Anybody interested in building HHO generators?

Just turn up the power. The stuff about "frequencies" in the current that splits the water is just woowoo.

Yes, but water vapor would work much better than HHO, since it requires no energy to make. Plus, it expands much more than HHO, which actually can lower pressure in the cylinder.

John, you're just the man I need - I'm trying to work something out on the scale of proteins but having some problems. How would van der Waals forces and Casimir forces compare at the protein scale?

I'm a physicist with the Los Alamos Labs here in New Mexico.

Our resident scientists have excellent provenance. Have you?

Reply from LANL:

It would seem that “Jon Love” is either a pseudonym or this person’s affiliation with LANL is a fiction; there’s no Jon Love listed in our directory.

Of course it's a pseudonym. Do you really think I would be giving my real name? I work in a sensitive area. Any listings with the labs are strictly non-sensitive area work. Even if you did know my real name, you wouldn't have been able to find it among any listings. Listings have always been just for public relations. No one that works in sensitive areas would be listed in any form, anywhere.

"Jon" - the stuff you've posted is utter tosh.

If you had come within even a wide margin of exploiting ZPE successfully, you wouldn't be getting ready to post it here, you'd be on a podium accepting your Nobel prize.

I didn't just search the listings - if you worked for LANL, you would have known that the search engine on their site does not waffle on about pseudonyms. That is just one line from an email from LANL. They completely disowned you and your claims.

You want to be taken seriously, show us something serious, in plain language.

"By the way, real physicists don't talk like that outside the lab"

Yes, we do. We communicate scientific concepts in scientific terms. If you work for LANL, you should be capable of communicating your ideas clearly, concisely and scientifically.

I'm willing to bet actual money that you can't.

I have constructed and operated a device in my own personal lab, that operates completely independent of any outside conventional power sources.

To borrow the parlance of the internet, "pics or it didn't happen". In other words, I'm not denying your claim, but it is extraordinary enough to warrant skepticism and you'll understand me asking for some evidence to back the claim up. Please post the details that you feel comfortable with doing so, to spread your ideas and reduce the risk of suppression by the authorities.

No insults intended towards those that have argued with the usual scientific jargon on this thread. By the way, real physicists don't talk like that outside the lab.

That sounds like a "no true scotsman" to me. I know plenty of people with high-level education in physics and other sciences who take great pleasure in talking in what you refer to as "scientific jargon" outside the lab, because it's a subject that interests them.

HHO not only CAN work, it has been working for a very long time already. It's just been suppressed by the oil companies and all else that believe money is greater than the human condition for all on this planet. I have no proof to offer here. I'm well aware that for anything to be accepted scientifically, has to be proofed. I just ask you to trust me, if you will.

You really won't garner a great deal of respect from scientists by simultaneously insulting them and making assertions like that.

I won't debate who does or doesn't use the jargon. Some do and some don't. It's all in how you visualize things. Dr. Einstein once said, "If the answer is simple, God is talking to you". There are the terms and the terms are used in private and public, but keeping things simple makes any concept understandable, even by a four year old. The "scotsman" comment was funny. Reminds me of something the "Scotty" character in Star Trek once said, which just reflects the same thought; "the more plumbing there is, the easier it is to stop it up" Keeping things simple is best. A kind of Zen of scientific "jargon" that all can understand and participate in. I never said that HHO can not work. Yes, the oil companies have been suppressing such ideas for over a hundred years. Even Ford couldn't sell his original idea of an engine that ran on alcohol. It was modified to accept an oil product fuel and was immediately supported by the oil companies. You have to dig deep, but this and more information is available on the web. I never intended to insult anyone, and I don't believe I did insult any real scientists. There's an old saying out here in NM; "a hit coyote yelps louder than the rest". It's usually psuedo scientists and intellectuals that complain the most about anything and nothing. OK. I will keep my comments to a minimum not to offend anyone. But, if there is no truth in what is being said, I will probably speak up or respond. I'm a stone cold truth seeker. I haven't played by the books since I was a childl. No brag, just fact; I received my first PhD when I was 18. I have nothing to prove here. I only signed on to be helpful if possible, but I see more psychological issues going on here than any real interest what will or won't work concerning HHO.

It seems that some of our pseudo intellectuals have little background in the history of HHO. The first US patents were granted in 1916. The impact of this technology for free or inexpensive energy deeply disturbs many in hidden positions of power around the world. Stan Meyers who unlocked these secrets, and conclusively demonstrated them in the 90's, was not a man of letters and wanted the knowledge gained to go for the benefit of humanity and not for personal gain. He turned down a billion dollars for his proven idea. Something most pseudo intellectuals and pseudo scientists can not understand at all. For his efforts, he was murdered and his research disappeared within 24 hours. Hence any contributions toward the effort needs to be public and spread the information as widely as possible for free if the bondage of the money masters is to be broken. Having left the ranks of physics research in 71, I was very dismayed by the crop of pseudo intellectuals coming out of the universities then and continuing till today. There seems to be a total lack of common sense and a complete inability to convey what they consider knowledge to anyone outside their chosen specially. They seem to be caught up in their stylized verbiage so intently that it has voided their ability to communicate anything of value to anyone outside of their field. The verbiage makes a wonderful smoke screen to impress others but does little or nothing to further real knowledge or contribute to the whole. Yes, it gives the impression of intelligence to some. But real intelligence is the ability to convey ideas and information without the use of specialized words and convey that information or idea in such a way that a child could understand it. The pseudo intellectuals have not yet learned that most everything is basically simple, and many times the less indoctrinated can see possibilities and answers hidden from the overeducated. Therefore comments like Kiteman and PKM appear to be making serve no useful purpose but to reveal their narrow minds and inability to make a real contribution.

Ok Doc-Watt, don't worry about me as a pseudo-intellectual. I'm as dumb as a box of rocks, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Last year I played around trying to make an HHO generator. It seemed to work, as my gas mileage on my Mazda 323 improved from a consistent 37mpg on the highway, to a full 41mpg on the highway. I checked this out over the course of about 5000 miles. Unfortunately, due to some shortcuts, I accidentally left the "generator" on for about an hour. When I went to start the car, there was a massive explosion, and the car was disabled for quite a while, till I was able to replace/repair a few parts of the intake system. That convinced me that I could produce enough HHO to help my mileage (rather than just cooling the engine to improve mileage). My question is this: Doesn't it violate some physical laws to produce more energy than you are consuming? What I mean is this, the generator requires juice from the battery, and consequently the alternator. The engine must work "harder", because of the increased load on the alternator. Somewhere there has to be a point of diminishing returns. Otherwise, I could run my engine ONLY on the HHO I am generating, and with the excess, make enough power (electrical) or HHO to run my power/fuel needs at home. It doesn't sound feasible. Tell me what I'm missing. Thanks, Skunkbait

To skunkbait
I appreciate your honesty. As your statement said, you proved the concept as viable in a 5.000 mile trial that gave you an approximate 11% improvement in your mileage. That being said then there is no question as to whether it works or not.

For a transportation vehicle there is only one measure of efficiency, "How far can it go with a given number of BTU of energy as input? The input for a car is gasoline, diesel, or some other form of energy. It really matters not whether an extra number of Amps of electricity is used to support the auxiliary systems, the car is a closed system or unit that goes so far with so many units of energy to propel it.

It seems that some are steeped so deeply in their verbiage and book learning that they do not want to look at facts, so they fall back on what they have been taught as cast in stone and they consider scientific, so they spend all their time bantering those with an open mind that desire to find answers and further science and knowledge. This is the" I'M SMARTER THAN YOU" concept. Purely an ego trip for those with a lack of self esteem.

Your explosion can be, and was a problem of an improperly installed unit. To prevent this from happening, one must find a hot wire in the engine compartment that becomes hot only when the ignition key is on run. Then run a wire from that point to a new 12 volt relay, like the light and horn relay, that then activates the HHO device. A heavier hot wire going to the HHO system comes from the battery to the relay and then on to the HHO system. This insures that the HHO system is only hot or on when the ignition key is turned on.

Another safety feature is that all HHO systems should run through a bubbler to prevent backfiring into the generator. That is another part of the system that is overlook in some (do it yourself) diy units.

