UPDATE 2: For a detailed explanation of the physics involved and the calculations needed, as well as to see what happens when HHO religious nuts go against nerds that are far smarter than myself in terms of physics knowledge, you’ll enjoy reading this series of forum posts!
UPDATE: If you came here from one of the “I found this LINK” sites, you probably need this short version of this post: HHO has been scientifically tested in a real Honda Civic, with a professionally installed HHO system. It slightly reduced mileage in a before-and-after dyno test. HHO as the sole fuel can’t exist as an electrolyzer system because it requires perpetual motion. As an additive to the air intake of a gas engine, it doesn’t work because the electrolyzer (A) is inefficient, (B) puts a mechanical load on the engine that negates any benefit, (C) unless you have one the size of your trunk, it doesn’t make enough HHO gas to have a significant effect. Read on if you want all the details.
There’s a reason that you can’t comment on the YouTube videos by MagDrive aka FuelFromH2O.com, and that’s simple: the guy doesn’t want that pesky thing called logic to ruin his source of income. Back in 2006, I became intensely interested in the concept of fueling a car using electrolyzed water, and the MagDrive videos (particularly one about their so-called “SuperGen” gas generator in a two-tank F-150) were pretty convincing to me at the time. Additionally, I read and watched a lot of things about Stanley Meyer, Daniel Dingel, and other players in what we now know of as “HHO” or “Brown’s Gas” powered vehicles. I wanted to give it a shot myself, and I even played with some electrolysis stuff, but I eventually realized that the concept of a vehicle which runs on water is religion, not science, and a false religion at that.
Why would a computer business owner write a blog post about this, though? It seems that people continue to get taken despite the mountain of evidence out there that this stuff doesn’t work, and searches on these terms reveal far more websites that indicate HHO works than those which declare it false and explain. In particular, there seems to be no single page online that exists solely to explain that HHO does not and cannot work, covering not only the purely technical reasons but also the real-world tests and even some of the more ridiculous “religious beliefs” of the HHO crowd.
Thus, here’s the “short list” of why HHO devices are pure scams, and why they cannot and will not do what they claim, ever.
HHO electrolyzers don’t produce enough gas to run a vehicle. If a car consumes about 500L/min of air at idle, how is an HHO-producing electrolyzer that cranks out not even 2% of that going to keep the engine running at all? One might claim that hydrogen is more powerful than gasoline, but that’s ignorant of the workings of good old fashioned chemistry. The next item also explains why HHO generators can’t increase mileage by reducing fuel consumption in a gasoline engine.
HHO generators consume electricity to create HHO gas. The car’s electrical system is drained significantly by an electrolyzer system. That means the battery or the alternator is drained. Alternators and generators convert mechanical energy to electrical energy, which is required to run an HHO generator, but the problem is that they resist their mechanical power source more as the current demand on them is increased; thus, attaching an electrolyzer for HHO generation drags down the engine, forcing it to work harder than normal to make the gas. In the end, the engine requires more fuel to power the electrolyzer AND perform normal engine functions, so there’s no way to magically create free energy here.
MythBusters did a test of HHO and it failed, but HHO proponents claimed it failed because of poor construction. The truth is that it failed because it doesn’t work, for the two big reasons stated above. No amount of electrolyte in the water or modification of the specifications of the HHO generator will change the law of conservation of energy: you can’t create or destroy energy, only transfer it.
HHO generator pushers have something to hide and it shows. Look up MagDrive/FuelFromH2O on YouTube and notice how comments are always disabled on their videos. Why is that? Because this guy doesn’t want anyone to damage his revenue stream with a reasonable explanation that the laws of physics don’t get suspended by electrolyzing water! THAT is why they’re disabled! Dateline NBC also destroyed a waterfuel vendor by using actual dyno tests of a Honda Accord to see what difference was made, and when the vendor was confronted with the test results, they replied that “it must need re-tuning, obviously!” Anything which points to these systems not working is automatically and immediately laughed at or concealed by these scammers.
HHO has been commercialized many times in the past, and every time the pusher of HHO “technology” is sued by their funding sources or pursued by the Federal Trade Commission. Look up the big names who “pioneered” HHO, and look at what they ended up doing. Stan Meyer was sued by his investors because his product was snake oil. Daniel Dingel is spending 20 years of his life in prison for defrauding investors. Dennis Klein’s company Aquygen has a website which lists off partners (none), affiliates (only one Romanian company which has an empty website), and licensees (one whose website doesn’t even exist anymore).
HHO vendors aren’t legitimate businesses. Look up MagDrive on Google Maps. Seriously, go to fuelfromh2o.com and look up the address of the business in Google Maps Street View. I’ll save you the trouble; here’s a picture of “MagDrive FuelFromH2O L.L.C.” in Google Street View:
Essentially, MagDrive FuelFromH2O L.L.C. is some guy’s double-wide with a couple of tiny add-on buildings in the yard. It’s not a real commercial establishment, it’s some guy making hydrogen generators in his backyard building and selling them over the Internet for hundreds of dollars to suckers who believe in the religion of HHO. Look up Hydrogen Technology Applications (Aquygen) in Florida, and you’ll see that they’re in an office building full of small garage bay doors; there’s simply no way that they’re doing research and manufacturing of machinery with highly volatile and explosive gases inside a tiny office in a building jam packed with bail bonds places and medical practices.
