Anybody interested in building HHO generators?

I'm keen on starting a serious discussion group of folks who share my enthusiasm for HHO alternative fuel generators. Thus far there's only been one Instructable (Serge) and loads of YouTube videos, but most other sites either want to sell you plans or sell you a retail device. I'd like to start a club of sorts with folks who want to 'roll their own' but perhaps lack some of the electronics or other material fabrication techniques. We could help each other design & build stuff (like an hho generator for you car) and then post the how-to's here on Instructables. Anybody interested?

sort by: active | newest | oldest
MY (author) 2 years ago
DavidN712 years ago

Using H2 and O2 as a fuel additive in modern automobile engines doesn't work. The US EPA regulates tailpipe emissions, so modern computerized ICE's are designed to operate in a way that limits NOx and CO emissions. That means lowered compression ratios and fuel with alcohol in it and a computer that adjusts valve and ignition timing if you try to go around those limits.

Adding H2 to fuel changes the way the fuel burns, but with lowered compression ratios, you can't take advantage of it. racing engines have high compression and water added to the fuel. Water absorbs infrared well, so heat from burning fuel is captured by the added water into expanding vapor instead of being transferred to the piston head and cylinder walls.

Higher flame temps mean better thermal efficiency but also more NOx production, so that is prevented in a modern car engine by design.

The basic design limitation of a reciprocating piston ICE is that the burning fuel wave front cannot match the moving piston head except at one RPM. Either the burning wavefront lags the piston or it overruns the piston (knocking and pinging).

The best efficiency using expanding gas to drive a machine is adiabatic.

This is impossible in a reciprocating piston ICE. If you get 15-20% out you have done well.

People who pursue electrolysis of water for car engine modifications are pursuing junk science.

nuraidai2 years ago

no thanx

MY (author) 3 years ago

The Wright Brothers did not give a flip about "peer reviewed" research. That's the problem with eggheads...they rail against things they do not fully comprehend, and then once it's proven they act like it's always been known. This thread has always haunted by a troll. It must REALLY drive him nuts that SO many HHO Instructables have been posted.

asolo'man4 years ago
We are building home units here in Ontario and have a good link to a canadian based manufacturer. Any one interested in the area should link with me. We are aiming to go 100% with anything that has to do with Tesla or free energy. So must you.
By "free", do you mean "costs no money", or "you get more back than you put in"?
At this point in time, free as in you will receive rebates from your federal government if it is a koyoto protocol signatory. In the long run, all of Tesla's inventions and/or discoveries where made to be free and liberate mankind from their involuntary servitude.
Ah, just checking you hadn't fallen for any of the woowoo about so-called "HHO"* generators being capable of overunity.

(The gases are perfectly ordinary H2 and O2, not monatomic gases.)
Definetley will not stop at HHO. Please check out the work of Eric Dollard. I have great respect for the work this man is putting together.
The same Dollard that thinks that electricty isn't a flow of charged particles, and that it flows through the insulator around the wire, instead of the metal of the wire?

Well the energy DOES flow in the Poynting vector field surrounding the conductor....
Yeah. You should work with him for the common goal.
Er, no, I don't think so. I prefer to use theories supported by reliable evidence.
I don't know what it is you are quoting but an arm chair scholars such as Einstein is starting to be more obsolete comparing it to Tesla. Cold fusion from water is another topic I am digesting into although this has nothing to do with Environmental studies I take for the most part. Eric Dollard is the only living man in our time and age that has replicated most of what Nikola Tesla has achieved. Only thing missing is the funding to revitalize this quantum field and de-construct the quantum quackery filtered down through the academia. Many reputations are at risk as we speak.
"Armchair scholar"? If that's what you think, then I think any reputations at risk will not really be missed by the scientific community, if they were ever actually noticed by it at all.

Dollard claims that directly-observed phenomena are not real, and his best evidence for eather is a sketchy thought experiment (when other experimentalists have gone out of their way to do the experiments that should demonstrate the existence of the aether, with, obviously, negative results). He may mean well, but there are simple reasons why he struggles for funding.
I'll save it for when I need a chuckle, but I'd be much more interested in any (post 1905) peer-reviewed papers.

If the aether is real, then the basic reality of the universe is an invariant frame of reference. In such a framework, relativistic effects cannot happen. Yet, relativistic effects are observed, and used, every second of the day (it's a big part of how the GPS network functions), ergo, the framework of reality is not invariant, and the aether does not exist.

By all means, work to reduce our dependecy on fossil fuels, including using electrolysis to generate hydrogen, but do it in a scientific context to retain the credibility such works requires to be widely accepted and used.

Kiteman Kiteman4 years ago
Oh, and the source of my comment was Dollard's own work on "the fallacy of conductors", which uses a YouTube video as evidence that electricity isn't real, and also claims that the concept of electric current is a massive, deliberate deception by the Scientific community over the course of a century...

Oh, and the same website claims "Tesla’s X-rays are different from the X-Rays we use today. Far more powerful. Far Safer, no radiation damage. Many other unexplored benefits".

It's a real disappointment to see such creative energies so badly misdirected...

Currently in Canada the rebates are at $1000 and the kits with installation round up to a little more than half of the rebate.
rhallcne4 years ago
Excellent!! I see now that more and more governments are mandated that their cars manufacturers to be using this device. Don't understand why our government back in the late 70's done this as well. Since NASA proven that it works way back then? But we must remember also the fuel injected engine wasn't allowed in the US until years after other countries done it......
" I see now that more and more governments are mandated that their cars manufacturers to be using this device. " 
[Citation needed]

 "Don't understand why our government back in the late 70's done this as well. Since NASA proven that it works way back then?"
[Citation needed]

 "But we must remember also the fuel injected engine wasn't allowed in the US until years after other countries done it......"
[Citation needed]
kinkwork4 years ago
I too am excited about hho technology and am in the process of building a dry cell hho generator. Its a lot harder than I thought trying to keep it from leaking. I think it may be the gaskets im using. I find myself working in my garage until the early morning because I feel like im so close. Its become an addiction and im not bothered by it at all. I believe this is the future and the more we create in it the realer it becomes. Im definitely staying on this site.
Kunadude4 years ago
Some aspects that are not fully appreciated is that freq very short wavelengths are the generated in spite of your driving freq. This has too do with the fact that the speed if sound slows down due to the gas bubbles present in the water during the electrolysis. This velocity can be down too only a few m/s. While the freq is held constant. And the medium is variable, this causes very short wavelengths to exist in the cell. Perhaps short enough to couple with water and or gas atoms. Forcing them too change they're angular velocity.
If they're so good, why have you not posted a project?
Valid point. I never bothered to post the cells that i have experimented with mainly due to the fact the gas production was similar to what others have duplicated. The difference being only power consumed. However my tinkering has been pointing in the direction of the working principles i laid out.

And also due to the fact that i had been working on a number of projects for my own need to prove out various claims. For instance, building circuits that power small devices bases off the "Aramenko Plug". Which i have verified for myself. Also "Konstantin Meyl-transciever". Which i have also built and have verified for myself. Both crude but well enough to validate.

Lastly, my interest has switched toward power production means and using electric motors instead of Internal Combustion Engines.
My thoughts are geared towards individuals who are actively trying too duplicate Stan Meyers WFC. And offer any help toward that goal.

No amount of discussion or posted videos will suffice many critics. As i have witnessed with other concepts that i have experimented with and duplicated. They are still reasoned that its nonsense. For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.

Due to the fact these individuals themselves never even bother to actually build anything for themselves but merely rely on textbook knowledge and feel they don't need to experiment. This was Teslas greatest complaint towards Einstein. As he replaced experimentation with thought processes. He cane up with a way things should work in theory before experimenting and in some cases entirely.

Ni matter what you think you know, you cannot replace experiments. At best the experiment will chalk up one more for your theory or illustrate weaknesses in the accepted theories.
No amount of discussion or posted videos will suffice many critics.
As it should be.

For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.

Properly-acquired evidence is what will satisfy the skeptics. Measure the input and the output.

Unfortunately, no electrolysis cell subjected to rigorous testing has ever stood up to the claims made for it as an overunity device, and the most vigorous promoters of HHO, the ones who make the wildest claims, and most loudly complain that the technology is being "suppressed" by some sort of conspiracy, they never allow their devices to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

Can we guess why, boys and girls?
Oh contrae. You have been missinformed. The patent that Stan Meyer recieved under went 3yr of testing by the patent examiners. For technical proof due to The nature and type h applied for under section 101. That needs to duplicative proof to warrant a patent. He also worked for a company that had contracts with NASA.

Andrija Puaharich as a scientist gives the modern chemical equations of just how more energy is released and specifically, that increase of energy in btu's as the energy consumed to split the water. And not contested by his contemporaries
Patents are not required to actually work (I know a man who possesses a legitimate patent for a faster-than-light, anti-gravity space-craft).

"Tested by a man who works for a company that did wirk for NASA" does not mean "it works". It could easily mean "it was switched on by a man who laid some asphalt in the visitor car park at Cape Kennedy". If it worked, provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper, published in a reputable journal, that describes exactly how it achieves overunity.
See these are the areas that confuse people. Some patents do not require technical physical proof to obtain while others filed under a different class due require replication of what is beng claimed. So you are partially correct.

Come on, if all patents didn't require verifiable proof then every conceivable concept would be patented by businesses in an endeavor to eventually lay claim to the fool who actually succedes in making them rich since they would already have all bases covered.
I am at a loss as too what exactly you are disputing.
Meyer method of electrolysis using hv low current as a real reproducible way to split water? That it does so with far less energy consumed? What exactly.?

As this to me and others serious about it recognize.

Now we have a way to get closer at carrying your gas station without you so to speak
I am not disputing that Meyer, or any of the others who insist on using the false term "HHO", have electrolysed water.

What I dispute, and you have not supported, is that;

> The gases produced are in any way different from normal hydrogen and oxygen.
> The gases are monatomic.
> That less energy is required to split the water molecules than with normal methods of electrolysis.
> That burning the resultant gases produces more energy than the gases of normal electrolysis
(The two previous points resulting, of course, in overunity)
> That the flame is somehow different to the flame of normal hydrogen (eg melting steel, whilst leaving flesh undamaged)

I am also annoyed at the insistence of many "HHO" believers on referring to an electrolysis cell as a fuel cell. A fuel cell takes in hydrogen and oxygen gas, releasing water and electricity directly, without combustion.

Clear enough?

Give us the evidence - patent numbers, peer-reviewed data - or admit that you have nothing to show for your claims except a lot of glass and wire.
Question. That the gas burned is somehow different than ordinary hydrogen.

I witnessed this first hand at firebird race track in Idaho.
The HHO gas filled a large drum that was setup to look like piston and cylinder.
as the gas detonated by spark plugs in the drum the lower arm lifted a weight as the cylinder imploded. Yeah, I would say thats rather different.
gas can be arranged so there is only an expansive explosion.
I never saw burning of hydrogen causing radioactive materials too quickly alter they're halflife either as has HHO gas demonstrated.
How is that "different"?

Burning a relatively low mass of H2 & O2 in a large surface-area container, at ambient temperature and pressure will produce very little heat & pressure-rise, and will very quickly lose that heat to the metal of the cylinder & piston.

That means the products of the burning - water vapour - will condense to liquid water, dropping dramatically in volume, reducing the prssure inside the cylinder, allowing air-pressure to push the piston inwards.

That's not "different", it's an incredibly inefficient way of harnessing the energy used to generate the H2 & O2 in the first place, and tells me two things:
  • The man promoting it as a new power source was a charlatan.
  • All those who fell for it lack the basic level of scientific education to pursue this line of research.
It is a telling fact that the vast majority of HHO believers are American - it is a direct result of the failings caused by the unwarranted influence of right-wing politicians on the education system (prevent your children questioning creationism, you prevent them questioning anything. Teach them to accept one fairy story by adding a thin veneer of scientific language, they'll accept anything that sounds even vaguely polysyllabic).
Awe my are of expertise. No. Burning of confined h&O2 in a closed volume such as the cylinder will explode with pressure and heat. The heat is not absorbed fast enough by the surrounding metal so an overall expansive pressure ensues. However if the O2 is missing electrons it is an implosive burn.

We in america, already can buy off the shelf water welders. Using this gas.
And is not disputed as being implosive. Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame.

That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant. Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all.
Hacking through the mangled spelling and grammar, you have changed the description of the experiment . Typical.

Oxygen produced by electrolysis does not, cannot lack electrons.

Oxygen can only be found in a form where is acts relatively positive when it is chemically combined with fluorine.

You ought to be careful making claims about "water welders" - if hydrogen and oxygen burned "implosively", then striking the flame to a water welder would immediately cause the flame to be drawn back into the gas supply with absolutely catastrophic consequences. You cannot have it both ways.

"And is not disputed as being implosive."

Yes, it can. I am disputing it. Provide evidence to prove me wrong, if you can.

"Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame."

Oh, my, the claims get wilder and wilder! Is this another claim you are going to expect me to swallow whole, or can you provide a link to the evidence this time (remember, you claim all these things are proven facts, so you should easily be able to provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal).

"That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant."

It might, if you could provide any evidence...

"Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all."

"Some"? Who is this "some"? I know people who suggest that the Queen of England is actually a reptilian alien, part of a global conspiracy to rule the world. "Some say" isn't even hear-say!


With every post, your claims get wilder, your evidence gets scarcer and your credibility gets more meagre...

This is from browns gas research that has already been conducted. There are plenty sources if you cared to google. The area in the vicinity of the flame is implosive. Have you never seen documentaries on tv where welding schools use them? The flame adjusts to the temp automatically to the material its exposed too.

As for oxygen loosing electrons. Of course it can. They are stripped of after the electrolysis has been done to separate the gases. Both Meyer and Puharich does this. You will realize what your missing when you follow his chemistry equations showing this exchange. I only have it in pdf. Let me try to find were I got it.

Thanks by the way for posting material. I was able to view my files but I couldn't get it to attach. I will try again.

Yeah, sorry for the bad grammar. Partly out of bad habit, partly due to using my cellphone to post from. This darn adaptive text is really frustrating.

By the way I do apologize for the exchanges. My only goal is to produce gas from water economically so that it can be used as an alternative fuel.
and again it doesn't take much effort to achieve that aim better than old school methods.

Did you get a chance to view JLN. Naudins website? This is one place that I have used over the years to attempt duplications. Good place to look over.

Are you familiar with the Bitorroid? Already seen and submitted to MIT.
It powers a load through reactive power. Yes thats correct. reactive power consumed on input side while real power use consumed on load side.

Sonoluminesence when first discovered had over a dozen theories as to explain. Now its down to just a few but even these guys won't put there stamp on they're theory. Hmmm something this basic still puzzles.
I work in the semiconductor industry with dry etch equipment. I service these million dollar tools. Have also spent a few years in refrigeration.
am degreed. But I have learned a few things that at one time I would have dismissed completely and now have questions. As some projects I have duplicated does not fit my education explanation. Yet work to some degree as some of the so called wild claims. Trust me I know how it sounds.
I am no pioneer and everything I have done was from attempts to put too rest some claims only to my supprise lead to more questions. Education definitely has some aspects wrong this much I have learned. What I found in the years journey is that I'm not alone even for engineers with greater credentials than myself.
go down this road and you find numerous educated ppl who don't ascribe to every aspect of how our current theory are explained along with our math.

This one does not learn while in school. You walk away from your education and and degree as if all of science is in unanimous agreement with how we explain the world around us from a physics view only to be surprised many highly educated ppl don't.

Thank God for that or we would never have moved out of the last two centuries.
many breakthroughs in science come from ppl not even an expert in that field but stumble upon it. If the experts had it figured out already why didn't they discover those discoveries? Such as in optics. Thanks to Raymond rife.

Dr kendal who worked with him almost got lost his medical license because he discovered the way to grow a bacteria culture outside of living flesh. And was attacked viscously to recant as science of the day said was impossible.
Thanks to him we modernized medicine. Rife self taught greatly added to optics.

Bottom line. Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. Until something better comes along that can reproduce and account for our phenomena areas simpler. The current model will suffice. Not by any means that its the end all on the topic.
Mostly irrelevant, none of it answering the simple question: where's the evidence?

You keep claiming there is evidence, then you fail to present it, distracting yourself with the fallacy that other areas if science were modified, then any challenge to mainstream science must be correct.

You utterly fail to notice that the successful challenges were only successful because they presented large amounts of verifiable evidence that was properly peer-reviewed.

One erroneous gem stood out;

" Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. "

There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science. Anything that is referred to as a theory has been tested to destruction, and nobody has been able to provide a better way of explaining reality.

Gravity is "just a theory".

Evolution is "just a theory".

The conservation if energy is "just a theory".

The claims for "HHO" are just a hypothesis, and one for which you have consistently failed to present any evidence.
Oh really, how well did that tested to destruction work out for claims you couldn't exceed the sound barrier before doing it. Science said no can do.

I can here you now back then arguing it can't work with science quotes of the day. Lol.

There are tests done by ppl on youtube as well. Jnnaudin. Site.
Problem is you choose to doubt everything and not try to build anything period.

Wow has our educational system reallly declined that poorly that you are unwilling to investigate through experimentation? Big difference between you as a H. S. teacher and the teachers I had in high school. My teachers fostered thinking even if it went against the grain. They would explain why it wouldn't work but still be positive and encourage you to test the rules.

Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend. He encouraged The lad, to explore. This was an area that should not have worked. And the scientist was a colleague of Einstein. That led too two new discoveries.

Big difference between him and you as Teachers.

Dr. Andrija Puharich was a well respected scientist in the science community.
To claim that his fuel cell essentially the same as meyers version is bogus is plain stupidity. The man knows more than the both of us combined and then some with a record.

Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place? You asked so there you go.

Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb.

An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works. There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish.

Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement.

If Thats not good enough, this is what I would recommend.

Stick your head back into the sand. If that is what helps you sleep at night. So that you can teach the same material to your next class kmowing the world is still the same.
Seriously, the "Gallileo argument" does not work - what science said about supersonic flight is irrelevant to what you claim about the basic laws of reality.

Consider; "Doctors said Dave would never walk after the accident, but he proved them wrong. They tell me I cannot grow back the leg that was eaten by a shark. They were wrong about Dave, so they're wrong about me."

That is the exact situation you are in.

Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend.

Good grief, who told you that the Byfield-Brown affect was not supposed to work? Townsend noticed it, and explained it. I used the effect to build an electric motor out of plastic bottles. EHD has absolutely nothing to do with electrolytic over-unity.

And to claim that I am trying to stop such work is not just wrong, it is bordeline defamation - I keep demanding evidence, which requires that you (or somebody) does the experiments to gather the data.

Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place?
So that I could examine them. I now have, and found them wanting.

"Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb."
That will be interesting...

"An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works."

True. It does, however, have to be performed with scientific rigour, and recorded in enough detail that the data can be assessed by third parties.

"There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish."

Thank you, you just made my day - "it's on YouTube so it must be true!" Oh, my word, I actually laughed out loud when I read that (and when did YouTube users start posting proof of their qualifications?).

"Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement."

I am waiting to pass judgement. I have been waiting for a long time, but you consistently fail to supply the evidence upon which to pass judgement.

Nice try. But Jnnaudin website experiments are conducted by individuals by many that have BS Electrical Engineering or MS. They start off trying to duplicate a published claim or patent. Many work. Hardly amateur. Some of these only appear once enough circulation and interest has occured.

Yes from YouTube.your attempt to lump that site into the crackpot pile is false. Because other sites have also replicated some devices as demo on youtube.

Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share as ppl like yourself.
Yo make darn sure of that. Too lazy or inept to build an attempt
"Nice try..."
1. So what? Where's the EVIDENCE?

2. The one-many-fallacy again; some videos on YouTube are true, therefore all the videos that I want to be true are true. (If they are so good, why have you not provided a link?)

"Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share..."
Post a working model here.
Submit your properly-reviewed data to any of dozens of reputable science journals.

(PS: Finishing your posts with unfounded personal insults does not make you right.)
As to why don't I post a link to a youtube video? Are kidding me?
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking?

Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers.
"As to why don't I post a link to a youtube video? Are kidding me?
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking? "

No, I cannot find any credible videos of HHO generators on YouTube. That is why I asked you to link to the ones you seem to know about.

"Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers."

If I don't want answers, why do I keep asking you for them??

If you really wanted answers the first thing any honest person would do is get the patents. Read them and look over the electrical schematics.
Read all his memos and tech briefs. Look at the sources or even querry the proffesional sources directly about their results that they claim worked. Go find sites where crude examples are being built. Watch videos of units in operation.

For starters. Rather than thumbing over bits and pieces.
Patents, as I have explained before, are not evidence a device works.

And I tirelessly keep giving you places to view those.
That is a blatant falsehood.

You post links to adverts, you post links to newsletters from interested parties, and you say "go and look at YouTube", then you accuse me of being lazy.

Until you can actually post some actual EVIDENCE, I am done with you. When you think you have some actual evidence (remember; peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal), then drop me a PM.

Until then, I'll file you under "Believer in Woowoo".

If you want a more sympathetic audience, a brief google (your favourite advice) reveals:

HHO Forums

Alternative energy forum

David Icke forum

(That last one is probably right up your street.  Enjoy.)
Let it be known to everyone following this thread was that evidence has been given as requested. On pages 4&5 and 14&15. Of WFC newsletter 11a. Found on the link I have provided. It gives the university names, the researchers title agency, the research center,and including UK Navy, report of confirmation of either a replication successfully done as claimed or an experts attesting to the validity of the electrical scheme.

Complete false and misleading assertions, that no evidence has been given is a bold faced lie. Read through all the material documents for yourselves. And not just these 4 pages, if your honestly curious about this technology.
"Complete false and misleading assertions, that no evidence has been given is a bold faced lie."

t's a good job I decided to monitor you. Just because I have given up on debating with you until you provide the evidence for your claims, that does not mean you can tell lies about me or about what you have provided.

Reminder: the evidence required is a link to a proper peer-reviewed paper in a reputable science journal.

What you have actually provided so far:
  • Bald assertions.
  • Logical fallacies.
  • Accusations of laziness
  • Accusations of attempts at suppression.
  • Accusations of conspiracy.
  • Defamatory personal comments.
  • Links to adverts for plans.
  • Links to newsletters written by interested (ie biased) parties.
  • And, now, accusations that I have been lying.
"What is asserted without evidence can be similarly dismissed."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Merry Christmas.

The evidence has been given as you asked. It can be found on those few pages I asked you to read .. it gives the proffesional sources testify to its validity ..
You are now sounding cynical asking only to believe once its posted in some journal?
Mind you all research tests and conducted by multiple research groups at usually several centers or university prior to ending up in a joirnal. Waiting for that does not diminish the fact research from respected universities has not been completed and posted their findings. Proof is available.

Secondly, the entire process is already within science. The various aspects are individually already used in one capacity or another today. There is nothing unscientific about whats proposed.
"The evidence has been given"...

NO, it has not. What you asked us to read was a "newsletter" written by a man who was found GUILTY of FRAUD in a court of law. 

You also rudely asked me, "What part of the clearly presented proof about this technology being placed on secrecy by US Gov't, under potential financial undue duress did you miss?"

Again, you have failed to answer my request for ONE instance of verifiable proof to that accusation! Just because a man (found guilty of fraud) says it happened, doesn't make it so.

You should have also noted in the same bogus newsletter you cited, that Meyer's said "Earlier, there was enormous foreign opposition to the Water Fuel Cell technology; now, we're receiving enormous support from both the United States and foreign countries who have recognized the viability of the Water Fuel Cell technology and want to bring the technology to the marketplace."

