Millions of watts generated from the water?

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, I obviously think you wanted to write:

... the hydrogen / oxygen separation by a process providing a final gain greater than the initial bet ...

I also find that the destructive potential of all energy is not to be classified in its indirect action, since, by definition, energy is what serves to act on our environment and therefore, to modify it.

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen, I obviously think you wanted to write:

... the hydrogen / oxygen separation by a process providing a final gain greater than the initial bet ...

I also find that the destructive potential of all energy is not to be classified in its indirect action, since, by definition, energy is what serves to act on our environment and therefore, to modify it.

Yes thanks for the correction, my fingers tend to go faster than my brain!

I also find that the destructive potential of all energy is not to be classified in its indirect action, since, by definition, energy is what serves to act on our environment and therefore, to modify it.

Yes it might be more preferable to speak of visible / invisible action than direct / indirect but that amounts to the same thing.
I saw it this way: a coal-fired power plant, for example, produces a visible (or direct) action of pollution: the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere.
The populations will especially retain the visual degradations (plume of smoke) therefore direct: atmospheric pollution.
On the other hand, the production of energy and its consequences on the environment will be much less perceptible and take longer to implement and therefore indirect / invisible in the first place.

We can therefore completely lead through the use of renewable energies the destruction of nature without this being, apparently, a direct / visible phenomenon.

[Ahmed]

Our difference in point of view (and not in judgment!) Comes from what I considered energy in its explicit purpose: the share which turns the earth, the punching machine which cuts the metal, the pump which transfers the liquid, etc. ...

I am not sure that the use of water by catalysis risks depleting the water, since its use would reconstitute its initial composition?

[Janic]

ahmed hello

I am not sure that the use of water by catalysis risks depleting the water, since its use would reconstitute its initial composition?

water actually follows a cycle where it is reconstituted. The hidden risk, (perhaps?) Could be that of its devitalization and its use made dangerous for the living. But that, only the future can say!

[sen-no-sen]

I am not sure that the use of water by catalysis risks depleting the water, since its use would reconstitute its initial composition?

From what is linked:

The use of a specific solid fuel, water-based, confined by the two electrodes of a SF-CIHT battery, and to which an intensity of 12.000 amperes is applied, ignites the water by producing an extraordinary electric flash.

Water does not burn, on the other hand, one of the components (hydrogen) is an extremely flammable gas and the other (oxygen) and a powerful oxidizer.
The combustion of hydrogen gives water by recombination with oxygen, however there are "losses", in fact, and to follow Lavoisier's thought a "recombination in energy", otherwise we could have an unlimited energy cycle!

However the problem in the access to water, if, and I say if, a technology of this kind came to see the day (in violation of the second principle of thermodynamics ...), there would be problems of a fortiori access to water in extremely dry countries, where seawater would have to be extracted.
Desalination would only be done by an additional expenditure of energy, would quickly enter into a hellish spiral of energy expenditure more and more important to meet the growing demand for energy ...

[Ahmed]

Yes, in this very hypothetical configuration, this kind of drift is more than certain!

[elephant]

I still wonder:

There are many people who say - for having made some rather rudimentary tests, I agree - that plasma electrolysis provides an energy gain compared to the energy that would be provided by purely thermal heating .

(reaction of Mizuno, CFR of Naudin, essays on conspirovni science, Athanor of Hugo Abundo, etc ...)

All these plasmas and electrolysis result in the ionization of the hydrogen atom, then in its reformation.

However, nuclear energy stems from the fact that:

M of the sum of the elements of an atom
does not equal the mass of the atom

So there should be phenomena - limited I agree - of fission, by dint of mounting / dismounting the hydrogen atoms, right?

(wow, I feel like I'm going to be shot, me )

[sen-no-sen]

So there should be phenomena - limited I agree - of fission, by dint of mounting / dismounting the hydrogen atoms, right?

For it to be fission, heavy atoms like uranium or plutonium are needed.
Hydrogen is the lightest element, therefore the opposite of such a reaction.
By cons it can merge, but for this you need a compression threshold which can only be triggered at the heart of a star or an H-bomb.