Photosynthesis myth&reality:

We've all been brought up with lies taught from elementary school. Plants grow by photosynthesis. They take hydrogen from the air and give oxygen to the air. So, is this real?



Why would they tell us true whose are lying us from every matter from the shape of the earth to the structure of space, from covid disease to global warming, from history to astrology. The answer is simple, they are not telling the truth.

Stanley Mayer built a water-powered car and died mysteriously shortly thereafter in 1998. However, the available data show that there were vehicles running with water 100 years ago. Today, thousands of water-powered vehicles produced by many amateurs are in use. Basically, we can explain the principle as follows:



Water is electrolyzed with the help of a condenser and separated into its components, oxygen and hydrogen. Oxygen is a good igniter. Hydrogen is a good fuel. All types of vehicles can be started by using electrolyzed gases as fuel.

After this short introduction I made for those who do not know the subject, let's come to our main topic.

Plants take elements from the soil along with water. However, energy is required to separate water from these elements. In this way, they work in a condenser-like manner, separating the water into its components very easily, using a small part of the gases and accessing the elements in the water. Plants can actually provide the energy for electrolysis using their own internal energy, but sunlight gives plants an easier option for this task. Like the shape:



So, why did they hide this fact from people?

Knowing that plants do not photosynthesize but use the energy in the water will enable people to solve the problems related to water-powered vehicles. In this way, people will can research and produce all kinds of vehicles with endless fuel. This means freedom to travel and explore.

If you know that it is so easy for plants to reproduce, you can put the plants you buy in your vehicle into an endless life cycle with some mineral supplements. This gives you the chance to live in a vehicle for a very long time without outside help.

If you build a water-powered flying vehicle that can travel in air and water, this vehicle will give you the chance to travel beyond the Antarctic borders to as far as you need. They (the pharaoh generation) do not want this. They, Baphomet and his followers, want us to live limited, restricted lives, always dependent on them and in a slave system. We don't have to, we don't need it. There are many mechanical engineers who do not believe the lies of the pharaohs. Let them produce these tools, and those who are willing to travel with these tools, let's explore free worlds by buying these tools. And so this pharaonic order will come to an end and everyone will be completely free.

In our world of two-thirds water, our fuel will never run out and we will all be free!

Wise...

You started with
"They take hydrogen from the air and give oxygen to the air. "
While showing a picture of Carbon dioxide.

You can't even get your own examples right.

Also, you're talking about a fuel cell, which is a very well known principal.
Electricity splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, then when combined back, produces electricity.
Or just use the hydrogen gas.

Either way, this isn't hidden.  We all know this form elementary school.

Why you're taught that plants take hydrogen, I haven't any clue.


But basically, plants take CO₂ (carbon dioxide), water, and sunlight.  Then use chlorophil plus the energy of the sunlight to split the water and CO₂ and combine them into sugar, O₂, and water.

Its a pretty basic principal thats not hidden. 
And no, the plants don't use their interal energy for photosynthesis.  They use the energy in the sugar(internal energy) to live.  And photosynthesis to make the sugar.


The issue is that the energy required to split hydrogen and oxygen from water is more than the energy you get when hydrogen combusts or is combined back with oxygen via a fuel cell.  Makes it inefficient.


But yes, you can run a car on water and electricity.  But easier to just run it off the electricity.

The issue is that the energy required to split hydrogen and oxygen from water is more than the energy you get when hydrogen combusts or is combined back with oxygen via a fuel cell.  Makes it inefficient.

This is wrong information. Do you think I wrote this without research? Oh, then let me tell you, you're wrong. The energy required for electrolysis is not even one-tenth of the energy produced by combustion after the formation of oxygen and hydrogen. Now I don't have my technical grades with me, maybe as much as 1 percent. With the system to be established, you separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis, you use 1% of the energy obtained by combustion for electrolysis, and your fuel is ready. Only water is required for the system to work, sea water.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 08, 2023, 01:43:03 AM

The issue is that the energy required to split hydrogen and oxygen from water is more than the energy you get when hydrogen combusts or is combined back with oxygen via a fuel cell.  Makes it inefficient.

