Re: Methane and other winds (was Re: alternatives to big oil

From: owner-extropians@extropy.com
Date: Mon Feb 07 2000 - 10:52:32 MST


andifthey can ...
In-Reply-To: <389C5111.CBA58A3F@ibm.net> from Spike Jones at "Feb 5, 0
08:34:25 am"
To: extropians@extropy.com
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 100 04:39:51 +1100 (EST)
Cc: extropians@extropy.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20000205173951.25EE26C4CB@suburbia.net>
From: root@suburbia.net (Charlie Root)
Sender: owner-extropians@extropy.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com

> Ok, I nominate hydrogen and flourine. I havent the energy per reaction,
> but later Ill get off my lazy ass and look it up. {8-] spike
>
> Stirling Westrup wrote:
>
> > Okay, I am working on a chemical model for futuristic role-playing
purposes.
> > What I am trying to find out (in my naive way) is what is the maximum
amount of
> > energy you can get from a chemical reaction. Any reaction. It doesn't
matter if

High explosives work by using shock-waves to split pre-reagent molecules. I
don't
think this really classifies as a "normal" chemical reaction.

Cheers,
Julian.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:31 MDT