Page 1 of 1

HHO as fuel?

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:48 am
by budabob07
Would HHO work as a fuel in a standard PVC combustion gun? I'm guessing that the force of the explosion would shatter the PVC. Has anyone tried this?

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:56 am
by inonickname
Use the search function. This topic has been beaten to death.

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:02 pm
by jimmy101
And don't posting anything relating to "HHO", it makes you look like an idiot. Use the proper name of just hydrogen (H<sub>2</sub>) plus 1/2 O<sub>2</sub>.

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:08 pm
by Technician1002
LOL.. How about 2 H2 and one O2? 1/2 of an O2 is rare as it combines with almost anything even another O2 to become ozone. You can find 1/2 of an O2 in an ozone generator and in a fire, but it doesn't last long.

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:11 pm
by Crna Legija
if it work for a ghetto i dont see why it wont work in a good quality pvc cannon

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:19 pm
by Labtecpower
Thank you Crna :D

I strongly advise not to use it in a PVC cannon. The gas burns very fast (above the SOS in air).
I would think the PVC cannon would fail.

This is a nicer vid however
[youtube][/youtube]

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 2:27 pm
by saefroch
inonickname is very correct, this topic has been beaten to death, and the general consensus is that it has a lower energy yield for projectile propulsion for a given volume at atmospheric pressure than does an oxygen/propane mix.

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 2:28 pm
by jimmy101
Technician1002 wrote:LOL.. How about 2 H2 and one O2? 1/2 of an O2 is rare as it combines with almost anything even another O2 to become ozone. You can find 1/2 of an O2 in an ozone generator and in a fire, but it doesn't last long.
So you are comfortable with "HHO"?

To a chemist a molecular formula is assumed to apply to a sample, not to a single molecule. Since a small sample of any molecule contains milliontrillions of atoms the fraction is not a big deal. 1/2O<sub>2</sub> is perfectly OK, though usually the fraction would be removed; 2H<sub>2</sub> + O<sub>2</sub>.
But 47.2156H<sub>2</sub> + 23.6078O<sub>2</sub> is OK to.

Regardless, the point is that HHO is just plain stupid, and inaccurate, since it implies two monoatomic hydrogens and a monoatomic oxygen, or more accruately, it describes water, which isn't a fuel at all.

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 5:50 pm
by Zeus
I must concur with jimmy101, HHO is an uneducated term used by those who install such things in cars.

In STP it is generally 2H<sub>2</sub> + O<sub>2</sub>. It's a ratio of 2:1 H<sub>2</sub>.

I get slight rages when chemistry terms are abused, HHO being the main one.

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 6:29 pm
by Technician1002
I laugh when others are abused. Here is a classic;
http://www.dhmo.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 6:37 pm
by Zeus
Ah the big drama around that omnipresent poison DHMO. That was nearly banned out here (Aus). Possibly the best troll in existance, even better than the Oprah troll.