This is wrong information. Do you think I wrote this without research? Oh, then let me tell you, you're wrong. The energy required for electrolysis is not even one-tenth of the energy produced by combustion after the formation of oxygen and hydrogen. Now I don't have my technical grades with me, maybe as much as 1 percent. With the system to be established, you separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis, you use 1% of the energy obtained by combustion for electrolysis, and your fuel is ready. Only water is required for the system to work, sea water.

Thats perpetual energy and its not a thing.

Why don't you write out the math for me.  Put energy in joules.

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2023, 02:19:06 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 08, 2023, 01:43:03 AM

The issue is that the energy required to split hydrogen and oxygen from water is more than the energy you get when hydrogen combusts or is combined back with oxygen via a fuel cell.  Makes it inefficient.

This is wrong information. Do you think I wrote this without research? Oh, then let me tell you, you're wrong. The energy required for electrolysis is not even one-tenth of the energy produced by combustion after the formation of oxygen and hydrogen. Now I don't have my technical grades with me, maybe as much as 1 percent. With the system to be established, you separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis, you use 1% of the energy obtained by combustion for electrolysis, and your fuel is ready. Only water is required for the system to work, sea water.

Thats perpetual energy and its not a thing.

Why don't you write out the math for me.  Put energy in joules.

The energy required for electrolysis is expressed in KW, and the hydrogen energy as the fuel obtained is expressed in joules. For this reason, those who research the subject for the first time like you may experience confusion.

Theoretically, 2.8 KWh of electrical energy is needed to produce 1 m3 of H2. But In practice, to spend 3.9-4.6 kWh of energy to produce 1 m3 of H2 gas required. It means, the efficiency of producing H2 by electrolysis is 60%-70%. If we take the average of the lower value of 3.9 and the upper value of 4.6.

On average; 4.25 KWh of energy is required to obtain 1 cubic meter of H2. Let's convert that in joules for you: 4,25 kwh energy equals to: 15,3 MJoul.

The heat value of hydrogen is 8.41 MJ per 1 liter. The joule value for 1 cubic meter of volume will be 1,000 times that. The theoretical fuel value of hydrogen obtained by electrolysis: 8 410,00 MJ.

INPUT: 15

OUTPUT: 8.410

If we do ratio and proportion:

The ratio of energy used to obtain 1 cubic meter of hydrogen / energy obtained: 15,3 / 8410 = 0,002 (inother words %0,2)

In other words, 99.8% of the water taken as fuel is converted into energy, while 0.2% is used in the electrolysis process.

Anymore question?

You should conduct your own experiment. See how well plants grow without light, but with nutrient rich water. Put some plants in the light, put some in the dark.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 08, 2023, 03:07:27 AM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2023, 02:19:06 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 08, 2023, 01:43:03 AM

The issue is that the energy required to split hydrogen and oxygen from water is more than the energy you get when hydrogen combusts or is combined back with oxygen via a fuel cell.  Makes it inefficient.

This is wrong information. Do you think I wrote this without research? Oh, then let me tell you, you're wrong. The energy required for electrolysis is not even one-tenth of the energy produced by combustion after the formation of oxygen and hydrogen. Now I don't have my technical grades with me, maybe as much as 1 percent. With the system to be established, you separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis, you use 1% of the energy obtained by combustion for electrolysis, and your fuel is ready. Only water is required for the system to work, sea water.

Thats perpetual energy and its not a thing.

Why don't you write out the math for me.  Put energy in joules.

The energy required for electrolysis is expressed in KW, and the hydrogen energy as the fuel obtained is expressed in joules. For this reason, those who research the subject for the first time like you may experience confusion.

Theoretically, 2.8 KWh of electrical energy is needed to produce 1 m3 of H2. But In practice, to spend 3.9-4.6 kWh of energy to produce 1 m3 of H2 gas required. It means, the efficiency of producing H2 by electrolysis is 60%-70%. If we take the average of the lower value of 3.9 and the upper value of 4.6.