No one else has done this before. Hydrogen has been known and thoroughly documented for a very long time. Research by large corporations in highly competitive industries on using it as a fuel for powering mechanical devices such as cars spans many decades. Why, then, with billions spent on hydrogen fuel cell research, is this obvious solution not already mass-market? Because it’s not practical with current technology! Conspiracy theories exist claiming “big oil killed Stan Meyer because he was going to destroy their industry.” Once you start making the conspiracy stretch to validate your non-working product’s existence, it’s basically over, folks.
In conclusion, HHO is a heap of BS. Given the information presented here, you’d have to be a fool or a religious nut of HHOlogy to think otherwise.
If you think of anything you’d like to add, or have questions you’d like to ask me about this, please feel free to post a comment.
UPDATE: If you want a scientific explanation about why HHO electrolysis to fuel a car doesn’t work, you need to check out this Aardvark Daily article which explains it very well, and should put any normal human being’s mind to rest on the subject. Oh yeah, and read this article which responds to such silly notions as “HHO improves the efficiency of the gasoline engine, it’s not supposed to fuel the car entirely.”
51 Comments
did you try it?
I don’t have to try it to prove it can’t work. The science says so, and the fact that no one has yet come up with such a system in mass commercial production only further validates the fact. Conspiracy theories can be relayed on another less reputable site if you like, but not here.
So you seem to understand common physics, but I dont think you completely understand how an engine works, and what the load proportions are. Perhaps you understood the argument incorrectly, as many do, so I will clairify.
“Can you produce a significant level hydrogen to power a vehicle, sustained by the output of its own engine?”
If you said no, then you are right.
But can you power a car from only hydrogen as the fuel source? Yes.
Can you combine a hydrogen cell powered by the mechanical output of your engine, and your standard petrolium fuel to increase efficiency?
Again, yes.
Can you use a simple kit and add it to your engine and produce efficiency gains? NO.
Many people that know their basic physics argue that you can not use a hydrogen fuel cell to produce gains. Everything in regards to their knowledge of the laws of physics is correct, but they do not know what is applying and when it applies. There are so many more variables than they want to take time to understand. You need to know how an engine works. If the argument that they debate was true, then that would disregard the gains of turbochargers, Compression ratios, Tire:friction input, and aerodynamics, which are all very real things.
Take it from an Engineer who blueprints engines, and who’s job is to create efficiency. Yes you are able to produce very significant gains from a hydrogen fuel cell. Hydrogen fuel cells can work, though not through the commoners knowledge. If you disagree, or if you are just curious towards the engine’s output end, then start learning the physics of an engine, or get a degree.
The specific problem is that people push electrolysis hydrogen-oxygen generators powered by the vehicle electrical system as an efficiency booster of some kind, failing to take into account the drag on the alternator that is added and the pitiful amount of gas actually produced by electrolysis as compared to the liters of displacement in an engine. Of course hydrogen fuel cells can work…but not the kind commonly associated with the term HHO.
Mo said: “Can you combine a hydrogen cell powered by the mechanical output of your engine, and your standard petrolium fuel to increase efficiency?
Again, yes. ”
No. You do not power hydrogen fuel cells with the mechanical output of any engine. Fuel cells generate electricity by chemically combining a fuel like hydrogen with an oxidizer. They do not take mechanical or electrical input. The electricity they produce can be used to power electric motors. In vehicles, the fuel cell is either the primary power source, or a backup to the petroleum fueled engine that is used when the petroleum engine is not. They use an electric motor drive train.
Mo said, “If the argument that they debate was true, then that would disregard the gains of turbochargers, Compression ratios, Tire:friction input, and aerodynamics, which are all very real things. ”
The argument that they debate does not disregard gains made in areas you mention. In fact it is being used to model the inefficiencies in the system and to find areas in which those can be reduced. All of the things you mention are either causes of drag through friction, or ratios of air and fuel. You can design to reduce the friction, which increases efficiency. You can ensure proper compression so that fuel is consumed properly and efficiently. You can use turbochargers to capture _otherwise_wasted_energy_ in the exhaust train to force more air into the engine, increasing efficiency. In contrast, the HHO generators being discussed all place a load on the engine – they do not reduce the load on the engine – which decreases efficiency.
Mo mentions gains. Fuel cells are, by themselves, almost 100% efficient at extracting the maximum amount of electricity from their fuel. To compare them to internal combustion engines, you need to take the amount of electrical energy extracted and divide this by the calorific value of the hydrogen or other fuel being used. Most estimates I have seen show fuel cells in the theoretical maximum range of 85% compared to about 60% for internal combustion engines. These are theoretical maximums. Conventional engines actually fall in the 20% range. Most fuel cell estimates I have seen depend on the technology, and range from 40% to 80%.
Hydrogen fuel cells cannot generate the quantity of hydrogen that they consume. That would be the fabled perpetual motion machine and a clear violation of thermodynamics. This does not mean that they cannot be used to power vehicles, just that they are not magical devices. All fuel cells require a significant reservoir of fuel and oxidizer, just as a conventional engine requires a significant reservoir of petroleum fuel.
Mo, if your job is to produce gains in engine efficiency, then I suggest you follow your own advice.
the only reason why it has not been used commercially is because the oil companies have suppressed this kind of technology. they are making way too much money to allow for something so simple like this to hit the light of day. fossil fuels will end one day and you will be gassless unless you accept the fact that there are alternative ways to aid and/ or replace fossil fuel consumption.
plus HHO gas is dangerous lol since you have the fuel and the oxygen together, one spark and bye bye..
open up a bit dude. The earth was flat at one stage because science said so. It also was the centre of the universe until it was discovered it wasn’t.
