Koen, can you rewrite the equation so it balances please? Abe is right, there’s 4 O’s on one side, and 2 O’s on the other.
Yeah, I’m not an expert on any of this, I am just confused, cause I can’t see where things is going when it’s not in the equation. It seems to me like it would be 2 CO2, not 2 CO, or maybe even 2 CO + O2
So, if i balance the equation it can be done ?
Thanks for that info… i will balance it
No, balancing the equation won’t guarantee that it will work, but an unbalanced equation is guaranteed not exist like that (you can’t erase Oxygen atoms). So, for an explanation, it is better to show balanced equations, so that we can see what is happening in the process. As it stands right now, we know for sure that your above equation is not possible as you wrote it.
This is impossible/incomplete as is: 1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2 = 2 Co
This is at least balanced (possible): 1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2 = 2 CO2
Koen, this balances, if it’s what you’re after. C + CO2 = 2 CO. Endothermic reaction, ie needs heat to proceed. Called “reduction” by woodgassers.
You’re doing exactly what I said - using energy from the char bed. Your energy source (burning charcoal) is C + O2 = CO2 – oops, there’s that pesky carbon dioxide again. Can’t get rid of him!
And don’t forget the engine - that reaction is 2 CO + O2 = 2 CO2. Both of your CO’s from the first equation will wind up as CO2, in the engine exhaust.
Sounds like cold fusion to me.
read between the lines…
and reread all the posts i did wrote before… reread all the given opinions and do some research and then, put it to the test…
so to the best of my knowledge and without giving the secret away, don’t doubt what you don’t know…
Chris, count me out for further discussions, do some research if you like, but don’t make me question someones intelligence…
Its all in the books, all info available on DOW, its all been explained by quite a few members here on DOW, those who need to know already know… Those who doubt it … thats up to them, but believe me, its not for me the benefits, its for most of us…
Koen, out
I’m not doubting anything, I just want to know where the extra Os go. From the equations I see, there is no explanation for them.
It is sad when someone is asked to explain their side then they won’t produce an explanation and accuse opposing viewpoints of not being knowledgeable.
You said, “I would never make a claim this magnitude unless i could prove it.” Fine, then prove it.
You tossed out some basic gasification equations (with errors) and quit. What are we supposed take away from that…?
I’ve made my point, the laws of physics still stand, and so I’m done here as well. Nothing left to say… thread closed.
1 Like