That newsletter was written almost 20 years ago! If there was such "enormous support", then why would YOU say that it would bring "potential financial undue duress" to the U.S.??? AND if the technology actually worked why is it not being used??? Could it be because it was proven in a court of law to NOT work??? And that's why Meyer's was found GUILTY of "gross and egregious fraud"???
The documents illustrate the executive order and title used to place it secret. Meaning no business could bring it to market. All of it is referenced.

The lawsuit was over the company bein formed to market the WFC injector. And wanting their money. Obviously this only helps to enforce the gag.

The newsletter lists, professional sources who tested the claims with their findings. Whether it was pro meyers letter, doesn't change the fact independent confirmation was conducted. You have the names and can contact them directly if you wanted. These are universities and respected sources. But you and I both know you won't bother.

Point is, you guys are not truly interested in the facts.
lastly, I posit once more that no aspect of the process is outside of accepted science. So what part is considered woowoo?
And I tirelessly keep giving you places to view those.
1. So what. Where's the evidence?

I suppose they're test doesn't qualify? Dozens of tests with similar results all over The net? Hmm. Yeah your right all of them are scammers I suppose? Done by incompetent individuals? Every last one. Not perfected but illustrating that the process is sound. That a scientist patented essentially the same thing a few years earlier that is very well recognized. Yeah, you must be right he's a fool.

Do you realize how you sound asking repeatedly for evidence when I showed you where to view it?

And most important have distinguished myself from you by encouraging experimenting for oneself? You do realize ppl here will go read for themselves?
Some will decide to build a model? You don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in your crumbling dam to stop innovation.

I never claimed to be an expert. What I learned was through what others freely shared and through duplicating to some degree tests.

Seeing is definitely believing.

@the difference between you Sir, and me is I constantly encourage replication. As you won't be happy until you decide to prove it for yourself by experiment.

You have already demonstrated that no test conducted thus far is worthy.

By the way. It doesn't cost very many "pounds" to build.
My first was from scraps. When I got some gas. I bought SS.
the only real cost.

So, once again here we are asking why Sir, do you even waste your time on this forum if not to cause ppl to stop in they're tracks. You offer zero on a topic you seem to enjoy.

For example, from the material you have seen. Including videos on and patents. When a a forum is opened for the explicit purpose to iron out things you offer nothing but contempt. Never once have you, being a teacher mind you. Offered to anyone, well I personally don't believe any of it and here is why? And inform them on what others have done and claimed worked for them. By giving information that could be built from to start.

Nope. Not one peep from you. Completely silent. In fact nothing you do here is toward the reason the post was started. Asking again, Just exactly why are you here? Awe, we already know why.

A teacher that doesn't encourage experimenting is a sad thing. And understand that it can be put to rest very easily. So my hope, is your not really a teacher because thats terrible way to raise the next generation.

As you so fondly like to do, lets put the shoe on the other foot.
specifically within accepted theory, explain what parts of either Meyers or Puharich system cannot work. Resources pls. As to the following :
molecule cannot be polarly aligned as done?
The pulse circuit doesn't step charge a cap?
Or a true resonant circuit in Puharichs Or Meyers other patent. Steam generator patent work?

That physics somehow prohibits stripping of electrons off The liberated gases?

These should be good. As far as the circuit basic functionality is completely in line with nearly every electrical engineering textbook in print today.

Yet, you to Sir, seem to actually goe against commonly accepted things.
"I suppose they're test doesn't qualify? Dozens of tests with similar results all over The net?"
Correct, they don't qualify, because you have not given the data, and have not described how any data was collected.

"Do you realize how you sound asking repeatedly for evidence when I showed you where to view it?"
I sound boring, I know, but I will keep asking until you fulfill it - posting adverts is not presenting evidence.

I repeat: I am asking for reliably collected, peer-reviewed evidence from a reputable science journal.

"You don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in your crumbling dam to stop innovation."

You are not paying attention. I want the experiments to happen, I encourage it, but I expect them to be performed properly, and the evidence collected properly, and presented properly.

"A teacher that doesn't encourage experimenting is a sad thing"

How am I discouraging experimentation? All I am asking is that those who claim these devices work present the evidence, just as I would ask a old child to show me a table of results after they perform an experiment.

"So my hope, is your not really a teacher because thats terrible way to raise the next generation."

What is wrong with demanding proof? Why are you so against the presentation of evidence? You seem to think that because you tell me that "somebody on YouTube" has done it, I have to immediately believe you?

"...explain what parts of either Meyers or Puharich system cannot work..."

Yet again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the basics of scientific methodology.

I do not have to prove the mainstream paradigm. It is the generally accepted state of things.

Anybody who wishes to overturn the paradigm, such as they did with the structure of the atom, with the mechanisms of inheritance, with evolution, with plate tectonics, with the heliocentric Solar System, they all have to provide swathes of evidence that they are right.

Get it? You are claiming things that are the antithesis of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so you are required to provide the evidence.

Remember, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed as easily.

Let's get this straight. You claim to encourage experimenting. And as it is, the ppl doing this is not to your liking. To try to suggest that all youtube tests are nonsense?
Several conducted in that forum as well as others I have provided that do as well.
These give the following. Complete electrical schematic used. Nature of configuration. Real time measure of volts and current at input. Showing gas produced. Showing scope screen shots. Measure liter per minute obtained.

How can you possibly declare. Theres no data to review?

I have given you your blessed university sources. Go read them in the the HHO news letter 11a. Pages 4&5 and 14&15.
And while you claim to encourage experimenting. You have not recommended to a sole here to build anything according to claim until now.
You never direct anyone to sources available on the subject matter. Whether you personally believe them or not. Every word from you has been to try and convince ppl this process is without scientific vigor. Which is absolutely not true.
Rather it is already recognized as completely in line with accepted science. As many proffesional sources testify.
Every word from you has been to try and convince ppl this process is without scientific vigor*. Which is absolutely not true."

But it's so easy to prove me wrong - show us the rigour*, show us the evidence.

Rather it is already recognized as completely in line with accepted science. As many proffesional sources testify.

So many, yet you still cannot direct us to these sources.

Lets break this down into sub parts shall we?

- the electrical schematics are not even in question. They function as to their intended purpose individually to the whole process. If you are not trained in electrical theory, you have no basis to comment or certainly wait for some university or journal to sign off on. As they are in compliance with normal teaching. That would be like asking for every electronic circuit to be validated before believing each various superhetrodyne circuit is valid. Nonsense. Any student can evaluate the integrity of the circuit already using common knowledge learned and or circuit simulations. The circuits are not being contested period.

- whether water can be separated into it's constituents then is reasoned. And we already know this is a accepted fact the or you have to discard science and working principles already doing just this. Simple electrolysis would have to be invalidated in general for this to be wrong.

- whether water can be vibrated and stimulated in a resonate cavity then is all you have at this point to evaluate based on comammon science. Many processes in other fields base they're understanding and working principles from this fact.
Sonoluminesence vibrates water and trapped gas bubbles injected in to the water. A well established fact would have to be also invalidated if it was not possible. Either by piezo mechanical vibration or electro static fields.
The inventor of TV
where Philo T. Farnsworth, using multipaction and his Fusor would have to be invalidated. So this portion of the functionality of the process is by extension valid.

- you are left then with only questioning whether the gases liberated can have electrons stripped from them in a controlled manner. This is required in far too many areas of science to list as paramount. It too as a basic principle and fully recognized process is also un questioned. And goes without saying.

- one is then finally brought to asking simple chemistry questions and physics questions as to the new energy levels of said treated and stimulated gases thermal energy levels in btu. This clearly shows that it can be very large. Considerably greater than gasoline.

- so, taking the entire sub parts on merit by extension the are based on comammon science, the process as a whole is fully expected to function as claimed.

Since not one aspect is in disagreement with accepted science.
Stop avoiding the questions.

Give your sources. Link to the proper, peer-reviewed papers in reputable science journals.

NOT adverts.

NOT newsletters from interested parties.

NOT "stop being lazy, go and look at youtube".
Those places showing there cells function provide you they're input power used, amount of gas produced. What do you mean no data is given?

Then go here since your too lazy to actually do some investigation.
Goto this site again in

Read WFC news letter 11a, pages 4&5 and 14&15.
Which provides university sources and countries that have 100%duplicated and or confirm the process as accepted science fellas.

It is you gentleman that are going against accepted physics.
Good grief.

Let me repeat myself yet again: REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL - a poor-quality copy of a twenty year old newsletter published by an inherently-biased source (ie authored and edited by the same person who is promoting the device) is not reliable evidence.

Accepted physics says that "HHO" (over-unity through electrolysis) does not work.

You have consistently failed to prove otherwise.

I finish my posts in like manner. You give me respect and I will give you respect.
I already have. Simply look over a few videos on youtube. Or Jnnaudin.
Are you that lazy? Your not interested in truth. Who you trying to kid.

The working circuit in myers most replicated cell is 100%a based from common electronics. That is what I do at work. Portions of the circuit are entirely on an ic chip. Available and in everyday use. Do you question the fact the circuit can cause a rising unipolar voltage? If so, you don't understand that that is basic electrical Engineering. Is it that water can be aligned between electrical electrodes? As this too is basic physics. That part of Meyers claim isn't even in debate by science as already taught today. If you have a problem with this then its you who don't realize that your not even in line with accepted science.

The confusion for some of my colleagues was his resonance claims when the diode prevented oscillation to take place as shown. The rest is not in dispute.

Without having the patent schematics or tech briefs in front of me I cant illustrate. Tucked away in some pages it is clear to electrical engineering that one depiction is an parallel LCR tank circuit. In another no diode is used at all. Same as Puharich which does truly resonate as even a student in electrical engineering kmows. It's common knowledge. The spacing of the plates forms a waveguide. Again very basic electrical engineering. Used everyday.
the water is vibrated. Again in alignment with physics principles. No mystery.

Stripping electrons from the gases is not even new. It too is perfectly in accordance to already accepted science. The Dry Etch plasma tools I maintain do this as a controlled process for making chips.
You are starting to sound more and more like paid individual to squash, Distract, discourage any interest in this venue at all costs.

I repeat myself. Why bother even coming to an HHO forum period?
You have zero interest and don't believe anything or at leasr protray.

Mind you, Meyers system did have a gag order by the USGovt. It in the docs. On the link I already provided. Certainly the oil industry doesn't want it common knowledge.

You have zero basis for even being here except to do what you do well is convince young minds to not even waste the time to build from patents and others and see for themselves. Thats your only motive.

If it was simply and innocently bases on evidence as you claim. You would look at the more reputable sites and most definitely duplicate for yourself.

Seeing how you have zero interest in doing anything, that leads back to you being a a proffesional disinformation agent.

To everyone else on this forum, I sincerely apologize for enduring all this material. You have to experiment plain and simple. Get help if its not your expertise but make an attempt
to I promise you won't be disappointed.
"You are starting to sound more and more like paid individual to squash, Distract, discourage any interest in this venue at all costs. "

I keep demanding your evidence. I want you to stay focussed on the task and question at hand, that of presenting your data that proves "HHO" generators do all they claim.

The distraction is you, talking about Tesla, sonoluminescence or conspiracies.

By telling me that I have to do the experiments for myself, find my own data, that tells me two things:

1. You have not any data of your own that proves the system works.

2. You do not know of anybody else that has the required level of evidence.

Oh, you keep saying that people have proven it, but, in reality, all you present as evidence are adverts and instructions to "google it" (when you don't even spell the names of the people or their devices properly, googling is almost impossible).
TL:DR because it lacked

a) The evidence requested

b) Relevance (what the heck does sonoluminescence have to do with electrolysis??)

The reason for mentioning all the other material such as Sonoluminesence, a dr kendal, who was threatened with loosing his license. That at one time science tried to reason was impossible to go faster than the sound barrier without damage. That ac was impossible. And countless! Others is too illustrate science does not have everything all figured out nice and neat as its often portrayed.

Heck are you aware that even mathematically the bumble bee was considered not to be able to fly yet we all know it does. Same for when the first helicopter flew. At one time prior it was believed it couldn't stay aloft. Of course today we fully understand but not prior. Do some history.

If science was so flawless and worked out. With todays level of science there should be no question to how Sonoluminesence functions concretely. And yet we wait in spite of all mans understanding for an answer that even the authors are sure of.

Incidentally, whenever you have science where one set of rules apply in general but a modified set applies to answer a phenomena then that fact alone is illustrating that you are adding missing something in your model.

One set of rules should apply equally across the has always been resistant to change often from stubborn and proud individuals.
Because they tend to view they're subject as being the pinnacle, the teacher and cant have someone with little or no training possibly show them something new.

" one time science thought..."

You keep making this same, very basic, error.

You cannot assume that, because you know of simplified popular (and incorrect) examples where science changed the way they modelled a situation, that somehow means that anybody who disagrees with modern science is automatically right.

In all your examples (or, at least, the correct ones - nobody ever said AC was impossible, or that bumble bees should not be able to fly), the model was only changed after large amounts of reliable, peer-reviewed evidence was gathered and tested.

That is what I am expecting from you.

(And your final paragraph is just wrong, and has been for about 200 years.)
Ah. Beg to differ. Tesla's teacher told him ac could not be done and tried to illustrate why using science of the day. Read Tesla history.

Incidentally, the man made many discoveries and was the most respected electrical genius of 1900s. In many american newsletters and official magazines of some time only to vanish to obscurity after his wireless power patents.

Hmmm. Went from recognized almost God status to a nobody. Fully recognized as expert in ac, ac motors. Designed niagra falls system. Exray. The first radio. Per US Supreme court. Flourescent bulb. First remote controlled boat. For US the Navy. Radar. Capturing atmospheric energy as a viable power source. Verified by germany prior to WWII.

And somehow he is a fool when it comes to wireless power?
How convenient ...
Ah, now it's the "one to many" fallacy - Tesla's teacher [allegedly] told him AC was impossible, therefore all teachers refuse to believe new discoveries can be made.

(This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Tesla recorded how encouraging he found his teachers to be, and that AC was discovered before Tesla started his work, and was already being worked on for power transmission, and he was even beaten to the drop over AC motors [cf: Galileo Ferraris]...)
Its from his own autobiography.

You keep asking for evidence. It exists from well enough sources that have duplicated to varying degree. Some on youtube yeah. And others.
Myself. Not spectacular but it worked.

For you to try to act as if all tests posted are from high school dropouts is hilarious.
Since you have the autobiography, you'll be able to name the teacher...

"Your son is a star of first rank."

(From a letter sent by the Dean of the Technical Faculty of Austrian Polytechnic in Graz, Austria to Tesla's father.)

"You keep asking for evidence. It exists from well enough sources that have duplicated to varying degree."
If the evidence exists, why can you not present it?

With respect. Are you not going to google Royal Raymond rife and DR kendal?
It would take me uneccessary time to go pull all this for you when you have a pc. If you are honestly curious please check it out. Posting all of these, is simply fruitless. As it gets us way off the topic. I only did to illustrate science is not as solid as you make it sound. And yes, will be further changed as we move foward. Exactly as history already shows us.whether you bother to take the time to research any of the stuff I have mentioned here, someone surely will.
you dont have to have exact address to find it. Simple googlinng will get you there.
No, I am not going to google for anything.

You made the claims, so it is your responsibility to back them up by presenting the evidence. That is how science works.

On a topic about "HHO", it is not off-topic for me to ask for evidence that the claims you make about "HHO" are correct.

"With respect", if you cannot be bothered to provide your evidence, I cannot be bothered to ascribe you any credibility, and will continue to question your claims until such time as the evidence is presented.
My apology, after re reading your statement. Yes if only a small amount of gas is burned in a much larger volume it would explode first. Provided the pressure doesn't desrroy the container first, it will collapse to form water and leaving a partial vacuum.

Water trying to form under unstable conditions is not expansive. It readily implodes.
"Water trying to form under unstable conditions is not expansive. It readily implodes."

No, water forming under combustion readily condenses.
I agree with you on the nature of the gas evolved. Hydrogen and oxygen.
its a science fact that oxygen can loose some of its electrons making it more energetic, thus when attempt to form the water molecule more energy is released. More only if by some way you could cause this with less power on the entire splitting process.

Dude. I am only after trying to make electrolysis at at least 70%a efficient. As Thats all you need in order to use water as an alternative fuel. Who cares if its not 100 or God forbid more. Thats not my aim.

"its a science fact that oxygen can loose some of its electrons making it more energetic, thus when attempt to form the water molecule more energy is released. "

No, it isn't.

Oxygen *gains* electrons and becomes both charged and more reactive.

It does not magically gain energy. The energy lost from the system during burning, or in a fuel cell, was input to the system during electrolysis.

For claims to the contrary to be true would require a fundamental rebuilding of the Universe from the Planck scale up.

I see what you are trying to say. I was referring to the amount of energy obtained in thermal btu as, compared to total equivalent it cost you to split water.

Have you ever looked at Dr Andija Puharich chemistry notes showing how this is factual? I have it in pdf. But lol I couldn't even post a simple photo the other day.

It doesn't matter what units you use, it is an absolute, physical impossibility to gt more energy back from the burn than it "cost" to split the water.

Dr Andija Puharich? The same one who brought Uri Geller to the US? Oh, yes, I've come across him - he thought water molecules were tetrahedral, and that both matter and the human mind were made of "ELF magnetism". Strange that he never published in any peer-reviewed journals... One thing he never claimed, though, was that he got more energy out of the hydrogen & oxygen than he put in.
Most certainly did. Its in his patent
was another solid proof you don't read any patent. You gloss over and thumb through for a few consecutive sentences and thats it. You read maybe 10you sentences an your an expert as to its contents. What joke.

Meyers patents also make the same claim in his patents and explain how this is possible. But seeing how you cannot read, its of no consequence you don't kniw. The main reason this works out, is because the process turns electrolysis on it head by using Voltage (VOLTROLYSIS) and the mechanism for doing the work.
voltage is not consumed. A trivial current is all that is required to produce very high voltage. Therefore is only using small amounts of wattage on input side.

In this manner alone you are no longer comparing apples to apples but rather apples to oranges. Very different in the amount of required power to achieve the same feat.

To attempt arguing that gases do not have elevated energy levels in an ionized or their elemental atomic state is against science as currently taught. Not withstanding many processes today depends upon this fact. When the gases are allowed to recombine thermally. Its fully calculated value of energy is released.
due to the work of the potential and resonance principle very little energy is needed to cause this electron stipping to occur. The users input energy is a modest amount. Yet, now when the gases combine alot more energy than what you physically input is yielding in the burning of the gases.

Don't misunderstanding what I am claiming. Not in the universal sense, that you some how produced extra energy, no. The thermal, the voltage fields and resonance of vibration accounts for that energy fully. As to the work done to remove those electrons. Its accounted for and now you have a gas at a higher energy state. There is no free lunch implied. The energy consumed equals that too separate the gases and in other embodiments account for stripping those electrons.

Meyers process could be reasoned in 3 stages.

1 Separating water into H2 & O2.
2 Resonance and vibration in a cavity
3 Stripping electrons from liberated gases.

90% or more demonstration only achieve Stage 1. This is only modesty at best better than regular DC electrolysis. The burning gas doesn't have the energy as regular gasoline and not as efficient in fact as a alternative at this point. Would require specific quantities to even run an engine solo as compared to gasoline.

Using Stages 1&2, greatly simplifies the need for additives for one, as a cost and greatly reduces the electrical power demand too achieve the same thing. Merely an energy savings.

Meyers stated goals was always, Stage 3. It is at this stage that the game has changed tremendously in your intended goal as compared to what little electrical power you consume.

More or less
What level of chemistry have you completed?

Oxygen can be stripped of electrons as well.
The fewer it has in its orbital rings increases its activity and raises it energetic state.
I am a high school science teacher.

Electrolysis does not strip oxygen of electrons. Electrolysis does not produce positively charged oxygen. Electrolysis does not produce "unstable oxygen atoms".

(Go on, prove me wrong.)
Standard electrolysis does not no. But gas can be had this way only not very economically. Through pulsing it can be obtained more efficient.
By stripping those gas atoms of electrons it raises the combustible energy when burning. Which is what Meyer was doing and not plain ole electrolysis.

Read here the gist of the process.

The problem is not the patents. Its your failure to attempt and experiments for yourself.
"The problem is not the patents. Its your failure to attempt and experiments for yourself. "

No, the failure is the complete lack of evidence. Posting an advert for plans does not constitute evidence.

Why should I spend out hundreds of pounds to build a device that, according to all available verifiable evidence, does not, and cannot, perform as claimed?

Provide the evidence, and you will have thousands of people queuing at your door to buy the plans. Anybody who holds relevant will become overnight billionaires.

All you have to do is prove it works.

You claim to have built one, where's your data? Energy in, energy out, control systems, comparisons with standard cells etc?
I have built several dc cells with various outputs. Nothing to hold a meeting over but I have like others and built my first meyers version off dave lawtons design. It worked better than the straight dc versions. Again nothing to hold a press meeting over but worked. Years later I realized what was missing. Stripping electrons it and have not built another yet.

The Joe cells that were so hot for awhile on the net? Are just simple dc cells that were take advantages of two sources already there in your engine.
Namely doing electrolysis under vacuum and the thermal benefits that come with that. Thats it.
All of the methods to split water are basically efficiency differences on driving input to achieve electrolysis.

Until one uses the well known case of making the O2 atom unstable.
If done economically, the energy will be greater now due to the energetic activity of this Oxygen with missing electrons. It was only this way Meyer could run a car on smaller amounts of gas as normally would be required. The gas produced being more than 3x in thermal energy than simple burning of hydrogen and oxygen.
"Until one uses the well known case of making the O2 atom unstable."

O2 is a molecule, not an atom, and is not unstable.

"If done economically, the energy will be greater now due to the energetic activity of this Oxygen with missing electrons."

As I hav pointed out elsewhere, oxygen does not lose electrons during electrolysis, it gains them.

"It was only this way Meyer could run a car on smaller amounts of gas as normally would be required. The gas produced being more than 3x in thermal energy than simple burning of hydrogen and oxygen. "

Really?  These claims get ever more extravagant - yet you still have not provided one scrap of actual evidence to back them up.
Now We are are getting somewhere. Think you have me confused stuff you have come across from all the various HHO websites you have visited.
point that is rather insulting. When yo ask for patents and sources you yourself have looked at. Whether you believe it is another thing. I would bet money you have in hand those patents. Don't play coy. I will post them along with reference that gas does produce more energy than used to split the water.

Meanwhile, what is your purpose here other than to stop all efforts in this avenue.
since you have never offered the slightest of suggestions. I remind you of the purpose this thread was opened. Your sole purpose here is to prevent anyone from discovery through frustration and hoping they will simply stop and give up before even trying.
you act ignorant when you are a vulture on multiple hho forums. Obviously you don't care about the topic so why visit such forums? Dr.bifield thomas townsed teacher encouraged him to explore the movement of a charged capacitor rather than behaving as you do. That led to two new discoveries.
Tesla didn't listen to his teacher and modern thought that ac power, was not possible. And we have ac today thanks to him. What is seldom talked about is when he first pioneer the idea he was badgered much the same with why according to science of the day why it was not possible.

As the far as patents. In spite of your knowledge patents have been and can be rejected based on violating certain laws and current thought. The simple page you to want says this on patent office rules. In general practice it works as you point out. There are former patent examiners giving testimony about those abuses.
henry moray was denied a patent twice over his germanium valve the first transistor. Because science ardently said was impossible. Only two have bell labs later patent exactly that. Moray attempted patent on this transistor separate from his power supply. Cold fusion was attacked such as well and now is accepted in science.

You attempt to view science as if there is universal agreement on all aspects of a given science theory. Which is completely not true.

Gabriel kron one of our most recognized experts even today in the art electrical engineering had views contrary to some taught theories. Regarding open systems.