On average; 4.25 KWh of energy is required to obtain 1 cubic meter of H2. Let's convert that in joules for you: 4,25 kwh energy equals to: 15,3 MJoul.

The heat value of hydrogen is 8.41 MJ per 1 liter. The joule value for 1 cubic meter of volume will be 1,000 times that. The theoretical fuel value of hydrogen obtained by electrolysis: 8 410,00 MJ.

INPUT: 15

OUTPUT: 8.410

If we do ratio and proportion:

The ratio of energy used to obtain 1 cubic meter of hydrogen / energy obtained: 15,3 / 8410 = 0,002 (inother words %0,2)

In other words, 99.8% of the water taken as fuel is converted into energy, while 0.2% is used in the electrolysis process.

Anymore question?

Yes.  Where did you get 8MJ/liter?  Because at standard pressure, hydrogen has a heat energy of 142MJ/kg.
And 1 liter of hydrogen is nowhere near a kilogram at standard pressure.

Guys, did you forget about glucose? That's the point of photosynthesis, no the oxygen. The chlorophyll absorbs the light coming from the sun. It's green because it absorbs high and low wavelengths, but not medium wavelengths (this is because it would be an energy deficit to try and process all of it. High wavelengths carry more energy, and low wavelengths allow collection during sunset and rise, when the sky is red.) The energy is then used to break apart water and carbon dioxide, producing oxygen and GLUCOSE.

The point of this process is energy storage, not energy synthesis. Energy is stored in the glucose. When the organism needs energy, it breaks the glucose apart, and gets the energy back in the form of ATP. So yes, the balance is off, that's how it works. And no, there's no hydrogen gas being produced.

The inverse of photosynthesis, in which that ATP is extracted from the glucose, has the byproducts of water and carbon dioxide, which we exhale. Plants take it in, and get energy from the sun, and the cycle repeats.

Just trying to keep up, how many people are by now in on the conspiracy? Because this includes basically every biologist, botanist, farmer, and I am probably forgetting a few other professions.

Guys, did you forget about glucose? That's the point of photosynthesis, no the oxygen. The chlorophyll absorbs the light coming from the sun. It's green because it absorbs high and low wavelengths, but not medium wavelengths (this is because it would be an energy deficit to try and process all of it. High wavelengths carry more energy, and low wavelengths allow collection during sunset and rise, when the sky is red.) The energy is then used to break apart water and carbon dioxide, producing oxygen and GLUCOSE.

The point of this process is energy storage, not energy synthesis. Energy is stored in the glucose. When the organism needs energy, it breaks the glucose apart, and gets the energy back in the form of ATP. So yes, the balance is off, that's how it works. And no, there's no hydrogen gas being produced.

The inverse of photosynthesis, in which that ATP is extracted from the glucose, has the byproducts of water and carbon dioxide, which we exhale. Plants take it in, and get energy from the sun, and the cycle repeats.

I did not forget.  I made that point in my first post here.

Wise, as is typical, made an assumption that plants pull hydrogen from the air (while showing a picture with carbon dioxide) and therefore its proof that perpetual motion machines using hydrolosys work.

His mind tends to skip like... 200 steps.

They take hydrogen from the air and give oxygen to the air. So, is this real?

Knowing that plants do not photosynthesize but use the energy in the water will enable people to solve the problems related to water-powered vehicles.

Right, so you have established that plants dont need sunlight, but just water to grow.

Do yourself a favour, go take a well growing plant from outside.

Put a box over it so it does not see any light at all. Make sure it has enough water and everything else.

Report back in 1 week.

If only all the farmers for the last 9000 years had realised they didn't need light to grow plants?  It is crazy how long humanity has been getting this wrong.

Thank you brother wise for this amazing breakthrough, it will surely be marked as a turning point in the history of human development.  Probably up there with the Agricultural revolution itself. 

Right, I'm off to get a crop going in my basement.

I did not forget.  I made that point in my first post here.