The only way to find out is to try it yoursef and until then you are not even half qualified to comment on this (real or not)
But you see, there’s a problem with the “you don’t know until you try” explanation. It HAS been tried, and I’m not referring to anecdotal evidence (some guy saying it worked for him with no scientifically usable information to back it up). A very well-known and widespread scientific publication had a commercial HHO generator business install a generator in a Honda Civic, complete with necessary engine mods and tuning to ensure optimal performance. It was dyno tested BEFORE AND AFTER the installation. The results of the dyno tests showed that the HHO generator did not increase fuel economy AT ALL, and in fact there was a very slight drop in the statistics.
If you want to pay someone a couple thousand dollars for one of these things, DO IT. I’m not stopping you. But when someone in the scientific community performs a scientifically valid experiment with very simple to interpret before-and-after results that say it doesn’t do jack to improve anything at all, AND a commercial HHO system installer is the one that put it in, you can’t tell me that he’s not qualified to comment on this because he didn’t try it out for himself. On the contrary, he doesn’t have to be qualified: the experiment and the data speaks for itself.
Like I said, though…you’re perfectly free to buy this stuff if you wish. You know what they say about parting a fool from his money.
Just found this page, but have seen Jame’s statements before. Tired of these incorrect arguments so had to respond.
The earth was not flat at one stage because science said so. In fact, many ancient and medieval forerunners of modern scientists, such as Eratosthenes (Greek, ~200 BC) and Abu Rayhan Biruni (Persian ~1000 AD) calculated the circumference of the Earth fairly accurately. Columbus did not sail to prove the Earth was round: he endeavored to find a shorter trade route to the far east.
An interesting note about the geocentric model Jame mentions is that it was actually supported by a spherical (non flat) Earth view. It was actually _science_ using the non-flat Earth model coupled with accurate astronomical observations that led to the destruction of the geocentric model. That model, ironically enough, was upheld in Europe by _religious_ underpinnings that did not hold up to actual scientific study, much like those supporters of HHO that rely on gainsaying rather than scientific observation to uphold their view.
Thermodynamics is extremely well understood and is enough to prove, _without_actually_trying_it_ that you will expend more energy splitting water into HHO than you will recover. If this were not so, you would have the ability to create more energy than you expend. This is impossible, regardless of the design of the HHO generator.
I can use many models to prove things without actually trying them. I can calculate the heat dissipation in a resistor with current flowing through it _before_ I actually hook it up in a circuit and measure it directly. I can use Maxwell’s equations to calculate all sorts of things about radio antennas and optical system behavior _before_ actually building the antenna or optic system. Just because I have not actually built anything does not mean that those calculations are worthless.
The bottom line is that proven science can show that HHO is a net energy loser. The burden is on proponents of HHO to _prove_ that HHO works contrary to the laws of physics. Good luck with that!
Also, has anyone considered using a heat generator consuming the heat from combustion to split water? If you can find ways to consume the non-mechanical energy from a combustion engine, you ARE in fact increasing efficiency. That said, I haven’t done any calculations.
I once heard of a fellow who was trying to engineer a “six cycle” engine in which the final two cycles were injection of water to take advantage of the otherwise lost heat of an Otto cycle engine, converting it to steam for a second power stroke. Wikipedia has an article called “six-stroke engine” that explains better.
I have just gained a little more hope for the human race.
Science did not say so. The church said so, and killed or tortured anyone who suggested otherwise. Not science.
firstly id like to state hho splitters violate the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics with presently used tech they cant work i agree they are just a scam,1st law states the ammount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the ammount gained .hoever conservation of energy law states the total ammount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time, an ICE is not an isolated system its only 20% efficent,in 2015 BMW are installing a steam powered turbinegenerator to their new cars early figures quote an extra 15 hp similar to the turbo compound engines of the second world war, 15 hp converts to around 11.2 kw of power.ive been to the aardvark website and seen the math at 11.2 kw your getting close to their working model.your thoughts plaese
Using steam to increase power output by capturing some of the radiant energy losses in an internal combustion engine is a neat idea, and I have heard of a prototype six-cycle engine that does exactly that. Your comment is sort of difficult to follow, unfortunately.
[Editor's note: Please provide scientifically sound proof that HHO increases the efficiency of a gasoline internal combustion engine, or you're wasting everyone's time. If an engine is swallowing hundreds of liters of atmospheric gas, I fail to see how any HHO generator, which can't even produce ten liters of gas in a MINUTE, can have a statistically significant effect on combustion efficiency. Prove it, and do it with science, not anecdotes.]
http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine
Read Energy efficiency.
Car is not driving on hydrogen fuel. HHO is helping to improve efficiency. Regarding Wikipedia an average efficiency is about 18%-20%.
Merci Monsieur, fabriquer plus d’énergie que celle que l’on consomme, me paraissait assez étrange.
Encore merci pour votre article.