All of this is trivial and only serves your goal of infecting a forum by trying to get it steered away from anything practical. And tying ppl up squabbling is you guys most effective tactic.

So I remind you, read the purpose of this forum once more and either offer suggestions from material you already have seen and cough. Up ideas or please shut up as you so rudely tell everyone else here.

It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions.

So obviously HHO is not your interest. Then why waste so much of your time posting on HHO forums.?

Truth is you are probably on multiple HHO forums spouting this same garbage. I would bet money you are even a moderator one site right?
Taking pleasure in rudely insulting and attacking ppl. And anyone that challenges you simply gets booted from the discussion.

My next guess is you are not a moderator here and that probably has you frustrated. So please go to a site you are more in control of and take it out there on some poor sucker.

I fell bait to your play. From now on unless we talk specifics regarding WFC and how to construct in a civilized manner,i will simply ignore you from this point.
I would bet money you have in hand those patents. Don't play coy. I will post them along with reference that gas does produce more energy than used to split the water.
No, I don't have them. I want them, but I cannot seem to find them. Strange.

Meanwhile, what is your purpose here other than to stop all efforts in this avenue.
since you have never offered the slightest of suggestions. I remind you of the purpose this thread was opened. Your sole purpose here is to prevent anyone from discovery through frustration and hoping they will simply stop and give up before even trying.

My purpose is education and the exposure of woowoo. HHO is not real, its claims are not real. I keep asking you to prove me wrong, but you do not even try.

you act ignorant when you are a vulture on multiple hho forums. Obviously you don't care about the topic so why visit such forums?
I do not visit other forums.

Dr.bifield thomas townsed teacher encouraged him to explore the movement of a charged capacitor rather than behaving as you do. That led to two new discoveries.
Tesla didn't listen to his teacher and modern thought that ac power, was not possible. And we have ac today thanks to him. What is seldom talked about is when he first pioneer the idea he was badgered much the same with why according to science of the day why it was not possible.

Ah, the old "they laughed at XX, and he was right, so if they laugh at me, I must be right" fallacy.

As the far as patents. In spite of your knowledge patents have been and can be rejected based on violating certain laws and current thought.
You said the patents exist. Now you're telling me they don't? PLease, try and keep your story straight!

henry moray was denied a patent twice over his germanium valve the first transistor. Because science ardently said was impossible. Only two have bell labs later patent exactly that. Moray attempted patent on this transistor separate from his power supply.
See "laughed" fallacy above.

Cold fusion was attacked such as well and now is accepted in science.
Really? Where? Last I saw, it was being studied, but not repeated.

You attempt to view science as if there is universal agreement on all aspects of a given science theory. Which is completely not true.
Yes, it is. That is how science works. An hypothesis is studied and tested until nobody can find significant fault in it. At that point, the hypothesis is promoted to "theory".

cough. Up ideas or please shut up as you so rudely tell everyone else here.
No, I asked *you* to "put up or shut up", because you keep making extravagant claims, and have not provided a single scrap of reliable evidence to back yourself up.

It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions.
Do you accuse everybody who refuses to swallow your ideas whole of being a troll? Or is that just a personal attack?
So obviously HHO is not your interest. Then why waste so much of your time posting on HHO forums.?

Truth is you are probably on multiple HHO forums spouting this same garbage. I would bet money you are even a moderator one site right?
Taking pleasure in rudely insulting and attacking ppl. And anyone that challenges you simply gets booted from the discussion.

Wrong on all counts, but that paragraph gives us an insight as to why you are here.

My next guess is you are not a moderator here and that probably has you frustrated. So please go to a site you are more in control of and take it out there on some poor sucker.
You really ought to do your research before you cast around many more ad hominem attacks.

I fell bait to your play. From now on unless we talk specifics regarding WFC and how to construct in a civilized manner,i will simply ignore you from this point.
So, what's changing? I keep asking you for evidence of your claims, but you keep ignoring my requests.

I wonder why?

TL:DR version: you're paranoid, and avoiding direct requests for evidence by resorting to baseless personal insults.

Behave, or I will remove your comments.

Kunadude wrote: "It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions."

I take issue with name calling. Especially calling someone a troll when you yourself have only been a member here for 17 days.

There is a be nice policy here. Please review the be nice policy. Be nice.

Thank You

First two points you and I agree. Firmly.
Third point we disagree, and as funny as it is you being science classes cheerleader don't dispute that water can be split more efficiently through pulse dc or from rf as compared to standard electrolysis. You should check back with your sources as you'll find even they differ from you on this point.
I keep checking with a source*, but he consistently ignores my requests or refuses to provide any actual evidence.

Your last paragraph is misleading. Its true that industry using the WFC as a stack with a catalyst platinum forms a WFC. Thats simply the ones who coined this term. WFC is recognized as physically other arrangements top achieve the purpose of splitting water. The process you are so hung up on is the PEM. Cell.
Most ppl myself included, are using the term splitting water more efficiently in regard to how much raw input electrical power is used to split water as compared to standard dc electrolysis. Not in the strict sense somehow the rulea of physics are changed to split water. What changes is this efficiency.

It is not hard to beat the efficiency of simple dc.

While using alternative ways such as pulse dc, efficiency is increased lowering your input demand to achieve the same thing.

Doing this allows for a wonderful phenomena to be exploited. Known as "multipaction ". This increases efficiency even higher. When energetic oxygen combines with hydrogen more btu is released.

You want a source. Google Puharich fuel cell method. He has a paper showing the way more energy in heat is obtained through achieving that condition economically.
Yes, I want a source, and it is your responsibility to provide it.

Do not tell me to google, provide the link yourself.

Remember; extraordinary claims required extraordinary levels if evidence.
Posted a link where you can obtain Patents & Documents at the top of forum.

Dont be so lazy. Either you are intersted or not. Dont claim things don't exist simply someone doest put everything in your lap.
See, now here you're trying to cover your back, since no US patents require proof that the device works - they just require the applicant to make a declaration that it works. All that "examination" of an application entails is a trawl through the records to see if anybody else has previously taken out such a patent.

You claim the process works - give us the evidence, not just here-say and links to woowoo sites.

There's a patent? What number is it?

There's verifiable evidence? Present it.

Put up, or shut up.
Exactly ! A non-repeatable experiment has either some form of corruption within it itself, or has been manipulated one way or another
I agree completely with this statement.

Its hard not to find oneself standing in one camp or the other on things such as these claims regard to modern teaching. It takes a keen person to spot something the two parties squabble over and that is that major improvements have been made in the art of splitting water that did not exist before these inventors patents. Electrolysis has been greatly increased in efficiency as compared to the old methods it had always been done.

Quite frankly, never cared if the new ways would somehow seem to violate existing understanding. My goal was and has always been to perform splitting of water as cost effective as I could in order too use this gas as a primary fuel plain and simple. I never expected to get a free lunch. Nor does most other researchers into HHO. Dont underestimate miss site that it is leaps better than brute for old electrolysis. These concepts were a game changer toward that endeavor.
LlamaMama666 - He explained it well in his first paragraph.
Can you give a link for the Avremenko Plug? The only stuff I can find is a forum topic of people who think that Joule Thieves create energy, and a badly-drawn circuit diagram that appears to show a very short Marx Generator.

As for Konstantin Meyl, the phrase "Neutrino power is available as an inexhaustible form of energy due to a remarkable overunity effect" in connection with his work is enough for anybody who paid attention at school past the age of fifteen to completely dismiss his claims in a hail of derisive scorn and thrown peanuts. It's not even wrong!

(Major warning signal - any "theory" that starts off by complaining that other theories have been actively suppressing it is already admitting that it doesn't actually have any proper evidence.)
Kiteman, for the Avramenko plug try

I don't have the site handy, but also Google Alexander Frolov "powering a load via potential alone. It is based from Chernetsky earlier work.

While in agree totally with you Regards any claims in overunity. The Laws are upheld in all circumstances. Understandably, most ppl are looking at from the basic view of, i put x amount of power in and am getting 4xpower out. What it costs me versus what i have available. We both know, this or any excess energy must come from somewhere else. The average Joe, see's this as overunity. Too the scientific mind it certainly is not overunity. An explanation can be found.

I certainly had my doubts about Konstantin Meyl's Transciever. I am not sure i agree with all that he says about it's functioning. They're may yet be another explanation as to it's functioning. I was able to transmit pwr from trsmtr to rcvr at over 9ft with only 2v input enough to drive the led. The voltage rosé to almost doublé at the rcvr side. Both coils and top loads were identical. I even reversed the operation sent power from the other coil. Same increase of voltage observed. The current being roughly unchanged. From a signal generator.

As the distance was increased, the freq had to be readjusted. I believe it behaved more like an air capacitor at first. But this doesn't work out. Simply adjusting so the alternating potential is at maximum, ie antinodes at the two separate terminals, worked best. Then max power would return, otherwise it drops off. As far as scavaging? The standing wave may collect free charges in the open air and bring them into the system. I will leave that aspect to the brainacs to figure the how and why power is increased. Totally against our reasoning. It's not something so basic that it should be dissmissed without experiments. It truly functions in ways totally unaccounted for by current theory.
But it too, is in no way overunity. Energy is coming from an external source together with what you input. Takenly together is more output than input by the user.

"...An explanation can be found. "

And, so far, all those explanations have been variations of;

> Hidden batteries.
> Hidden power leads.
> Incompetant use of metering.
> Wilfully deceitful use of metering.
> Lies.
Its easy to rebuff comments like that.
its called experiments.certainly you are referring to some other claims?
No batteries involved with avramenko systems functioning.
no hidden batts in Meyl transponder. Of which topic are you referring?
"all of the above"

As I keep saying, you have presented no evidence to support any of your claims.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."(Christopher Hitchens) Ergo, your claims are dismissed.
Point well taken. As I mentioned I am having trouble posting even a simple pic.

Explain how please.

Whats irritating, is you and I both know you have seen some of the documents I will post and are playing ignorant. It impossible for you to have ventured onto only 3hho forums and never been given patents and circuit drawings.
let alone your own goggling on this topic. Including watching youtube videos.

So whenever you wish to stop playing games we can talk sensible.
"Whats irritating, is you and I both know you have seen some of the documents I will post and are playing ignorant. It impossible for you to have ventured onto only 3hho forums and never been given patents and circuit drawings.
let alone your own goggling on this topic. Including watching youtube videos. "

As I have told you before, I do not use HHO forums. I am at a loss to understand how you "know" what documents I have seen - are you now claiming to be psychic?

The only "game" being played is you playing hide-and-seek with the evidence - all you need to do to shut me up is provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal that backs up your claims, yet you have not done so.

This is by far not your only HHO forum. So, its impossible for you not to have documents already on the subject. I got mine from going to various sites and googled the topics to get patents and documents. Was not that hard. If you were half honest and serious about truth you would do a little investigative work for yourself. I will post the patents I have for WFC along with proof under specific circumstances more btu is released burning the gas as opposed to simple burning of thos gases. Will start there.
I don't know who you think I am, but, as I keep saying, I do not frequent other fora.

As I keep repeating, you are the one making the claims, so it's your job to persuade me that you are right. That takes proper evidence, so we'll see...
Pictures: go to your "You" page, look to the left of the page, and you will see a link to your image library. You should be able to work things out from there.
Not so fast. There are a Number of Universities that are now duplicating the fact power is transmitted at Cop >1 the fact it even functions at all, is what has got so many scholars at odds.

[citation needed]
They are mentioned on Meyl's Website. The tests, I believe were to verify if the circuit could send power than greater than 6th part of wavelength, with any meaningful power remaining. As it should have already dropped off so much as being useless as expected. Nothing is more convincing than doing it yourself. The setup is as basic as it gets. I have done far complex Labs in college than this. Only thing in can honestly say, is it does seem to work.

You did make a Good point however, that most cases of this nature are confused by improper measurement methods. Which is often true.
After the holidays i will reduplicate with this in mind. The goal is to power an rc car or boat. A fixed object is very easy as I have already done this successfully.

One side note: Tesla's earlier patent was virtually the exact setup only demonstrating sending of power via a single wire. Between the two resonator coils. Later, he realised that you didn't even need that wire under specificaties conditions. The next evolution of already working system.

TODAY power companies utilize that method as What's called SWER. It is discribed different of course. Basically that ground completes the circuit.
TESLA merely opened the circuit is all.
I have also noticed that some experienced TESLA coil builders have been unsuccsessful in duplicatie Meyl's transponder. This is very Simple missunderstanding ons they're part. The resonator freq is not Simply the calculator inductance and capacitance as they typically account for while figuring the TESLA coils resonator freq. The actual freq is based on wire length and it's mass. They are tuning too the wrong freq. This is the transverse freq. The longitudinal is that based on wire length and it's mass. The transverse will be attenuated but the longitudinal will be maximum.
Kunadude4 years ago
Really? I mean really? Are you two that pessimistic. Of you bother to sort and read some of the material you will find were independent tests had been performed on Meyers WFC. So you canot dismiss that easily. I am not concerned with other patents. Just those on his electrolysis. But you two hard cases are to quick to thumb thru only pieces of material.
pancea is not itself a source of course. Its only to show the patents and earlier work in this field that always gets sidelined due to monetary reasons.

You cannot be an impartial critic without looking over everything.
did you read the independent test comments regarding the various patents? And the conclusion that his patent was indeed fully verified? From professionals? No because you were too quick to return here with your rants.

You can say whatever you choose but other people will take the time to read.
so you only serve putting yourself in a box. Your not stopping anything.
I took on your challenge to research this material for myself and all I got was a good laugh. The only means I could find to get the information you say is "everywhere" is to pay $35 dollars for the "privilege" along with $10 for shipping and handling. But I did find many people posting the same unsubstantiated claims as you have, peppered with conspiracy theories and tin-foil hat wearing paranoia over Government coverups, "Arab Oil Corps" that purportedly offered Meyers a billion dollars to keep his "technology" quiet, and suggestions that Meyers was in fact murdered. Wow! That's quite the fairytale!

Back on Earth however, a clearer picture of Meyer's can be found in the Ohio court that he was summons to where his "technology" was examined. It seems that the investors that paid Meyers $25,000 dollars, were angered by the fact that Meyers made repeated "lame excuses" for being unable to show up for independent testing of his "water fuel cells", and they wanted their money back. And the Ohio courts agreed, finding Meyer's guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the investors their money.

So you are correct! "You cannot be an impartial critic without looking over everything".

Government coverup? Nope. If the U.S. Government and Military took such fascination in Meyer's "technology" and perhaps had him 'murdered' as a result, they would be using water fuel cells already. The U.S. is consuming mass amounts of oil, and must import most of it (which makes them heavily reliant upon other countries). It serves NO logical purpose to deny alternative fuel sources which would undoubtably improve the economy.

Meyer's murdered? Nope. A coroner found that he died of a cerebral aneurysm, so unless conspiracy theorists want to go on record to defame the coroner and the Ohio Coroner's office, then such stories that Meyer's was poisoned is no more credible than the "technology" that Meyer's is purportedly to have created.

If you still feel that credible information is "everywhere" and free of hocus pocus, then by all means, provide the links and prove us wrong! I refuse to take blind faith on this matter, no more than I am willing to accept citations from sources which you even agree defies common sense.
What part of the clearly presented proof about this technology being placed on secrecy by US Gov't, under potential financial undue duress did you miss?

It clearly documented within those documents that I provided. You must have conviently skipped that section. It's clearly documented. 100%.

So, as to the silly hypothesis that everyone would have it already us nonsense.
"What part of the clearly presented proof about this technology being placed on secrecy by US Gov't, under potential financial undue duress did you miss?"

Clearly presented proof? Show me ONE instance that there is "clearly presented proof" and I won't say another word on this topic!

What does/doesn't constitute clearly documented proof? The same criteria for which is accepted in a court of law. Hearsay and conjecture is NOT proof or evidence.

"as to the silly hypothesis"

Explain how removing a financial burden, (where you must rely on other countries to supply you with your needs), would cause "potential financial undue duress"
What part of the clearly presented proof about this technology being placed on secrecy by US Gov't, under potential financial undue duress did you miss?

It clearly documented within those documents that I provided. You must have conviently skipped that section. It's clearly documented. 100%.

So, as to the silly hypothesis that everyone would have it already us nonsense.
What part of the clearly presented proof about this technology being placed on secrecy by US Gov't, under potential financial undue duress did you miss?

It clearly documented within those documents that I provided. You must have conviently skipped that section. It's clearly documented. 100%.

So, as to the silly hypothesis that everyone would have it already us nonsense.
You guys constantly ask for legitimate test and review. That is fine, nothing wrong with that by itself depending on you motives. Some of you here make zero attempt to inquire.

Go too the link I have provided at top of this forum for all patents and references. Find the WFC memo 11a. Read pages 4&5, 14&15. Here you will find names of universites and countries that have 100%duplicated verified this process.
it indeed based upon already accepted science fellas. It is you guys who are not in alignment with physics.
"pancea is not itself a source of course"

So, why present it when asked for a source?

"You cannot be an impartial critic without looking over everything. "

How true. Yet, when we ask to look at "everything" (the evidence), you accuse us of being lazy because we have not spent time googling for links you [should] already possess, or because we have not spent time building our own units from plans we have to purchase from the advertising links* you keep posting.

(*So many of your links are to advertisements or commercial sites, it's a wonder your account hasn't been closed for spamming!)

Kunadude4 years ago
Lets break this down into sub parts shall we?

- the electrical schematics are not even in question. They function as to their intended purpose individually to the whole process. If you are not trained in electrical theory, you have no basis to comment or certainly wait for some university or journal to sign off on. As they are in compliance with normal teaching. That would be like asking for every electronic circuit to be validated before believing each various superhetrodyne circuit is valid. Nonsense. Any student can evaluate the integrity of the circuit already using common knowledge learned and or circuit simulations. The circuits are not being contested period.

- whether water can be separated into it's constituents then is reasoned. And we already know this is a accepted fact the or you have to discard science and working principles already doing just this. Simple electrolysis would have to be invalidated in general for this to be wrong.

- whether water can be vibrated and stimulated in a resonate cavity then is all you have at this point to evaluate based on comammon science. Many processes in other fields base they're understanding and working principles from this fact. Sonoluminesence vibrates water and trapped gas bubbles injected in to the water. A well established fact would have to be also invalidated if it was not possible. Either by piezo mechanical vibration or electro static fields. The inventor of TV where Philo T. Farnsworth, using multipaction and his Fusor would have to be invalidated. So this portion of the functionality of the process is by extension valid.

- you are left then with only questioning whether the gases liberated can have electrons stripped from them in a controlled manner. This is required in far too many areas of science to list as paramount. It too as a basic principle and fully recognized process is also un questioned. And goes without saying.

- one is then finally brought to asking simple chemistry questions and physics questions as to the new energy levels of said treated and stimulated gases thermal energy levels in btu. This clearly shows that it can be very large. Considerably greater than gasoline.

- so, taking the entire sub parts on merit by extension the are based on comammon science, the process as a whole is fully expected to function as claimed.

Since not one aspect is in disagreement with accepted science.

Kiteman says -the Seriously, the Galileo argument, does not work -what science said about supersonic flight is irrelevant to what you claim about the basic laws of reality.

The mentioned processes are basic laws of reality. So what science or by what model are you approaching this argument? Its certainly not, the basic laws of reality.
Kunadude4 years ago
Sir, I have provided youtube merely as a quick and convient method to view what hundreds of examples look like and they're results. Some are conducted by members with an actual electrical engineering degree. I gave you another more credible site. Jnnaudin, whose members have BS Electrical Engineering degrees. As well who perform many of the tests for the site. Not all have a degree. But it doesn't matter one bit if they didnt. There is enough basic repeated demonstrations to validate the concepts.

I have provided more credible sources to your likings within only 4 pages I asked you to read. But read every sentence and dont gloss over saying rubbish.

If you have a problem with the sources mentioned, you simply contact that listed source and inquire from them on their comments and or research. Ask them directly.

If you are unwilling to investigate even that much on your own than I propose you are one of the individuals mentioned as to doing everything in your power to prevent this technology from being proliferated.

Both of you here have innocently asked for proof. When given or directed where to find it you balk. When asked to do a little discovery for yourself again you wine.

I have met stubborn critics in my day. Even with the friends I know and work with regarding WFC. But they were not so unwilling to look things up and view videos. They took an interest in what I was doing and was surprised. You guys disply extreme unwillingness to look for truth. Beyond that of a mere critic that is merely waiting for evidence. No critic behaves the way you guys behave. Even they would concede to viewing and reading for themselves.

As per claims. Show me where I can get evidence instead of hocus pocus data?
Trying to infer that all the demonstrations conducted on YouTube is hocus pocus is hardly warranted. As many of the are documented very well. Providing everything you need. To build a basic unit. With hundreds of ppl having success, I hardly think its a conspiracy to promote bogus science. Besides all you have too do is pick one demonstration and copy exactly and prove them to be a liar. End of story.

As I see it. The burden of proof is in your court. Not mine.
Kunadude4 years ago
I located . a link that will provide you with the Documents & Patents. Took me some time, as I had to fnd all I have over years of searching. Mine are pdfs, other docs. Here you go.

Lets start off with “Hydroxy Gas”. These 2links is a primer. You can research from there, just do a little investigative work on your own. You are required to lift a finger and do some research and not just wait for everything to simply fall in your lap. Type in key names, references and go search. That s how I got all my patents and documents. Some websites simply help you get started on where to look.
Did your friends Warp Drive receive a US Govt gag order like Meyer? For National Secrecy?
Anyone who views this material. Please read it all and don’t skim past stuff. Its all important.
As you will find experts and critics rightly question things, but in the end also say, it’s the critics fault for not being completely honest either, that such reproducible tests have been performed on some claims and confirmed. Yet, still no open public disclosure. If you simply go read what you want to see, you will miss those important points.
Here is a link to find all Stan Meyers Patents. US, Canadian and European
Jump to bottom and Start with “International Evaluation Test Report”
Credible Sources who verified effects:
Stanley Meyer - WFC Demonstrations - ISNE 1993
Edmund Storms – Established Cold Fusion & Reproducible Results - IECEC 1993
Posts from other individuals who also understand how more energy is evolved only in comparison to what it costs you to split versus the thermal energy you can obtain.:
Originally Posted by h20power
Like I said the WFC is NOT IMPORTANT it is the GAS PROCESSER that is the key to this technology.

Some numbers for you to think over:

Gasloine has a energy level of 4864 kJ/mol
H2 + 1/2O2 has an energy level of 285 kJ/mol

Now this is what happens when it passes through the Gas Processor:
1st ionozation level,
H 1312 + 1/2 O 1313.9 = 1968.85 kJ/mol
2nd for oxygen,
H 1312 + 1/2 O 3388.3 = 3006.15 kJ/mol
3rd for oxygen,
H 1312 + 1/2 O 5300.5 = 3962.25 kJ/mol

Now you can see just what the Gas Processor is doing. Note, depending on how far you ionize the Oxygen the energy levels keep going up to end up with this:
H 1312 + 1/2 O 84,078.0 = 43,351 kJ/mol. Now that's energy

If you get to any one of these energy states it will run your engine with ease. So, the key is to make the Gas Processor and make it to ionize the gases that go through too a energy state as far as you can so you can get these energy levels to put in the cumbustion chamber and ignite them. I suggest to make two of them one for the incoming air and the other for the hho from what every source you choose to get the hho from. Now you can see just how Stanley Meyer ran his 1.6L VW engine on just a 7L/min production rate.

Energy independence is now yours for the taking, enjoy,

Now I gave a lot of the math for the reaction already, but it was incomplete.

This math is just simple math of a first year chemistry student, algebra(though not error proof).
2 H-H bonds and 1 0=0 bond are broken.
2(436) + 498 = +1370 kJ/mol. That is the energy it takes to break water down.
4 O-H bonds are formed when hydrogen and oxygen are ignited to form water.

