 produced by plants and such and O2 burned by whatever means.

Since most burning involves carbon, it is mostly all about the carbon cycle. CO2 is about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. Less than half of that was put there by man. But a large part of what we do put there, gets taken out by non-cyclical processes like the oceans.
But I think we can safely say that the effect on O2 has been less than 0.1% of the atmosphere which contains about 20.95% oxygen. So, negligible.

Keep in mind that oxygen is also taken up by the soil as it weathers and many other such natural processes. Without life, it would fairly rapidly decline.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Since most burning involves carbon, it is mostly all about the carbon cycle. CO2 is about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. Less than half of that was put there by man. But a large part of what we do put there, gets taken out by non-cyclical processes like the oceans.
But I think we can safely say that the effect on O2 has been less than 0.1% of the atmosp ...[text shortened]... t weathers and many other such natural processes. Without life, it would fairly rapidly decline.

Oxygen generation certainly overwhelmed CO2 generation. Looks like about a 500 to 1 difference. I guess that goes to show the efficiency of biological means of generating energy, eh.