"My question is this: Doesn't it violate some physical laws to produce more energy than you are consuming? ..... Somewhere there has to be a point of diminishing returns.".
In the case of the purely electrolysis driven HHO generator it does not violate any energy conservation laws. The device takes more energy that it produce. So you can not run the car solely with the straight HHO electrolysis device. It appears that all the "WILL NOT WORK" ivory tower detractors, do not understand the basics of of the (internal combustion engine) ICE or are paid wet blankets to dieter others from using the energy saving technology. I have discovered many such plants on the Internet in the areas of health care, the environment and energy.

How it works is through the introduction of a small amount of H2 or Alcohol/water vapor into the combustion mixture which increases the heat, speed of burning, and completeness of the combustion process, and thereby improving the overall efficiency of the burning process. There are dozens of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) papers going back at least 40 years, that have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that even small amounts of HHO injection into the intake of an ICE, decreases NO, decreases CO2, and reduces unburned hydrocarbon emissions. It works for both gasoline or diesel. Why it works is that the carburetor or injectors do not atomize the fuel completely and small liquid droplets of fuel enter the combustion chamber and are not consumed completely. The HHO facilitates a cleaner and more complete burn, making better use of the fuel. It works so effectively that it can eliminate the need for the mandated catalytic converters.

By the way, the catalytic converter did reduce the brown cloud (unburned hydrocarbons) of smog, which is relatively harmless when compared to the byproduct of the catalytic converter which is NO. NO emissions have increased dramatically directly from the use of the converters, which in turn has led to an increase in acid rain. Another example of government regulations that have made the environment worse. In the 60's the primary acid rain was sulfuric, it is now nitric acid.

I have been interested in the Meyers system since I saw it demonstrated in Colorado Springs in the early 90's. What Stan Meyers used was not a straight electrolysis generator but was a frequency controlled pulsating generator. It pulsed DC at the resonate frequencies of the water or the H or O2 atoms, we do not know which or what frequency. Using these resonant frequencies, broke the bonds of the water and releases HH and O. Everything has a resonant frequency, even viruses and bacteria which are organic. An example of the destructive force of resonance is the sound waves that can break a crystal glass. The amount of energy in the sound wave hitting the glass is far less than the strength of the bonds of the glass, but the resonance amplifies the energy which becomes accumulative until the glass breaks. The use of resonance is similar to Tesla's use of the resonance of the magnetic field of the earth to capture and transmit energy and create lightning.

I hope this answered some of your questions. Thank you

Doc Watt

Without addressing any claims regarding who may or may not be a physicist in real life--a resume isn't an argument.

When I read " I just ask you to trust me, if you will. ", whether it's from a doctor, investment counselor or "physicist", I know there's truly reason for doubt...

Indeed, reverse ad hominem doesn't really increase my confidence either...

The "chemistry baseline" is corrupt? Not been even one shred of any real evidence to support the process of evolution?

...and...

I feel we should approach the idea of HHO from what we are working on and know works. .... This blog, and many others like it, is that proof.

I think we can eliminate jonlove from the ranks of the scientific community.

Your item 1: You can't prove one misunderstanding of science with another. Your item 2: That's a very cool solution to work around assumptions in an embedded system! I doubt that a straight resistor is the best way to do it, though it is the simplest. In a perfect world, you'd reflash the PROM in the car computer to give it different assumptions, but most manufacturers look rather poorly on that.

The solution for the hho storage non explosive is as water h2o. Just like HHO yet not electrolyzed. The solution to make enough HHO local to power an engine is as robust a regulated electrolyzer as is necessary to make enough boom to speed the mass of the vehicle within the gravity of it's holder accounting for friction. All these people who've doubled their fuel efficiency and you want to argue semantics about supposed laws of energy without stating any proof that HHO is not more efficient a fuel than gasoline. OBVIOUSLY it's a more efficient fuel. It's gas... Gasoline entering your engine is liquid. Do you want to burn a bunch of liquid through your engine or gas for highest compression? I think the rocket scientists would agree gas, as Oxygen is what's used to fly to space. Hydrogen is another combustible gas. So you're putting two explosive gasses where there might instead be a liquid hydrocarbon. When carbon goes gaseous in this semi oxygen rich atmosphere, does it go up or down? Mmm duh. Oxygen, what you'd burn through your vehicles engine if you weren't so brainwashed and bull headed is bunched where? Way up at the top of the atmosphere as O3 (ozone). That stuff's barely held by the gravity of the planet it has so much energy. You'd rather burn fossil fuel !? ...found sunk under the surface of the planet? Good luck buddy. Nice pseudo technical jargon you got under your belt. The law of conservation of financial dominance states massive human empowerment leads to control loss for the dominant and spoiled brat temper tantrums galore. Beware the impending nuclear ARMaGettin.

1) Liquid oxygen my friend is what's used for space flight, not gaseous. 2) Oxygen is not an explosive gas...it's an oxidiser. 3) You cannot 'burn' oxygen on its own, whether it's o2 or o3 (ozone). In fact what has ozone got to do with any of this?? If after all these posts you cannot see the flaw in the idea of 'The solution to make enough HHO local to power an engine is as robust a regulated electrolyzer' (nice job with the keyboard there) i.e. an electrolyzer powered by a low efficiency IC engine..then you need to do some more reading. There is no dispute over whether you could run a car on h+o, there is a debate on whether you could produce said gasses 'as needed' in any beneficial way. As for the many people who 'doubled' their mpg, I posted waaay down the page about how many of these people seemed to be inexplicably messing with their o2 / maf sensors in the belief that they should. Leaning out your fuel mixture then seeing an increase in MPG should not come as a suprise to anyone. H+O can be burned just fine in an IC engine, in fact I recall several years ago BMW made a prototype (before fuel cells existed) which ran on hydrogen (just hydrogen, oxygen from the air) burned in a piston engine. The problem with HHO / h+o is that it cannot be compressed or liquified safely, and to produce it on the move uses more energy than is released upon burning it. There is no conspiracy here it's just physics. However... What would be far more beneficial would be a setup where you electrolyse water using cheap mains/grid electrcity and collect the hydrgen and oxygen separately..or just release the oxygen to the atmosphere. This has been mentioned already, again, far down the page. You run the IC engine with Hydrogen as fuel, oxygen from the air. H2 alone can be safely compressed / liquified. Work on that basis and if the cost of the grid electricity still works out cheaper than the cost of petrol / gas then you're on to a winner. The grid electricity still has to come from somewhere, which is why, in my opinion, we should generate more of our electricity from nuclear sources. It's the lesser of many evils. Note: the real discussion is mostly at the bottom of the page.

(removed by author or community request)

(removed by author or community request)

Again you want to argue ridiculous semantics... Oxygen is not a combustible gas... OK granted. But oxygen is REQUIRED for combustion right? Mmm duh. So by this we arrive at understanding an absolute necessity to make things go boom or burn is that OXYGEN be fed to the burning... It becomes then somehow relevant that oxygen is not called by academics combustible... Call it what you will. It make fire sizzle, toes and fingers warm, rocyah happy. How is ozone pertinent to this subject, only that it's made of oxygen and floats. Here's the real question which you've avoided thereby denying the browsers to this post your obviously so very totally establishment educated understanding, is hydrogen, or is it not, THE most combustible element in the whole universe? I'm 99.9% certain the answer is yes, hydrogen is the most combustible element. So again, why would you burn the oil of dino age ferns through your vehicle rather than the MOST combustible gas in existence...? Which happens to be hugely distributed in this environment and widely locked up in a liquid that puts out fires which is convenient in a wreck and also produces no toxic by products by it's combustion... Let me guess your answer, this is called this and that is called that and you can't do this because of that and there are many questions left to be answered...

You wrote, "Oxygen is not a combustible gas... OK granted. But oxygen is REQUIRED for combustion right? Mmm duh."

No, in fact oxygen gas is not required, in general, for combustion. What is required is an oxidizer -- a chemical (element or compound) which can accept electrons or transfer oxygen ions.

\Most commonly, an oxidizer (canonically oxygen, but it can be other things like potassium nitrate or bleach) is separate from the fuel in a reaction. But even that is not a requirement. Solid rocket fuel, or even gunpower, is commonly a mixture of fuel and oxidizer such that it can burn, and continue to burn, even in the absence of atmospheric oxygen.