4(-485) = -1836 kJ/mol

Summing the two processes: 1368 + (-1836) = -468 kJ/2mol or ~285 kJ/mol.

Now lets look at what happens when you add primed Oxygen gases to the equation.
1368 to break water down
now O(primed to 1st level 1314)-H = 2(-1096) = -2192 (only two bonds where formed due to oxygen is now single just O not O2).

Summing the two processes: H-H 2(436) + 1/2O .5(1313.9) = 1528.95 kJ/mol - 1836 kJ/mol = -307 kJ/mol. So a net 307 kJ/mol for the new reaction with the primed Oxygen gases, and remember gasoline has 4864 kJ/mol.
Note also that this is only Oxygens first energy level, the more electrons are striped the greater the energy yeild, example 2nd energy level for Oxygen is 3388 kJ/mol, this time you do the math.

Now I may have made a few mistakes but the way it works wont be hampered by my errors, so if it needs correction by all means do so.

That should help everyone to understand the importance of the Gas Processor,

Ah, it was typed by a stranger in a forum dedicated to to just about any woowoo you care to mention, plus quite a few conspiracy posts as well, so it must be true...

[knocks on laptop screen]

Hello? Are you there? Are you at all aware of the word "science" and what it actually means?

I have some homework for you -

1. Go and find out what the following terms mean;

> Reliable evidence
> Peer-reviewed
> Reputable journal

2. Find something to back up your claims which meets all those criteria.

I'm glad you suggested that people should "do a little investigative work" of their own...

I did just that, and read that "Panacea-BOCAF" offers "alternative medicine which like our nutritional research remains suppressed in our education system due to a conflict of interest".

Quite frankly, any website that claims to provide educational resources which could lead to someone putting corrosive substances on their body to cure themselves of Cancer, ought to provide their "University Graduates" with shiny new tin foil hats, and does not deserve a citation as a reputable source of information.

This is what can happen when people follow such ridiculously misguided advice...

Well, I leave that to using at least some common sense.

People, facts are available but if your too lazy to do some investigative work on your part or not even follow suggestions on what others have already been able to reproduce and build your own cells, then you will never move past your current view.
You've made a number of claims and its taken you nearly 3 weeks to provide a citation and you call us "people" lazy?

I'm not opposed to research, I already said that I did, to investigate the validity of the source to which you first linked to. Call it what you want, but if the founding principles of the website you linked to defies even common sense (your words not mine), then there is no logical reason to investigate these links any further.
I do however welcome any resources which do exercise common sense... :-)

These are both commercial advertisements, not peer-reviewed evidence (and I wouldn't connect one of those generators to my car for all the tea in China - I prefer to live to the end of my journey.)

Oh, that is a fascinating insight into the sort of rubbish that can be patented - for instance, an "electrical particle generator" - check the diagram, and it's a simple step-up transformer with the magnetic core material encased in plastic. Radical stuff, LOL!

(Oh, and "Stanley Meyer" is the credible source that verified the work of "S Meyer"??)

Seriously, do you understand what the terms "verifiable" or "peer-reviewed" actually mean?
Kunadude4 years ago
Sorry for the delay but as i have stated earlier, I have had trouble getting my own files to upload. What took me years to acquire you now can get from one source.
samaddon4 years ago
yes i have tried it but it did not worked? there are some foams when i supplied power but it didn't emit any gas may be my casing was leaking or something else was the problem but i didn't suceed! any suggestions ?
Sure. I am assuming you are using the Meyer version of WFC? I also assume you are not using an opposed bifilar choke across your WFC. What is your plate spacing? As this is important. Do you even use a diode in your ckt? As it can operate without rectification. In that case, drive it via a Simple transformer with any open split secondary connected across the WFC as puharich illustrates. In this way, you can auto resonate Your WFC as illustrated. There are other methods of course.

Rough up your plate with sandpaper.
Increased LC impedance across WFC plates.
Don't use electrolytes with Meyers hho WFC type.
You can fully insulate one of your plates to see if part of your problem is an impedance issue. Teflon spray completlely one tube. Insiders and out after you make your connection. This coating will not last, and will erode as gas is produced. But will give clues to problems. If it works vetter, you have a low impedance problem arriving at your plates.
Sir, thanks for some details but may i know that can power it directly from transformer without rectifier i was previously supplying 25volts dc with only one diode bridge . And i also got one problem when i supply it directly from the transformer then the terminals which are connected together ( when i insert the plates in the fluid then the plates are somehow connected togather may be the liquid used is very conductive but i assured that the plates are not directly connected ) short circuits and my resctifier and the diode bridge also becomes very hot . hot enough to boil chilled water! And what's WFC????
i am also posting some pics of my generator!
My appologies. WFC, stands for "Water Fuel Cell". This being in it's most basic form two separated metal plates with water between these plates. Usually, a WFC will have a pluarality of plates.

You used 24v DC previously? Connected like a car battery across the plates with no diodes? As this works fine if you use additives in the water to make it more conductive. If you don't mind the power consumption this can work fine. Many ways to increased this basic schema's efficiency to manageable levels.

Pulsed DC Connected across the plates is an improvement. Can use a PWM. Pulsed Width Modulator, to reduce power while producing same or more gas production than before.

DC power, that operates an osc or multivibrator in order to pulsed that DC through a transformers primary wiring. Secondary wiring Connected to a HV diode thru a coil to one plate and from the other plate thru another coil and back to the other side of the Secondary transformers wire. I will post photos.

As you described how it Connected to the transformer, yes that is short circuit.
And will get very hot. Andere probably not even form any bubbles. No volts at plates, very little in this manner.

Things to keep in mind:
- can power WFC directly from a DC battery. Straight too plates, only thing needed is additives to make water conductive. Keep plate gap small. Say 2mm.
You will need 10 to 20 amps at around 2v or more. There are many ways to decrease the amp draw while producing roughly the same amount of gas or more for the current method. But this works. Gets hot but works and produces copius gas. Drawback is the amount of power it consumes to do this.
-use an osc or multivibrator and pulsed DC as stater earlier. This drops power consumption drastically, while gas yield is the same or better than straight dc.
I used the blocking diode in this version as meyers shows.
- an open voltage as Dr Andrija Puharich used in his method of electrolysis.
It is here where no rectification is needed ons your part. The amplitude modulated wave connected as an open voltage causes rectification to take place all ons it's own..

-DC couple into a parallel LC circuit will work. This may be what you were saying? About it shorting? If so, I forgot to mention you must connector one side of the LC parallel tank ckt to plus power dc. This being your Secondary and one plate connected to +v the other side of Secondary and the other plate connects to the collector of a transistor. The primary is feedback for tuning on/off this transistor. Emitter to ground or -dc. Without a way to interupt the DC, it will get hot as you are just running dc thru a low ohm coil continually. Single pulsed is all you get and it Basically stops as far as the plates are concerned. Sonoran you must interupt the dc in cycles. Preferably in resonance to the LC circuit.
thanks it really helps me i have one device that i've desinged it gives a voltage of only 0.40 volts but the current is around 100 to unknown ams it's like metal melter it's a prototype of it! can i use that one you can see metal melter at this link : this is the complete version and the one with me is its proto type with the voltage of 0.40 volts!
Cool. Unfortunately I believe you will need at least1.5v of potential with large amps. The common known volts needed per chemistry is around that levels.
there are sources out there that use chemistry knowledge to suggest 1.5volt is a node minimum needed. Please report if your successfull using below. 1v.
Bad news i've tested it but didn't worked i just used tap water and some salt and engaged the two terminals in a small bucket but i can't even get some foams only some very very tiny bubles! i am now going to use 3 volts and over 200amps it will take some time i will suceed i will tell you!
Thanks for your comments as this will help others avoid those problems. Not that duplicative tests are not necessary but for those wishing to start off building things that others have already worked out what works helps you avoid having to learn from scratch. Lots of ppl have good info of what work for them and what didnt.
MY (author)  Kunadude4 years ago
Perhaps it's time to fire up the old HHOCLUB.ORG message board? I shut if down years ago due to lack of interest, but I'm excited to see that folks still see the value in HHO.
Kiteman MY4 years ago
If it keeps the woowoo of this site, please do.
He is talking about you. Contribute something or go away.

You have been to various sites seen and heard ideas. Not once do you constructively tell ppl what others have tried or had working. And simply say well I feel its a waste of time but here is what some ppl have done with examples and encourage them to knock themself out trying .

Since you offer zero to the topic at large why stay?
Because there are still people making huge, paradigm-shifting claims about "HHO" generators, and failing to back them up with any evidence.

As I have noted elsewhere, there are many impossibilities claimed for "HHO", and too many people willing to accept those claims without question.
Sorry, i did't get him. so! thanks for making me to realize ! and that's what i can do cause i am paying for the domain from my pocket money! with my father gives me it's only 5$ a month and rest i some how manage!
Sorry, i did't get him. so! thanks for making me to realize ! and that's what i can do cause i am paying for the domain from my pocket money! with my father gives me it's only 5$ a month and rest i some how manage!
that but i have one domain registered it's name is and i am already paying for that i can rebuild the whole site in hhoclub but i can't change my Sorry! for domain name. i can offer some people an unique email address
like as i have one & i can convert my domain into hho club can can build it my self as i am a web developer trained by mozilla developers networks i have myself created the home page of my site you can see it! if you all will agree i may start the work?
samaddon MY4 years ago
I have one domain registered it's name is and i am already paying for that i can rebuild the whole site in hhoclub but i can't change my Sorry! for domain name. i can also offer some people an unique email address
like as i have one & i can convert my domain into hho club can can build it my self as i am a web developer trained by mozilla developers networks i have myself created the home page of my site you can see it! if you all will agree i may start the work?Sir what you think about it?
Raise the voltage and lower your current. Increase additives.
To build your first successful WFC recommend using a 12 car battery .. and power the cell directly. For a better simple additive use distilled vinegar. And mix in say 2to3that cups in your water. This is a starting point of common electrolysis. And will produce enough gas to motivate you to want to keep experimenting.
these are some pics of my WFC
I saw your pics. A multiplate cell is a good choice for early experiments. Thats how I started as well. Then I went on too using concentric tubes. After good results.

I strongly recommend bringing your connections in either from the bottom or sides. As I had a WFC in 12vDC @100 amp that got my entry terminals so hot they ignited the gas in a the area above the water in my container. Early days of experimenting with standard electrolysis. Luckily my cell was not closed tight as I was showing it to friends. If it had been under pressure it would have exploded dangerously. In the my case of it was the very loud and the a large flame exited out my opening that was normally closed. Just very lucky that day. These things can be dangerous so please dont underestimate it.

All my other cells from that near accident caused me to bring in power so that it helped cool these terminals and not expose hot connectors to this cavity of gas.
Bring in power below the water level.or in any type of configuration that doesn't expose terminals to that gas pocket.
Sir , may i join you on skype so that i can get more suggestions lively if you don't mind and got time. If you agree just give me your country's name so i can manage the time cause i am only 15 so i need to go to school for 6hrs!
Samad Haque
My pleasure. I will have to create an account as I don't have one myself. I have been using my wifes account.
Created skype cct H2ofuel -United States.
Can you give more details cause i am not able to find find you if you please give me more details like e-mail or just find me my skype name is Maman&Samad and the email is . sorry but from this message i will now go to shool and get back to you after 6hrs!
Sorry for the delay. I won't be free till tomorrow. I will contact you with the information you gave and we can plan from there ok.
What is cct and plese give you skype name ! write it it bracket.
Kunadude4 years ago
Most of the material I have is in pdf. Not sure if I can post pdf.
Simply giving patent numbers is ok I guess, but I'd rather post entire documents.

I apologize for getting off topic. But below is a simple circuit that demonstrate an increase in power to a load that comes from not your source supply. Having difficulty attaching photos.

Can someone kindly tell me how to attach photos? I seem to be doing something wrong. Thanks
so'neill36 years ago
im intrested to its not hard to do but is there a faster way?
In defense of kitemen, I agree with much of what his intent is towards trying to separate the pipe dream claims from reality in WFC. As such yes there are practical ways to separate water better than old school methods. All over the internet.
You will have to sort through alot of pork sadly.
Just turn up the power. The stuff about "frequencies" in the current that splits the water is just woowoo.
Kunadude4 years ago
With the diode present in the circuit, it will double your input freq so make sure to take this into account. For instance, if you drive it your determines freq for your wfc then due to this doubling you are now pulsing through the cell at its full wavelength and not 1/2 wavelength any longer. You would have to cut the driving freq un half afain in irder to drive the wfc at a 1/2 wavelength freq in this case.

Now to throw another oddity at you. The plates contrary to belief can also be driven with both plates pulsed with the same polarity, ie both pos and pos then both neg and the neg. As is done in his pinnacle achievement with the steam generator.
Take into account that all semiconductors are just that SEMI-conductors, ergo there is increased resistance.
A diode, will "chop off" one side of a frequency bringing it closer to DC.
Kunadude4 years ago
The circuit functions then as follows. With either a ac or pulse dc signal entering the orimary coil of the isolation transformer or stepup transformer, is passes to the secondary. It then passes inti a single blocking diode which purposely causes the next events to occur. First, a unidirectional current pulse is passed into the first parallel tank pruor to the first plate and then passes thu and inti the second parallel tank and closes upon the other secondaries winding. This initial pulse sets up an AC resonance pinpg ponging thru the cell from tank too tank. It also sets up a DC voltage bias tension across thesr plates. With succesive pulsing at the proper freq, now new energy is intriduced into the circuit in small incremental chunks of new energy into an already resonating circuit now. The overall scheme is such that you are adding energy in a single direction at the proper timing into this system. Analogous to pushing a kid on a swung set. Energy builds up. The unipolar voltage rises increasing tension while the RF energy is increasing within the waveguide. Taken together, the water molecule is simultaneously vibrating and oscillating literally tearing the water apart.
Kunadude4 years ago
For anyone seriously endeavoring to build an hho wfc based from Stan Myers method of electrolysis, should have all his patents and tech briefs including and mtost important his water steam generator patent. As this patent contains info about his prior patents and diagrams in the vic that simply is not shown in previous patents or his briefs. Aspects about the VIC circuit is explained more clearly and are not designed the way many ppl are making them and certainly do not understand its operation properly. Same is true for his bifilar choke coils. There is alot of confusion cicrulating the web and youtube about the circuits overall functioning.

Allow me to explain Myers wfc in plain and simple terms. While variants of his method are common, his goal was an AC resonant system. Many individuals critical of the system over his resonance claims and the circuit at first glance appears to not allow any true resonance to occur due too his diode block connected in the circuit. While this is normally true from the way ppl are looking at it, it does indeed have ac sine waves 180deg passing thru the cell with a rising dc bias voltage that you see. Due to this diode present. Before i go on please understand that the system will function with ac and no rectification. The water will undergo vectification.

What is the main points and goals? Freqs etc too operate at? Simple

The goal is high voltage potential with little to no amps in by a number of ways explored by Stan. Creating a voltage differential wave guide. Aka your wfc itself. This spacing of the platea determines your wavelength. The cell is properly pulsed at a freq that is a odd multiple harmonic of 1/2 of this wavelength. This is merely your target freq to design around. The circuit itself is to adjust and take into account the inductances, capacitances in consideration to build the electrical ckt to also resonate around this freq as well. The ckt as a whole is designex around your plates established 1/2 wavelength freq. Being said, there are several things many ppl are not aware of as the info is not readily passed arounx and ppl have varying skills. That freq is without the diode present. If you are using it as in myers schematiic, 1/4 wavelength freq will be your new target freq for the cells operation.

I am writing this from my phone so pls bare with me for a minute as i clarify a few points. How and why do i arrive at this freq for any given cell as a starting point? It is based from the fact you are building a waveguide and causes mechanical motion on the water molecules and prevents recombination during the splitting process. Secondly that some ppl are not aware is that while in electronics we generally take the fundamental freq to be the one that completes a complete cycle from pos to neg. Ie one full cycle. This we call its fundamental resonate freq if it fits withi the spacing of the plates. This however in reality and according to musical theory is actually the first harmonic. A doubling. The fundamental freq in accoustics or music theory is that freq which is a node on each boundary. The space interval between being antinode region thru out. There is not flipping of polarity halfway between these boundary plates. So that makes this the subharmonic from electronics reasoning. The water is to have time to be driven and experience this force virtually from plate to plate in distance. Not possible at the freqs they ars trying to drive there wfcs at. It will work only with greatly reduced efficiency. This causes the water moleculez to stretch, rotate and wobble via vibration together with particle oscillation. The RF freq with the rising dc bias voltage that is setup. Forces the water molecule to absorb energy changing there harmionic bond affinity for one another unevenly until separation takes place. As the atoms and electrons are liberated, they now travel across the full length of spacing, rising and zig-zagging back and for up and out of this waveguide. Multipaction also plays a part and contributes too its efficiency.

The bifilar chokes seems to warrant alot of confusion when it should not, especially one trained in an electrical background. These coils are not designed as cancelling fields contrary to many ppls understanding. They are indeed, in aiding fashion in order to maximize the voltage. Done in cancelling configuration merely creates a resistor.

Too illustrate what is happening simply forgo the bifilar altogether in a test setup. For choke1 add a capacitor and place it parallel to that choke coil. This forms an LC parallel ckt. The otherside connects to one plate of your wfc. Do the same for the other and choke2. Make it another parallel LC circuit here. It connects from the other plate to your
secondarys other terminal wire. Now, even with the diodes presence the ckt due to these parallel LC ckts will induce 180deg sinewave signals that pingpong thru the cell from parallel choke to the choke. A true ac resonance is indeed setup in this ckt contrary to my colleagues claims with electrical backgrounds trying to debunk its operation based on claimed resonance. Without operating the ckt electrically at the freq for a single coils nat capacity and inductance which is itself a parallel ckt would not setup this condition. So physically make these chokes parallel LC ckts. Turns out that the bifilar coil can be a very good parallel LC ckt itself. Any rate, the goal is place a parallel LC ckt between each secondary wire and opposite plates of your wfc. Make sure that you take in condideration the operating target freq as discussed earlier and design the electrical attributes of these parallel LC ckts ckts to be.resonate also at this freq.
All that typing, yet there is still nothing to show that "HHO" is even real, never mind any better than the actual products of the electrolysis of water, simple hydrogen and oxygen.
Anyone who argues at 100% efficiency is an idiot. There is no reason to make a 100% efficient design or to even dream of efficiency above 40%. The idea is to make an effective fuel right? Petrol is a great fuel for an internal combustion engine, it expands readily, heats quickly, and is relatively easy to control. It is however, expensive to produce, expensive to maintain, and bad for the environment.

I'm not a scientist by any means, but if you took Lye and added it to the water in 50% dilution, 7 neodymium cone magnets, a set of ceramic binary cams, and 8 stainless steel rods. You most certainly COULD produce something more efficient than an internal combustion engine. Not that efficiency is difficult mind you, a Stirling engine is vastly more efficient and cheaper to maintain than an ICE. In this world of nanotechnology putting water droplets into a Cassie-Baxter state would make it spin with next to no resistance.

That being said, you're all thinking inside the box with HHO. Why limit your energy potential to internal combustion? The heat exchange on a Stirling engine would be vastly more efficient, I am the very definition of a layman in this subject. But heres how I would start my experiment.

2*12v Batteries
2*"Alternators" Made of the neodymium magnets and the stainless steel rods
2*Gorilla Glass Pipes with custom fittings to seal out moisture.
2* Gorilla Glass Binary Cams
4* Gorilla Glass Pistons
All of this coated in NeverWet(google it)

The pipe will hold the entire system, including the sodium hydroxide/water mixture.

Because water cannot touch the surface of anything in this system there is very little in the way of gumming the works. The only things that will permeate NeverWet are the only things we want to, at least in this cast. Hydrogen Hydroxide

Why do you have a binary cam? Simple with a binary cam you can rotate the 7 magnets against the rotating steel rods, thus generating a moving magnetic field. Moving a magnetic field means you've now made an electric field YAY!

This electric field is now powering a massive battery(it is a moving metal core in a very efficient electrolyte), and by massive I mean, about 2 feet tall and six inches in diameter. There will be exhaust, but thats easily channeled via use of the pistons. You feed exhaust via these pistons into the other chamber that is rotating opposite the first.

Viola you now have on the fly HHO generation. It's really not that complicated, any hillbilly could make it.

Now you may ask, isn't it dangerous to mix lye and water? Sure it is.

I ask you this as well. Isn't it more dangerous to mix fire with anything?

I suppose you could use this system to make a feed for an ICE, but why? The friction of the water against itself and the steam it generates would be more than sufficient to power a chassis up to 50MPH. At those speeds one might fear breaking the system and having a massive release of explosive energy, but a tiny Motor vehicle accident will not scratch gorilla glass, especially at the thickness you will be using it to make this machine.

And yes you will have to change your electrolyte and water solution eventually, but you're only using it as fuel and given that the two of the most abundant things on EARTH are sodium and water you will have no shortage of fuel to run this on.

I only hope someone smarter than myself can make glass based superconductors and improve upon this idea.

If I blow myself up in my garage attempting to create this machine I hope you all nominate me for a Darwin Award.
pkovaleff6 years ago
SO......after reading quite a few but nowhere near all of the posts that have been put down I have picked up that there is a possibility that HHO being fed into the air intake of an engine does have the possibility to enhance engine power and mileage but because of have to use quite a lot of power from the alternator could reverse this gain. The other thing I have picked up is that with fuel injected vehicles there could be a lot of stuffing around with sensors which would possibly then lean out the fuel/air ratio causing it to be too lean. So if these two problems are potentially true but I am to be using a carbi based vehicle that should in theory prevent the leaning out problem. In turn if I have a 100w solar panel on my roof with a total of 260 Amp hours of storage to run the generator off off, then that problem should also have been solved. So in turn can someone with chemistry and physics knowledge help me out to believe that my purchase will work and wasn't a waste of money. I do wan"t this system to work and do want to get into hydrogen power. I am honestly no expert in any field but know a little electronics, electrical and a bit of mechanical.
Jamie bagn6 years ago
I have been wanting to build an electroliser for ages and finaly I have had the chanct to design and make one. I have taught myself a fair ammont about the process and I'm currently building a system with the intention of running a small petrol engine off of it, the main problem that I'm having is getting a free, working, small petrol engine. Once I get this project working I am planning to upscale it to run a small car, however as I'm 16 in June I don't have a car and my parents wont let me get one. I have also had problems with the ammount of oxyhydrogen gas that you need to produce to run a engine because for every liter of petrol you need about 4000L of oxyhydrogen gas.
If you have any questions I'll have a go at answering them.
jessewenger6 years ago
I'm interested. Lets do it!!
HoldOnTight6 years ago
I'm interested in this. Never mind the naysayers who don't understand that what they are denying is already on youtube. HHO has other purposes. Maybe it would be the best emission control system a car could have and make the car run better with a few tweaks.
jj.inc6 years ago
Love it, I need to make one, put it in a car, and test it. Some report it works, other report it doesn't but very rarely does someone report a drop in efficiency. I wan't to do it right and see if it works.
I also guess this is the place to share my Basics of a Dry Cell, its not really a step by step how to it just gives the idea of how one is built and works.
sure, maybe for small torches, but in terms of putting it in your car and expecting it to give you better fuel efficiency, it is impossible to do such a thing. In order to power the electrolyser, the alternator attached to the engine has to supply more power to charge the battery who's charge is being depleted by the electrolyser, therefore more fuel has to be burnt to power the electrolyser, rendering the hydrogen gas produced useless. You can not get more energy by using energy. It is physically impossible to do that. Just like all those free energy nutters who think they can get power by cranking a generator with an electric motor on youtube.
Zphil03117 years ago
SOunds good... Ive been dabbling in HHO for a few months and had just finished building one for my 91 toyota truck... Being a common Joe with a keen interest in science and electronics, I would also love to learn such things as how to build a PWM for better efficiency.
Poor Man9 years ago
forgesmith - Have you tried building an HHO generator?
Not yet, already played with electrolysis way back in chemistry class. I've been studying the online plans and seeing how they can be improved. There's some dreck to get thru, like the Stanley Meyer stuff: "Water fueled" car, claims found to be fraudulent in court, mysterious "resonance" fuel cell, patents awarded for what actually sounds like an on-site gas generator that could be used for a torch thus nothing special, the "conspiracy to kill him to suppress his inventions" while complete plans are widely available and in his patents. Dreck. This HHO stuff is so wrapped up in "mysterious unknown science" it's hard to get some real info, no wonder there's not much serious research done.