Hi, about 3 weeks ago my 97 van ran out of gas in the drive way. I was going to put gas in it but instead I decided to build my own hho device and test the theory for myself. I spend allot of time studying different theories and point of views about creating HHO. I spent 2 weeks building the device and before the device was fully complete I got impatient one night and just had to test it. Before I hooked my device to the intake of the engine, I tried to start my van about 10 times and it would not start because it has been out of gas for more than 2 weeks. I then hooked up my hho device that I designed, turn it on, and tried to crank it once again. It started. I did not believe that it would work but it did and the device was not even operating at full power because it was not fully complete. Before I tried any of this I developed my own theories based on existing ones so that I would know exactly what I was doing. I will share one secret with you all. Upgrade your alternator to a high amp one. This allowed me to pull over 70 amps. I have upgraded to an after market 200 amp. I’ll share one more secret. Upgrade your battery to a marine battery. Mine has over 1000 cold cranking amps. You will have to modify your battery holder but its well worth it. I have pictures but I don’t know how to post them here. I did a second test under the same conditions and it worked that time too plus I had witnesses. I will say that some other hho devices out there are a scam because they don’t seem to produce enough. That’s why I built my own. I chose to have faith in my own skills. I may not sell this device because I’m afraid that the oil and fuel companies will make me disappear because of how well the device works.
KENNETH….. Everything you said makes all the sence. Your secret for sure makes a huge difference as well.
Im from Panama, southcentral, and here nobody really knows about it. Im gonna start building my own hho dry cell gen and really appreciate if you can give me some light about it. Not saying to give all your details about your hho gen, but the most you can share with me, i really appreciate it a lot! and yeah i know and always knew homemade hho gens work! Your post is the one here!
Saludos!
Heres my mail in case you can help me: surfingpanama@hotmail.com
You are right — most HHO offerings are a scam. I believe we are different.
We have discovered an amazing new method for producing hydrogen on demand. Pure hydrogen (no oxygen) at any flow rate, 1 LPM, 2 LPM — to 10 LPM. No EFIE or EFII required. No oxygen sensor or EFI changes needed. Current required = 0 Amperes. No electrolyte. No corrosion of anode or cathode (none at all!). pH is neutral. Chemistry is safe. Might you be interested to evaluate this new method of producing hydrogen? (We can send you what you need to evaluate it; no cost to you).
We are not an automotive products company; we are a pharmaceutical company ( http://www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com ). We just happened to have the catalytic chemistry capability needed for splitting water with very little energy required.
Let’s talk if you might want to know more. Howard 580 746 2430
I think the main claim Meyers was trying to make was that he had discovered a much more efficient way of splitting water using pulsed DC and later using plasma plugs, if that is a scam and it may well be, the whole thing falls apart I totally agree probably just a coincidence he claimed to have been intimidated.
Its a good idea to do as much research as possible before jumping into a little project or interest, problem is the more research I have done the more people claim to have been warned off and the more so called experts claim that alternative technologies are deliberately suppressed (big oil hold over 3000 patents that have never seen the light of day).
Sorry to be another boring theorist! my view is that even if this technology was viable as we used less petrol and diesel the BOD’s would demand their profits and the price would go up even higher not to mention the government loosing out on tax (which they would find another way to extract)
If new technologies are to come they will come from the east as they have no appreciable fossil fuels to rely on even in the short term and they will come in their greater requirement and good time.
I am no expert, but I have been following HHO for a little over 3 years now, and like some of these others, I find more and more evidence of HHO technology having been suppressed. I would also like to say that just because you do not understand something does not mean it does not work or that it can’t or that it is a hoax. Yes, there are a lot of rotten people out there trying to make a fast buck and confusing the issue of HHO, but the simple truth is there is a lot of legitimate people to.
Last thing I want to say is that for anyone who still thinks tha HHO fuel technology isn’t real….they forgot to tell the Japanese and the Germans. Both have working pure HHO cars that are nearing production status. I know that the japanese one should be on the open market in about a year. The other is “BMW” .
I recently bought plans to build one and I am hearing many different opinions. I am going to build it regardless but would like any imput from you guys if you have some. Check out ‘HHO cell’ on youtube for more info if your not familiar.
Just placed a dry cell and a tuner on my ram truck 2005 5.7 HEMI, was getting 14-15mpg, first 150mile run 24.9 mpg only 10MPG gain,
I am working on Flux Capacitor technology that will make HHO, HOO, wHoRe, all obsolete.
i have played with hho off and on hoping it would work. i want it to work but i never have had any luck. if any one could help me?????
HHO COMBUSTION FACTS
The HHO System for increasing mileage and power is controversial because the proponents of the HHO System, and the opponents do not understand how the system develops its power. Therefore, the objectie of this article is to explain the operation in the automotive cylinder.
Firstly, it must be understoood that the major oxidizer, in the cylinder, is not Oxygen, O2, it is Ozone, O3. Whereby, Oxygen, O2, translates to a higher energy level, Ozone, O3, with the incrrease of temperature and pressure. Ozone, O3, is a very strong electric oxidizer. In fact, the automotive engine would not function without the translation of Oxygen, O2, in the cylinder, to Ozone, O3. (O2 —- to O3, at 195 Degrees Centagrade, Physics Constants, Ozone & Oxygen, page 2052, Hand Book of Chemistry &Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing Co. 1958.)
Now, the major issue of Hydrogen cmbustion with Oxygen, or Ozone, is the energy used in the separation of Hydrogen from water is greater than the energy that is released in combusting with Oxygen or Ozone. Therefore, this HHO step is negative.
