|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 12, 2008 13:46:00 GMT -5
Anyone seen this? I am wondering why this technology hasn't been further developed. Seems to me there is something HUGE there. Is there some HUGE downfall to this technology I am missing? Doesn't seem inherently extremely dangerous. Doesn't seem too cost prohibitive. What am I not seeing here? I understand that Jewelers sometimes use these torches? Just seems to me there is alot of power there, and I don't hear ANYTHING about it? www.metacafe.com/watch/335674/water_fueled_torch/There are SEVERAL HUNDRED more videos and how to's out there. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 12, 2008 13:53:06 GMT -5
Wow, that was impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 12, 2008 14:00:14 GMT -5
There is a big movement out there to break down water into hydrogren and ultimately to HHO. the biggest downfall that I have read, and which makes perfect sense, is the need to use electricity to do the electrolysis that breaks apart the water into it's constituent hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. I don't know of a system yet where the energy released by combusting the mixture is greater than the energy expended in electolysis to make the mixture.
This is the same Achilles heel that shuts up ethanol advocates; lack of efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 12, 2008 14:48:17 GMT -5
That is what I had suspected, energy consumed V energy produced, had to be the downfall.
But I had still a glimmer of hope because I saw a guy do it with a 9V battery. I now realize his output had to have been miniscule.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 12, 2008 16:40:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 12, 2008 17:14:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the link!
Seems like people should not give up on this, but instead find ways to increase the efficiency.
I saw a commercial "Water Torch" for sale for 5800 US Dollars that says it only uses 3 watthours PER Litre of gas produced. Not positive of the formula for WH : Litres produced, but it doesn't "sound" incredibly in-efficient.
I figured though that there HAD TO BE some glaring issue with this technology. Or I would hope it would have been EXTREMELY common.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 14, 2008 9:03:37 GMT -5
It is interesting and something that should be investigated. To me the big selling point on this is the combustion by product - water (on the other had water in the form of steam or vapor is a greenhouse gas). But the way it is presented in the piece is deceptive. It is made to sound like a perpetual motion machine.
|
|