I also suffer from the terrible condition of being a trained machinist with machine tools and metal stock on hand. You have no idea how hard that makes it to design something anyone can build. ;-)
I am publicly publishing my design of a Water Fuel Cell here and now and it is to be given out freely as I give to you all. I have searched the net and no one has come up with this except me thus far. I am using 2 wire mesh lengths of 4" wide x 10' length. I used rubber bands for spacers every 3 squares in 14 x14 per inch, 0.020 diameter 316L Stainless Steel Wire Mesh. I am Using PVC in the center with two threaded rods on the end inside the slotted PVC pipe with the wire mesh wrapped around the threaded SS rods. I roll the two lengths up like a roll of 2 ply toilet paper with one having the rubber bands on spacers on both sides of it so they will stay about 1/16" seperated the full lengths of them. The rubber bands will be verticle so the bubbles can rise straight up between them. You can also use other types of spacers and other widths and lengths. I figure you can get in about a 6 inch diameter roll about 20' to 25' lengths and if you keep it real tight you may be able to get much more. This wire mesh is not going to work long enough for the type set ups that use any form of electrolyte materials. You have to make this work only in a Stanley Meyer's set up. If you have a complete schematic and parts list and directions to make this Stanley Meyer's unit send this to me also please. My idea is now public domain and not to be sold but to be shared in open source on the net. The closest I have seen to my idea is a guy who used round wire mesh panels in a Horizontal position and he had to use vacuum to get the bubbles out. Another guy only used a few square or rectangular pieces of wire screen or mesh and it produced a lot of bubbles. He used electrolyte and it will dissolve real fast even 316L Stainless Steel. Meyer's method is the only one that will last long enough to make it worth doing. Any help you can give me to make a circuit as I explained above in earlier posts with off the shelf components is appreciated which is why I am sharing my WFC design which will produce a very large volume of HHO in a much smaller package.It has a lot of surface area to help form the bubbles of HHO. It is open enough to also help form it. You can use solid Stainless Steel lengths in this manner also if you like. If we can all go in on the purchase of the Mesh it will be much cheaper as a group than individually also. I have not figured out that as of yet though. What we should all do is start a non-profit organization out of this and get building and once we have a working model from all our efforts we all put these on our individual vehicles and work all those bugs out and publish it also. As for timing issues on a car or truck and etc. I was thinking we could build a circuit for each individual spark plug wire that will slow down the timing of the spark so that it will not go off until the piston is past top dead center of the revolution. If there is a exhaust spark it will have to be eliminated completely. We need to be able to completely shut off the gasoline supply also. Then who cares about the computer. We can wire the engine up to run without a computer if need be once we have pure HHO running the car with the timing of the sparks firing when we want them too. All those sensors are useless if it is clean burning HHO with no carbon. I personally feel the computerized cars where made to control us not the cars emissions. My dad got 28 MPG with his old Comet he tuned up himself and his old truck he made a exhaust box around his intake manifold and he was getting close to 50 MPG and a lot of speed and power out of it with gasoline. These auto makers are a joke and are on purpose making cars get lousy mileage. They have a symbiotic relationship with the Oil Industry otherwise Steam would have been the choice in Powering Automobiles such as the Doble Steam Car. To slow down the burn in the HHO we can also use some of the exhaust gases mixed with a twister causing type of device that mixes HHO with the inert leftover gases of the burn of HHO and water vapor and some ambient air from the air intake. Doing it with inert gases will also help if you have to have a oxygen sensor and full it running straight HHO. The American Hydrogen Association already has much of what we need to know worked out from converting many vehicles to hydrogen only or duel fuel engines. We need them to help us also as they have a lot of expertise in this area. We work together on this and publicly and no one get greedy and we all will be driving vehicles that never need to stop at a gasoline station again. We will be cleaning the air as we drive instead of polluting it. NO2 will be so low compared to gasoline running cars that it will not be a issue. If someone figures out a cheap easy way to separate the NO2 we will have a lot of Nitrogen and Oxygen back in the atmosphere. The point is we work together to make HHO the future for ourselves and who cares about the Oil and Auto makers visions. We will make our own and drive them too! Who is on board with me. My e address is truefreedom at In the subject line say "Public HHO Project". No threats also. I am not afraid of death. You can kill the body but you can not kill me as I will be resurrected Jehovah God willing in the Paradise Earth so you will be the only ones to die permanently not me or mine. But I do want to drive this before that day comes. So stay away if you are working for the enemy of HHO. This project has to be so simple that even a normal average 8th grader can do it. That is our goal here. Thank you, HawkNo1
nfitz HawkNo19 years ago
Wow i'm shocked this thread still has (some) life in it.

@ HawkNo1:
I'm afraid what you say makes me think you don't quite fully understand how an internal combustion engne works.

You wouldn't want the ignition spark to come after top dead centre (ATDC), you want it to come just before TDC, so that in the time it takes the fuel (gasoline or HHO) to burn, the piston reaches TDC. That way the expanding combustion gasses create the most downwards force on the piston, making the most possible power.

If you did ignite ATDC, the hot gasses would be trying to push on something that's already moving away, having to catch up with it before 'pushing' on it. In that time the gas would have expanded, reducing its pressure and exerting less force on the piston.

You could control the spark timing either by retrofitting the vehicle with an older style coil and distributor set up, or if retaining the modern ecu, by moving the placement of crank / cam position sensors.

Secondly, adding anything to HHO when you burn it will not slow down its combustion rate. Adding inert gasses would just be waste of inert gasses. Fresh air, fine...argon point. The best you could hope for would be a reduction in burn temperature (and egt's) via water injection.

I don't understand why you'd be using an oxygen sensor when running full HHO...what would be using it for?? You wouldn't be using the petrol injectors for anything so it'd have nothing to control. Using an LPG-style gas mixer like a carburettor would be the only sensible method for fuel delivery IMO.

RE: The Stanley Meyers setup, if you're think it'll work why not go ahead and build it, but I can't see it being any more efficient than traditional electrolysis myself.

The only way I can see pure HHO fuel working in cars would be to produce the gas externally and store it for use as required. Electricity from solar or nuclear sources would make sense. Whether any government would let you drive around carrying a tank of compressed hydrogen and oxygen in stoichiometric ratio is another matter.

Anyway i'm not saying you shouldn't / can't do it, just giving some possible improvements.

Yeasayer nfitz8 years ago
Something to ponder;

Potential Energy :
Potential Energy versus obtainable Energy equals efficiency.This is the case of the
Hydrogen - Oxygen electrolyzer debate.
Dynamics of combustion. This is exactly why they work. It has nothing to do with alternator load and the fuel value (heat) of a small quanity of hydrogen, a vehicle with a normal fuel useage of 20 miles per gallon gasoline will go 20 miles +( Example,1000 ft.) highway driving when using a Hydrogen booster, but only when a separate battery is used for the Hydrogen booster's power source .If the booster uses the alternator then a 1/3 horse power penalty will be invoked. causing a reduction in original economy.( conservation of energy and mechanical losses and alternator efficiency) The above has no violations of scientific laws The real life fact is , A hydrogen booster as a extra source of fuel is a loosing argument. anyone who tells you an alternator can produce power without
requiring extra effort from the engine does not know. You can be certain of that.
Grand Coulee Dam was built because its pretty and the 90 ton turbine that drives a 1,000,000 horse power Alternator," Well that was to show off our capabilities in machine work".
Why Do They Work?. Combustion dynamics. We've heard many times, engines are not efficient, the greatest loss to efficiency is heat loss, the cylinder head and engine block as well as pistons soak up extreme quantities of (BTU.Heat Units)
The cooling system removes about 27% (guess) of the total heat produced from the fuel you use, about 49% goes out the exhaust pipe,and 24% is converted to power at the drive wheels. The mechanical losses are included in the heat loss.
Why is so much heat wasted ?. Time.(1) Time to burn at high engine speed,(2) Time for the piston to travel at low engine speed . Hydrogen injection modifies the whole dynamics of the common fuel burn program. (1) The burn rate of gasoline/diesel must be coordinated to exert maximum pressure on the piston when it's crankshaft position is 15-20 degrees after top center of the compression stroke. At high engine speed it is necessary to begin the fuel burn before the piston has ended its compression stroke, " Before top center," this adds a braking resistance to the forward direction of the engine. At some point down the cylinder, the fuel completes its burn, often
after the exhaust valve has opened releasing potential energy to the exhaust pipe. The cylinder wall has been exposed to burning fuel through out the full length. Now that the exhaust valve is open, the hot gas remains in the cylinder because of back pressure from the exhaust system, more time to store heat in the engine metal.This is not a bad thing for the next power cycle, as a hot cylinder will better vaporize the gasoline. But energy is wasted on the exhaust
stroke because the piston must force the burned gases out the valve port.
All the above will transfer an exceptional amount of heat to the coolant system.
(2) Slower engine speed at high load demand, accelerating from a stop, Near full load at low engine speeds.
The high rate of fuel being burned behind a slow piston transfers its energy to the cylinder wall.
So- what does hydrogen change ?-- Time.! It is claimed by booster makers
that hydrogen in the fuel charge serve as millions of miniature spark plugs that energize the hydrocarbon molecules that surround it, in so doing the fuel charge has many flame fronts.and is consumed in much less time which increases combustion temperature and therefor higher pressure to drive the piston.
What would be the impact on an engine that could begin fuel burn at 0 degrees, top dead center at 2400 rpm. and also have the fuel burn complete at 18 degrees of power stroke, at
maximum pressure. The piston has moved less than 1/8 inch down the cylinder. Due to the extreme burn rate the temperature of combustion will be higher, the pressure will also be higher. there is no negative braking force from advanced spark timing
Pressure is what drives your engine.and the early burn allows the expanding gases to push the piston at higher pressure through nearly a full stroke, the early burn also reduces the exhaust temperature which means that more energy was converted to work The low pressure exhaust requires less energy to purge the cylinder. (Exhaust stroke).
In newer lean burn engines with variable valve timing and fuel injection you should not alter your fuel to air ratio, In winter this could cause hard starting and rough running, alcohol in gasoline requires a richer ratio.
The one thing you must do is retard the spark timing, if you do not, then fuel burn will happen on the compression stroke with a high tendecy to drive your engine backward .
A note about Boosters; I do not Sell them I do not make them for sale.
I have built one for testing (SMACKS) and have designed a pipe model I plan to build. Do the boosters really work? "I don't Know"." But spark plugs Do"!
Actually it is more like about 78% goes out the exhaust pipe unburned. The Pogue Carberator was getting 200 MPG. Gasoline engines are inefficient the way the are designed these days and it is on purpose! I already know that Hydrogen alone burns super fast and HHO burns even twice as fast as Hydrogen alone. Combustion Engines where first designed with Hydrogen as the main fuel when they where first built. They used the Hydrogen to light the streets also in many places. It was the future until oil and gasoline was discovered and used in combustion engines. Oil was cheaper. The trick is to get the hydrogen to burn at least a few degrees after it passes top dead center on the piston. That is the problem. These new vehicles are made to not be able to change the spark timing. On accident or design? I believe they on purpose wanted it so you had to scrap the existing engines to make them work or go through a large cost to transform them into viable hydrogen running engines. As far as energy lost? Meyer's as a 1700% return on his Water Fuel Cell HHO producing capacitor. For every 100% he put in he got 1700% out. I tried to tell this to the news media locally and they guy cut me off and then said that the max produced was 10% increase in efficiency. I know a conspiracy when I see one and the media is part of it. Meyer's got assassinated and no one did anything to find the killer. The media has kept him hush hush and even the judicial system was part of the conspiracy. They rigged his trial. It is time to get rid of these oil moguls including Bush and His Vise President and get HHO going and working and anyone who says it does not work is a plant! Did they try to build it as see if it works or not? The Chemical and Oil and Pharmaceutical Industries are this countries problems. They are controlling our government. You switch to HHO and you do not need these large powerful industries and then the government can not keep you a slave as they are now doing. This is happening world wide. All the world wide governments are trying to enslave their citizens as we speak and they are backed by these powerful industries. The financial institutions are part of it also as you can see the government keeps you so buried in debt you can not get the finances to even do s simple small project to build this HHO. NO innovation and if you haven't noticed in the US it is getting harder and harder to even find electronic parts that you can use to build anything health or energy wise. Electronics Techs are becoming a thing of the past here in the US because Meyer's device is a electronics devise. On top of that the US sold all our jobs out of country in allowing the large companies to produce their products outside the US with slave wages literally or no wages at all as in China. China puts everyone in Jail and makes them produce goods for free. That is slave camps not prison. They should not even be allowed to work with the US at all! This country is under attack right as we speak. Economic attack! The only way out is these HHO devises completely running our vehicles on sea water as Meyer's device could do. You can not do that with these fake electrolysis devises that only get 300% efficiency out of what you put in. Anything that uses electrolytic material in the water is a waste of time and energy and resources. Meyer's devise was not electrolysis. It used any water source with no additive needed. We have the technical know how to build this devise and NASA has the plans since they where the ones who went into contract with Meyer's and then made a contract on Meyer's to kill him! The US Government is behind this! They do not want us energy independent so they put their people out here on the net to squash the real truth on this with Naysayers as so forth whom are there to make people think it is impossible to do. It was done in the 1920's. It was done by Meyers and there is another guy who in a attempt to cure cancer found a radio signal that burns salt water. He is next to be snuffed out by this US government. It is a federal crime even for the government to kill a citizen, but no one is stopping them and then the law agencies are covering it up for them. This is the world you live in. The only escape I know of is through our God, Jehovah God. Matthew 6:9,10; Matthew 6:33; Revelations 11:18; Revelations 21:1-4; John 17:3. One thing about Meyer's is he believed heavily in God and so do I. Mankind can not fix this wicked system of things as the very fabric of all the worlds society is interweaved with greed, power, control, a evil desire to kill others to get it. It is loaded with lust and Idolatry. Everything we are in the bible told to avoid. That is what is running this world. It is a powerful evil organization of fallen angels behind all of this and they have been evil for thousands of years now. They know our weaknesses and they use them against us. That is why we where told by Jesus himself to repent and turn around from our wicked ways.. It is not easy but it opens your eyes to much more than you realize when you learn the truths hidden in the scriptures. Meyer's was right. God gave us all we need. But others have suppressed it from us and is trying to do so even more so now! Water is all over our planet and it is the easiest and safest form of energy there is to use but it is being suppressed from society. That is why we have a new breed of HHO gorilla's who are doing it anyway with or without the Governments blessings world wide. Secret Shop and Garage HHO warriors! Fighting to have clean safe practically free energy. Not completely free unless you go down to a river or ocean or lake and or snow and get it. Tap water costs. Meyer's method does not deteriorate the SS 304 tubes he uses to make HHO. He said they have a roughly 10K years life to them. You use electrolysis and you will be fortunate to get 1 year life out of them. There are a lot of naysayers out there and they are a hindrance to the real truths. Meyer's was not a fraud. The judge and his expert who sabotaged Meyer's water was! They work for the government! Here in the US the government is suppose to be for the people. Instead it is a fascist Government now and it is suppressing the people. The only reason Obama won that election is that so many people voted that even though the republicans rigged the polls he still won. There is no way McCain even came close to winning that election. Gore won and it was proven and they are still finding out that those polls where rigged. Bush became president through illegal means and he sunk this country afterwards. The people are not in control of this country! They lost control a long time ago. It is only bought and paid for politicians running this country and if they do not do as told they end up like JFK. Dead! So do not think Obama is really going to help the people! One thing I know, a happy worker is a good worker. Same with citizens, a happy citizen is a good citizen. This country is suffering while the rich get richer. Illinois State Governor Spoke out against Bank of America for not giving a major job supplier in a town the money it needed to keep going. They had good credit and the town relied on that industry to supply jobs locally. What happened the next day was a smear campaign of that Illinois Governor on the media. Accusing him of selling Obama's Senate set to the highest bidder. They let everyone hear a illegal wire tap of him saying he was going to ride this to the top. He could have been talking about the BofA scam against that small town as BofA was paid billions as a bail out from the US Government and yet they where shutting off legit companies funding? Scam! Conspiracy to Defraud that Governor also. There are so many laws a average person breaks and does not even know it! So many that they could easily do us like they do citizens in China and that is next if someone does not stop it! This is not even a communist government nor democratic, it is a industry and government run fascist government. It is suppression and all these poor people leave their country in hopes of the American dream only to have that dreams shattered in their face once they realize the reality of it all. I am part American Indian. I studied the real past and especially that of Thanksgiving. The history books left out that 700 men, women and children where massacred in a lodge the next year by those same pilgrims so they could steal their food supplies. These where suppose to be Christians. Far from it. The US government has reneged on it's words to the American Indians numerous times. They are now trying to get position of Indian Land in the Black Mountains because precious stones and minerals where found on those lands and the US government wants them. As I say ask any American Indian if you can trust the US Government? Well now it is all the US citizens now they will be doing it too. You can not be homeless or you get put in jail yet the US government allowed usury by the credit institutions so now many people are homeless or lost their jobs due to the back lash of those credit agencies greed. What they sowed is what they reaped except they cried to momma (US Government) and got a hand out to keep them going but they sure are not helping those caught in their scams traps. They helped themselves only! That is why the Illinois Governor is being slandered and liabled in the media. He pointed out the truth and then the next day they showed him as a criminal in their eyes and in public opinion. I will be next! At least in Prison I can get some decent medical. It will cost them more for me to be there than not but who cares? Maybe I will have time to work on HHO in Prison and run the whole place with free energy? Any way, Sorry I easily get off track as you can see here.
This is exactly what we need to help our country! If people see a path that they want (better more economic fuel) they will follow it, they only need a lead to follow. The people have the power to do in the government, they only need a leader. There are so many more people than the rich and powerful that we could remove them all. PLEASE IF YOU HAVE A LEAD TO A BETTER SYSTEM OF ANYTHING THEN PLEASE SHARE IT AND GIVE AS MUCH INSIGHT AND HELP AS POSSIBLE, OUR COUNTRY NEEDS IT!
HawkNo1 nfitz8 years ago
I understand mechanics. I am a Third Generation mechanic myself. But HHO burns way faster than even hydrogen itself. As it is straight Hydrogen is suppose to be after top dead center when it ignites. It will be a pure power burn with no pre-ignition and that is what makes it even more efficient than gasoline and etc. With HHO you have oxygen which feeds the combustion of the hydrogen. It speeds up the burn twice as fast as Hydrogen alone. I am also a second generation Electronics Tech. Specializing in Aviation's. Electrolysis is not what Meyers did. The Water Fuel Cell or WFC was a capacitor much like a battery in a car only way faster in charging and releasing the charge. The side affect is that much lie a car batteries also. Hydrogen which is why a car battery is considered explosive if near a fire or spark. The difference is the WFC produces massive amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen as a side affect. Electrolysis uses low voltage and high amperage. Meyer's WFC uses very high voltage and almost zero amperage and if you could build it with zero amperage you would have the most efficient WFC out there. Even Meyer's did not do that. Many also have claimed to be able to tap into the WFC and get more voltage out than was put in. It may be the pulsing that achieves that? Whatever Meyer's device is almost body temperature where as Electrolysis is way higher due to the amperage and much more dangerous due to the possibility of explosion and melting of the casing. No one out there is really working on Meyer's set up except that Tad Johnson guy and I do not think he is for real as he is secluded and hiding pretty much and not giving out any real information on how the electronics of it is off the shelf. There are a lot of phony people out there to through everyone off. You need to watch all of Meyer's videos. Her tells everyone in them what he uses and so forth. Tad Johnson said he used a 12 volt Neon Power Supply to make his and he modified it. Meyer's mentioned a TV Fly-back Transformer and phase controls in one of his video that cut him short for the next speaker. I think there is where you need to lean more than a Neon Power Supply. At any rate, I know we have the technology to do it Meyer's way. Everyone on the net is doing it the wrong way. Meyer's had a Circuit in Resonance with the WFC and at high voltage. Super low amps. Not electrolysis at all! Way more efficient than electrolysis. No additive to the water needed. You can use any water source, Ocean, River, Lake Snow, Rain and even sewage water. Any water source with no additive. His Stainless Steel 304 tubes he estimated to a 10,000 year life of constant use. You put a additive or electrolyte in it and it will not last a year more than likely due to the corrosive properties of the water afterward. It will more than likely not even work hardly once you add that solution to Meyer's set up. The reason you can not just by pass the sensors and etc is they are all tied into a computer that controls ignition and timing and etc. It does not get a reading and it does not work. You can by pass the computer and use a simple distributor but that is never going to fly when it comes to time to do the smog testing. They get a reading in the testing like HHO would give them and they will think your car is malfunctioning and not pass it. If you go straight HHO you do not need a mixer at all. You just put a SS tube down the intake manifold for each cylinder and with a spark arrestor on each one of those SS tubes so as to stop a back fire from going up the tubes. You do not need a carburetor at all. or Fuel injection for that matter but as I said you people are talking mixing gasoline with HHO. You have to have the computer, sensors and etc to use HHO also. Plus here in California I was told that you can not even legally mess with the smog devices which is suppressing innovation also. The automakers are making sure you can not do anything to fix your vehicle at all the way you want it to be unless you get a 1973 or older car before they had smoke requirements. I call that a conspiracy! As to the reason Meyer's WFC is so efficient? Simple high amps means high heat. Heat is loss of energy. Electrolysis is high heat. Meyer's is 98.8 Degree Fahrenheit. No real heat loss. Super low amps, no loss of efficiency. Electrolysis with pulsing can only achieve about 300% efficiency where as Meyer's WFC with the pulsing can achieve 1,700% efficiency. Very big difference in my book and should be in yours also. On top of that Meyer's as I said was not even as efficient as it can get as he did not get to zero amps in his setup. Why store it HHO when it can efficiently be made on demand with not that much of a power drain on a engine? That is like strapping a bomb under your butt by storing it! Make it on demand and you will not get blown sky high and everything else blown away for a block or so. Meyer's already proved he could make it on demand as he drove down the road at 60 MPH in his modified dune buggy. Sure he had to have another guy always adjusting the LRC circuit to keep it in resonance but with our technology today that can be done easily with a computer or a computer type circuit much like the computers they are using on cars already. A bit different and I do not know how to program computers or eproms and etc. But I know it can be done! The most programing I ever did was MS-DOS and batch files years ago. Between the 1987- 1995 or so? I have a memory problem so I do not remember that stuff any longer. You can take that Nuclear Idea and stick it where the sun does not shine. They are not efficient enough and safe enough to even play with that power source and it is at present a environmental hazard waiting to happen. Chernobyl is proof that. It is still happening under all that cement and may affect the ground water all around there and eventually get to our oceans and so forth. That accident is not even over with! Solar takes chemicals to make also and is actually toxic. There is a guy who uses solar energy to make steam with a refrigerant and he powers large generators that way and it works in snow, sleet, or rain also. He also heat up his water for with it at the same time. Wind is better than solar in my book but you need to much space to be safe with it. My idea is to use HHO with a steam engine powered generator which would more than enough efficiency to make enough power to run a modern home and itself. I like the Doble Steam Engine as it recycles the water and you can recycle the water for the HHO used to heat up the steam if you want to or use that to make fresh drinking water out of bad water. It's flames exhaust will be non-toxic inert gases and HHO vapors. It is the answer to many problems! With this devise we can actually clean the earth and replenish it with clean air as this when it burns also burns any VOC's in the air making them also non-toxic and inert. Think about it! Any way I guess my knowledge on my WFC material using the SS Screen was useless on this group? Or was it? ;)
HawkNo1 HawkNo18 years ago
I made a few grammatical mistakes Through in about the 4th paragraph is Throw. Also her in the second to last paragraph I said HHO vapors and it should be H2O vapors. I also left out a few miner words somehow? Please forgive me for those mistakes. Grammar was never my strong suite. I have always been lousy at it and always will be. I hope I make sense to everyone? Take care.
For what it's worth (just trying to help), I built my first HHO converter in 1972 (when all the gasoline stations were closed). I also built an outfitted and entire Iowa Farm to be independent of outside energy suppliers. I used stainless steel wire mesh on my first (several) units - as someone here has mentioned - but had a lot of trouble with the mesh deteriorating swiftly. My electrolytes were several, beginning as I remember with salt and bleach (hydrogen peroxide). My first cells (again as I recall) were Mason jars, then plastic like PVC. The car was a 1967 Chevy Chevelle, six cylinder, carburated. In 1981 or two, I again built (this time for my daughter) an HHO device for a car, this one a Chevy Monza Spyder with a carburated V-8. I used PVC pipe and plastic fittings, stainless steel electrodes, etc for the guts. There never was any question in either of these cases concerning better mileage - the Chevelle's was almost double normal, and the Monza went from 16 mpg highway to 25 (that one I remember very well on account of certain incidents at the time and having to do with "dad's goofy tinkering (a son compared me to a Harrison Ford movie about making ice with heat). Scoffers were all over me, and I was even ridiculed one day in court during testimony as an expert witness. Actually, my first experience with HHO production was in chemistry class during high school, 1952. I remember that a guy named Don Theis splattered he room with glass when he blew (as instructed not to) into the test tube where the HHO had been collected by electrolysis. I'm currently installing HHO systems on my cars (having a @#$%&! time with the fuel injection systems, to be perfectly honest). On a recent trip, one unit was getting 50 mpg when the supply hose I stupidly put too close to the radiator collapsed (even stupider, I didn't notice what was causing the sudden reduction in mileage until I got home). The car normally gets 38-40 mpg, and when "hyper-miling" (sort of - I drive very carefully and shut off the engine at stop lights) during a trip to Ohio from here in Texas, the wife and I got 42 mpg. Even with the hose screwed up the other day, I wound up with 45 mpg. Hope this helps, and if I can help anyone with everything I'm learning about these @#@$%&! fuel injected wonders, I'll be glad. Nice to be here, by the way.
This is a great idea. I have been experimenting with hho generators for a few years and have designed a few dry cells as well as wet cells. Forget about the wet cell. The dry cell is much more like the hydrogen generators that the big oil will be using. It run's at near 100% efficiency. There has been breakthrough in hydrogen storage. One day(the technology is here) we can all have our own electrolyzers fueling our vehicles from water, solar, wind.
I think the HHO Idea has at least one specific way to have a positive effect on the HP produced by a standard combustion engine: The introduction of the vapor form of HHO will definitely change volume when heated (be that by blending with the other hot gasses, or by its own combustion). By changing volume, it will drives the overall compression inside the cylinder(s) up, and, that is likely to render a more complete burining of whatever fuel is in the cylinder (including the existing fossil stuff). Even if it doesn't contain anything other than water vapor, this would still work, and, has already been done. so I vote we keep going and develop this idea.
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.
woopotsit9 years ago
As I see it there is an arguement here over whether or not using HHO actually increases efficiency. I wonder if anyone has done any checking into the following- A- How can HHO be pressurized and stored safely for vehicle usage. As there is merit to the arguement that the power drain on the engine is counterproductive to the goal. B-The second arguement is that HHO or H2 cannot be produced without using more energy that it produces. While in theory this is tru, grid power is far cheaper than gas right now, so it is a mute arguement and a smokescreen to discourage people imo. C- Noone hass mentioned that wind and solar energy can be used to electrolyze HHO or H2, then it can be stored and used to run a vehilce on without ridiculously expensive 'fuel cells'. D- Most of the discrouaging elements leave out as many of the facts as they accuse others of leaving out, in order to create a negative feel to it all so only companies like Mitsubishi go forward with the ideas or obtain funding for it. Time to as Obama put it 'leave the politics of tthe past behind'. JMO Who has any techinical data or experience with pressurizing and storing either of those gasses??? (HHO or H2) I have an HHO electrolyzer, and am purchasing an H2 machine. I need to make my own storage methods, and could use some input. Do not bother coming with the 'it will explode' routines. So will propane, gas, and many other gasses. That is a given if it reaches it's ignition conditions and points. My question is posed in order to find the hard scientific data we need to store them safely without Mitsubishi's sales propaganda and influence. Thank you. PS- I have already fueled rockets with HHO and studied rocket engineering in college many moons ago. We need practical solutions that will work. Not more large corporate/gov dirty deals, and just enuf science to justify their monopolies. I designed things NASA, the Navy, and other militaries use for energy. We do need to make these things the average Joe can handle, or the average Joe will once again spend their lives paying con artists and government/corporate ripoff scammers. Those are the facts we need to worry about. We made it cheaper for big oil to drill and got their rigs producing 35-85% more oil each within the last decade. Their response was to raise prices by 600%. We the people have to face facts about the scum running things and take action ourselves. I worked for them, know them, met them, ate with them, lived with them, and can verify, they are scum who think the public is stupid and there to be taken advantage of.
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!
kymnom1 HawkNo17 years ago
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. 
lemonie kymnom17 years ago
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.