Wise, as is typical, made an assumption that plants pull hydrogen from the air (while showing a picture with carbon dioxide) and therefore its proof that perpetual motion machines using hydrolosys work.

His mind tends to skip like... 200 steps.

Woop! My bad! Missed that between the discussions of hydrogen.

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Yes, I'm waiting to see how turkish people have found a different value for hydrogen's heat energy.
Unless they are calculating it under pressure.  Which would explain why you used liters instead of kg for the heat energy. (Joules/kg) but you used jouls/liter) which makes me question under which pressure.


So please, present your data.  Even if its in turkish.

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2023, 11:24:25 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Yes, I'm waiting to see how turkish people have found a different value for hydrogen's heat energy.
Unless they are calculating it under pressure.  Which would explain why you used liters instead of kg for the heat energy. (Joules/kg) but you used jouls/liter) which makes me question under which pressure.


So please, present your data.  Even if its in turkish.

We both know that when I do this, you will object to the data. Why should I bother with this? To keep you from claiming the account is wrong? You're going to do this anyway. We all know this. That's what's always done here. It's just a waste of time and I don't choose to do that. I wrote the account and you objected. You can cite the source too, right? No, you just want to waste my time. Yeah, right.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Why are you arguing that the energy exchange is inefficient, when the point isn't to gain energy by taking apart the water molecules? That's not the main source of energy, it's a step in storing the energy captured from the sun, which is an essentially unlimited source of energy for plants for the next few billion years.

Why am I arguing... and dot dot dot.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 12:29:14 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2023, 11:24:25 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Yes, I'm waiting to see how turkish people have found a different value for hydrogen's heat energy.
Unless they are calculating it under pressure.  Which would explain why you used liters instead of kg for the heat energy. (Joules/kg) but you used jouls/liter) which makes me question under which pressure.


So please, present your data.  Even if its in turkish.

We both know that when I do this, you will object to the data. Why should I bother with this? To keep you from claiming the account is wrong? You're going to do this anyway. We all know this. That's what's always done here. It's just a waste of time and I don't choose to do that. I wrote the account and you objected. You can cite the source too, right? No, you just want to waste my time. Yeah, right.

Have you considered that its because its wrong?

Here's my sources.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx
https://www.sfc.com/en/glossar/heating-value-of-hydrogen/


Want more?  I'm sure I can find some more.

Now... Show me yours.

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2023, 12:44:39 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 12:29:14 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2023, 11:24:25 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Yes, I'm waiting to see how turkish people have found a different value for hydrogen's heat energy.
Unless they are calculating it under pressure.  Which would explain why you used liters instead of kg for the heat energy. (Joules/kg) but you used jouls/liter) which makes me question under which pressure.


So please, present your data.  Even if its in turkish.

We both know that when I do this, you will object to the data. Why should I bother with this? To keep you from claiming the account is wrong? You're going to do this anyway. We all know this. That's what's always done here. It's just a waste of time and I don't choose to do that. I wrote the account and you objected. You can cite the source too, right? No, you just want to waste my time. Yeah, right.

Have you considered that its because its wrong?

Here's my sources.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx
https://www.sfc.com/en/glossar/heating-value-of-hydrogen/


Want more?  I'm sure I can find some more.

Now... Show me yours.

Usually the sources I show are targeted, sometimes they disappear. That's why I don't give a link. I only take into account that this is the result of a doctoral study and that the publisher may object to copyright in the future. It reads 8.41 Mjoul/litre as it is clearly seen in the source.

The reliability of the source is undisputed.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 02:48:11 AM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2023, 12:44:39 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 12:29:14 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2023, 11:24:25 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Yes, I'm waiting to see how turkish people have found a different value for hydrogen's heat energy.
Unless they are calculating it under pressure.  Which would explain why you used liters instead of kg for the heat energy. (Joules/kg) but you used jouls/liter) which makes me question under which pressure.


So please, present your data.  Even if its in turkish.