---

Asking if hydrogen is "the most combustible element" is not a well-posed question. In a vacuum, hydrogen is not combustible at all. Are you mixing it with oxygen? What is your criteria for combustibility? Reaction rate? Development of a pressure wave? Temperature? First you have to decide what question you want to ask before you claim you know they answer.

I only thought oxidizers made use of oxygen. just a thought.

The term oxidizer has two different definitions, which are wonderfully confusing to everyone :-( The formal chemical definition is an "electron acceptor" -- in a redox (reduction-oxidation) reaction, the oxidizer is the component which receives a transferred electron, which the reducer donates the electron. Oxidizers are (necessarily) electronegative. Fluorine, for example, is the strongest oxidizing element -- it will even oxidize (steal electrons from) oxygen! In the context of pyrotechnics and combustion, "oxidizer" is used to refer to fairly complicated compounds, often organic, which will actually give up one of their constituent oxygen atoms (ions), which in turn can go and react with the fuel. I hope that explanation helps, rather than merely adding more confusion. You may want to look up the term "oxidizer" on Wikipedia and read either the article itself, or some of the cited references.

Thank u i was kinda stupid

Not stupid at all! It's confusing. The underlying chemistry is the same, but it still makes things less than clear for non-experts.

Is the "reaction rate" not tied directly to the development of the pressure wave? And +Speed = +Temperature. The slower particles travel the cooler something is. So all these things you listed as potential criteria are in fact different ways of expressing the same thing.

I reissue the question with a two added parameters, that seemed to me obvious in the initial question but apparently not, pound for pound and where the oxidiser available to the hydrogen and the comparison explosive are exactly equal, is there anything more combustible than hydrogen?

Mmmm duh, obviously not. Hydrogen has how many electrons? 1. It's, umm duh, the LIGHTEST element. How is anything else going to separate quicker than the absolute lightest? The most basic physics proves hydrogen the most combustible element. With a given force, how could you push something that weighs twice as much at the same speed. It can't be done, obviously.

Far as your pressure wave differential scenario, I can see how a heavier material might when exploded carry more force, but not if the hydrogen is maintained cool enough to be solid and every bit as dense as the comparison explosive. I can see you have this fuzzy picture in your mind of hydrogen gas being compared to c4. But that's not at all what I was asking. Imagine equal mass and density blocks of c4 and hydrogen each mixed with an ideal oxidizer ratio for maximum reaction rate. I'm again 99.9% certain the hydrogen explosion is going to dwarf the c4 every day of the week and twice on Sunday. What's the next lightest combustible? Methane? Whatever it is it's at least 4 times as dense as hydrogen, so it'll be no less than 4 times as heavy to push.

"Is the "reaction rate" not tied directly to the development of the pressure wave?"

No, of course not. Reaction rate is a technical term in chemistry, and measures the rate at which the reactants are consumed. A pressure wave (if there is one) is usually a consequence of the reaction (in the case of deflagration), not a cause.

"The slower particles travel the cooler something is."

No, that is also not correct. Temperature is related to the distribution of speeds. You may have a volume of gas (or of charged particles) travelling at thousands of kilometers per second, but the gas itself is at a temperature near zero kelvins because all the atoms are travelling at exactly the same speed.

"Hydrogen has how many electrons? 1. It's, umm duh, the LIGHTEST element. How is anything else going to separate quicker than the absolute lightest?"

What is this supposed to mean? What is "separating" here? Are you talking about the dissociation of H₂ molecules? In that case, the mass of the nucleus is utterly irrelevant. The relevant parameter is the interatomic bond strength.

You seem to have some understanding of chemistry, or at least of the terminology used in chemistry, but not sufficient to coherently discuss issues of real-world chemistry and physics.

Do you know of anything that has a high reaction rate and does not produce a pressure wave when it's combusted. I dare say no, you know of no such element. And why? Because reaction rate and the pressure produced by that reaction are TIED, Co Nec Ted. In your initial post you advanced some notion that all of these things, reaction rate, the temperature achieved by the burn and the resultant pressure wave are all independent of each other and are weighed upon by unnamed factors beyond the atomic mass of the combustible material... You still haven't ventured to name these factors. Nor have you given any real world examples of where an element has a higher reaction rate but a weaker pressure wave than some other element. If you were really so knowledgeable and had some real goods about my info being off, you'd do more than just rename what I said, disagree without proving and list some establishment education definitions of various words I've used. So, if you any other than are staring your colon in the face, why don't you: Give me one example of 2 elements where one has a higher reaction rate and the other has a higher pressure wave associated with it's lower reaction rate. This of course where the mass and oxidiser content of each was equal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_rate

Figure it out for yourself, chemboy.

Ok, lets say something burns up so quick, that it's burning would easily be described as an explosion, a pressure wave results, does the rate of the reaction impinge on the strength of the pressure wave? Because in your answer to this you quite skillfully avoided there being any connection between reaction rate and resultant pressure wave strength, which is exactly what I was saying are tied together. The quicker the reaction, the stronger the pressure wave. In your initial post you were listing these things as if they're all independent from each other and could be different for differing elements. Like some combustible liquid might not react as quickly as hydrogen but might have a stronger pressure wave. I was saying then and am saying now the very notion you're advancing, that there might be some stronger explosive than hydrogen is wholly bogus. Distribution of speeds... Funny you state they're all traveling at the same speed yet make no account for each of their relative trajectory which would of course bare heavily on their relative temperatures. Sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me. "Traveling at thousands of kilometers per second..." Relative to what? The other particles in the gas? Or to Earth while contained in a vessel on a satellite... In stating separating I mean as they flee each others presence under the pressure of explosion, aka high rate combustion or as you stated "dissociation of H2 molecules". What do you suppose effects the "interatomic" bond strength? I'd guess it's the distance of the electron from the nucleus, which is a function of the temperature of the atom and is effected by the mass of the nucleus. Essentially, I'm saying you're talking out your butt, saying the same things I've been saying, but using other terms and still avoiding the question, pound for pound, oxidiser status equal, is hydrogen, or is it not the explosive element in the periodic chart? Let me guess your answer, I'm not sure what you mean by explosive, but if by explosive you mean combustible then it's a function unrelated to the atomic weight of the given element. How saturated with oxygen is one factor that need be calculated and everything you've stated is irrelevant to the determination of most combustible element. Your question is defunct because of the various characteristics of combustion that might be stronger be totally unrelated from each other and anything I will state in this forum... Bout right or what? So we got MI6 here and the NSA, when will the CIA and Mossad show up...?

You write, "Ok, lets say something burns up so quick, that it's burning would easily be described as an explosion, a pressure wave results, does the rate of the reaction impinge on the strength of the pressure wave?"

Yes. That is the correct way to describe the causation. The rate of reaction (the cause) will contribute to the resulting pressure (the effect). What you wrote the first time had the cause and effect reversed, and was simply wrong.

---

You write, "Distribution of speeds... Funny you state they're all traveling at the same speed yet make no account for each of their relative trajectory which would of course bare heavily on their relative temperatures. Sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me. "Traveling at thousands of kilometers per second..." Relative to what? The other particles in the gas? Or to Earth while contained in a vessel on a satellite..."

Do you have any knowledge of the definition of temperature? The temperature of a gas is determined by the distribution of speeds (not velocities) of the particles in the gas. If there is a larger variation in those speeds, the temperature is higher. The mean is not relevant.

My particular example would be identifying the temperature of a beam of particles (such as electrons) in an accelerator. The whole beam is moving at some fixed high speed in a particular direction. However, there is some variation in those speeds, including some perpendicular components to the velocity. It is that spread which determines the temperature of the beam, not the absolute speed (which is going to be nearly c).

---

You write, "In stating separating I mean as they flee each others presence under the pressure of explosion, aka high rate combustion or as you stated "dissociation of H2 molecules"."

Those are two completely unrelated issues. If you think they are the same, then you need to go back and review basic chemistry and physics. A chemical reaction, for example

O₂ + 2H₂ -> 2H₂O

Involves the separation of molecules into their component atoms, a process called dissociation, and the subsequent recombination of those atoms into new molecules. The rate of the reaction depends on many things, one of which is the strength of the bonds holding the initial molecules together.