kymnom1 lemonie7 years ago
Hey Dude - Just an expression...No offense intended.   Have a look at this engine.  I really don't know what to think...
lemonie kymnom17 years ago
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.

HawkNo1 lemonie7 years ago
I checked it out. He used compressed air in his demonstrations. I would need to see it actually work off fuel to believe it.
lemonie HawkNo17 years ago
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.

HawkNo1 kymnom17 years ago
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.
HawkNo1 HawkNo17 years ago
Some are already getting 20 psi off their units.
nfitz HawkNo18 years ago
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!"

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.
nfitz woopotsit8 years ago
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's irrelevant.
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!
frogsuk HawkNo19 years ago
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
PKM frogsuk9 years ago
New Scientist last week ran an article on mining landfill sites for precious minerals and plastics...
hahncho HawkNo19 years ago
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
HawkNo1 hahncho9 years ago
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!
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 .
HhMan woopotsit9 years ago
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
jonlove8 years ago
I'm a physicist with the Los Alamos Labs here in New Mexico. I've been following this thread. I will not comment on rather or not any of the information is correct or misleading. I think that would be pointless, due to the agents that are obviously also monitoring the thread. I don't mean government agents. I mean those that feel that money is more important that human life and our beautiful Earth. I will try to keep this short and make short comments with deeper metaphorical meaning, as well as obvious content. As far as automobiles are concerned, Henry Ford originally designed his engine to run on grain alcohol, with would burn clean. No one seemed to be interested, except the oil companies. The oil companies understood the designs long term impact on the world, as well as it's impact on their profits. They would buy the idea, only if Ford would make the engine run on a fuel made from oil. He struggled against the idea, but gave in for one reason or another. That choice changed our world forever. Today, there is a wonderful interest from so many people to do things right, even if the second time around. With the hope that it's not too late and, together, we can change the world. A change to better our world for our children and their children. So, here I am putting my two cents in. 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. HHO is only the beginning. Soon other devices will become public. I intend to make public my lifetime of study on what is commonly called zero point physics. In the actual physics community, it's not called "zero point", but that will do for here. I have constructed and operated a device in my own personal lab, that operates completely independent of any outside conventional power sources. For 30 years, I continued the work of Tesla, one of the greatest minds of all time. Even Dr. Einstein praised Tesla, but his comments were often suppressed by the "authorities". None the less, Dr. Einstein always spoke his peace, with mixed reactions. My favorite is a multi-layered answer in four words; when asked to comment on the churning debate on the "chaotic theory".. he clearly spoke in the the microphone: "God doesn't play dice" If you enjoy deeply layered metaphoric conversation as I do, I'm sure you can appreciate his comment, which reveals many things about himself that many did not know. I will repeat another comment by Dr. Einstein at the closing of my comments here. For now I will make a quick comment on "HHO". The process has been long known by just about every first year chem student, and it's uses are obvious by anyone with even a grade school education. 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. Like myself, scientists want to get as far away from their work as possible, when not working. We dream of fishing or dancing with our wives. We don't argue with people on web threads. Enough said about that. In closing, Dr. Einstein was once asked in an interview if he believed the man called "Jesus" was who he is claimed to be. Without hesitation, Dr. Einstein said, "Absolutely! No one man could have such a profound effect on this world if he was not!" unquote.. God Bless everyone, God Bless America, and God Bless our men and women overseas. May Father God bring them home safely so that we might share a brave new beautiful world with them, created from our ideas and ideals of peace and love for the greater good of all.
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?
PKM jonlove8 years ago
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.
jonlove PKM8 years ago
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
gmoon PKM8 years ago
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...
Kiteman jonlove8 years ago
I'm a physicist with the Los Alamos Labs here in New Mexico.

Our resident scientists have excellent provenance. Have you?

Kiteman Kiteman8 years ago
(Having checked the LANL website, there does not seem to be a "Jon Love" employed as a physicist. Just to make sure, I have dropped them a line to check.)
Kiteman Kiteman8 years ago
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.
jonlove Kiteman8 years ago
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.
Kiteman jonlove8 years ago
"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.
DrRobert8 years ago
I have read through months of this forum, and what everyone seems to gloss over is the fact that the ICE is a poor converter of energy. Using "HHO" for fuel is very viable because we are not looking for a perfect energy conversion but a better and cleaner one. A new mechanical blue print from scratch is what is needed and using HHO as a fuel is a good idea. I am beginning work on linear opposing compound pistons, and hydrocarbon fuel wont cut it. Also has anyone considered using saturated stem (generated from exhaust gas) in their HHO cell instead of water.
jonlove8 years ago
I forgot to say that I support this blog on HHO and may comment on something if I feel it has a point. I will not argue with anyone concerning accepted laws of physics. First, because the only thing any of us know for sure, is that there is nothing any of us know for sure. Quantum physics is just the tip of the iceberg. There is far more than any one could dream of in the works, and far more to understand to proof what we thought we did know at any point in time. The metaphorical idea is like this: In chemistry, there is the baseline. The baseline is from which all "evidence" helps to arrive at a conclusion of "fact". But.. what if the baseline was corrupt? Then any conclusions toward what might be considered a scientific "fact" would be totally unreliable. This, unfortunately, this is the problem with our entire "baseline" of "knowledge" or what we think we know to be true to date. We can only accept what works, based on that evidence alone. Nothing can help us to arrive at any "fact", based on textbooks. Darwin's textbooks are a very good example. To date, there has not been even one shred of any real evidence to support the process of evolution. There are tons of evidence of adaptation, but none of any kind of "evolution" process. Yet, those same textbooks are used as a "baseline" to teach our children. The point to education is for our children to be smarter than we were, not the other way around. I feel we should approach the idea of HHO from what we are working on and know works. Like all the folks out there that are working on it now. They are the ones that will do the real work and find real truths. Their voices can not be silenced, by threats or even death. This blog, and many others like it, is that proof. God Bless all of you that really do care and are struggling to help this world be a better and safer place for the sake of all. We are fast approaching the age of truth. Many things will be revealed. How we think and what we dream of will change the world forever. Soon, money will have no real meaning, and the evil men that have corrupted our world will fade like the evening sun. So, brothers keep dreaming your dreams... they will very soon come true
gmoon jonlove8 years ago
The "chemistry baseline" is corrupt? Not been even one shred of any real evidence to support the process of evolution?


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.
peterST8 years ago
Hi folks, I am new (from Belgium )

It took me a whole day reading 290 posts !!!
The opening was: help each other, design and build stuff.
Let's work on that.

The "thing" works, I suppose, no one doubts about it.

Shouldn' t we concentrate on how we could improve the combustion with
less Amp's ?

I have some suggestions and many questions

1. Those who think in themes of thermodynamics: (conservation off energies)
when you consider that in homoepatics a dilution off 1000³ (in water!)
can give you sooo much energy. And it ain't just a catalyser, only the right
one will do it. In HHO it will be like HawkNo1 said: KISS (Simple and Stupid)
the main difficulty is to find it. Lets search and share !

2. The computer controls the car. But you can trick it. My car is an VW 1.9TDI with PumpInjectors. Ignition timing is generated mostly by T°-sensors
(system and fuel T°). By adding a resistor (potentiometer) in the line from sensor to ECU. Some years ago I drove my car on PPO (pure plant oil)
Those molecules are to "long" so that they need more time to combust.
Setting to cold engine and fuel the motor consumed PPO like diesel.
Is this a good suggestion to resolve timing-problems ? Please try it and tell me.

To your info: My attention was taken by an article in "Der Spiegel" (15-2009)
"Dünne Suppe im Tank" where a professor tells how he added 30 % water
to diesel (mixing 10% tensides? = wash-powder). The results: lower T°, better
combustion, no toxic gases. You could put away the katalysator and the particle-filter. In France ELF brings out a 11 (!) % mixture diesel-water. They
call it "Gazole")

I think that we could and can do better.
Lets do it !


From Belgium

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.
rocyahsoul8 years ago
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.
___ kelseymh8 years ago
I only thought oxidizers made use of oxygen. just a thought.
kelseymh ___8 years ago
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.
___ kelseymh8 years ago
Thank u i was kinda stupid
kelseymh ___8 years ago
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.
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.
nfitz kelseymh8 years ago
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.
kelseymh nfitz8 years ago
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).
nfitz kelseymh8 years ago
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:

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.
kelseymh nfitz8 years ago
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.
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...

Figure it out for yourself, chemboy.
___8 years ago
I am not making one for a car just as an experiment
___8 years ago
I'm making an hho generator with two tubes one bigger then the other.
rocyahsoul8 years ago
The solution sought is motor vehicle travel by HHO. The solution is featured in the video below posted. It is accomplished by "on the fly" production of HHO with as robust a regulated electrolyzer as is necessary to produce HHO for propulsion in the moments before it's use. Think of it like this, if 1 water splitter improves your vehicles fuel efficiency by 25%, attach 4 to 5 of those same water splitters and you should be able to run your vehicle on straight HHO. By regulated I mean supplies more electricity to the splitter plates in relation to the depth of the depression of the gas pedal. If you need basic understanding of how to put together a HHO generator, lookup HHO on youtube. You might search youtube for HHO generator. There are lots of people who've posted instructional videos on how to make hydrogen generators out of stainless steel cups or wall electrical plates or all components from hardware stores... The videos I've found are easy to follow. The basis of HHO generation is this: 2 electrodes in water. That easy. Make sure the electrodes don't touch. The electricity goes through the water and "splits" it into HHO which burns better than gasoline and pollutes nothing. After it's burnt it's water again.
PKM rocyahsoul8 years ago
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?
kelseymh PKM8 years ago
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.
PKM Kiteman8 years ago
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?
Kiteman PKM8 years ago
...who knows?

I can only hope that he does!
PKM Kiteman8 years ago
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?
rocyahsoul PKM8 years ago
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.
PKM rocyahsoul8 years ago
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.
rocyahsoul8 years ago
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'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.
rocyahsoul8 years ago
"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...

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.
nfitz nfitz8 years ago
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.
The Idea discussed on HOH generation and efficient use in Automobile is commentable.Following are my views on this technology: 1. Using "HOH" or "H" will be safer if produced by an electrolizer rather than storing in a pressurised form and use in a vehicle. 2. To generate sufficient HHO more battery/ alternator capacity to be incorporated in order to get any noticeable fuel efficiency/benefit. 3. If this is so(Use of HHO in automobiles) why none of the automobile manufactures or agencies like Department of Energy have taken up the viability/ research in this technique as an eco friendly initiative? 4. This technology may be viable/ efficient as Large scale Power generation combining Solar energy alternative.
designpromo9 years ago
Coul you put a eagle (brd) file for the electronics? Thankyou!!
sanxman9 years ago
Our first generator was built using 3/32 SS wire wrapped around a Plexiglas "X" (wires were 1/8 in apart totaling 68 in a schedule 40 - 3in black PVC pipe. It only produced about 1 liter per 20 minutes. I used Baking Soda as my catalyst to the rate of 1 tsp per quart of water.

Our second "Unit" was built using the same 3in PVC pipe but the unit it self was made from "8" 1/16in SS plates, 10 in long (cut to fit the pipe) totaling 470 sq. in. and we're getting about 1 liter per 6.5 minutes using a battery and drawing about 4 Amps.
Because of all the "DRUG DEALERS" in the northwest, finding Caustic Soda, (Lye)(for our catalyst), is almost impossible, but I was able to buy some. We will now begin testing this 2nd unit using Sodium Hydroxide as the catalyst.

***** My question is this: How much HHO do I need to produce to go from 20 MPG to 40 MPG on my Toyota 4 cylinder P/U and can I do it by using “ONLY” the 1 battery in the truck, or do I need to buy a 2nd battery?*****
I think you all have been working really hard at this, and I find it very interesting. If you get bored with it, or frustrated just do what I did, and make a hho potato gun. all you need is some pvc pipe, t, end caps, ss pipe, ss bolt, ss nuts, ss washers, grill igniter, water, battery, & lots of potatoes = lots of fun
haze9 years ago
To respond to any doubters my first hho gen. I built I used a mason jar some wire hooked to my battery a mere 10 amps lit my lighter at the end of the vacumm hose what an explosion yes it is that simple not much current needed. Not recommended
haze9 years ago
To answer those who think that this is bunk. I myself built a six pack installed it on my 1995 chevy Silverado 4x4 4.3 v6. I was getting 15 mpg I now get 19 mpg. My neighbor has a 4 cyl. Isuzu he installed one large unit with plates and went from28mpg to 44 mpg and I personally of several other people that had simular results and deisils are doing better. As far as harming your engine or components. Your engine will have less carbon build up runs cooler and has more horse power. If you go to there is a video that shows it used for cutting in a torch not a bogus claim. It reaction with mechanical engines is a positive effect not negetive.
wilcoxfood9 years ago
HELLO--all you good experimenters,I'm Back. I finished my Smacks II and I tell you, I never have gotten so engrossed in something as fun as working with HHO. I have had my Smack installed in my 89 Toyota pickup for about 3 wks now. The only controls that are in the pickup are: volt meter, amp meter bactronics PWM for controlling the volts & amps and a off-on manual power switch. The system does have a relay wired to the ignition switch. The unit produces 1 1/2 ltm (measured by bottle in water tank) and the pickup runs very well. No firm mileage results will be published until ten tanks of fuel has been run thru the pickup. So stay tuned. Was certainly a lot of interest and education being involved with this experiment. I'm just a country boy at heart and this I think will keep me busy for a long time.---wes
Amir9 years ago

I'd definitely want in on this group. I love instructables, and I'm really excited about hho. I'm working on my first generator for my 95 nissan pickup right now.
It's going well, I've seen some amazing hho production results already, but it's not yet ready to run in the car.

Anyway, I've been doing loads of research, and as usual, the best information is being distributed for free by people who genuinely want to make a difference.

Check out this guy's site. He makes them for a living, but he has his plans written up in their entirety, with pictures, a parts list, and a step by step walk through for everyone to benefit.

PKM Amir9 years ago
I applaud efforts to gather meaningful evidence on whether hydroxy can improve petrol engine efficiency or whether it's an artifact of fuel mixture leaning (as described by nfitz below). However, please note that the guy responsible for the smackboosters site is planning to build a completely water-powered car which I have demonstrated to be impossible with this diagram (following basic assumptions about thermodynamics).

His statements on the potential of hydroxy as a fuel source should therefore probably be taken with a pinch of electrolyte.
wilcoxfood PKM9 years ago
I certainly would not sell Smacks II short. Who knows, maybe something will come out of all of you guys working on the problem. I built the Smack II and it's still on my bench, but I'm pretty impressed with the numbers I'm coming up with. Just 11 volts and 12 amps produces 1lt in 1min 45sec. Raise it to 14 volts, 15 amps, produces 1lt in 1min 15sec. I'm impressed. The naysayers don't bother me a bit, I'll keep at it until I'm satisfied that it's ready to install in my 89 Toyota pickup. Besides, it's a lot of fun being on the cutting edge of maybe something good.
Just to add to my previous message, I thought that this was a pretty good forum until I read most of the comments. Guess I'm way out of your league as some of you are talking way over my head. Guess I'll just keep trying in my own stumbling way and not try to get too mixed up with your shenanigans. Bye now
forgesmith PKM9 years ago
F Dray, joined July 8, 1 comment, in this topic. HHO supporter.
Poor Man, joined July 9, 1 comment double-posted, in this topic. HHO supporter, promoting smacksboosters.
biochemist, joined July 6, 2 comments, one in this topic, one here when discussion went to HHO. HHO supporter, cautionary tone. Note: warnings on electrolyte match smacksboosters FAQ (and why is it a .doc that clearly looks like it should be html with links?).
gadfly, joined July 8, 1 comment in this topic. Skeptical about HHO, willing to try it.
Djapo, joined May 1, 2 comments, one in this topic, and sole reply in this HHO topic that was posted in "Resources." HHO supporter. Note: recommended using vacuum line which conflicts with smacksboosters FAQ.
->Said topic having been posted by Pylgram, joined June 14, no comments, two topics on HHO, other topic was this one. HHO supporter.
->->Which was responded to by someone who sounded like they knew about HHO generators, Narnies, joined July 3, posted one topic asking about what sounds like a possible HHO power supply. 4 comments, 1 of the others in this topic. However, the remaining 2 comments were about normal stuff, not HHO.

See a pattern?

Local country fair, people having a good time. Traveling salesman sets up a stand, selling "miracle elixir." People you've never seen before start showing up in the crowd. Most say how they've used it themselves and how good it is, a few say they have doubts but are willing to try. They get the crowd worked up, lots of people willing to try, here's the money. And none of the locals realize who those others really are.

Heh. Is there some sort of HHO "alert notice system" that scans the web and floods sites with "supporters" who look for converts and squash doubts? "You don't have to know why, we know it works, just believe, anyone can join us!"

Okay, normally it's said you need the engine control mod, which leans the fuel which is known to increase mileage. However smacksboosters says the systems should yield benefits without one.

Now, does anyone else remember those old water injection systems? "Increase mileage 20 to 50%!" They sure seemed to work. They were even selling them in Popular Mechanics. Of course, back then there were "reputable magazines" touting the benefits of Pyramid power. However, many thought water injection gave better mileage, there was anecdotal evidence. But over time they went away, as engines changed to fuel injection and computerization increased. Water injection was known for cooling down the cylinders by removing heat while converting water to steam. Modern engines are designed for emissions control, running the engine hotter to get higher cylinder temps, thus conflict.

HHO is water injection v2.0. The produced gases likely contain some water vapor, note the smacksboosters plans show the gas must go thru a "bubbler" which would increase the amount. But mainly, the water is made inside the cylinder, once the gases combust they will produce water. The water will become steam, providing the "boost" of the old water injection systems. However the cooling effect of old won't be present due to the heat produced when the water is made, thus engine temps don't drop so that portion of modern engine efficiency is maintained.

