|
|
fkasner wrote:
Don Lancaster wrote:
charliew2 wrote:
"Iridium" <NoEmail@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121963566.2bc581959acbdb5f1f38ed54705763d1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:12:13 +1200, Peter Lowrie
<peterlowrie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Combustion is defined by only three parameters, namely "fuel",
"Oxidiser"
and "Heat". Commonly known as the combustion triangle.
Clearly Oxygen does not burn and is therefore not a fuel but is the
oxidiser
that provides the fuel with a means to burn.
You are focusing on one definition of fuel: burning. So on a space
ship using Hydrogen and Oxygen for a propellent, you would have a fuel
gauge only for the Hydrogen, not the Oxygen!?
Heat does not burn, is not a fuel and is the product of the burning
of a
fuel.
Ipso facto Hydrogen is a fuel. To relegate it to the condition of
an "energy
carrier" is a mistaken semantical contrivance.
Even in usenet, I have seldom seen such disconnected illogic displayed.
It is an eye opener to the ignorant that want to learn.
Furthermore, nothing is "consumed" in the oxidisation of Hydrogen. The
original atoms are still there but now they're in a molecule that
has taken
part in a chemical reaction.
Hey, "Einstein" ... the heat content of the reactants is consumed in
the oxidization of hydrogen. Those two reactants are turned into a
combustion product whose chemical potential energy is much lower than
that of the reactants.
The purpose of burning something in an internal combustion engine is
to liberate the chemical potential energy of the reactants in a way
that can generate work. Once a specified amount of reactants turns
into combustion products, no more work can be obtained from them.
Invoking a "conservation of energy" argument is a brain-dead thing to
do - ALL known processes must conserve mass, regardless of whether or
not you obtain work from them.
This is true of all chemical reactions. But it is not a common use of
the word consumed.
On a humorous note...Perfectly proportioned Hydrogen and Oxygen in
it's
liquid compressed state (liquid water gas) may be the safest fuel
known
inasmuch as it will put out a fire,
Only certain types of fires.
something none of the other liquid fuels will do :-)
You don't think liquid nitrogen would put out some types of fires?
Good comeback, Iridium! ;-)
Actually, liquid gasoline can put out a fire.
Just do not let it vaporize.
Just a little too simplistic. You can allow that gasoline to vaporize
and put out a fire with it if the vapor is not hot enough to ignite
(flash point and all that stuff) as the vapor will blanket the fire and
keep oxygen from accessing it and so smother the fire. If the vapor is
cold enough so that the flash point is not reached it won't react with
the oxygen of the air around it. Tough to get those conditions right.
But I have actually seen cold gasoline tossed onto a small fire and
extinguish it.
FK
Which is why diesel fuel is much safer than gasoline under accident
conditions.
It remains under its flash point for all but the hottest of Arizona
summer days.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@xxxxxxxxxx
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
|
|