SpudFiles

boyntonstu wrote: used to demonstrate the clean renewable energy locked within water molecules.

It's renewable, in the sense that it can be used forever. But come on, you need energy to split the water molecule, and it's more than you get back. (yes, you can get the energy from solar cells et cetera, but you may as well just use the electricity rather than going through all the inefficiencies)

In my opinion, nuclear energy is the way to go.

boyntonstu wrote: used to demonstrate the clean renewable energy locked within water molecules.

AAAAAGH. There is no "energy locked in water molecules". Water molecules are the hydrogen fuel equivalent of ash. If you can get energy out'a water then you can get energy out'a carbon dioxide.

this clean burning fuel leaves no emissions , only a cool clean steam lined chamber is left over as the hydrogen is combusted and converted back into water molecules.

AAAAAAGH again. It leaves no emisions only if you ignore all the emisions generated when the actual power source was used. Even if that power source was solar or hydro or wind then there are still emission.

"Cool" steam? That's an oxymoron.

The combustion of "HHO" (AAAAGH) produces about as much waste heat as any other combustion process. A propane fueled cannon leaves a chamber that isn't noticably warmer than it was before combustion. The chamber is coated with a very thin layer of water.

jimmy101 wrote:

boyntonstu wrote: used to demonstrate the clean renewable energy locked within water molecules.

AAAAAGH. There is no "energy locked in water molecules". Water molecules are the hydrogen fuel equivalent of ash. If you can get energy out'a water then you can get energy out'a carbon dioxide.

this clean burning fuel leaves no emissions , only a cool clean steam lined chamber is left over as the hydrogen is combusted and converted back into water molecules.

AAAAAAGH again. It leaves no emisions only if you ignore all the emisions generated when the actual power source was used. Even if that power source was solar or hydro or wind then there are still emission.

"Cool" steam? That's an oxymoron.

The combustion of "HHO" (AAAAGH) produces about as much waste heat as any other combustion process. A propane fueled cannon leaves a chamber that isn't noticably warmer than it was before combustion. The chamber is coated with a very thin layer of water.

Hey guys, listen up!

I pointed out a Spud Gun Video that is using HHO as its fuel.

I quoted the Video description statement.

Assume that none of the words mean anything.

Look at the video.

Did the gun shoot?

Is it impressive?

Forget the BS theory.

Do you think that using H2 and O2 generated in your garage makes sense in Spud Guns?

BoyntonStu

jimmy101 wrote:"Cool" steam? That's an oxymoron.

I'm going to argue otherwise. Steam is simply gaseous water, and can exist at very low temperatures. Drop the absolute pressure to 1 kPa, and water will boil at a mere 7 degrees centigrade. Most people would consider those temperatures to be quite parky.

Then again, I am being finicky on that point.

boyntonstu wrote:Do you think that using H2 and O2 generated in your garage makes sense in Spud Guns?

Not really. It takes so much more time and complication than other fuels.

boyntonstu wrote: Do you think that using H2 and O2 generated in your garage makes sense in Spud Guns?

If you mean HHO, absolutely not. But, if you try it...be sure All of your insurance premiums are paid up.

Far out, you guys fail at spudgun propulsion. You think the best way to use hydrogen is to burn it? Duhhh, heat it to millions of degrees and fuse them into helium...

Seriously, nuclear fusion is the only way to get more energy out than you put in through electrolysis (I'm just completely ignoring the fact that deuterium/tritium are required for fusion- maybe you'll have to borrow your neighbor's particle accelerator). And that's because mass is lost.

Forget this burning hydrogen rubbish, lets use nuclear fusion to power our cars and cannons!!

AFAIK, the only (sustained) nuclear fusion reactor we have is the sun...and that's still dangerous to be exposed to several light-minutes away

TurboSuper wrote:AFAIK, the only (sustained) nuclear fusion reactor we have is the sun...and that's still dangerous to be exposed to several light-minutes away

We could use America's nuclear arms..