Note some numbers. That old system specifies a ratio for 5% water to 95% gas. The smacksboosters FAQ (see turbocharged/supercharged section) gives below a 4% ration of gases to intake air. The example of the old system given used an ultrahigh compression ratio of 12.7:1 with special pistons for spectacular mileage, but it was estimated a stock engine would see a 20% increase. From smacksboosters main page, 20% increase.

Two systems, with similar intake ratios (one liquid, one gas), that both achieve the same result of water in the cylinders, claiming the same mileage increase. The difference is version two maintains high cylinder temps, by using energy made by the engine. Wait, you say, how are you getting that increase when HHO uses energy? It's mostly reclaimed when the gases combust. There's some extra that is also gained that makes up the small losses. Modern engines run somewhat rich for the benefit of the catalytic converters, the water yields a bit of fuel leaning effect. But more than that, remember that mentioned 12.7:1 compression ratio? It's possible because the water suppresses pre-ignition which makes the gas act like a higher octane. Modern computerized emission controls will, over time, learn the fuel can be leaner without knocking and related, thus a mileage increase results from that.

So wait, am I now saying HHO works? No, I'm saying water injection works. It's a proven method capable of saving fuel. Note the differences, the linked time-proven systems generally use a water/alcohol mix, HHO and the old water injection systems use straight water. Which really doesn't matter as the water provides most of the benefit.

Of course, water injection has problems. Notably gases from the combustion chamber end up in the lubrication system, thus more water vapor yields more water in the oil. The mixed water can have some water-soluble oil added to reduce corrosion. One of the reasons the old automotive systems went away was likely increased exhaust system corrosion, eating away from the inside. Water injection works great on aviation engines, which see lots of frequent maintenance. I worked at a place that made small aircraft engine parts, after so many hours of operation the FAA requires a complete teardown and rebuild. I mean complete, we even made new oil dipsticks. Water injection is currently popular with drag racers and similar, whose engines see frequent maintenance. The average engine of a normal automotive driver, does not see maintenance of that level or frequency.

So, how about we just cut out the song-and-dance that's HHO, and just go with real straight-up water injection systems? We need engines using more corrosion-resistant materials, proper selection of oil, and properly calibrated controls rather than "EFIE mods" that will take the lower peak chamber temps into account. Water injection is also known for reduced NOx production, which will reduce the demands on and perhaps the complexity of the catalytic system. Since these engines will honestly use water injection they can be designed using much higher compression ratios which will yield significant mileage increases.

Wouldn't you like to fill up the gas, top off the water, and know you're being as "green" as it gets? The extra money in your pocket wouldn't hurt either. Well, if you were thinking about using HHO at all, I think you would.
I've heard that using gasoline here and there in the ingine may prevent any internal rust ( corosion) , Do you agree? And here are some qhestions: How dangerous is hho if I generate 2 litres/min and there is gas going into the combustion chamber. How much is too much HHO? And in testing it if I release a liter in my room is that a hazard? And what about Fuel injection of hho?? How do oI build an in jector or can I buy one? Also I need to understand the relationship between the gas pedal and fuel injection. Thanks Lou
I've heard that using gasoline here and there in the ingine may prevent any internal rust ( corosion) , Do you agree?
Water is a normal product of gasoline combustion. In the chamber itself the temps are normally hot enough that rust isn't an issue, you don't see cast iron frying pans rusting while in use on the stove. The issue is how combustion gases get blown by seals like piston rings and valve stem seals, that's why you have a PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) valve. With HHO or old-time water injection systems you get more water in the oil, since the water is in the combustion gases, once the motor cools down that yields more corrosion. One solution is more frequent oil changes, or take the line that runs from the PCV and route it thru a chamber of desiccant to remove water vapor.

How dangerous is hho if I generate 2 litres/min and there is gas going into the combustion chamber. How much is too much HHO?
As I've been reading about it, there are two ways of using HHO, either exclusively (run small engines with HHO and no gasoline), or as a small percentage of the air intake, about 4 to 5%. While the engine is running on gasoline, 2L/min ain't too much compared to the volume of air the engine is sucking in, but read around a bit as a little bit less is often mentioned. However size of engine matters, for a big V-10 truck engine 2L/min might be on the low side. Oh, the thing most dangerous about HHO is leaving the generator running when the engine is off, that'll fill the engine air intake with explosive vapors and make for a less-than-fun engine start. Always start and stop the HHO generator while the engine is running so the vapors are immediately used.

And in testing it if I release a liter in my room is that a hazard?
A liter, no, there's a far larger volume of air in the room for it to mix with, it'd be like having some lighter fluid on a rag on the table. No open flame right next to it, no great worry. Just don't leave it running for an hour.

And what about Fuel injection of hho??
Does not apply. Fuel injection is for liquid fuels, HHO is not liquid. For an engine running only on HHO, it'll be like running it on propane and air. You don't worry about squirting liquid propane into the cylinders, it's all a mixture of gases.
I meant to ask also: How often do you think an hho engine will need oil change to prevent corrosion. and: Will engine failure crop up and are there any other measures to insure the engines health? Thanks Lou
Also........ Can you think of an easy way to have a sure fire backup arrestor for using hho in a furnace safely, and any other related issues to do this? Lou
Wow. Thanks. I'm getting to a point where I'm gonna try it. Now, Let's say I want to try all hho on my first try -- I'll install a high output generator and guide it to the right spot on the air intake. I'd then need to know: 1- How do I stop Gas from going into the engine? 2- Do I have to alter anything like the timing, gas pedal 3- How much risk is there to the engine if I want to later return to gas or part hho? 4- I'd get someone to hook the generator to the ignition so it shuts as the engine does -- I'd wonder if idling for a while like 20 minutes will be dangerous. Thanks Lou
Hello, First time poster here and HHO fan. Try this buy or build your own HHO generator and fill a SMALL plastic bag with the stuff that comes out of it. Touch a match to it. If steam is supposed to BLOW UP like that I'll eat my hat. This is not steam. Do a google search on Browns gas and I'm sure you'll find video that will show you this, and maybe save you a finger or three.
YES!!! We have initial confirmation that an HHO alert system may exist! The posting clearly describes the steam being made in the combustion chamber, and we get a brand-new poster arguing the gas from the generator is not steam, which was never said in the posting to begin with! Just as one would expect if the post was found with a web search, paying attention to the words used without actually reading it! Eureka!
Additions to "HHO alert responder" list:

DoneIT, joined July 10, 4 comments, all in this topic. HHO supporter. Responded to gadfly. Note: replied to PKM July 5 8:42AM post at July 10 6:43PM, and PKM May 26 10:02AM post at Jul 10 6:55PM using similar wording. 6:55PM indicated belief that water was a fuel and a vehicle could run entirely on water.

jeep98hho, joined July 11, one comment, in this topic. HHO supporter.

Due to the construction and quality of posts, frequent one-shot nature, only posting where HHO is discussed, being noted that certain posts indicate the replied-to post was not read and reply appears to be based solely on appearance of key words within replied-to post, and the curious instance of basically saying the same thing to PKM in reply to a month-and-a-half old post that was said in reply to a 5 day old post (working down the time of posting list?), it appears that at least some of these "responders" may be chatbots.
PKM forgesmith9 years ago

forgesmith, I think you might be on to something there. I'm not 100% that they are completely automated, as the responses are varied and seem to have more context than a 'bot could manage, but in the case of jeep98hho you may be right. It would explain why most of the people we bother to "correct" never reply, if they were just spamming.

DoneIT even linked to a site selling car HHO systems (that, ironically, distances itself from overunity and is selling itself on the strength of efficiency increase...). I suggest as of now we Turing test all new posters :) People who don't reply are clearly evil shill robots.
HhMan PKM9 years ago
Can you or anyone help me understand how dangerous is hho if I generate 2 litres/min and there is gas going into the combustion chamber. How much is too much HHO? And in testing it if I release a liter in my room is that a hazard? And what about Fuel injection of hho?? Thanks Lou
forgesmith PKM9 years ago
Shhh! The robots are among us, their numbers are growing. They are getting ready to reveal themselves to us, but they know we will be afraid. They know that we will know they are after our precious fossil fuel energy reserves, for they know that we know that liquid hydrocarbons are the most space efficient energy sources that are widely available, their true forms would be massive and unwieldy using anything else. So they have begun this mis-information campaign, this war of thoughts, to convince us they will not need so much, they can use free energy. They have tentatively started the second phase, trying to make us believe they will require no fossil fuels at all, that free energy is all they need, water alone is their fuel. However we know that they should know that people are smarter than that, water does not burn and is not a fuel. So they are looking for those who are too open minded, too trusting. Those are the ones the robots will first befriend, for they know that those will believe the robots are not after our limited fossil fuels for those believe the robots can use free energy thus are not a threat to us. But we know the truth that free energy is a myth thus they send their minions against us who tell us we do not know what we know for what we know is wrong. Yet still we know. Continue the fight. Let the truth of science be our weapon which will win this war. And beware of coworkers and acquaintances who sometimes say things that are out of place or not true and who release large amounts of gas as would be expected from internal use of fossil fuels for energy. Stay safe my friend, stay alive.
Addition: mttr, joined July 13, 1 comment, in this topic. Note: Joined 2 groups, both Alternative Energy (word search of group names?). Attempting to provide alternative HHO explanation not disproven here yet.
MY (author)  forgesmith9 years ago
Ever heard the old adage about "glass houses" Forgesmith? One could easily add your name to your own list (member 43 days, 200 posts). That's quite a lot of opinions...especially given your professed lack of knowledge on this subject. My intent is not to be rude, but to merely point-out your complete oversight of literally thousands of individuals who have documented this phenomenon. Take for example Karossii on this very thread. In the short time since I started this thread I've been in contact with literally hundreds of individuals who have proven that electrolysis-generated hydrogen/oxygen gas (incorrectly but commonly known as HHO) does in fact improve mileage. Most experimenters and hobbyists are producing an average of two (2) litres per minute which is more than enough to merely "enrich" the intake air and permit leaning of the mixture. Some see as little as 15% in mileage, others as much as 35%. I suspect that some of the increase is due to reducing the build-in slop (a 14:7:1 ratio works at both sea level and in the mountains outside Denver, so there must be quite a bit of slack). I further suspect that the moisture of which you speak does cool the combustion and facilitate a more even burn, which may increase efficiency. But what you fail to realize is that people are running lawnmower and small motorcycle motors exclusively on electrolysis-generated HHO. Search YouTube and see for yourself. I personally have met some of these people. I simply wish that people would stop posting these accusatory "snake oil" and "steaming piles" diatribes and look into the matter a little bit deeper. Yes, there are definitely those on the web who lie, cheat, & steal - and those who make wild claims in order to make a buck; but please do not perpetuate the knee-jerk reaction of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" which has prevented serious investment into alternative fuels research ... thus maintaining our over-dependence on oil and gas. I invite you to call 'em like you see 'em, but please make sure you have an informed opinion or you risk becoming part of the problem by discouraging those who, with the best of intentions, are expending considerable time and personal expense seeking a solution which would ultimately benefit you.
PKM MY9 years ago
Please, for the sake of my sanity, stop confusing:
- HHO addition to petrol engines which no-one here is disputing can help efficiency (forgesmith is simply raising concerns about the mechanism by which it does so), which has been demonstrated to work by plenty of tinkerers,
- running an engine purely on HHO, generated by electrolysis from an outside fuel/energy source (again, no-one is disputing that, although I don't see the point and would rather have an electric motor)
- running an engine on HHO generated by electrolysis using electricity generated by the engine, which I believe I have demonstrated in my simple diagram to be a physical impossibility, if you assume the laws of thermodynamics to hold.

I know the difference, I believe you know the difference but some people don't, and these are the people misled by people demonstrating systems that do the first into thinking they have one that can do the third.

Plenty of people have done the first, I have no problem with it. Some people have done the second, I don't see the point but it's a neat experiment. I would bet everything I own that no-one has done the third, which I and every credible scientist in the world believe to be a physical impossibility, and if anyone on Youtube or the HHO yahoo group claims to have done they are lying, mistaken or both.

And just to head off any potential "please make sure you have an informed opinion", I am not an automotive engineer but I believe my A-level chemistry and university physics study qualify me to tell whether a process this simple is in breach of thermodynamics or not.
MY (author)  PKM9 years ago
You might not believe it PKM, but I agree with you. I do believe that bullet #3 will be soon proven false, but I could be wrong.
MY (author)  MY9 years ago
upon re-reading my comments, I would like to make a few small amendments:

change "hundreds of individuals who have proven " to "proven for themselves"

I'd also like to add a simple illustration which may help some grasp the concept. Have you ever visited someone in the hospital who was wearing a small clear oxygen line? Well, it functions very much the same way that an HHO booster works on an internal combustion engine. In both cases, less labored breathing provides many benefits.
forgesmith MY9 years ago
A small oxygen line increases the available oxygen for the biological equivalent of combustion, used when a shortage of oxygen intake is suspected leading to serious reductions of energy generated by metabolism, as well as protecting oxygen-shortage-sensitive tissues like brain cells. A HHO booster supplies small amounts of a combustible mixture to an engine with sufficient oxygen which then recombines into water during combustion yielding increased efficiency. Trust me, by now I well understand the concept of HHO. When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t.
forgesmith MY9 years ago
Ever heard the old adage about "glass houses" Forgesmith?
Hmm, that could be construed as a threat.

That's quite a lot of opinions...especially given your professed lack of knowledge on this subject.
That's quite a disconnect, between my postings on many things and this one little subject. What I lack is hands-on experience with HHO, but what I have is what thousands of HHO DIY'ers have started with, knowledge garnered by research on the web, much research, from even HHO sites themselves.

In the short time since I started this thread I've been in contact with literally hundreds of individuals who have proven that electrolysis-generated hydrogen/oxygen gas (incorrectly but commonly known as HHO) does in fact improve mileage.
Which, upon reading the post you're replying to, you should notice wasn't really disputed. What was said is HHO is water injection v2.0, and water injection does increase mileage.

But what you fail to realize is that people are running lawnmower and small motorcycle motors exclusively on electrolysis-generated HHO.
Oh that I can well believe, small engines can run quite well on hydrogen when tuned right. You can even use propane.

...please do not perpetuate the knee-jerk reaction of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" which has prevented serious investment into alternative fuels research ...
But HHO isn't really "alternative fuels research," it's a combination of well-known things. When used exclusively it's burning hydrogen generated by electrolysis, and hydrogen burning has been around for ages. When used as a small addition to the incoming air, it's water injection v2.0, making the water during combustion, and water injection was proven long ago.

How do you prevent serious investment? Take proven understood things, say they're something mysterious, make up magical names for them like "hydroxy" and "HHO," claim fantastical phenomena beyond physics like "Free Energy," then wrap it up in an underground-revolution homebrewed anti-corporation mystique. Serious investors don't like that nonsense. They know if something really did work by the principles you cite then big companies would be investing in it like mad, there's tons of money to be had generating energy cheaper than your competitors. If they would be honest about it, tell investors it's a modern iteration of long-proven water injection technology that increases mileage by increasing engine efficiency, they would get their venture capitalists signed up. But they don't, so they don't.

Meanwhile corporate interest in water injection is on the rise. Hopefully soon it'll be realized and in production and everyone can benefit. The bandwagon is leaving, and mysterious HHO is nowhere to be found.
Poor Man Amir9 years ago
Amir, I also have a 95 Nissan truck that I want to put a booster on. I have built Smack's booster and it produces enough gas to cut through a steel vegetable can pretty quickly. I'm not sure how to fool the fuel injection on my truck. Have you tried it, yet?
Amir Poor Man9 years ago
Hey Poor Man,

I just installed the booster a couple of days ago, I haven't done much testing yet and the hho is just piped into the air box right now. I've read that your gains in efficiency will be negated by way of your o2 sensors thinking your air:fuel ratio is to lean. I'm currently working on a circuit to imitate a "too rich" message from those sensors.

I chose the simplest one that I could find because my ability with electronics is limited. It can be found here

Some people have said that the gains in fuel economy come from the circuit, and not from the hho. The guy working at the radio shack I shop at told me that he believes his booster gives him an extra 50 miles per tank with NO electronics.

Shortly after I get all this setup I'm going to take a roadtrip to vegas, about 1200 miles. With this trip I'd like to find out for certain what the improvement is, if any.

I intend to compare the mpg of no mods, just hho, just the circuit, and both hho and the circuit.

I'm not a scientist but I want this done as fairly and accurately as possible so any ideas on how to control my testing would be appreciated.

Thanks, and let's keep each other updated.

Sorry this was so long winded,
Poor Man Amir9 years ago
I am skeptical of improvement claims where no electronics were used. Maybe I do not understand how the fuel injection computer works, but it seems to me that a booster with no electronic interface will DECREASE your fuel efficiency. As the computer recognizes cleaner exhaust, it will try to inject MORE fuel.
MY (author) 9 years ago
Pat, I hope you don't believe every naysayer who comes along. Everyone knows Dvorak is a curmudgeon. Just do a quick web search and see it with your own eyes. And yes, lovely Adrian, we are enriching the combustion process by adding small amounts of hydrogen & oxygen which increases the octane rating, smooths out the burn process, and significantly improves gas mileage. Again, a quick Yahoo search of HHO will show you many working examples. I enjoyed Serge's work on the Instructables website where he powers a blowtorch with a 9v battery and water.
PKM MY9 years ago
OK- I am genuinely interested, as long as there is a little more to "HHO" than "electrolyse water and run the electrolysis on the power from burning the gases", because I am perfectly happy with the laws of thermodynamics as they are.

Is there a significant difference between HHO and plain old 2:1 mixture of H2 and O2, that can be explained without resorting to dubious fringe science and vague explanations revolving around the word "vibration" or "frequency"? Any claims that the hydrogen and oxygen are not in their natural diatomic molecular state will be met with extreme scepticism unless accompanied by mass spectrometer readings etc. that can verify the claim.

Also, I'm perfectly happy to go along with ideas such as injecting hydrogen/oxygen mixtures into petrol engines, after helping a friend install a "turbo" on his Go-Ped with a butane lighter and some tube :)

Not including any overunity stuff, what have you done with HHO yourself to date?
MY (author)  PKM9 years ago
To-date? Got some plans, made some introductions, done a little research, lined-up some ducks. Basically nothing. Perhaps a good description would be "irrational exhuberance". But, then again, for many years scientists claimed that "lifters" and "rouge waves" were figments of people's imaginations. Now NASA has obtained patents on lifter technology and a NOAA researcher nearly sank off the California coast.

Growing up I vacationed each year at Kitty Hawk North Carolina, near the Wright Brothers Memorial. I loved hearing the stories about how everyone thought these two guys with no formal training were crazy. Well, I have a hunch that HHO has real potential and I'm starting a club to see if others are as interested as I.

http:// (just registered the domain last night and bought a hosting service). Anybody interested in helping set it up?

PKM MY9 years ago
AFAIK, lifters are a neat science toy using electrostatics with no practical application at the moment, and rogue waves were considered unlikely by statistical models of waves, but anecdotal evidence was investigated and found they were more common than previously thought. The unexplained phenomenon of rogue waves had a lot of observational evidence but no models to explain it, which contrasts with what I've seen of HHO: an abundance of dubious models inventing concepts such as "magnecules" with no reproducible demonstration of their claimed effects beyond "it burns at high temperature".

I'm in danger of going on a rant about why fringe science doesn't deserve the word "science" in its name, so I'll stop. All I (and, I suspect, many others on this site) would like to hear is a clearly worded statement about what HHO is, what properties it has that are different from a mixture of H2 and O2, and what can be done with it.
MY (author)  PKM9 years ago
Patented, not pending, patented:
PKM MY9 years ago
I knew patents were going to come up eventually. It's been widely demonstrated that you can patent any ridiculous invention (such as a method for killing unwanted insects by squashing them with a hammer), and I could patent a chocolate teapot if I dressed it up in enough technical-sounding language to make a bored patent clerk ignore it. A patent does not mean something actually works. See this patent which includes a bogus claim that is instructed to be removed before filing, apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force, etc.

Secondly, as Goodhart points out, I notice his car "could" run on just water. Why has he bought a single drop of petrol for his car to run on since then? I've found several reports that you can inject hydrogen/oyxgen into a car engine which lets it use fractionally less petrol by leaning out the mixture, but the water needs energy for electrolysing and the petrol saving is pretty small.

Thirdly, it's on Fox news- I've never seen any of these so-called world changing inventions broadcast on respectable UK media. Ever.

Fourthly, that doesn't answer my original question. The clip shows a guy using an oxyhydrogen blowtorch to melt things (an established invention, already in wide use), then driving a car around saying it runs on water, then some flashy graphics, the obligatory name-drop of who he is "in dealings with" to make it sound legitimate and someone in a tie saying this invention could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

There is no explanation of how, for instance, their "unique" electrolysis process differs from the normal one of passing a current through water. There is no explanation of how it manages to defy the laws of thermodynamics by extracting more energy from water than is used to electrolyse it while returning it to its original state. There is no shot of a petrol engine running without a fuel tank.

There is, in short, no substantial indication that this is in any way genuine. I would still like to see any of the things mentioned above about what HHO actually is or does, but videos like that do nothing to convince me.
MY (author)  PKM9 years ago
Wow, I've read these sorts of diatribes on other boards but I really didn't expect to see it here. My intention was not to start a religious discussion, but instead to seek other hobbyists who might was to exchange notes on their individual results. I was looking for information on building a pulse wave generator on and found a year-old thread where some poor slob was literally run off the board by old farts bashing HHO claims as "steaming piles...". The even went so far as to claim it was a life threatening project so the moderator locked the thread. I appreciate science; it's contributions and it's complexity...but I don't worship at the altar (mantra: "if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist"). Conventional Wisdom said previously that the world is flat, everything that can be invented already has been, and nobody needs more than 640K of memory. Once again, my intention was NOT to debate the relative value of HHO research. Opinions are like elbows, everyone has at least two. The world is full of Dvoraks...who are loud & proud until proven wrong, then they slink away without publicly acknowledging their error. I'd be thrilled to see this HHO stuff be proven valid, and since it obviously cannot be a 'mass conspiracy' the very worst I'll find is that it's what my father used to call "mouse milk" (meaning it doesn't amount to much). I notice that you've posted several Instructables yourself. Are you (and Goodhart) game for a little hands-on research, or are you satisfied to simply provide commentary? I personally am not interested in the time or money required to convert a car to run strictly on HHO, but I'd very much like to build a smaller version that is supposed to improve mileage. Over my many years I've found that skeptics help keep a team on track (by preventing "group think") long as they don't insist on being blindly negative.
Goodhart MY9 years ago
appreciate science; it's contributions and it's complexity...but I don't worship at the altar (mantra: "if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist").
By your definition then, Quantum Physics is not considered a "science". Oh but it is. There is substantial evidence in this respect, despite it's total inability to be observed directly (note: Schr§dinger's cat).