The "explosion" as you call it, is a mechanically increasing distance between whole molecules. There's nothing chemical about that increasing distance, it is driven merely by the random relative speeds of the molecules travelling in different directions.

Is that sufficiently clear?

---

Finally, you write, "Bout right or what?"

No, not right. You have a clear and extensive misunderstanding of the basic terminology and concepts of chemistry. If you were using the language of the field correctly, then maybe it would be possible to judge whether your other ideas were reasonable or not.

An excellent post, with concise wording kesleymh. Although I have (IMO) enough understanding to know why Rocyahsoul's arguments are incorrect, you've articulated the same information in 3 posts that would have taken me ~ 10 to put across. @ Rocyahsoul, MI6? lol I wish. You don't seem interested in hearing scientific arguements either for or against 'HHO'. If you think it's an information supression exercise then fine, think that. As i've said a couple of times, no-one here has told you not to try it. If you do decide to experiment with 'HHO' and have positive results, I for one would be interested to hear the details of your experiment.

I've done a bit of HHO experimentation. I've made alkaline and acidic water seperated by a semipermeable membrane, by electrolysis with steel electrodes. The process has the side effect of generating HHO. I've also intently generated HHO just to be able to explode some bubbles, feel out the process, so how easy it is. I'm a biker. My bike is my primary transportation. I was out riding in the snow then freezing rain a little earlier today in Massachusetts. Good time. Kelsey, you're a real du-sh. I ask a question. You ask a question about my question. I answer your question. You ignore my question and harsh my terminology. The last time I studied chemistry was 18 years ago. So obviously I'm not as slick as you with your polished chemistry vocab. But slick as you are you're certainly not trying to aid anyone's understanding. You're merely harassing me and steering this discourse to nil resolution. Last time douchy, is hydrogen the most explosive element in the universe, pound for pound and with all other things equal? I think billions of billions of hydrogen burning stars would agree. Take a look at the sky tonight and then again tomorrow. You'll see the difference hydrogen combustion can make. Some day we're going to find a star burning thermate and it's going to be more intense than all these hydrogen burning stars... Or maybe not. The both of you, your girlfriends were bought for you by the state. And they'd put a bullet in you if that was their next order. Happy World Oil Production Decline Nuclear Ice Age Mass Extinction agents of the mass murderous state. BaBye now, Dan

Scientific arguments aside, your abusive speech, insolent manner and complete ignorance of inconvenient facts such as "history" and "what other users actually said on this thread" only testify to your incompetence to intelligently discuss this topic. You are the one harassing and steering this discourse to nil resolution. Immediately cease violating the "be nice" policy or risk being banned.

Ok, nice interpretation of this conversation. I see no quotes nor any elusion to anything I actually typed. Just a bunch of meritless accusations. History!? You know what history proves about this topic is that time again, from the Emperor's burning of the library at Alexandria that characterized the onset of the Dark Age, to Chin, the first Chinese Emperor rounding up and literally burying alive the 465 most prominent intellectual minds of the day, the financially dominant suppress innovation, technology and great minds. That they'd pay these guys cheap to harass the discourse in this forum is par for the course. It was paid soldiers that buried China's intellectuals under Chin and it was paid soldiers that burned the library at Alexandria. These guys probably think it's some manner of elitist social order they're maintaining in this work. The reality is they're all as much targets that will be triggered on once their utility has run it's course or when they really start getting smarter about the real situation here, not smarter about what little the financial dominant wants them to know.

You said, "Ok, nice interpretation of this conversation." Thank you! I thought so. ;-)

You said, " I see no quotes nor any elusion to anything I actually typed. Just a bunch of meritless accusations. "

Okay, I will quote you on specific things you said.

By "history" I meant the history of this conversation between you and kelseymh, not world history. You said "I ask a question. You ask a question about my question. I answer your question. You ignore my question and harsh my terminology." This is incorrect. What happened is you made an incorrect statement, kelsey corrected it and said you needed to figure out what you're asking before you can answer it (a reasonable statement if ever I heard one), and you flared hot indeed.

As to the abusive speech, let's see, you called kelseymh "du-sh", "douchy", "super hypocrit" (sic), and either "M16" or "NSA", not sure which was meant for which there. Now, I don't claim to be the sharpest tack in the box, but something about that tells me this is getting personal to you. You're running on emotion now, and not thinking or acting particularly rationally. Last time I checked a real scientific debate does not entail childish name-calling. I think you know this at some level, but you're mad enough at the difference of opinion between yourself and other users to let your anger override your cerebral cortex's impulses and lash out like a small child.

You ask questions which don't make any sense in the context of chemistry. You don't appear understand the difference between the mechanical expansion of a gas (whole molecules separating from one another) with the chemical process of dissociation (bonds within a molecule broken as part of a reaction process). You seem to assume that all chemical reactions of any kind are "explosive." You then confuse the mechanical properties of an explosion (pressure, speed of expansion, and so on) with chemical reaction rates (driven by stoichiometry, relative concentrations of reactants, ambient temperature, and so on). You don't seem to comprehend the difference between chemical reactions (burning) and nuclear fusion. You make the canonical crackpot/conspiracist/paranoist assumption that anyone who disagrees with your pet project must be a member of some secret organization out to destroy your work. For good or ill, voicing such assumptions goes a very long way toward discrediting anything else you might have to say, whether it is accurate or not. You engage in profanity, name calling, and ad hominem attacks.

Thanks. I honestly don't know if his arguments are actually incorrect or not (if he's claiming violations of energy conservation or thermodynamics, then obviously they are :-). The trouble is that his "chemical" terminology is so confused that there's no way to really tell what he actually means. I think running a vehicle on oxygen-hydrogen recombination is a fascinating possibility. It an intriguing alternative to personal use of fossil fuels, as long as one is cognizant that they are merely shifting the "carbon footprint" burden to remote power generators (or battery manufacturers or whatever).

I believe rocyahsoul was originally posting in regard to running an ICE exclusively on 'HHO' generated 'on the fly' via electrolysis. In his method, the electrolyser is powered by alternator current.

I firstly tried to explain the principle of the conservation of energy to rocyahsoul. He replied by declaring the aforementioned law to be an "obviously so very totally establishment educated understanding".

I then resorted to giving specific, although basic, examples of where energy loss would occur during the electrolysis process.

Unfortunately, his arguements then seemed to deteriorate into conspiracy theories. Apparently I'm MI6 and you're NSA :-O

I completely agree with you in that externally powered h2 generation would be the way to go.. while bypassing the idea of compressing/storing 'HHO', for safety reasons.

The viability of this approach, as always, would come down to J/£ (or J/$).

Although from an environmental perspective, the source of the mains electricity would still be an issue.

I've mentioned in previous posts that BMW released a prototype vehicle which supports dual fuels - gas (aka petrol) and hydrogen. Both fuels are burned in a traditional IC engine.

I've now found a link to an article describing the vehicle:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/

PS. The original discussion was whether 'HHO' added to a standard combustion cycle (ICE fuelled with gasoline) can improve the engine's efficiency, yielding an increase in power output greater than the power expended in generating the 'HHO'.

Unfortunately we've gradually strayed from this subject, and have ended up explaining 1st law of thermodynamics.

Thanks very much for the "thread history"! I certainly did jump into the middle of the discussion, basically when the alleged chemistry and physics became sufficiently absurd and uneducated to trigger my irritation.

It seems to be a typical practice among science crackpots (not just the perpetual-motion/over-unity/free-energy crowd) to label the scientific principles with which they disagree as a "conspiracy" to keep them down.

Thanks very much for the BMW link. The "flex-fuel" engine is also something being investigated here in the U.S. It will be very interesting when it become viable commercially, as it could provide a solid foundation for transitioning the rest of the transport infrastructure. It does, of course, just move the production energy cost elsewhere, as you've noted.

I already posted this link to this conversation and you two SFBs keep talking about HHO fueling a vehicle like it's hypothetical or an interesting theory... It is though IN PRACTICE. Stan Meyer who was murdered by your bosses did it 30 years ago. It's now been replicated by the people featured in this news clip. They in fact use the method I suggest robust enough a regulated HHO electrolyzer. Incidentally I found their video AFTER I wrote that, so their work was no inspiration of my understanding. When I wrote that I had a perfunctory understanding of Stan Meyers work.

