Water is a fuel ??????

[ECOTECO]

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hB6qZeDhcQ

What do you think?

I'm not far from the truth

Salutations to all

[Rabbit]

I don't know anything about cracking but you have to consider the possibility that
the oil which is in the bottom of the burner is vaporized by the water which enters
boiling.

Having said that, I am very impressed by the way your
burner. Indeed, I tried to make one in the spring but it does not
does not work . Which is unfortunate because I was counting on it
to heat my greenhouse.
Could you make a diagram with the different dimensions of the pieces
use? Please.

[sen-no-sen]

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hB6qZeDhcQ

What do you think?

Hello.
I did not understand anything about the video that you put online, could you explain what it is about?

Strictly speaking, it is not possible to "burn water".
Water is not a fuel either.
Water (H20) is a chemical combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
The separation of hydrogen and oxygen atoms is only possible by chemical separation or by electrolysis.

Knowing that the end result is always less than the amount of energy expended to trigger the separation of the two elements, it is not possible to envisage a "water engine" which would produce more energy than it would consume.

[dedeleco]

Water is a beautiful oxidizer with metallic sodium or potassium !!!

See the crazy risks of Superphenix nuclear breeder, with 6000 tonnes of liquid sodium !!!!.

[moinsdewatt]

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hB6qZeDhcQ

What do you think?

I'm not far from the truth

Salutations to all

We don't think about it at all because nothing is explained.

[Rabbit]

The separation of hydrogen and oxygen atoms is only possible by chemical separation or by electrolysis.

Don't forget the high temperatures. From what I could see on
the Internet http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craquage_de_l%27eau et http://www.cea.fr/jeunes/themes/les_ene ... _hydrogene
The required temperature is 800 to 1100 ° c. These temperatures are
affected by this kind of burner. In any case my sons had fun at
use mine to melt and pour aluminum (600 ° c). To melt
the aluminum they needed + - 15 min for 1/2 liter of aluminum.
The trouble is that I had to isolate the burner with wool
glass which after having melted goes out (the burner). That said my burner
doesn't flame as well as hers.
All that to say that we should not reject experience automatically but
try to reproduce it to better understand.
Additional information would therefore be welcome. as much for those who
want to reproduce the thing ... only for me who want to use it.

[Ahmed]

There is an old process of decomposition of water vapor in contact with a reddened iron tube which goes in the direction of what you say, Rabbit.
It is nonetheless true that this pyrolysis is very energy intensive and therefore does not in practice lead to considering water as a fuel.

[chatelot16]

when we make hydrogen with steam on red iron, the energy comes mainly from iron, which is destroyed in iron oxide

destroying iron to produce hydrogen fuel is completely stupid: iron is more expensive than the energy of the hydrogen produced

we can also heat red coal and water vapor there also the coal takes the oxygen from the water to make carbon monoxide and leaves the hydrogen: it is all beneficial: coal was a solid fuel not practical: the result is 2 combustible gases CO and H2 this gas was used in industry ... called gas with water

mixed gas gasifiers do almost the same thing, but with nitrogen in the air in addition

[dedeleco]

All this, iron, water and hydrogen, date from Lavoisier, inventor of current chemistry and therefore read his life of this genius carefully:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

and also redox and its potentials:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_p ... s_standard
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9act ... %A9duction

[sen-no-sen]

As mentioned above, the final result will always be lower than the amount of energy used at the start, so we fall back to the same conclusion as for motors improperly called "overunit":
"Move along, there's nothing to see!