Why are some fuel sources better than others?Why not use other fuel source more fuel efficient?

what I’m confused is understanding why some fuel sources have more energy than other fuel sources.Why some fuel sources are just not practical.Why are some fuel sources better than other fuel sources? Where does the energy come from.Is it releasing the electrons in the atom or the density?

More densely packed molecules more energy output and more fual efficient.Where less densely packed molecules less energy output and less fual efficient?

That look at space rocket it takes fuel to launch a mass into space but the fuel itself has mass its a bit of a problem. That’s why current rockets are multi-stage clamber to reach orbit. The fuel packs just enough of a punch to make the trip at all. A rocket 90% of it is fuel just to take up 5% to 10% of payload.

Why not find other fuel source that is more fual efficient?

Economics.

Matter-antimatter annihilation is (probably) the most efficient fuel source there is, but those anti-hydrogen atoms are *really, ****really ***expensive to produce.

It depends on what you want to do - launching a rocket is a lot different from generating electricity.

To launch a rocket, you could use fuels with the highest thrust/weight ratio (Monatomic Hydrogen + Fluorine or something similar) but the exhaust is extremely toxic, and the fuels are unstable and very expensive, so something more prosaic is a better choice.

Brilliant. We’ll get our top people working on it right away.

Well that only takes you so far, even direct matter/antimatter propulsion through space is a undesirable way to get to the stars. There is a current thread about NASA working on (a very small part of) a warp drive (given one theory as to how that could work), using fuel not for propulsion so much, but for changing spacetime in a local area, or perhaps negating ship’s mass allowing hopefully faster and more fuel efficient travel.

Just find a BETTER fuel! BRILLIANT!! I can’t believe no one has ever thought of that before!

I don’t think antimatter would ever be allowed to be used close to earth.From what I read one gram of antimatter has enough energy to destroy all of New York.

And the problem is…?

Besides economics, there’s also the issue of waste products. Notoriously, fossil fuels impact the environment negatively with pollution (air, water, environment, and frequently noise). More geo-friendly fuels (solar, wind, geothermal) have the benefit of almost no adverse effects to the environment.

Of course, any fuel use is going to cause heat pollution, which is something no one ever talks about.

This is why I ask here.Read the thread again.

why some fuel sources have more energy than other fuel sources.Why some fuel sources are just not practical.Why are some fuel sources better than other fuel sources?

There is reason cars don’t run of grass ,water,garbage ,helium or sand!! Or they would be using that now.

I read some thing about some fuel sources don’t burn has easy has fossil fuels.There are hundreds of different matter but only small number is practical fuel sources.

Try getting car to run of water,sand or rock it does not burn.

Fuels are natural resources. That means that they are “harvested” from the earth. So, it’s an economic tradeoff between how much energy they contain, and how easy they are to obtain/refine. Natural gas is a good example - it’s almost free, because it’s a by-product of oil exploration, and it requires very little processing. That is why NG is historically the cheapest way to heat your house. Of course, all fuels follow the laws of supply and demand.

Nuclear fuel is an interesting case - the fuel itself (enriched U-235) is only a minor part of the cost of the electricity generated. Most of the cost is associated with the plant itself, decommissioning, and operations. The cost of Uranium could double and it would only make a tiny change in the price per KWH delivered.

Split that water into hydrogen and oxygen and your car will run quite well. But we don’t have the technology to do so efficiently or safely in 100 million cars.

Try getting a car to run on solid rocket booster fuel - lots of things will burn. Different fuels have different physical properties, and different costs. Energy density means nothing if it’s not economical or practical to use for your application.

I think the first thing I have to understand is why some fuels burn easy and other fuels do not.And where does the energy come from is it releasing the electrons in the atom or the density?The More densely packed molecules more energy output and more fuel efficient.Where less densely packed molecules less energy output and less fuel efficient?

I think if I understand this basic chemistry than much of my questions would be answered.

I read some thing about bonds that are present, and how much energy is released if bonds are replaced by bonding with oxygen.But I’m confused because I also read about releasing the electrons in the atom.
I think the problem is I’m not understanding the chemistry how it works , burning fuel you get energy.The more densely packed molecules more energy output and more fuel efficient.Where less densely packed molecules less energy output and less fuel efficient Or is it some thing to do with chemical bonds.

It’ll have to be the top women, because the top men are currently putting the Ark of the Covenant in a warehouse.

And the shocker is they are researching alternative fuel sources for cars and airplanes.Not to say power stations.

Now from what I understand chemical rockets is mature technology.

I’m sure some one who understand chemistry could explain this much better.