However, the air mix, in the cylinder, is 78% Nitrogen, which is in the form of a very strong triple bond. In the process of combustion, the cylinder pressure nominally increases to over 2,000 psi that can split the Nitrogen Molecule. With stochiometric combustion, there is no reaction to the split Nitrogen Molecule as the Ozone reaction has completed with the fuel Hydrocarbon. But, with an excess of Ozone, that has resulted from a lean burn, the Hydrogen reacts with the split Nitrogen Molecule to release 226,000 calories per mole. This is a powerful energy boost to the HHO System. The major reaction is with a small pecentage of calories from Hydrogen is:
Hydrogen + Nitrogen + Ozone = HNO3, NITRIC ACID.
PLUS 226,000 of calories per mole
(N2 + 226,000 of calories per mole = 2N + 226,000 + 226,000 = 2N + 452,000 of calories per mole,
page 377, General College Chemistry, 1957, Harper and Brothers, Library of Congress # 57-6262)
Imprtantly, the HHO System requires an excess of Oxygen in the air mix to provide the HHO reaction for the increase of power and mileage. Suggestively, this is what the automotive companies are doing with Turbo Chargers. However, their energy boost, with the split Nitrogen Molecule is:
Nitrogen + Ozone = NO3 NITRIC OXIDE
PLUS 226,000 of calories per mole.
As demonstrated, the increase of power, and mileage can be increase with lean burn. However, the limits are environmental. In the case of Hydrogen, Acid Rain, and the metallic erosion of engine components, and exhaust system.
David Wofsey, US Patents: 3,207,886, 3,486,667, 3,694,621, 4,028,576, 5,610,470.
I have looked over several of the arguments about HHO. I think that I address their thoughts about HHO. The important point is the increase of power and mileage is from the splitting of the Nitrogen Molecule to release the 226,000 of calories per mole. Also, they do not understand that the principle oxidizer is Ozone. I suggest that they check out one of my webs http://www.sparkplugengineering.com. I believe that this will give them a clearer picture of the four itchy, twitchy, electric states of Ozone. Also, Ozone reactions always complete, and it does not come out the tail pipe as Ozone. It always reacts with the Hydroicarbons, and the split Nitrogen or Hydrogen to produce water, and the Oxides.
davewofsey@yahoo.com
The required current should be much higher than that calculated in http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml
The calculation in Aardvark assumes that all the consumed Watts of electrical energy are transformed to H2 and O2 gas. However, during operation with current I and Voltage V, power equal to I×(V-1.23) is wasted into heat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency
The Hydrogen and Oxygen production rate depends on the current (I), i.e at the Cathode 2 electrons neutralize 2 H+ ions and produce 1 H2 molecule.
The supply of electrons per time = current.
I calculated that each 1 Ampere of current in water electrolysis produces 0,00031 mole/min of hydrogen (H2) gas and 0.000155 mole/min of oxygen (O2) gas
This means that Η2 production rate is 0,00062 gr/min*A
or 0,0076 Lt/min*A for gas at 1Atm and 25 degrees Celcius
These are negligible quantities compared to the consumed gasoline fuel per minute. Just consider how much gasoline mass you consume per minute when you drive. They cannot affect the combustion process, just common sense!
This seems to me to be a completely ridiculous argument. If you’ve tried to produce HHO to no avail, then maybe you weren’t doing it right. I too was skeptical so i gave it a shot. Once I had followed instructions found on the internet to the letter, I began thinking maybe it was a scam. However, after putting a little thought and some effort I was able to produce significant HHO, and found it to be absolutely and dangerously explosive. In hindsight the You Tube videos of twelve year olds playing with electrolyzers seems ridiculous. Had I not taken well thought out safety measures after extensive research I would have hundreds of glass shards in my face after a flashback into the glass housing of the electrolyzer. Not to mention the fact that he used salt as his electrolyte thus producing dangerous chlorine gas. Anyway, the potential for HHO seems pretty obvious to me. Using only water and baking soda even my crappy first electrolyzer produced bubbles that would explode when exposed to a flame. As is common knowledge Hydrogen and Oxygen both have violent, explosive properties very similar to that of the gasoline burned in our internal combustion engines. That stands to reason that if explosive gases can be simply produced from things found in a local hardware store then the potential for this process is amazing. If you decide to try this yourself, first of all be extremely careful and second don’t think that just because you followed instructions found on the internet and are unsuccessful that the whole idea is a bust, thats either naive or conceited. The most important aspect that I didn’t see much mention of on preliminary searches is what electrolyte you use, baking soda works, vinegar is better, potassium nitrate is even better and sulfuric acid….well, lets leave the hard stuff to the professionals. For those of you new to this and chemistry of any sort, those ingredients “electrolytes” are what is mixed with the water to make it conductive and make the electrolysis that breaks down the water molecules possible. In conclusion, those of you that say this doesn’t work and its a scam, I say, maybe claims of MPG increases with junk equipment are a scam but bottom line, if you properly build an electrolyzer out of the right materials (at least 304 stainless steel preferably 316) and use the right mix of electrolyte with enough amperage you will produce an explosive gas (aka brown’s gas or HHO.) So please don’t cram bullshit opinions up the internet’s ass because your either not educated enough, not patient enough or too lazy to figure it out.
I hope you’ve enjoyed tossing around accusations of me not being educated enough, while at the same time not even presenting any arguments against anything I have stated. Regardless of what electrolytic compounds are in use, how do you propose to overcome the law of conservation of energy? How does the use of different electrolytes overcome the fact that you can’t create energy?