The two of you reveal your obvious agency in refusing to in, what 5 or 7 posts, acknowledge the STRONG burning capacity of Hydrogen. When I first showed up here, Nfitz was staunchly claiming hydrogen makes no sense as fuel. Now he's advocating toting an explosive gas for the general public who are obviously going to have to implement these systems on their own, with World Oil Production Decline crashing industry in the next few years. Kelsey hasn't contributed anything but derision and rhetoric.

So! Thanks for all your "help" guys... Again happy World Oil Production Decline, Nuclear Ice Age, Mass Extinction. May your rebirth deliver you to as mercury contaminated a swamp as you've caused with your coal power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related

"There is no dispute over whether you could run a car on h+o, there is a debate on whether you could produce said gasses 'as needed' in any beneficial way." Nfitz

Well wouldn't ya know, there's an answer, it's absolute and it comes in visual format...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related

Stan Meyer did this same thing more than 20 years ago and was then murdered.

Youtube is now strewn with "water car" videos of people running minivans on HHO only, forgoing even gasoline.

"...And to produce it on the move uses more energy than is released upon burning it." Seriously? I guess we'll just have to leave the gas caps open when it's raining then ay? You know, to fuel up...

Need more electricity to get more HHO to combust to produce electricity to split water to get more HHO... Must install wind turbine on my vehicle... Mmm duh. My car will be sitting in the parking lot charging the battery.

Calm down, i'm not stopping you from doing anything. I've outlined why I don't think it will work. If you disagree then fine, go ahead and prove me wrong. I don't think you really see where i'm coming from with the "And to produce it on the move uses more energy than is released upon burning it." statement. I meant it takes more energy to split h20 into h+o than the energy released when you recombine the h+o by burning them. The reason it takes more energy to split it, is that the h20 will be heated to some degree when you pass the current through it. Also the wires, electrodes etc. None of it is 100% efficient. Nothing is. The second basis for my opinion is that IC engnes are horribly inefficient. In fact only about 20% efficient in terms of kinetic energy out vs chemical energy in. Even if h20 splitting and hho burn energies were equal, the electricity to split the h20 comes from the IC engine. As the IC's only 20ish% efficient tho you'd feed the engine 5 times more hho as fuel, than you'd get out as electricity to make more hho. If you read the end of my post above I was trying to be constructive at the end - where I suggest mains power h2 generation, then using that in your car. I don't know what the (currency)/mile ratio would work out at compared to gas / petrol, but I know h2 + atmospheric o2 will work.

also if you want to use the standard car battery as the power source (i'm guessing that's what you said in the last section of your post) i'll use my battery as an example.

Max cranking current 320A - if this was sustained it'd probably explode but we'll assume it doesn't - 60AH, 12v.

1Hp is equal to 746watts.

60/320 = 0.1875 (hours) = 11.25mins of charge at max load.

320*12 = 3840watts

3840/746 = 5.15Hp.

So my fully charged battery would produce 5.15hp worth of hho (if electrolysis energy in = burn energy out (100% eff.)), but only for 11.25mins.

After this time, the battery would be dead flat.

If you factor in the engine load created by an alternator, the overall power output would be even lower, and the run time only slightly lengthened.

Like I said i'm not saying don't try, or even that there's no way it could ever be beneficial, but I am giving my reasons why I don't think it could work.

As I stated last time this came up, either
- the device breaks the laws of thermodynamics (see diagram below, it's as simple as I can make it) in which case all of physics will have to be rewritten, or
- it doesn't, in which case
--- the "material that releases hydrogen" is a consumable fuel (eg Al + NaOH) and they are lying about the only fuel being water
--- the thing doesn't run on water at all and it's all a big scam to attract investment money which they then run away with
--- the separator derives its energy from elsewhere in which case the external source of energy is the "fuel" for the car, not the water.

Those are the options. "Water can have energy extracted from it and still be turned back into water" is not an option, it's a simple impossibility. See diagram below.

I suspect the second option is the most likely given the quote from the "technical" write up of their product:
"This process is allegedly similar to the mechanism that produces hydrogen by a reaction of metal hydride and water."
"Genepax uses a metal or a metal compound that can cause an oxidation reaction with water at room temperature, the company said. Metals that react with water include lithium, sodium, magnesium, potassium and calcium."
"The main feature of the Water Energy System is that it can be operated for a longer period of time by controlling the reaction of the metal or the metal compound, the company said."

"According to Genepax, the metal or the metal compound is supported by a porous body such as zeolite inside the fuel electrode of the membrane electrode assembly (MEA). The products of the hydrogen generation reaction dissolves in water, and the water containing them will be discharged with water inside the system. Upon the completion of the reaction, the generation of hydrogen and power stops. "

What they appear to have actually developed is a non-rechargeable battery that works by consuming lithium and pure water, and releasing lithium hydroxide and hydrogen- the hydrogen then recombines with atmospheric oxygen to produce more clean water. The car is not "running on water", it is running on lithium (which is produced by expensive electrolysis of lithium salts.)

EVERY scheme that claims to be "a car running on water" has some caveat like this one, but they often conceal that until they have attracted enough investment money.

Now who's lying for monetary gains- the scientific establishment, or the snake-oil salesmen who tell you you can run a car on water?

OBVIOUSLY you can run a car on water. Water can be made into explosive Hydrogen Gas. The question is really can this go on indefinitely? Can the car simply be fed water and nothing else and continue to run? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing the battery will eventually drain. The guy in that video claims otherwise. What matters greatly to the situation is the efficiency of the engine and the efficiency of the water splitter. Perhaps the guy in the video made a very efficient water splitter and very efficient IC engine and had just not by the time of the video observed the battery drain situation. He'd also have to be quite obtuse to the laws of thermal dynamics. I will say this though Stan Meyer who was murdered for his work on powering cars with water, claimed his water splitter operated at 1700% efficiency. His was based on frequency and electricity. Working with frequency I can see how his device might pick up energy from ambient sources. I've not attempted construction of his device so I certainly don't have any tests to prove his claim. I've not heard anyone else claim so high an efficiency from their water splitters though from what I understand most people are simply using electricity and not applying a frequency to it. But the notion you're advancing, that a vehicle can not by powered by hydrogen fuel derived from water is wholly bogus. It's been done many times over. The only question really is will you have to charge the battery every once in a while too.

To address your points in order, because I see a lot of sense in what you have written:

OBVIOUSLY you can run a car on water. Water can be made into explosive Hydrogen Gas.
Well then obviously you can run a car on money- you convert money into petrol at a petrol station, then put the petrol into the car engine. I'm not questioning whether it is possible to run a car engine on hydrogen derived from water, but whether water can be the primary fuel. By "primary fuel" I mean the point at which energy is introduced to the car from outside. An electric car with solar panels has sunlight as its primary fuel, a normal car has petrol as its primary fuel, a battery powered car charged from the mains has mains electricity as its primary fuel. Water cannot be a primary fuel because as liquid H₂O it cannot release energy- it can be part of a mechanism, like electricity is in the case of sunlight -> electricity -> motion, but it cannot be an energy source.

Can the car simply be fed water and nothing else and continue to run? I'm guessing no.
My point exactly.

I will say this though Stan Meyer who was murdered for his work on powering cars with water, claimed his water splitter operated at 1700% efficiency. His was based on frequency and electricity.
I've seen many similar claims, none of them substantiated.

Working with frequency I can see how his device might pick up energy from ambient sources.
There's very little substance in this sentence, it runs the risk of sounds-like-science-itis. If you can clarify I can comment but I don't really know what you mean. I suspect much of the talk about using high-frequency electricity to electrolyse water at overunity gain is because measuring the exact power of high frequency current is notoriously difficult and easy to underestimate.

But the notion you're advancing, that a vehicle can not by powered by hydrogen fuel derived from water is wholly bogus. It's been done many times over.
If you study my arguments carefully you will see I never said that. My claim is that you cannot power a vehicle on hydrogen derived from water using only the energy produced by the vehicle engine. Running a car on hydrogen is easy, but to produce that hydrogen from the car's engine or fuel cell introduces an energy cycle like my diagram, which is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics. If you can get the energy from elsewhere, you may as well electrolyse the hydrogen outside the car and fill it up at a pump like with any other liquid fuel.

