Re: Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?

From: David Harper (dave.harper_at_gmail.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: 22 Jul 2004 07:49:38 -0700

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<40FF3FEE.1090502@lakeweb.com>...

> Please look at the above and make a distinction between 'the physics'
> and 'developing the technology'.

That was the main point of my entire response. One of the first
things I said was:

> > But that's beside the point. Agreed: the physics of using hydrogen is
> > understood. It's just a matter of what technological advances "could"
> > happen to make it a reality (such as nanotech or whatever).

Was that unclear?

> Then go back and read the thread. You
> will see I have continually made the distinction between 'the physics'
> and 'developing the technology'. Then look at where I started, "Hydrogen
> as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation." Technological innovation
> does not defeat physical limitations.

And the only "physical limitation" you cited was that it was not an
energy "source", but a "currency". I agreed with this in a later
post, when I understood exactly what you meant. Using it as a
currency eliminates the physical limitation you cited. This became a
non-issue.

When I traced back, the drive behind most of my comments originated
from your following statement:

> You know as well as I do that the first non fossil source of hydrogen
> would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical processes.

This statement assumes technological progress in other fields (i.e.
nanotech) won't become viable options first. That's when I questioned
your ability to foresee the future of technological innovation.

Perhaps our entire clash boils down to the fact that I'm more of an
optimist in terms of technological advances.

> My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
> understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
> the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood.

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec05.html

...(enter stage left) the X-15 program: to better understand
supersonic physics and figure out what was (and was not) possible.
But this is really a side point to our original discussion.

You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. However, you
can't get to the moon with orbital mechanics alone. Other areas, such
as fluid mechanics, were also needed to get to the moon...and, as
mentioned before, the fluid dynamics of hypersonic flow was *NOT* well
understood. Two other major areas within the realm of physics that
had to be better understood to get to the moon include
super/hypersonic heat transfer (both in the engines and on re-entry
surfaces, also aided by the X-15 program) and solar physics/radiation
outside the Van Allen belts. There's plenty of others areas I'm sure
I'm forgetting or not aware of.

Dave

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eotvos, lay description?
    ... >> You have no fucking imagination. ... technology will bring us down to our knees. ... Baez's "This Week in Mathematical Physics" posts and you'll see what I ... Fuck that chicken ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?
    ... > as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation." ... > the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood. ... You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Howlers (was Suggestion for hard SF short submission?)
    ... technology not ridiculous enough to make someone who's taken high ... I've taught both high school and university physics, ... since he doesn't want to go along with him back to the Two Worlds. ... FTL flight based on some ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?
    ... > as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation." ... > the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood. ... You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?
    ... >>Please look at the above and make a distinction between 'the physics' ... >>will see I have continually made the distinction between 'the physics' ... >>the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood. ... > You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)