I’ve presented scientifically sound calculations that show that you can’t electrolyze enough water in an automotive system to even remotely successfully fuel that system at idle. How does your use of electrolytes provide the massive quantity of liters of combustible fuel required to propel a vehicle? Even a Geo Metro with a 1.0L 3-cylinder motor consumes too much to be created on demand by any automotive electrolyzing system. To move forward at wide open throttle (WOT), you must provide the engine with 1.0L of fuel for every intake stroke of the engine. If a Metro is getting on an interstate highway and thus is being pushed to WOT to reach cruising speeds as quickly as possible, and let’s just say the motor is instantaneously rotating at 2,000 RPM for the sake of argument (it would often get much higher than this in such a small motor), you must provide 1.0L of fuel-air mixture ~16.667 times per second.
In case you’re “not educated enough” to recognize what this means, to propel a 1.0L motor at WOT and 2,000 RPM requires 16.667L of “HHO” to be produced and provided per second; this is 1,000 liters per minute. To use the electrolyzed gas as some sort of combustion additive, you still have to provide enough gas to make a statistically significant difference in combustion, but even if you’re only exchanging 5% of normal air for injected “HHO,” that’s still a 50 L/min requirement. This example of a hydrogen generator claims to provide 2 L/min at 12V and 22A. 2 L/min is only 4% of a 50 L/min need. Even if you could get the needed 25x more power (we’re talking 550 amps, A MASSIVE FREAKING LOT OF CURRENT) do you realize how much drag this would place on the engine from the attached alternator trying to provide so much power? How do you plan to avoid the drag on the alternator? The electricity for electrolysis HAS to come from somewhere. Law of conservation of energy bites you in the ass.
So, mister educated smarty pants…when you stuff this garbage into a 1.9L Ford Escort, a 3.1L Chevy Beretta, or even a 5.0L Mustang, how do you intend to scale up the system to provide even more gas than you already can’t provide to propel a 1.0L Geo Metro? The answer is you can’t. You are a complete idiot who doesn’t understand basic scientific principles. Do you know why there are no scientific studies showing you’re right? Because you’re wrong. HHO claims require a sort of religious faith to believe, and ride on the same kind of nonsense statements that MLM companies selling health products use. There’s no difference between claiming that you have horrid toxins entering your body that you need to get out with a wonder pill and claiming that you can propel a motor vehicle forward with an on-demand electrolysis-generated hydrogen-oxygen gas mixture that violates fundamental laws of chemistry and physics.
Perhaps you could make a system by which you propel a vehicle into the sky using a balloon which the righteous HHO worshiper fills himself using his own massive generation of hot air. Now THAT would make more sense.
Yeah what he said!
I agree that the total energy balance is negative in the HHO device system that is connected to the car’s battery or alternator – however, the thing that makes HHO help to increase mileage in standard combustion engine, is the fact that after the HHO combustion it turn back into the water, and it happens in extreme temperatures that exist in the combustion chamber. The result is simillar to the devices used massively in WWII planes that injected water into combustion chambers to boost power over a short period of time (NITRO of the old days
) – water turns instantly into the vapor – water turns into vapor in something like (1:1000 proportions) giving back not only the enrgy of combustion – which of all was consumed by generating the electricity to produce the HHO, + some other lost energy for mechanical parts, but also giving the engine the “spring like” effect of expanding water vapor. Which makes all of the HHO devices scam anyway, as it would be much easier to produce a heat vaporizer pipe wrpaed around the exaust mainfold connected with the water tank form which the water vapor would be sucked into the combustion chambers – then we would not only re-use the energy lost anyway in the process of standart fuel combustion, but also would keep the engine a bit cooler and cleaner. However – I’m not sure of the long term effects that the water has of the cylinder heads, oil film in the culinder tubes, and to the exaust mainfold pipes – does not make sense at all – we wold have to create a special engine from rust resistamt material of some sort. HHO is scam, dont use it! :p
Take two coke bottles , I shaken one bottle and added sugar/salt in another bottle , in both cases gas came out quickly , In one case I applied mechanical energy , in another case I added some kind of catalyst without supplying external energy , I am saying is we can split water into HHO using some catalyst with less energy and get more energy during combustion process.
Great. Now can you make it produce 500+ liters of HHO per minute, and make it economically feasible to install into a consumer automobile?
The engine that does not rust has already been built by Volvo. Jay Leno owns one. It runs on Hydrogen, but must be filled from an outside sorce. I have tried hundreds of gas mileage increasing devices since the mid 70′s. The best one for carb engines was simply do the WW2 trick of adding water vapor to the engine via the vaccum system of the engine. Gas mileage went up about 10% at best, but the exhaust system fell apart fairly quickly. Rusted away. As for fuel injected engines, you really just need to reprogram the ecm to run the engine a bit leaner. This ups the heat in the cylinders some, but that can be controlled by once again adding water vapor via the vaccum port. I have done this and am still using the system. Gains of around 10% and no exhaust rusting so far after 5 yrs. HHO people call the water vapor device a “bubbler”, it does bubble. As to HHO devices, I have built and bought just about every model produced since the 70′s and have mixed reviews. I found that mostly the only differences I had were at below 45 mph and mostly just in the feel of power and smoothness of the engine, I did get better mileage from a 1992 Tempo, but at the expense of the exhaust system. So money wise, the exhaust system cost more than money saved in fuel. The car I’m driving today is a 1997 Accent, built by Hyundai. 1.5L and manuel trans. The spark plugs stay cleaner and last longer, the exhaust shows no signs of wear yet after 5 yrs. I am using a water vapor device I designed myself and have seen around 10% increase in mileage. No magic numbers claimed, and none expected, and it works at all speeds. To reprogram the ecm, I just tricked the ecm to think it was running rich by changing the 02 sensor output readings. I installed a second 02 sensor and an independant tester to set my readings by.