The only question really is will you have to charge the battery every once in a while too.
What this statement amonuts to is "you can run a car on hydrogen if you eletrolyse the hydrogen using a battery". In that case the energy flow is battery charger -> battery -> electrolyser -> hydrogen -> engine, which doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics but is unnecessarily complicated- you would be better of using battery charger -> battery -> electric motor, as the entire EV community do.

Much of this argument could be eliminated with a simple energy flow diagram from the point at which energy is introduced to the car until it reaches the wheels. To summarise my argument, I have no problem with running car engines on water-derived hydrogen, but I continue to believe water is not a viable primary fuel as per my definition above, until I am shown a convincing demonstration. Youtube videos and unverifiable stories about overunity researchers being murdered for competing with the oil companies sadly do not constitute convincing demonstrations.

Hi, PKM. You shouldn't have bothered posting this. The argument is fundamentally pointless. The ~~crackpot~~ previous poster has no interest in understanding or properly using technical language or scientific concepts in his discussions. He also appears to believe that energy conservation and thermodynamics are a giant conspiracy out to suppress his brilliant "ideas." Anyone who supports that conspiracy (like you) must be a member of some secret agency (let's see which random acronym he chooses for you). He also enjoys using profanity, name-calling, and misogynistic, racist, or other offensive language to attack anyone who disagrees with him.

You're still here super hypocrit? Cracked pot? Whose the name caller now? I understand thermodynamics incidentally. I was aware of the conservation of matter and energy when I was about 13 years old. What I believe you're actively employed in suppressing is the knowledge of water as fuel. A revolutionary and easily understood and employed concept. I'm guessing your employers are afraid The People will from their underground enclaves use hydrogen fuel to battle back complicating their whole world annihilation plans which they are carrying out now as they start to loose social control by financial dominance in this industrial decline we're experiencing. Racism!? I've been friends with people of all colors, sexual orientations, religions and any other divide as enforced by your bosses and so since I was very young. I don't remember saying anything that could possibly have been interpreted as racism but your conversation and hydrogen fuel squashing buddy was from Great Britain is that right? I don't even know your nationality. So are you saying I'm biased against people of Britain? I'm part British. 11 lines in my family tree arrived on the Mayflower. Wow you've gone from answering no questions and seeming so very confused by lay terminology to now race baiting! What's next you'll start telling anyone who has something to say to me that I'm a terrorist, hater of all people and impossibly dealt with sensibly. I think they could just read the back and forth rather than just take your single attack comment for gospel. Ridiculous!

If you are "aware" of the laws of thermodynamics, why do you think that anybody who points out that they cannot be contravened is part of a conspiracy? You claim Steve Meyer was murdered? By whom? What is your evidence? Until you can back up any of your claims, including your libellous insinuations that kelsymh has conspired to commit murder and fraud, you, "sir" are a troll of the first water.

addendum- I suspect he is a troll as well as the below because pretty much all of his 18 comments are about Tesla being silenced by a government conspiracy and how we are silencing HHO as part of our government conspiracy.

Maybe a puppet for another member who was discredited through flawed arguments for the same conspiracies and impossible inventions, who knows?

...who knows?

I can only hope that he does!

You may notice that posts focusing on detailed, sound science (mine above, "To address your points in order", and kelsey's, "If you understand conservation of energy") are met with silence, whereas any straying slightly from the science towards the nature of the discussion, consipiracy theories and the slew of ad hominem attacks on the scientists for being "government agents" are vigorously argued. Therefore I deduce that it is entirely futile to take part in this discussion because statistically you are likely to be insulted and very unlikely to get any sort of "oh that's why it doesn't work" or "aha but this cunning loophole in the first law lets you achieve overunity with only a washing-up liquid bottle and some stickyback plastic".

If you understand conservation of energy, then please explain what is wrong with this description of what you are proposing to build (and what, I believe, Steve Meyer claimed to have actually built).

1) It takes a specifc, and well known, amount of energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Let's call that amount E(1) for convenience.

2) You later recombine that hydrogen wtih oxygen to release a specific and well known amount of energy. For the moment, let's call it E(2) for convenience.

Now, energy conservation guarantees that E(1) = E(2). Do you agree with that?

3) You claim that you can use energy from the car's own engine and battery to get E(1). This is certainly the case. You could, for example, simply plug into the car's cigarette lighter socket and run wires from it to an electrolysis bath.

4) You claim that you can feed the energy E(2) back into the engine to run it, and consequently to run the car's alternator and recharge the battery. This is certainlyt the case. If I collect the hydrogen from (3) and pump it into the engine's cylinders, it will burn, releasing the same energy E(2) to drive the pistons.

So far, you've got a closed system (until the water in the electrolysis tank runs out). If (only if) there are no losses of efficiency, either due to theromdynamic cycles or to simple mechanical friction, it will work. Closed systems without losses conserve energy. We all agree with this.

5) Finally, you claim that you can drive a car configured in such a way. Driving the car expends energy to produce work (force*distance) to move the car.

Where does the extra energy to move the car come from?

It is this point, and it is only this point, where all of us disagree with you. It is that last step (5) which fundamentally violates conservation of energy. You cannot possibly get MORE energy from the chemical recombination of hydrogen and oxygen into water than you used to split the water in the first place.

Can you, clearly and simply, explain where the extra energy to drive the car comes from in your model?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related

This video shows a water powered car.

The best solution isn't HHO storage. Water is good to transport as fuel. The solution is robust enough electrodes to split the water into HHO on demand, or shortly preceding demand.

The solution for storing HHO is stainless steel tanks. There are stainless steel tanks that have other uses and would suffice. But it's somewhat wasteful. You could just plastic store the water and use the stainless steel as electrodes. I read someone write based on their recording an average increase of fuel efficiency of 25% for all the HHO installs in their study, they questioned, doesn't that mean that if people equppied their vehicle with 4 to 5 times as robust a water splitting platform that they could be free of the gasoline corporate dominance. I like their math and think they're about right on. The car in the video is small, but the HHO electrolyzer takes up far less space than an average gas tank. So conceivably you could replace the gas tank with a water tank and water splitter.

It is generally accepted that HHO can never be safely compressed and/or stored. I mentioned this in my previous post but wasn't really clear enough in what I said. It's a combustable gas with oxidiser (literally) in stoichiometric ratio. BANG. If you want info on storing H2 then google 'hydrogen msds' , there will be no info on HHO as it's just a miture of hydrogen and oxygen, not a gas in its own right. You'll find oxygen in the 'incompatible' list in the hydrogen msds...for good reason. This is the problem - HHO can be used as a fuel and with power from the mains grid. It is far cheaper and less damaging than fossil fuels. However, there is no way to safely generate HHO from the grid then use it in your car (see above). The only other arguement which would make HHO a viable fuel source is the 'over unity'-style myers generator which HawkNo1 outlines below. Unfortunately I don't believe this works in practice or is even possible. Please see my reply to HawkNo1 below. PS. I don't think we need to get into any debate about oil / oil suppliers in this thread...it's irrelevant.