We both know that when I do this, you will object to the data. Why should I bother with this? To keep you from claiming the account is wrong? You're going to do this anyway. We all know this. That's what's always done here. It's just a waste of time and I don't choose to do that. I wrote the account and you objected. You can cite the source too, right? No, you just want to waste my time. Yeah, right.

Have you considered that its because its wrong?

Here's my sources.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx
https://www.sfc.com/en/glossar/heating-value-of-hydrogen/


Want more?  I'm sure I can find some more.

Now... Show me yours.

Usually the sources I show are targeted, sometimes they disappear. That's why I don't give a link. I only take into account that this is the result of a doctoral study and that the publisher may object to copyright in the future. It reads 8.41 Mjoul/litre as it is clearly seen in the source.

The reliability of the source is undisputed.

That's liquid hydrogen.  Did you not read the paper?

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2023, 04:21:55 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 02:48:11 AM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2023, 12:44:39 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 12:29:14 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2023, 11:24:25 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Yes, I'm waiting to see how turkish people have found a different value for hydrogen's heat energy.
Unless they are calculating it under pressure.  Which would explain why you used liters instead of kg for the heat energy. (Joules/kg) but you used jouls/liter) which makes me question under which pressure.


So please, present your data.  Even if its in turkish.

We both know that when I do this, you will object to the data. Why should I bother with this? To keep you from claiming the account is wrong? You're going to do this anyway. We all know this. That's what's always done here. It's just a waste of time and I don't choose to do that. I wrote the account and you objected. You can cite the source too, right? No, you just want to waste my time. Yeah, right.

Have you considered that its because its wrong?

Here's my sources.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx
https://www.sfc.com/en/glossar/heating-value-of-hydrogen/


Want more?  I'm sure I can find some more.

Now... Show me yours.

Usually the sources I show are targeted, sometimes they disappear. That's why I don't give a link. I only take into account that this is the result of a doctoral study and that the publisher may object to copyright in the future. It reads 8.41 Mjoul/litre as it is clearly seen in the source.

The reliability of the source is undisputed.

That's liquid hydrogen.  Did you not read the paper?

No  it is not. Cut the crap.

Then why does that number match the commonly stated figure for the energy content of liquid hydrogen?

On a mass basis, hydrogen has nearly three times the energy content of gasoline—120 MJ/kg for hydrogen versus 44 MJ/kg for gasoline. On a volume basis, however, the situation is reversed; liquid hydrogen has a density of 8 MJ/L

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage#:~:text=On%20a%20volume%20basis%2C%20however,based%20on%20lower%20heating%20values.

Do you think the Department of Energy (and everyone else) might have got this right and you have fucked up (again)?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 06:15:22 AM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2023, 04:21:55 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 02:48:11 AM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2023, 12:44:39 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 12:29:14 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2023, 11:24:25 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2023, 09:54:17 PM

And another thread Wise has abandoned after realizing how wrong he was.

No, it's just a way to monitor members' pathetic efforts. I'm busy and also don't find it necessary to respond to answers because most of the answers were due to misunderstanding. I just laugh at the answers. Just like others. For example, if you show any response you claim I to have abondoned to, I can point out the misunderstanding right away. To be more clear, all of these data were taken from different doctoral theses and a committee approved them. Since the sources are in Turkish, I did not share them here, thinking that they would not be understood, because even the English source is objected to. But lorddave has a different opinion and is waiting for it to be considered. l.o.l.

Yes, I'm waiting to see how turkish people have found a different value for hydrogen's heat energy.
Unless they are calculating it under pressure.  Which would explain why you used liters instead of kg for the heat energy. (Joules/kg) but you used jouls/liter) which makes me question under which pressure.


So please, present your data.  Even if its in turkish.

We both know that when I do this, you will object to the data. Why should I bother with this? To keep you from claiming the account is wrong? You're going to do this anyway. We all know this. That's what's always done here. It's just a waste of time and I don't choose to do that. I wrote the account and you objected. You can cite the source too, right? No, you just want to waste my time. Yeah, right.

Have you considered that its because its wrong?