“Burning” in the sense I think you are using means “combining with oxygen”. Some fuels burn easier than others because they combine with oxygen better, faster, or at lower temperatures.

Releasing electrons is not “burning” in that sense, although it occasionally is spoken of that way. Releasing electrons happens in nuclear fission reactions, like in a nuclear reactor.

Density isn’t the limiting factor.

Some elements, like uranium and plutonium, are unstable. That is, their nuclei break down spontaneously, and the electrons fly out and hit other nuclei. That splits those other nuclei, which give off electrons, which hit other nuclei, etc. If you have enough mass of uranium, (the “critical mass”) this happens fast enough that you get a nuclear explosion. In a nuclear reaction, there are graphite rods and such stuck into the mass of uranium that absorb the emitted electrons enough that the reaction slows down and doesn’t explode. It does, however, give off heat. Lots of heat. The heat is used to boil liquid, which is used to spin turbines attached to electromagnets, and the electromagnets cause electric current to flow in the wires around the electromagnets and that gives electricity.

Internal combustion engines use different fuels, like gasoline and diesel. In internal combustion engines, gasoline is sprayed by a vaporizer (like a perfume dispenser) into the cylinder, where the spark plug sets the gasoline vapor off so it burns very rapidly. Burning very rapidly is what we call an explosion. This explosion creates very hot, expanding gas, which pushes on the piston inside the cylinder and the piston drives the wheels.

The reason we don’t use other fuels is cost. Oil is still cheap, at least compared to other fuel sources, and it is easily transported.

We could use other kinds of energy to drive a car, like electricity, but transporting electricity is hard because currently batteries to hold the electricity and drive the car are very heavy - much heavier that an amount of gasoline that would drive a gas-powered car the same distance would be.

I am not an engineer. No doubt someone with a better grasp of the subject will be along to correct my grosser errors, but it is not simply a question of using denser fuels.

Regards,
Shodan

May be that why NASA is not using it.It is more fuel efficient but extremely toxic.

May be I’m confusing Internal combustion engines vs rocket.

The problem getting in space is it is very costly and 90% to 95% of the rocket is just fuel to get that small 5% payload up there. It uses fuel like drunken sailor.

That is why I said what about finding other fuel source.I don’t know may be NASA is looking for other fuel source ( been looking for years and have found none) or chemistry a fuel source they using is not going get any more fuel efficient than what they have.

Likewise with a cars there is millions different matter it just gasoline and diesel is easy to burn than getting car to run of garbage ,sand ,water ,rock or gas.

OK, I think you need to think about what you are asking.

Are you talking about cars? That’s a lot different from rockets.

Cars are air-breathers. That means two things - they only have to carry 1/2 of their reactants, and those reactants need to oxidize in air. That’s why you can’t use sand, water, or rocks - they don’t burn in air (you know that, right?).

Petroleum products are used to power cars and airplanes because they are readily available is mass quantities, and work good enough.

The reason that fuels are being researched is less about efficiency, and more about reducing their “carbon footprint.” Electric cars are a good example - batteries have much less energy density than liquid fuels, but they are (at least in theory) capable of being 100% carbon-neutral (think: solar charging).

I tried to post this yesterday but it did not go through.

As you all know as time goes by , fuel is not cheap.Gas prices cars are using is going up every year.

Airplanes are costing more and more and the good old days of supersonic flight is gone!!! ( way too costly for that now) .You will never see other supersonic plane except the rich businessman or military.Unless other alternative fuel is found that is cheaper and more fuel efficient.

Getting in space is very very very very very costly and 90% to 95% of the rocket is just fuel to get that small 5% payload up there. It uses fuel like drunken sailor.Unless other fuel is found that is cheaper and more fuel efficient.Only the super rich will be going into space and a moon base or mars base will be prohibitively expensive even for the super rich and government run science projects on moon or mars will be prohibitively expensive.

Unless other fuel sources is found that is cheaper and more fuel efficient.

I don’t know may be NASA is looking for other fuel source (have been looking for decades and have found none) or chemistry a fuel source they are using now is not going get any more fuel efficient than what they are using now.Don’t know why.

I don’t understand the engineering and chemistry to answer my question.

We’re NEVER going to find a fuel source that is cheaper than oil.
Ever.

As a matter of fact, fuel prices are going up, and will continue to (although the upward rise may not be monotonic, due to economic cycles).

What may change is energy sources - cheap fusion or Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Biomass might allow creation of synthetic “fuels" that are cheaper than what we have today. But, as far a primary fuel sources go, we’re at the low point in the price curve right now.