Your not getting it and I can see why. Meyer's said KISS. (Keep It Simple Stupid). SO that is what he did. You start trying to store HHO and you are asking for trouble. Just make it on demand and use a larger engine! What About Denny Kien? He gets 100 miles per gallon of HHO in his already proven car and it does not need storage of HHO. He uses electrolytic materials though which as I said and as Meyer's demonstrated is not as efficient. You people are looking in the stone age when the jet age is already past you! Meyer's was way ahead of you guys! Which is more than likely why he got assassinated! The entrenched racket scientists does not like to be shown up by a electrical engineer. You know anything about capacitors? What about electricity and water? What happens when you through a phone in the bath tub and your in it? That electricity gets amplified 1000 times. That is what I was taught in the Navy Electronics. That is not from me. Water has it's own electrical properties that are untapped to my knowledge except in Meyer's WFC or Water Capacitor. I personally have no intention to ever own a vehicle with a storage device loaded with HHO. I do not plan on setting on any bombs when I drive. Gasoline is explosive enough for me. I plan on not setting on a H2 tank also. Making HHO on demand is the one and only answer and that is that. Meyer's already answered everyone's questions and scientifically explained how it works and what is needed. As I said I do not have a good memory and even though I understood what he said I do not remember it all. My memory was damaged by my unscrupulous purposefully negligent employer by not informing that the chemicals I was breathing 5 days a week most the day where actually toxic contrary to what they said when I asked them. They gave me MS and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or MCS which is why I know that there is a lot of bogus junk science out there paid for by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. It pays to know your enemies. I would love to have kept my brains intact. Then I could be setting with you in your think tanks and etc. But it is too late for me so all I can use is what I learned a long time ago before the brain damage happened. In the Navy they told me I could not use a calculator for my exams in electronics yet wanted me to use one for studying. I told them no. I said if I can not use it for the tests then I would not use it for the course. They replied by telling me that if I miss one question on my exams then I was going to be a bosoms mate. After that I made sure I aced every test. With my memory damage I could not do that now. Not every test. I understand Meyer's concepts and etc. If you do not then you may not be as smart as you think? You need a open mind. Forget the Thermodynamics Theories and etc. They have changed over 3 times in a short period of years. Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is not so. You say you have a electrolyzer? Does it use a electrolytic material? If it does then it will only get the max of 300% efficiency of what you put into it using the pulsing method. That is what Denny Klien's gets also. Meyer's was getting 1,700% efficiency. Big difference and less power drain on the engine. In fact Meyer's claimed he was getting more electricity out than he was putting in also. This is not over unity. Water is like gasoline. It is stored energy. Until Meyer's we just did not know how to tap into it efficiently. Once someone gives us the right schematic or off the shelf parts to make a digital version of Meyer's set up. (Not Dawsons or Lawsons or whatever his name was which uses to high a amperage and to low a voltage output.) Once someone gives them the right schematics then the average Joe will build this machine to put on their own cars or trucks and etc. That was what I was trying to encourage on this site by freely giving them my WFC concept using SS wire mesh rolled like toilet paper with spacers in the vertical position so the bubbles can still escape or they could use even solid sheets of SS rolled up that way as long as the bubbles can escape from the top and water can enter from the bottom. I am in the process of building this thing. Once I get my hands on a decent oscilloscope then I plan on finding off the shelf parts already working and needing very little modifications to make it work. Then I will share that also. If someone does not beat me to that first that is. I have no plans on getting rich. I am in truth afraid of being rich as it can corrupt you morally too easily. I just want to be free energy wise! I want a large boat that can run on this method and I plan to travel all over the world energy free from the ocean water itself. I want a large motor home to do the same on land. I want my home energy free and my cars and trucks energy free using water also. That is all I want. I do not want large sums of money. I may get large sums of money in the future due to pending litigation but I personally fear being rich with large amounts of money. If I do get it and get all those vehicles working as I said then the rest will be used in a charity and in a secret charity way. I do not want any glory either. I want to remain unknown and quite. I may help others with this free energy but it will be after they sign a non-disclosure letter and release of all liability and a promise to not tell who helped them. Other than posting this I will be know threat to those powers that be. I really am thinking that a flyback transformer in these HD TV's is what I will use. The Vertical and Horizontal Gain controls already have monitoring circuits in them. I may be able to modify them to monitor the resonance of the LRC (Inductance, Resistance, Capacitance) in this device? That is still to be seen but I know we can do it and a electrical engineer that thinks out of the box can easily figure out the right circuits. I was hoping one would help to do that. Meyer's said 20K volts and milli-amps. He said 20KHz also but Tad Johnson said 42 Khz and 1200 volts and I do not remember the amps in his modified 12 volt Neon Power Supply. It seems strange that for decades they used power supplies for Neon Lighting at 12 volt inputs and not you find all Neon Lighting attached to the bulb as part of it with no specs on it's voltage or frequency or amperage output? Cover-up or conspiracy? I believe it is. You can not find high output 12 volt Neon Power Supplies at all hardly that are inexpensive as they sue to be. Everything someone mentions seems to be removed from our access. Same thing happened with all the Radio Shack parts for Dr. Hulda Clark's parasite Zapper in her Book "The Cure for all diseases". We are having the retail industry and parts suppliers help in this conspiracy to keep us from building what we need to get energy freedom or health freedom for that matter. Anything we mention here will become harder to find and disappear. That is how the large 3 auto industries shut down Packard and Doble and Delorian and others. They made it so that these start ups could not get their hands on what was needed to make their vehicles at a low cost effective price tag. Instead of the FBI looking into it they will look into people like myself who point it out. We become the targets if we get wise to what is really happening. I do not really consider it Conspiracy as much as Treason as it is affecting this whole countries power and strength and wealth. As long as we are dependent on oil we are vulnerable to attach one way or another. It has already thrown us into a deep depression. OPEC is ready for a second round on us now! They got this country weak and they want to keep us that way and anyone in the US government or any business that helps in that is committing treason on the US people and nation! That is how strong I feel about it but this whole system of governments is ruled by Satan the Devil. He took Jesus up on that mountain and showed him all the nations then if Jesus would only do a act of obeisance to him. Jesus did not deny Satan had that power. Satan still has that power today. He is behind all our governmental woes. He is behind the whole worlds governmental woes. So what is happening now is bible prophesy and it is suppose to get far worse than this before the end of this wicked system is brought to destruction. There will be survivors. Those doing Jehovah God's will today. You need to know who to trust and whom not to. So use the bible to guide you and prayer. Get a free in home bible study with one of Jehovah's Witnesses about him. After gong through one bible study aid if you still think they are not teaching you the truth then leave. You will know the truth when you read it and learn it from the bible. Know one knows the bible better than Jehovah's Witnesses and especially the old timer JW's for the most part. Apparently WOOPOTSIT already has seen the corruption of this system also. Maybe you all will come to understand that soon those destroying the earth or ruining it will be destroyed or ruined themselves as Revelations 11:18 shows. You can not fight bible prophesy. It will happen! That I can promise you. So what do you have to lose? Just your life if you do not get in harmony with the scriptures. Any ways, I got to go! See ya later!

Ok Hawk now we know you're not serious, but thanks for wasting our time just the same.  All I ever wanted to know was how to get 30 psi head pressure for EFI and the best VDC amp ratio.  Maybe you should go look at the Ronn Motors hybrid Scorpion in order to grasp that the HHO technology is here and it works.  What we poor SOBs are looking for is a simple intelligent design that we can make and install at home. 

Instead of a 5 psi valve on your HHO WFC use a 30 psi pressure release valve. All equipment has to be able to withstand that pressure so you will have to make sure all hoses are secured good and the bubbler has to be able to handle that much pressure and etc. The WFC will produce the pressure but can your set up handle it? Oh and I did not appreciate your negative comment about me here. It was uncalled for.

Some are already getting 20 psi off their units.

I hope you didn't sign-up just to post that comment, to someone who seems to have signed-up just to post that comment in 2008.
?

L

Hey Dude - Just an expression...No offense intended.   Have a look at this engine.  I really don't know what to think...

http://www.greentechgazette.com/index.php/high-mileage-vehicles/myt-engine-making-a-comeback/

Oh, not that one... It's got far too many problems with it (there is a Forum Topic around here somewhere, but the naming/tagging is odd so I can't find it). They put the patent application in years ago, the website hasn't been updated for years, they/he never got as far as burning fuel in it - it's a non-starter.

L

I checked it out. He used compressed air in his demonstrations. I would need to see it actually work off fuel to believe it.

Yes that's it. All the main claims with data are based upon having driven it with compressed air. Yet as I remember it, it's claimed to (will) be normally-aspirated - no way for that expected level of output.

L

HawkNo1 I apologise if I caused you offence previously, none was intended.

As per our previous discussion, I wasn't saying you needed a gas (i'm from the uk where gas means evaporated liquid not gasoline/petrol) mixer - just that it would be a very convenient way of throttling the engine.

Also, in my area of the world 'smog testing' consists of HC and CO levels, both of which would be zero with HHO. So, i think 'old skool ;)' distributor with gas mixer would suffice.

You could use SS tubes into inlet manif with flame arrestors..but why reinvent the wheel?

As for the spark timing...well we'd have to see when the beast runs.

