New Scientist's Take on the "Slacktivism" Trend

  • Thread starter Thread starter SkepticJ
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential use of magnesium, cesium, and rubidium as recyclable energy carriers, particularly in comparison to iron, aluminum, and boron. Participants explore the feasibility of these elements in various applications, including military and aircraft fuel, while examining the underlying processes involved in oxidation and energy conversion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether magnesium, cesium, and rubidium could serve as effective recyclable energy carriers, noting their reactivity with oxygen.
  • Concerns are raised about the cost-effectiveness of cesium and rubidium for fueling applications.
  • There is a suggestion that the total process of using these metals needs to be evaluated, including changes in volume and mass during oxidation.
  • Participants inquire about the specific energy of the proposed system compared to existing alternatives.
  • Questions are posed regarding the conversion of thermal energy to mechanical energy for propulsion and the disposal of metal oxides.
  • There is mention of the energy required to reconvert metal oxides back to metals, with references to existing technologies like solid fuel rocket propulsion using aluminum.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the practical implementation of these ideas, including storage solutions for highly reactive metals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the feasibility or practicality of using magnesium, cesium, and rubidium as energy carriers, with multiple competing views and uncertainties remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of detailed information in the referenced article, which leaves several assumptions and questions unresolved regarding the processes and applications discussed.

Chemistry news on Phys.org
Not being a chemist, well, having a degree in it anyway, myself I don't know if magnesium, cesium and rubidium could be used as a recyclable energy carrier like the iron, aluminum and boron mentioned in the article. These three elements are quite reactive with oxygen, surely they could be used?
Aircraft or military machines is the applications for such fuel, that I can think of anyway. For most fueling applications cesium and rubidium would cost far too much wouldn't they?
 
One would have to look at the total process - to see if that is feasible.

It appears the idea is to oxidize the metal, which means change in volume and mass - with mass increasing. What is the specific energy of the system, as compared to alternatives?

Also, how is the thermal energy converted to mechanical energy for propulsion?

And where does one deposit the metal oxide?

And how much energy is consumed in reconverting oxide to metal?

Oxidation of Al is part of solid fuel rocket propulsion technology already - e.g. Shuttle SRBs.
 
Astronuc said:
One would have to look at the total process - to see if that is feasible.
It appears the idea is to oxidize the metal, which means change in volume and mass - with mass increasing. What is the specific energy of the system, as compared to alternatives?
Also, how is the thermal energy converted to mechanical energy for propulsion?
And where does one deposit the metal oxide?
And how much energy is consumed in reconverting oxide to metal?
Oxidation of Al is part of solid fuel rocket propulsion technology already - e.g. Shuttle SRBs.

Ok, I've got nothing though.

Don't know, article doesn't say much.

Like in a normal internal combustion engine.

Don't know, some sort of tank in the car I guess.

It'd depend what metal it is, aluminum would take more than iron. Boron would take more than both of them, by several times.

Yes, but you can't run cars that way.

Magnesium, cesium and rubidium are hugely reactive. Small vials of the latter two reacting with water are like bombs going off. They'd make very, very high density fuel, wouldn't they? Sure, a way to keep the latter two from just oxidising in the air would have to be thought up, something invloving storage in a vacuum tank, or Noble gas, probably.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K