Here's my sources.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx
https://www.sfc.com/en/glossar/heating-value-of-hydrogen/


Want more?  I'm sure I can find some more.

Now... Show me yours.

Usually the sources I show are targeted, sometimes they disappear. That's why I don't give a link. I only take into account that this is the result of a doctoral study and that the publisher may object to copyright in the future. It reads 8.41 Mjoul/litre as it is clearly seen in the source.

The reliability of the source is undisputed.

That's liquid hydrogen.  Did you not read the paper?

No  it is not. Cut the crap.

It is a little hard to show since you cropped most of the page out, but they are talking about liquid fuels, using MJ/Liter, the value of hydrogen matching its liquid form energy, etc...

They also make mention about how hydrogen has a lower energy per volume than gasoline.  Which also matches.

Perhaps if you gave me the link or the whole page, the title of the paper, etc .. i could give you a more specific line to show that they are, indeed, talking about liquid hydrogen.  Especially since any vehicular usage of hydrogen (which the paper seems to be about) requires liquid hydrogen as storage since gas hydrogen at standard pressure wouldn't even start your car without a large tanker full of it.

Here's the link to the study: http://www1.mmo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/8ab2f9b45957ab5_ek.pdf I translated and skimmed the first few pages, and it seems like it's talking about both gas and liquid. The Mj/litre measurement isn't helpful either, since litre is a measure of volume, and Mj is force, so it's a meaurement of pressure. Mj/litre could be both a liquid and a gas, though a litre of gas is a normal measurement.

Edit: MJ is force, not pressure. Woops.

Here's the link to the study: http://www1.mmo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/8ab2f9b45957ab5_ek.pdf I translated and skimmed the first few pages, and it seems like it's talking about both gas and liquid. The Mj/litre measurement isn't helpful either, since litre is a measure of volume, and Mj is pressure. Mj/litre could be both a liquid and a gas, though a litre of gas is a normal measurement.

Mj is MegaJoules....
If not then there's some weird ass thigs going on.

Here's the link to the study: http://www1.mmo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/8ab2f9b45957ab5_ek.pdf I translated and skimmed the first few pages, and it seems like it's talking about both gas and liquid. The Mj/litre measurement isn't helpful either, since litre is a measure of volume, and Mj is pressure. Mj/litre could be both a liquid and a gas, though a litre of gas is a normal measurement.

Thanks for your contribution. I got it from a different source but the studies are similar. The source does not distinguish between liquid or gas. The important point here is this: The material used for electrolysis is water, that is, liquid. Therefore, the equivalent of liquid water on the other side must also be liquid. Therefore, if you electrolysis 1 cubic meter of water, you will obtain gas equivalent to 1 cubic meter of liquid, or you will obtain much more gas. Therefore, there is no error in the calculation.

It doesn't matter if it's a liquid or a gas. The important thing is that there is hydrogen and oxygen equivalent to 1 cubic meter of water.

Quote from: Magicalus on May 10, 2023, 07:58:31 AM

Here's the link to the study: http://www1.mmo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/8ab2f9b45957ab5_ek.pdf I translated and skimmed the first few pages, and it seems like it's talking about both gas and liquid. The Mj/litre measurement isn't helpful either, since litre is a measure of volume, and Mj is pressure. Mj/litre could be both a liquid and a gas, though a litre of gas is a normal measurement.

Mj is MegaJoules....
If not then there's some weird ass thigs going on.

Will you stop feeding on chaos?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2023, 08:16:14 AM

Mj is MegaJoules....
If not then there's some weird ass thigs going on.

Will you stop feeding on chaos?

I mean, he was right though. I labelled it incorrectly as a unit of pressure, when it's a unit of force.

Do you think I won't thank you for your contribution even though you supported him? It doesn't matter who you support. The important thing is that the truth comes out. Clearly, the study focused on the energy of 1 cubic meter of water. It doesn't matter if it's a liquid or a gas. If it turns into a gas, its volume will increase and it will meet the same energy value. You guys are just trying to manipulate reality.

Goodness will win, not yous will.