I'm good with electronics so tell me what you need and i'll build it. If you just give me the specs for an ultrasonic humidifier...i won't

Please don't bring the bible or politics into this discussion, there's just no need to do that. We all want cheap non-damaging fuel.

What are your requirements for an O'scope? I may be able to provide. Free of charge for collaboration on the project. In other words, "I'm in!"

First off everyone here seems to be having the wrong view of Meyer's set up verses electrolysis of water. Meyer's is a capacitor much like a car battery is a form of a capacitor except it releases the stored energy in Meyer's Water Fuel Cell (WFC) much faster than a car battery. Car batteries also make hydrogen in the process of storing and releasing electricity except not as fast as Meyer's WFC can do. Meyer's set up got 1700% return on the energy inputted into the unit. The best I have heard using a catalyst in electrolysis is 300%. Very few have actually done Meyer's set up digitally. That is what this project needs to work on. Meyer's Setup, not Dawson's or anyone else. Ravi is suppose to have made a Meyer's setup so if you can find his schematics then we are in business. Now as far as storing HHO, why? Make it on demand and you have no storage issues at all. If you are worried about enough HHO to gun a car then make it so it produces up to 20 lbs per Sq. Inch then at the combustion intake to the cylinder release it at 5 lbs per square inch. and have a extra tube that is tied to the throttle valve that releases any extra juice need for anything over ideal speed. Actually the American Hydrogen Association already has it worked out with just hydrogen. They have a ideal tube with a throttle controlled tubing that goes around the ideal tube and adjusts the extra output gas to the cylinder by the pedal pulling the lever on the valve. As for using only the H2, why? HHO is far superior in energy as both hydrogen and oxygen are combustible gases. They burn twice as fast as hydrogen alone mixed with the atmospheric gases. As far as safety you can buy a spark arrester on E-Bay that stop the HHO from exploding up the fuel lines. Saftey is not a issue with that thing on the end of each fuel line going into the cylinders or between the blubbers and the intake manifold. All it is a plastic tube with end caps that have stainless steel cloth on each end and are packed with bronze or stainless steel wool. On the exit end I would have a plastic tub or rubber that can either expand or explode should there be any back firing down the tubing or fuel line. The hardest part of making a Meyer's set up is getting his Capacitor or WFC in resonance with the Inductor. I have seen a few make the whole circuit into a LRC circuit using a light and adjustable resistor's. The problem with that is it also drains some of the wattage out of the circuit. But is worked! As for the oil companies stealing our money! I like to refer to Revelations 11:18 where God is going to bring to ruin those ruining the earth or in some versions it says destroy those destroying the earth. It does not say man is going to destroy or rui them, it say s God is. Do not worry, soon justice will prevail. That is what everyone is praying for. Authorized Version of Matthew 6:9,10 " 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." First and foremost we are to glorify God's name which is Jehovah in the English translation or Yahweh in Hebrew. Second you asking in this model prayer that Jehovah or Yahweh have his Kingdom Come over the whole earth as it already is in Heaven. In other words everyone is praying for God's Government to rule all mankind. We will not have polluting technology in his new earth after he takes it back. I personally feel that since water is the most abundant energy already here for us to use that we should start using it now. It will be the paradise that the one Thief was promised by Jesus when they where on the torture stake. It was Gods original purpose for mankind to have a world wide paradise and the whole theme of the bible is his right as our creator to rule all of mankind and the earth he created. In fact had Adam and Eve not rebelled against his right to rule them we would already be in that paradise and in perfect human bodies. Back to the water itself. Think about it. Water is a universal solvent, a liquid, a gas, a solid. It is made of 2 of the most flammable gasses in the world and yet it can put out fires. No life on earth can live without it. Also when you do burn the two gasses it is made of it turns back into water and cleans the air in the process of VOC's and etc. The exhaust of a car running on water will be inert gasses and clean water vapor. I knew it was simple to harness this since I was a kid, it was just a matter of finding the way to do it. Also water is known to amplify electricity 1,000 times so eclectically speaking Meyer's has just touched the surface of how to get more energy out of water than is put in. You all heard this about dropping something into water that is electrical and how it can electrocute you? Even a 5 Volt powered Phone can fry you in a tub of water. Water is loaded with energy and Meyer's barley scratched the surface of what is there. To me that in and of itself shows that a higher much more intelligent being created this world. He is known as Jehovah in English. (King Jame Version @ Psalms 83:18) We also run on water. With a car the other issues are timing and getting past all the Car Companies supposed smog devices and computer. Since it burns way faster than gasoline you would need to have the combustion start on the down stroke of the piston past top dead center. There is where the real problem lies with our cars. You could use the inert gasses from the exhaust to slow down the burn time of the HHO, but that in and of itself will be another issue. That is what we are here to work out is it not? We need engines timed for HHO. Or you can use the heating properties of HHO to run steam engines? Green has a simple steam engine design which can be sealing in a closed system so you lose no water as you re-condense it and reuse it. Plus the HHO burned can be condensed and reused. Those are my thoughts. I am sure there are critics on what I have to say so, whatever! It will not change my views on this matter. But if there are others who would like to add to this then great. As soon as someone gives me a real off the shelf method of producing the High Volts and almost no amps (In the Milli Amps) like Meyer's setup uses then I will share my WFC that will produce far more HHO than even Meyer's WFC setup will produce. When I share that it is to be shared and not stolen for commercial usage unless I get money for it also that is?. It produces more gas in a more compact design according to my knowledge. It will blow the socks off of fast production of this WFC. It is simple and easy to build. You do not have to weld and etc. if you do not want to. As for off the shelf electronics I have been checking out Neon Power Supplies that run on 12 Volt batteries. With some modification they may work perfect. I have also been looking into Fly-back Transformers in TV and Monitors but you would need about 3 to 4 of them hooked in series. That may be hard to do but if you can use the circuit to keep them in tune it may work great. Take care!

Hawk, You obviously have a better grasp than most. I have seen a pulse generator making enough HHO to make me nervous. The man that built it is coincidentally in the neon business. I started a company to provide HHO devices to vehicles in Texas. I would like to visit with you to see what can be done. In Him, Hahncho

I am from generations of mechanics and my dad and his uncle and me and one of my little brothers took Electronics is all. I and my little brother learned it in the US Navy before I got really serious about following the bible. Quote: "I would like to visit with you to see what can be done. In Him," What does the "In Him" mean? I am originally from Texas. Anyway as people are being killed off that do have a grasp of this I am reluctant to meet anyone on this matter. I am working on my WFC that I feel will blow away what is out there now. It is very difficult to get the materials I need to build anything these days. It is like someone is shutting down all access to what is needed to build these things inexpensively. I have also been checking into the Fly-back Transformers on these new HDTV's and Plasma TV's. From what I am seeing it looks much more promising than I thought. They are much higher Voltage output than the older TV and have much better Stabilizing circuits that the older TV's. It is starting to look like off the shelf units can be done. Take Care!

I love your reply brother... I think before long we will be seeing landfill sites mined for dumped plastics and metal etc... Are we suppose to look after creation? I believe we ALL have a lot to answer for in falling short ... Recycle, reuse and rethink and most of all... trust in Him

New Scientist last week ran an article on mining landfill sites for precious minerals and plastics...

the answer about pressurizing could be done by taking apart a compressor and trying to insert hydrogen through either a tube or auxiliary entry point (imagine a box with hydrogen inside, a tire pump on the inside of the box to compress a bubble on the outside of the box. off of the bubble, you have a valve directly into a carburator or fuel intake). stay away from electrical entry points for hydrogen. most electrical air pumps have an open charge in them. we would love to have more information from you, as we are diligent in this as well. thank you for your candor and willingness to keep searching. you can contact us at TreeBeds.com .

1-Do you know of an inexpensive and efficient strip that can be used to make a solar cell? 2- Please tell me that if I use 100% hho and change the oil every 2 months ( to avoid corrosion) I will not kill my car. 3- do I need to change anything like timing if i'm all hho? Thanks

powerball has done it in the past, and won every argument but one that I see on this board, and in doing so they have have shown everyone in the world, I think, that this can be done, very easily and the powerballs themselves can be made with waste methane gas from landfills, infrastructure is what killed them but that was an easy fix too but if I ever was going to build a car that ran only on hydrogen that is the way that I personally would go about it proven simple and effective