The Future of Wind Turbines? No Blades?...

[pErvinalia]

Fuel is what contains the energy. Oxygen is only a catalyst to release that energy. Other forms of energy don't require oxygen as the catalyst. Chuck a blob of sodium in water and it explodes with energy. Water is the catalyst in that case.

Incorrect, rEv. Catalysts, by definition, increase the rate of a reaction without being used up. Oxygen is a reactant.

Ok,, fair enough. It still doesnt' change the point that Oxygen doesn't contain the energy in the reaction process. It's the fuel (be that fossil, nuclear, or atomic(?) like in sodium) that is the store of energy.

[Svartalf]

nice strawman there

[pErvinalia]

It's not a strawman. MM specifically claimed that.

[rainbow]

Fuel is what contains the energy. Oxygen is only a catalyst to release that energy. Other forms of energy don't require oxygen as the catalyst. Chuck a blob of sodium in water and it explodes with energy. Water is the catalyst in that case.

Incorrect, rEv. Catalysts, by definition, increase the rate of a reaction without being used up. Oxygen is a reactant.

Ok,, fair enough. It still doesnt' change the point that Oxygen doesn't contain the energy in the reaction process. It's the fuel (be that fossil, nuclear, or atomic(?) like in sodium) that is the store of energy.

Actually it is the oxygen that contains the energy.
It actually takes energy to ionise sodium, that is to take away electrons from it.
Adding electrons to oxygen gives out energy.

[pErvinalia]

So why is more energy released for the same amount of oxygen when comparing the burning of coal to wood?

[rainbow]

So why is more energy released for the same amount of oxygen when comparing the burning of coal to wood?

Wood already contains a high proportion of carbon-oxygen bonds before it is burnt. Coal contains almost no oxygen. It is the formation of the carbon-oxygen bonds that results in the release of energy.
See combustion: http://www.ausetute.com.au/heatcomb.html

[pErvinalia]

Ok, that's interesting. So different fuels have different potentials to release energy (in a combustion/oxidation reaction), as opposed to containing more energy? That puts a different context on it.

[pErvinalia]

But having said all that, it's really the potential to do work that is the important concept here. Without the potential to do work (that's maybe not the correct term) that is contained in the fuel, then the oxygen isn't going to be releasing any of that energy.

edit: although, as MM said earlier, perhaps some of that potential is in the Oxygen as well. Presumably it gained some of that potential when it was stripped off CO2 during photosynthesis/respiration.

[mistermack]

Well, what I objected to originally, if I remember rightly, was the phrase ''fuel is energy'', which anyone with a bit of knowledge of physics would understand.
The difference between mass and energy is basic stuff. Even though they can interchange, they are not the same stuff.

With regard to where the energy comes from in oxidation (burning), it's oxygen that has the great potential to release energy. Oxygen is incredibly reactive, and will have a go at a wide variety of materials, whereas most fuels are pretty inert, without oxygen in the frame.

I used to work as an engineer in a company making industrial control valves, and anything for oxygen service had to be incredibly carefully made, of the most inert materials you can get.
If you specified they wrong kind of grease, or the wrong kind of de-greasing, there would be the most horrendous explosion when the valve went into service.

Compare that to pipelines carrying natural gas or hydrogen or methane, or any other ''fuel'' and you don't have to worry about what's IN the pipe, just don't let any fuel escape to where the oxygen in the air can get at it.

Pure oxygen is an incredibly dangerous material, it will treat most materials as ''fuel''.
Even Iron. To be safe, it needs exactly the right grade of stainless steel, inert seals, and the most thorough cleaning and degreasing of every component.

[JimC]

I don't even know why I'm bothering, as it will set the science conspiracy guy off on another lecture about "science", even though he totally misses the irony in that... But Oxygen isn't an energy source. If it was, we could "burn" CO2 in Oxygen, which we obviously can't*. The coal/oil/wood IS the fuel source as it is the part of the process that has stored energy over time.

*edit: I'm actually scared of that pronouncement, as someone will probably point out that it is possible.

That is true, but note that photosynthesis, which is the solar energy capture mechanism, also releases oxygen; the oxygen released depends on solar energy splitting water molecules, so, in a sense, the released oxygen has had energy added to it as well...

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I realise that now. It's not often I have to admit that MM was right and I was wrong.

[Seth]

Well, what I objected to originally, if I remember rightly, was the phrase ''fuel is energy'', which anyone with a bit of knowledge of physics would understand.
The difference between mass and energy is basic stuff. Even though they can interchange, they are not the same stuff.

No, what you pettifogged was the statement "the fuel system transmits energy" as it relates to diesel engines. We were discussing hydraulic systems and diesel engines which use fluid transfer to move energy from point A to point B. The fuel system takes the (potential) energy of diesel fuel from point A (the fuel tank) and transmits it to point B (the fuel injector) in roughly the same manner as a hydraulic system transmits energy (force) from point A to point B, where it can be used to move a piston or turn a motor. The same is true of electrical lines, which take energy from generators at point A and transmit it to the load at point B.

You objected to, I think, the statement that "energy" was "transmitted" by movement of diesel fuel by claiming that diesel fuel was not "energy." Obviously diesel fuel contains
latent energy in the form of molecular bonds which is freed by mechanical and chemical processes inside the cylinder of the engine, and that energy moves from point A to point B through the fuel system.

[pErvinalia]

Well, according to what rainbow said, the diesel doesn't contain any energy at all. it's the Oxygen that contains the energy.

[Seth]

Well, according to what rainbow said, the diesel doesn't contain any energy at all. it's the Oxygen that contains the energy.

Well, that's impossible because diesel is not a "catalyst" because it is consumed and changed as part of the chemical reaction. Obviously both O2 and diesel fuel contain energy in the form of molecular bonds, so to be hyper-technical, they are both "fuel" or perhaps components of "fuel" (O2-diesel mix in a stochiometric ratio), so both the diesel transmission system and the airflow transmission system "transmit" energy from point A to point B.

[mistermack]

Well, what I objected to originally, if I remember rightly, was the phrase ''fuel is energy'', which anyone with a bit of knowledge of physics would understand.
The difference between mass and energy is basic stuff. Even though they can interchange, they are not the same stuff.

No, what you pettifogged was the statement "the fuel system transmits energy" as it relates to diesel engines. Blah blah blah blah

You lie, as usual, troll :

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1611613

Wrong. Fuel is energy.

Wrong.
Ludicrously wrong.

You're kidding, right? Are you really that ignorant? Any type of fuel is merely stored solar energy waiting to be released. If it's not stored energy then it's not fuel since that's kind of the definition of "fuel."

You really don't know enough science to actually debate it with.
But you could at least stick to the truth.