Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Aug '08 10:00
    http://www.physorg.com/news136738014.html
    This may open up the world of solar energy for the common man. Converts solar electricity to H2 and O2 but much more efficiently than regular electrolysis.
  2. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    01 Aug '08 15:09
    As far as I understand the enregy used is electrical energy. So I fail to see the "catalytic" effect they write about. It's an electrode material progress and allows the splitting of water without use of added protons. But I doubt that it is more effective in moles hydrogen per kWh of elecricity than the current process.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    01 Aug '08 22:44
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    As far as I understand the enregy used is electrical energy. So I fail to see the "catalytic" effect they write about. It's an electrode material progress and allows the splitting of water without use of added protons. But I doubt that it is more effective in moles hydrogen per kWh of elecricity than the current process.
    Catalysts speed up reactions by changing the mechanism of the reaction but do not otherwise change the results of the reaction.
  4. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    02 Aug '08 04:54
    Exactly. Electrode material is not seen as catalysts in nost texts.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    03 Aug '08 15:56 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    [b]Exactly. Electrode material is not seen as catalysts in nost texts.[
    There was a reference in the article alluding to one photon, one electron, implying near 100% efficiency. Time will tell when the experiment gets duplicated and quantified.
    There was also mention of the conversion being near the absolute minimum energy required for this conversion.
    If true, it would also impact the hydrogen economy of transport, solar aside, because it uses electricity so it doesn't matter what you use to generate that power, nuclear, wind, solar, fossil, wave, geo-thermal, whatever.

    It is claimed to be a breakthrough precisely because it is not in a textbook.
  6. 27 Aug '08 15:08
    Not sure if I'm in the right forum here, but can anyone tell me, in round terms, and in tons, or tonnes, how much oil has been mined from from this planet since commercial oil drilling began ? Say even from 1850 to date.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Aug '08 21:15
    Originally posted by CRMC
    Not sure if I'm in the right forum here, but can anyone tell me, in round terms, and in tons, or tonnes, how much oil has been mined from from this planet since commercial oil drilling began ? Say even from 1850 to date.
    I was just watching a discovery channel program on that and I think they said something like 6 billion tons or thereabouts. That's a lot of vaseline!
  8. 28 Aug '08 15:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by CRMC
    Not sure if I'm in the right forum here, but can anyone tell me, in round terms, and in tons, or tonnes, how much oil has been mined from from this planet since commercial oil drilling began ? Say even from 1850 to date.
    Would be better though that you, instead of going off topic, just started a new thread about this subject.

    But it certainly belongs to the Science Forum. A very interesting question.

    You got the answer: 6 billion tons, right or wrong.

    How much is this? Say that (in the name of easy calculation) we have a density of 1 ton per 1 qubic metre. That will be a qube of oil 2 kilometre in height.

    Excercise: If we pured it out on the surface of the earth, how deep layer would we have in average?
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Aug '08 15:23
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Would be better though that you, instead of going off topic, just started a new thread about this subject.

    But it certainly belongs to the Science Forum. A very interesting question.

    You got the answer: 6 billion tons, right or wrong.

    How much is this? Say that (in the name of easy calculation) we have a density of 1 ton per 1 qubic metre. That w ...[text shortened]... ercise: If we pured it out on the surface of the earth, how deep layer would we have in average?
    Would that be the land surface only or the whole surface including water?
  10. 28 Aug '08 16:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Would that be the land surface only or the whole surface including water?
    I was thinking of land and water. Global surface.

    But, on the other hand, if we spill out all oil, then it would flow downhill to the sea level, so perhaps, realistically, the water surface perhaps would be better choice.

    So an answer, a motivation, and proper units would give high points if I were to be your teacher.
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Aug '08 16:59
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I was thinking of land and water. Global surface.

    But, on the other hand, if we spill out all oil, then it would flow downhill to the sea level, so perhaps, realistically, the water surface perhaps would be better choice.

    So an answer, a motivation, and proper units would give high points if I were to be your teacher.
    We could just do a number based on an ideal sphere the size of the earth, as if the earth was a featureless totally uniform bowling ball 12 or 13 thousand klicks in diameter.