His death was attributed to an aneurism, but people think it was poison. Who knows. Did he find a catalyst that could provide the energy needed to make the separation of hydrogen and oxygen practical? If so, he found the holy grail of science, because it would result in limitless inexpensive energy. I am very doubtful that he did.
Yes, catalyst is the wrong word. The substance would need to be used in place of direct energy from a battery but from another compound that would give up energy in order to release the H2. The problem is that Oxygen and hydrogen have one of the strongest affinities known, so finding a compound that would draw the oxygen away to free the hydrogen isn't known.
Oh, there's no problem finding such compounds. All the alkali metals will react the oxygen out of the water molecule (e.g., lithium, which is why I laugh when I see firemen trying to put out a lithium fire with a flood of water). But what would be the point of that? Simpler to burn the energetic compound. But what have you saved?
After thrashing through the periodic table, one ultimately comes to the conclusion that if there weren't hydrocarbon fuels, we would have to synthesize them, because they are so useful and convenient as sources of energy.
The whole idea is to find a CHEAPER alternative to hydrocarbons. That was the premise of the car that runs on water invention. But I think it was smoke and mirrors, just like Jethro's demonstration on the Beverly Hillbillies.
His death was attributed to an aneurism, but people think it was poison. Who knows. Did he find a catalyst that could provide the energy needed to make the separation of hydrogen and oxygen practical? If so, he found the holy grail of science, because it would result in limitless inexpensive energy. I am very doubtful that he did.
Catalysts do not supply energy to a reaction. They only speed up a reaction that would happen anyway.
Yes, catalyst is the wrong word. The substance would need to be used in place of direct energy from a battery but from another compound that would give up energy in order to release the H2. The problem is that Oxygen and hydrogen have one of the strongest affinities known, so finding a compound that would draw the oxygen away to free the hydrogen isn't known.
Oh, there's no problem finding such compounds. All the alkali metals will react the oxygen out of the water molecule (e.g., lithium, which is why I laugh when I see firemen trying to put out a lithium fire with a flood of water). But what would be the point of that? Simpler to burn the energetic compound. But what have you saved?
After thrashing through the periodic table, one ultimately comes to the conclusion that if there weren't hydrocarbon fuels, we would have to synthesize them, because they are so useful and convenient as sources of energy.
The whole idea is to find a CHEAPER alternative to hydrocarbons. That was the premise of the car that runs on water invention. But I think it was smoke and mirrors, just like Jethro's demonstration on the Beverly Hillbillies.