Your right about the guy at Fuelfromh20.com, when I ask him how he was reducing the electrode wear, which is a common problem along with heat build up, he gave me a formula they must have looked up some where and said it fixed all the problems with HHO device wear and increased the output. I looked up the formula and found it did nothing. It was a math problem. He has change the name of his company a few times I think, I found the same ad wording a few yrs back. Unless you want to buy his product, he will not talk to you. Not to change the subject much, but I have engineered the drive for electric driven vehicles since the 70′s also, and there is a reason we do not all drive electic cars today. Basicly the same power conversion and electrical short commings to make enough to power the vehicle very far. While I understand the numbers and problems of Hydrogen powering anything, I do feel it is the fuel of the future and someone will “crack” and make it work.
Leaning out the mixture and then injecting water to convert the excess heat to energy makes sense; the Otto cycle is designed around maximizing horsepower output but at the expense of loss of lots of thermal energy. Some hybrids are built to burn gasoline in a fashion that is less thermally lossy and more efficient, but wouldn’t push a traditional set of pistons impressively at all. Efficiency and instantaneous power output are direct tradeoffs; leaning out your mixture and adding water probably slightly lowers power output, but the efficiency gain you mentioned is believable in the scenario you present. I would love to see dyno tests to see how the output is affected. I think I can explain the rust issue too…before EGR was heavily used, engines took longer to reach operating temperature. When the exhaust gas runs down the cool exhaust system, a byproduct of combustion is water vapor and that vapor condenses from the cooling. That’s the white “smoke” you see on a cold morning and the source of the water drops coming out of the tailpipe. If the system heats up faster, the water doesn’t remain condensed on the exhaust system as long. But that’s just a theory I came up with on the spot.
Thanks for your interesting and informative response
I have no problem with anything you’ve stated up to this post. Are you implying that the addition of EGR in automobile engines (circa 1970) causes them to heat up quicker?
Exhaust gas is hot. Recirculation of said gas back to the intake heats up the intake charge slightly. When the engine is cold, this can help it to reach operating temperature more quickly, since the incoming air will have a slightly lower cooling effect.
Very interesting post. Reminds me of tough lesson in engineering that I learned when I was a boy. Let me explain. One year my parents bought me a Capscella set to play with. For those that don’t know what this, it is basically a building block toy that allows the child to assemble all kinds of mechanical working devices using an assembly of gears that can be connected to each other using plastic links.
Each encapsulated gear piece in the toy is clear to show the child how that each toy part functions. A motor was included to be used in each mechanical assembly. I loved that toy, as it was I assumed foolishly that I knew everything about how to make a race car seeing that the elements in the drawings basically showed the connections I needed were between the motor and wheels, But what I failed to see was that a gear box was essentially needed to be joined between the engine and the wheels. I assumed after my setup that the motor was defective because it lacked the power even with new batteries to move the car across the floor. Finally after many moths I built the car again with the gear box and it moved by its own power.
The moral of this story is that you need to test the theories yourself before assuming you understand the science. I don’t believe that you and neither anyone else can prove this or that about hho unless they are really testing out the same rigs that have brought success for some people. And spending the time to try and make things work, the people that are saying that this is false are also the ones that have the most to loose in reputation and standing by agreeing with the crowd of enthusiast that are risking it all for success.
I just saw a video of a guy that was producing about 1 LPM with about .09 Amps. That means that he could produce about 10 LPM with LESS than an Amp. I’ve seem small engines run on MUCH less than this, without the use of other fuel sources. I can’t imagine needing too much more than 10 LPM to at least idol a car. From what I’ve experienced with my own HHO generator is that a small amount of gas make a bottle full of normal air EXTREMELY combustible! Out of curiosity, how do hybrids, sold by dealers, get such good gas mileage if this technology was bogus?
10 liters per minute doesn’t help much. You need 1.6L total combustible mixture PER STROKE to fuel an internal combustion engine of that displacement. Even if the motor idles at 1000 RPM, that’s 500 intake strokes a minute. Even if you’re only feeding a fraction of the total volume of displacement into the motor (usually the case at idle) even 125 liters a minute is pretty far from 10, and this is only talking of idling, not propulsion.
Hybrids use the Atkinson cycle rather than the Otto cycle. The engine is designed to maximize efficiency of the burn and reduce losses in the form of heat. Otto cycle engines generate excessive heat but also generate much more power in a given time interval. Atkinson cycle burning is about efficiency instead of quickly accessible power. It’s a trade-off. Some hybrids only run on electricity, using the gas motor as a generator, while others use both. Hybrids are also designed for efficiency over power; you’re never going to see a stock Toyota Prius beat my Honda Prelude in a race. A Prius also costs more than my Honda cost when I bought it, and will struggle to save enough in fuel costs to make up the difference.
Hybrids have nothing to do with HHO.
I hear certain people speaking about needing a certain volume of HHO for a vehicle to operate (based on the gasoline LPM), yet I find that I’m getting VERY serious combustion from VERY small amounts of HHO. It seems that the HHO mixes with the air around it (spreading out) and causing a multiplying affect to the combustible air intake by more than 10X. I’ve put about 1/6 of a liter of HHO in a 1 liter bottle, lit it, and shot it off like a rocket while sounding like a cannon going off. I don’t think that comparing gasoline to HHO is like comparing apples to apples. It’s more like comparing apples to grapes.
Here’s a video that claims that the Japanese have already made a car that runs solely on water…and this was back in 2008.
In Pakistan, a man has created a car that can do the same… (posted in July of 2012).
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-28/science/32906478_1_hydrogen-cng-cc-car
I’ve seen others, as well, but people still claim that it’s not possible. All I can say is “keep spending your money on gasoline”. The rest of the world will soon be running on water.
Build one. Post your information on how others can scientifically reproduce your successful experiment. When it works, I’ll be the first one to praise you. Otherwise, the science trumps all anecdotes and conspiracy theories and YouTube videos.
I’m still waiting on science to prove life is real. Science is relevant to the studies done and the subjects believing those studies to be fact. I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that I’m alive or that a motor is running on water versus gasoline if it is actually running on water. To swear to the unknowing that something is impossible, just because you’re incapable of understanding it yourself, and science hasn’t come up with an answer to support the idea does not make it any less a reality. And, yes, I do believe that those who have shown their products to be successful have mysteriously turned-up dead or declared insane by the government. I also find it strange that the government offers bailouts to the auto industry. The bailouts just confirm my suspicions that the government has too much invested in gas operated vehicles and oil to allow Joe Shmoe to come along and create lower fuel costs and longer lasting vehicles. There’s no long-term money to be gained from that.
You cant use the argument that “mythbusters tried it” because they in fact did not build it right. if they have built it right, then they would have seen HHO gas produced. did they? no. why? i already answered the question. they also failed to add an electrolyte to the fuel cell.
If you haven’t tried it, don’t bump it. its like saying you dont like a certain type of food without trying it. i was sceptical at first as well. the change of mechanical energy to electrical energy to chemical energy and back to mechanical energy sounded ridiculous but i have tried it and i had gains in mpg. with a small cell that i build from scratch costing around 40 dollars aided my fuel consumption and increasing my fuel efficiency by 5 mpg.
At 20mpg before the fuel cell i calculated that i consumed 240 gallons per year lets say gas costed $3.50 costing me around $840 a year. with the fuel cell i have been consuming a lower 192 gallons per year. gas at an assumed $3.50 costing me $672 a year with an overall saving of $168 minus the $50 i spent initially. a total of $118 savings per year.
keep in mind that i built this in my garage. it was my first fuel cell. i see many improvements i can make. i dont use as much gas as the usual american so my saving might not seem that extreme but i proved that it is possible.
you need to understand that not all cells consume the same voltage, current etc. the way you build it makes a huge difference. That is where mythbusters failed.
Ok if it doesent work. Why am I getting 10 extra miles to the gallon. Physics might say it wont work but this thing bend the laws of physics
Math errors and/or running leaner.
“Math errors and/or running leaner”… That’s funny! I’ll take those kind of “errors” ANY day of the week. I just built a super WEAK HHO cell that only produced 1/3 Litres per THREE minutes, and gained .72 MPG. I was told (by the professinal critics) that I would only LOSE MPG (if anything), seeing that I was putting an extra burden on my altinator. I GAINED just over 4% with that small amount. I’ve been driving the same routs over and over, filling my tank till it spilled out, and running it till it stalled-out. I’m CERTAIN of my useage, and I’ve gone out of my way to drive with my heat and radio “ON”, just to add more strain on the altinator. SMALL numbers, in deed, but still favorable!
.
Why is it all these geniuses who are so successful they live in doublewides and the backwoods come up with all these conspiracy theories about the mainstream failure to adopt their miracle invention. Regardless of all the half truths and out of context scientific “profs” alleged, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING gets around the fact that ENERGY cannot be made so simply. Energy is inherently “trapped” in chemicals in a manner that causes them to be very stable. Otherwise the world would be a very nasty place to live. You can make HHO but you need VAST amounts of energy to do so. It is pure science that the energy needed to release HHO is greater than the energy derived from its combustion. Utilization of energy (converting one form to another) is generally an inefficient process, especially for purposes of locomotion. Perpetual machines, HHO, Reactionless drives, are the relm of guys on welfare checks sitting on the toilet of thier double wide dreaming new ways to scam people. It is amusing to me that the only way they jsutify thier “suppressed scientific breakthoughs” are always through some conspiracy. As if they are blind to the major shift in recent years to huge investments in renewable energy…EXPECT FOR THEIRS…. Ebay is full of guys in mobile trailers with 10 page ads selling HHO trinkets and gadgets proporting related scientific breakthroughs that only they (and their high school GED) understand. SAVE YOUR WALLET AND RUN.
Haha, look at u argue! I’m 12 and going to make one for my dad’s Ford Focus. I have already made a scale model for my dirt bike. U have no idea what ur talking about
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] on the HHO or Brown’s Gas usage: I looked up a series of web sites trying to pin this down and came upon this LINK. You can decide what you think of it [...]
[...] link that covers the topic briefly. On that page is another link where real physicists debunk HHO. HHO is a scam: water for fuel doesn’t work, don’t fall for it. Random musings from a hea… __________________ ATGATT: All The Gear, All The Time! Your helmet should be on your head, [...]