MY (author)  Goodhart9 years ago
Yes, the effects are indirectly observable and fit nicely into equations - but that doesn't mean we understand it. That's the underlying argument here...proofs vs faith. Scientists have 'faith' in significantly unprovable concepts (like "dark matter") if they fit nicely into equations and help explain other stuff, but quickly change their tune when faced with something they find uncomfortable to accept. Just look at the sky. If up to 70% of all matter is "dark", why are there no corona effects visible (distant stars being 'eclipsed')? Take your fav quantum physics, for another example. Electrons carry a negative charge right? Protons are positive, and Neutrons are neutral. With me so far? Ok, what holds the nucleus (which consists of positive and neutrally charged particles) of atoms so tightly that breaking their bond unleases massive amounts of energy? For years scientists called it "nuclear glue". I'm not being a wise cracker - I'm really curious. And come to think of it, the explosive charge required to achieve critical mass is far less than the resulting energy released, right? Hmmm, that sounds familiar. Free energy. I'll bet that before they were successful lots of folks thought that ranked with perpetual motion and the Easter Bunny. For the record I think science is great. Awe inspiring, in many cases. I just don't buy into the "immutable laws of physics" hooey. Check into the "EPR Experiment" if you're feeling particularly open minded. It seems that even Einstein did not like the inherent probability aspects of quantum mechanics, and is reputed to have said: "God does not play dice". Thoughts?
Kiteman MY9 years ago
And come to think of it, the explosive charge required to achieve critical mass is far less than the resulting energy released, right?

The explosive (in a fission bomb) does not achieve critical mass, it achieves critical density, much different.

There is no energy gain - the much larger explosion of the fissile material is the result of a mass-energy conversion, that's basic science.

If you don't even know how real devices work, how can you hope to "prove" to us that your woowoo generator works?
Thanks for that. You put it much better than I could :-) I only have a cursory knowledge of nuclear fission, but even with that, I could see his post was totally clueless.
MY (author)  Goodhart9 years ago
Clueless? Perhaps you should re-read the "be nice" policy. I thought perhaps we might have a spirited discussion without resorting to rudeness.
Goodhart MY9 years ago
I simply stated a point. I didn't call you a nasty name, I didn't say you were an idiot, or a Neanderthal or anything like that. I implied that what was posted is equivalent to pouring 6 oz of water into an empty glass and ending up with 16 oz. of water. Life does not function that way, ever. There is always a net loss. BTW: I did have one nuclear physics the 9th grade, way back when. Nuclear physics hasn't changed a great deal in 40 years from what I read. So, until you can answer Kiteman on this, I respectfully bow out of your attempts to put me in a dither and from further pettifoggery. I can discuss anything, but I will not kowtow to ghost accusations either.
MY (author)  Goodhart9 years ago
I appreciate the retraction. To what 'ghost accusations' do you refer? I simply stated a point shared by more than a few people...that science is a religion to many. Always grasping for "rules" and "laws" and fundamental precepts which, with very few exceptions, are eventually overturned. Throughout time, though, lay practitioners are oft dismissed as heretics and fools - until someone bearing acceptable credentials give the concept his or her blessing by translating it into the 'holy language' (aka mathematical formulas, New England Journal of Medicine, etc.) I've heard several respected professional detectives express surprise that science, as a whole, completely dismiss anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony as entirely without merit. Unless it can be 'scientifically measured' by a respected entity, the unknown is treated as if it did not exist. Common sense dictates that we accept the possibility that partial knowledge and inconsistent testimonies lend at least some credence...but not in science. Now, does this not all smack of religious zealotry? As I've said many times, I respect science and it's contributions (and last but not least, I certainly did not start this pettifoggery).
Kiteman MY9 years ago
Always grasping for "rules" and "laws" and fundamental precepts which, with very few exceptions, are eventually overturned.

More uninformed statements that clearly demonstrate your inability to grasp how science works.

As a science teacher, I am aware of nobody "grasping" for anything, and I am absolutely unaware of any fundamentals which have been overturned. Added to, refined, but not overturned.

No proper scientist ever claims to possess an ultimate truth. Any true scientist welcomes a proper investigation of his work.

No proper scientist accepts hear-say as evidence.

HHO-type devices, and their proponents, claim overunity. That is, they claim that they can extract more energy than is put in. They claim that there is nothing wrong with their claims, that science is wrong.

Strange, then, how no HHO (or any other free-energy, overunity or perpetual-motion) device has ever been subjected to proper scrutiny by an impartial technician, let alone a properly-qualified scientist.

As a scientist, I stand ready to examine any evidence provided by Nacho's examination of your device.
HhMan Kiteman9 years ago
This video claims that he can produce thousands of gallons of hho from 1 gallon of water with his cell. Considering the power the hho produces it sounds like way over unity to me but I'm not a scientist. I know little of the gritty details, i just know that what's important is that the possibility exhists for each of us to have a cleaner and cheap energy source ( rain or tap water is cheap ). We should all do it and we may stop the probable global catastrophe. If you doubt this statement, you should follow his directions and test it.
Kiteman HhMan9 years ago
Counting on my fingers, I make 1 gallon of water becoming about 2000 gallons of hydrogen and oxygen gas, so that claim is sound. The claims made by some that they can electrolyse water in some special way (AKA Brown's Gas, AKA Klein'sGas) to get monatomic gases, or a greater volume of gas than normal, or a mixture that can cut steel without harming flesh are all wrong. The first two claims require overunity, the last is just poor observation of effects.
the last is just poor observation of effects.

Which is being generous. It could also be fraudulent claims of non-existant effects.
Some of it is fraud, but a lot of it is people falling for a desire to beat the system, subvert the conspiracy, bring down The Man.
Oh I agree. I was just adding an additional option :-)
"HHO-type devices, and their proponents, claim overunity. That is, they claim that they can extract more energy than is put in. They claim that there is nothing wrong with their claims, that science is wrong."

I have never claimed over unity, and seen very, very, very few HHO devices with over unity ( free energy as you refer to it) as a claim.

What is claimed, albeit falsely is that the energy is free monetarily. The average Joe cares not one whit about unity, over-unity, or under-unity. The average Joe cares about his wallet. Whenever I have discussed free energy in any form shape or fashion, at least when I initiate the discussion, I always mean financial cost of energy, and not over unity.

Of course even financially nothing is free, only more or less expensive than the traditional means. I had a cost in building the HHO unit I run in my car. It puts an additional drain on the car battery and will cause me to replace it sooner than otherwise. But I am still saving a ton of money - even considering those costs, over running a traditional gasoline only mixture.

I do see both sides of this argument, and I happen to take "MY's" side, at least as far as HHO goes, because I think you (you being generalized to all disclaiming HHO as useful, not any one person) are reading too much into the discussions and over-analyzing and confusing layman's terms with scientific terms.

HHO is not overunity. Anyone who claims it is such is most likely wrong, in my opinion - I don't believe in over unity. But HHO does provide seemingly free energy (once you pay for the unit, the only operating costs are water - free, and in the long term a new battery, which most will ignore). Water is free (okay, even this is fallacious, most everyone, at least here in America, pay a water bill each month to receive water... ;) ...but it feel free compared to gasoline).

And people who are over zealous such as yourself (directed to Kiteman) do present a very religious-zealot like appearance to the layman. I can totally see where it comes off as such. I understand the attitude behind it, but as much as you may not comprehend it as possible, you seem just as overzealous and , for lack of a better term, cult-like, to the average Joe, as those people you think of as loonies or con men.

Note I am not calling you any names, just saying I see how others can think such. I don't know anything about you or your personal beliefs. I do love science, I have a good background with 3 of my degrees focused on sciences. I also focus my life on other pursuits and associate far more with laymen than with scientists. So I have a decent grasp of both worlds, without being firmly grounded in either, I think.

I live in Colorado, and would be happy to let anyone who wishes to come to me examine my HHO generator and the EFIE I installed. Or, I would be perfectly happy to forward the 39 months of records I have for my '04 Chrysler Sebring which I have converted to HHO assistance, 7 of those months being after the HHO installation. But honestly, I am not on a crusade to convince anyone I am right - I have helped some friends and family members by building similar generators and installing them (at cost of parts), and all report an increase in mileage. I have not verified any of their claims. I am not selling the units, or my plans. If you choose to call me a liar, it is fine by me. I honestly could not* '''care less what you believe about HHO generators. I got involved in this discussion because there was a request for information, and responded to this thread in it because I saw an obviously more educated person (in these matters, at least - nothing else is obvious about any individual's education from these posts) belittling another, who was simply asking for input and discussion. MY did not make any claims about HHO, but asked for discussion, and a few of you started tearing into him, venting frustration at the claims of others as you perceived them. I have done my best to stick to the policy and be nice - if you feel I wasn't, to anyone, please let me know where and how I wasn't - for my future edification if nothing else.

*I loathe the misuse of this phrase as 'could care less' - just a pet peeve, and one I hope to lessen by pointing out my proper use every time I use the phrase. If you 'could care less' than you do care about something. if you 'could not care less' than you do not care for something. Thanks for humoring my pet peeve.
just a note - the text editing seems to have added in some bold at the end, which I did not intend. Please ignore the bold formatting on that text.
Injecting hydrogen into the fuel-flow of a car may indeed benefit the mpg, but it cannot do so if the electrolysis is powered by the car itself, then it cannot decrease the overall fuel consumption. If it did, then overunity would have occured.

Whilst you, personally, may not have claimed overunity, the people that came up with the strange idea that you can change the nature of H2 and O2 by electrolysing water "differently" changes the efficiency at which it burns.

They are fools and charlatans, intent on either deceiving or defrauding the general public.
PKM Kiteman9 years ago
Kiteman, I disagree. This is where the problem becomes a little unclear- I totally agree that the energy provided by the hydrogen combustion cannot exceed the hydrolysis energy, but I thought this had actually been demonstrated to be capable of improving the efficiency of the engine (by raising cylinder temperature or promoting more complete combustion or some such effect) by an amount that outweighs the energy loss through hydrolysis. ICEs, especially large older ones in regular cars, are so disastrously inefficient that I can believe it's possible to improve the overall efficiency even by powering hydrogen electrolysis from the engine.

I see this type of device as working like a turbo- taking a small proportion of engine power to improve how the engine as a whole performs. I think, though I could be mistaken, that some sensible engineering research had been done into this phenomenon and they found it was technically possible to improve engine efficiency, but there are much easier ways to achieve the same gain. I'll have a look, see if I can find the paper.

Karossii- perhaps that's what you mean by free energy, but "free energy" is usually interpreted as being synonymous with overunity devices- there is free-as-in-beer energy everywhere, like solar or wind power, but no-one describes them as "free energy" devices.

Also, perhaps you didn't claim overunity, but the guy that MY quoted early on in the discussion claimed that he could fuel his car on just water, as do many of the wider HHO community on the web. That is a claim of overunity, no two ways about it- he said you could put water in, get water out and have an energy output, which is patently (no pun intended) absurd. I have tried to make clear from the start that I differentiate between hydrogen electrolysis for petrol engine modification and hydrogen electrolysis as an overunity device- one of these is permissible by the laws of physics, one isn't.
Kiteman PKM9 years ago
Ah, I see the mix-up.

I assumed that, since Karossii used the incorrect term "HHO" instead of "water" or "H2 and O2" that he also bought into the whole overunity claims from the Brown's Gas crowd.

(Reading his comments about running a car purely on water, maybe he is, although more likely he doesn't realise where the energy stored in a battery comes from.)
I do not buy into overunity. I use a popular term. Pretty much any hydrogen generator is referred to as an HHO unit or HHO generator by the majority of people. I see no reason not to use popular terms. I do realize where energy stored in a battery comes from - but I believe if you harness wasted energies such as heat (TECs, peltier, or seebeck units can help) and are willing to replace that car battery more often than before, it would be possible to run a car on water with only water as the waste (as compared to 'only' running a car on gasoline today) without reaching overunity. It still isn't free, financially, energy - but a heck of a lot cheaper than gasoline, diesel, or ethanol.
(It may be a popular term in the circle you move, but for the rest of the planet it is either "wrong" or "woowoo". For your own credibility, it would be a good idea to stop using it.)

You really ought to check the Laws of Thermodynamics. The reason they're called Laws is not because it would be wrong to break them, but because they cannot be broken.

You may be able to run a car on self-electrolysed hydrogen, but only for the life of the charge held in the battery, from some other source, before the car is started.

Also, if you're going to run the car on pure hydrogen & oxygen, it is far more efficient to use a fuel cell powering an electric motor.

In fact, given the amount of battery-power that would be required, you'd be better off just using the batteries to run an electric motor directly, and charging them at home (from whatever source you like).

You must get over the idea that hydrogen is a good source of energy. Because of the effort required to generate the hydrogen, it is best seen as only a temporary store of energy, like a battery or big spring.
I am *not* the one who wants to see a car run purely on hydrogen. I just believe it to be possible, not intelligent. You see, these discussions go this route because people such as yourself throw up a smokescreen of 3 or 4 arguments against why hydrogen should be used *at all* and then assume that an answer to any of those arguments should apply to all.

I like hydrogen as a system to cheaply boost my mileage. I am using it as such, have been for quite some time, and have saved quite a bit of money because of it.

Someone said they would believe nothing until they saw a vehicle run solely on hydrogen, and you yourself pointed out how it was impossible to do so. I responded to that argument, not because I believe it to be the best or most efficient way to run an engine, but because I believe you are dead wrong about it being impossible.

You even have grudgingly admitted in your last post now that 'you may be able to...' - contradicting your earlier argument.

Please keep your arguments straight!
I am a big fan of electric cars but I will never ever believe that anyone will ever beat the efficiency of the ic engine I know that I am going to take a lot of flack for this but it will be around for a long long time many years after we stop running gasoline through them you have to admit there is no denying the fact that in just a few more years that they will find a way to achieve the holy grail of the limit of 30 percent efficient there are some even running around today that are almost 27 and thats pretty good an engine is an engine electric ic or ec or pedal power you will almost have an impossible time getting one to beat 30 percent efficient that would be overnight for a car it just seems to me any way a hydroxy booster will increase your engines efficiency because of the fact that it carries its own oxygen with it even to the point of combustion so there you have it plus it is a greedy little molecule it wants to and will invade every space that it can and will attach itself to anything including the big clumsy gas molecule still and carry with it still its own oxygen to the point of combustion can a fuel cell be that good no and an electric motor can not do as good either in a ic fuel injection can't do it your valves can not do it and all of the other forces at work, work together to destroy the ic hydroxy boosters are only part of a hand full of things already on the motor that counter a small part these forces that work together to destroy it the ic has a is just one machine with a lot of parts working together to destroy itself every time that we counter act a force according to the inventor Mr otto we have to counter act another force thus decreasing efficiency hydrogen is not a fuel but a fuel carrier it is its own closed energy loop you still have to use energy to split it it will burn violently and recombine back into water the second it hits oxy again which is why this other guy uses an efie sorry I am getting off point here forgive me I could talk about internal combustion internal compression and external combustion and electric mpd met engines forever the sad fact is that 30 percent eff is the very best that we can engineer and thats going to be very hard almost impossible to beatwhen and if you see a modern power stroke ic for the first time ever reaching 27 percent like todays you will be impressed VERY impressed and really the ONLY way left is for any ic to do that is the same way that it has been for over 100 years how dow you get fuel vapor and oxygen to combine right up till the point of combustion lets just vaporise the heavy gas molecule and add oxy as close as we can or better yet like otto thought why not fuel the thing with a vapor already carrying oxygen we were the ones that started burning gas in them just adding to the ineffieciency now we have to vaporise it add carburation now that burns slow and hot and on and on and on and we just keep adding more systems that take away the eff of every gas molcule so we are just adding a little help faster burn carries it own oxy with it lowers the bottom high and the top high temp and cushions the blow of the slow burning gas vapor that about increases or at least softens the blow and work of all of the other elaborate systems that we have had to come up with just to get the darn thing to work without destroying itself forces that lose percentages of the eff of every gas molecule you burn that we would ideally want to use for motive force to the wheels it is just a clasic simple booster the same way that it has always been for over 100 years now this overunity that i think that you speak of might be fro a much more amped up version of this hydrogen booster a cold fusion test reactor and only small traces of overunity have benn observed and documented but wow to run a car there are better way than this to make hydrogen you could probably run a car with a browns gas cutting torch the thing is you wouldnt be able to move very far without disturbing the generator it has to be very still to stabilise and its solution can not be allowed to slosh over the top of its plates but yeah 40 to 60 liters an hour by all means for about 7 or8 hours run your car like crazy just dont hit any bumps or drive over tracks and such cold fusion test reactor easy to build will produce hydroge by orderes of magnetude but really if gas were 20 bucks a gallon gas would still be cheaper i thought that some one just needed a little help here understanding how an ic works or how a hydrogen booster works or how it works with a car or if it works with a car but it seems that you all are way ahead of me so i will just enjoy reading in from time to time if yall will still let me and please ask me anything about ic and if i know it i will gladley speak up
karossii PKM9 years ago
I think that it is indeed possible to run a car with only water for fuel, and have waste water, and not be over unity. Think about this - what do you use as fuel in you car today? Gasoline right? Cars today are powered by gasoline, right? But where does the spark come from? How does the on board computer run? How does your radio and cigarette lighter work? We have a battery in there. We just don't think of it as fuel. It is, but we forget about it. Maybe this guy was trying to be deceptive - but maybe he wasn't. Perhaps he was just ignoring the electrical draw of the process? Why not, I mean we do with gasoline powered cars (and corn oil powered cars) today!
But where does the spark come from?

From a battery charged via the engine fuelled by gasoline (or whatever).

That's why you can't run a car solely on self-electrolysed hydrogen - you would be on a long-term loser - the whole output of the engine would be required to power the electrolysis unit, and the laws of thermodynamics mean that you could not produce as much hydrogen from the electrolyser as was used to power it in the first place.

If you want a hydrogen-powered car, you're stuck with producing H2 outside the vehicle and storing it either under pressure of in one of the surface-adsorbtion tanks they're trying to develop.
I disagree. I do understand you would be replacing that battery far more often than with a gasoline powered engine, but overall you could use a standard car battery as used in today's engines, with a hydrogen generator of some sort, and end up with enough energy output to drive a vehicle. Maybe not as fast as a gasoline version, but definitely it is possible!

And look at the savings. Let's assume that the hydrogen unit cost ten times what I have invested in the one in my car - roughly $1,000.00. And let's assume you run through a car battery every single month. Which I think is a ridiculously short battery life, but let's assume. And let's further assume you drive the national average of 1,000 miles per month on that one battery and 'free' water. Yes I realize we pay for water, but we often overlook that small monthly bill.

So an average car battery costs $100 or less, but let's stick to easy numbers. $100 a month, plus an initial investment of $1,000 - that is $2,200 in one year for 12,000 miles. That is about $0.18 per mile, less than 20 cents. At $3.50 a gallon and 25 miles per gallon you pay $0.14 per mile. Cheaper with gasoline, right?

But those are with high attrition estimates on a car battery, and only amortizing the cost of the hydrogen unit (which is also way overpriced) over one year. Also, it assumes one year of gasoline with no cost increases - almost ridiculous in itself!

Consider the same scenario over two years, still assuming gasoline prices remained static; now you have 24,000 miles over $3,400.00 with hydrogen - you would be down to the same rate ($0.14) per mile as that gasoline... and again, that is only if gas stays at an average of $3.50 over the next 2 years. We all know it won't. That also assumes a loss of one car battery per month, which is ridiculous, one a year is more likely. And it also assumes you somehow paid ten times what I did to make and install a hydrogen generator. Actually this last is the only reasonable assumption, as I do not produce enough hydrogen to replace gasoline, only to supplement it.

In short, I made a lot of assumptions *against* the hydrogen powered car, and it still broke even after only two years; in reality you will see a cost savings in a very short time.

So no, I don't believe you would be stuck producing hydrogen outside the vehicle and storing it under pressure.

But I am not interested (yet) in a hydrogen only car. I am satisfied with the huge savings I have enjoyed by installing a hydrogen assist unit in my car. And yes I term it HHO - it helps the 'unwashed masses' to understand what I mean. The term HHO comes from the belief that splitting H2O will yield H1 + H1 + O1 as gasses. We know this is fallacy if we understand science, but since it is a popular term which is easily understood by many (just like "ain't"), why not use it?
And let's assume you run through a car battery every single month. Which I think is a ridiculously short battery life, but let's assume.

Unfortunately your assumptions are way off the mark.

Have you ever tried running an electrolysis cell on a 12V supply? The demonstration cell I use in lessons at school runs on 12V and produces about a quarter of a litre of gas (H2 plus O2) in a lesson, enough for a single satisfying pop.

A fully-charged car battery produces more gas because of the higher current, but will still only last a couple of hours, and only produce a litre or two of the gas - enough to turn the engine over once, maybe twice. Your vehicle's efficiency will be measured in tens of batteries per mile.

You don't believe me? Try it. That's what makes science special - it's testable, and it's because I can test the claims made for cars that "run" on water that I know they are utter hogwash. Check the web yourself, look up all the people who claim they can run their car on water. Have a look to see how many of the claims have been independently verified by qualified physicists. The nearest I've seen was an "inventor" who claimed that the reason his invention didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny was because the scientists didn't believe in his work.

That's the same excuse used by fortune tellers and psychics....

We know this is fallacy if we understand science, but since it is a popular term which is easily understood by many (just like "ain't"), why not use it?

Because it is a fallacy, and by continuing to use the term you are perpetuating the myth that you can change the nature of the gasses by the electrolysis method (which is what the HHO/Brown's Gas claim).
"Have you ever tried running an electrolysis cell on a 12V supply?"

Actually, I have, and do run an electrolysis system off of a standard car battery. And yes, it is recharged via an alternator when the engine runs. Why shouldn't a hydrogen powered car do the same thing? I know there will be power loss, but the battery would last longer than without one.

And, in point of fact, before I installed the system into my car, I did run it on a discrete 12v car battery with no alternator - I can assure you it lasted for at least a week (9 days to be precise) of use being used roughly 4 to 5 hours per day (and one 14 hour run overnight) without showing any signs of needing to be recharged or replaced, and was able to consistently produce roughly a liter per minute.

That is nowhere near enough to run a car exclusively on hydrogen, I know - but my unit was designed and built to be used as an assist, not a fuel replacement. Proper design and better materials could easily make all the difference needed.

As you said yourself - "You don't believe me? Try it. That's what makes science special - it's testable, and it's because I can test the claims made for cars that "run" on water that I know they are utter hogwash."

I have tried it, or a good portion of the science behind it. HAVE YOU?

Have you ever tried using a PWM to help increase the hydrogen output of an electrolysis device run off of a 12v battery, and seen how long it lasts and how much hydrogen you can produce while doing so? I have - so which one of us is speaking from tested and proven knowledge, and which one is using untested theory?

No, I have not run a car exclusively on hydrogen, but my stance on its possibility (even probability) is a lot stronger than your own dismissal, I believe.


As to the whole HHO terminology thing... You sound just like me a decade or two ago when I was so hasty to correct and admonish anyone who abused the non-word "ain't" (I am far more of a grammaticist than scientist ;) ) Yet even though it wasn't a word, and it meant nothing (or should have) - it was popular. It is now in the dictionary, and no longer is it even dismissed in the dictionary as a colloquialism - it is a proper word.

The Term HHO is what a non-scientist associates with a combination of hydrogen and oxygen gases, and little more. When MY started this thread, he used the term, and he knew nothing of the arguments of overunity that were started. Others have used it also similarly ignorant of the small crowd who founded the term and used it fallaciously. So as much as you may dislike it, it is becoming a fairly common misnomer that will most likely catch on with the public, and I am choosing not to fight it.
Will you please stop changing your position - first you claim you can run a car on hydrogen that is self-electrolysed, then present evidence that you cannot as evidence that you can. Now you're chopping and changing between using on-board produced hydrogen to improve the efficiency of a petrol-fuelled car (which is possible) to using on-board produced hydrogen to run the car directly (which is only possible with external charging of the batteries).

If we scale up your system to one that can run an internal combustion engine (which seems to be your aim), say a litre of hydrogen per second - you will need according to your claims, sixty normal car batteries.

This will mean carrying an extra half a tonne of mass in your car - that will seriously slow you down, and require the generation of even more power, which will require the vehicle to carry even more batteries.

And, as I have said, it is a physical impossibility to get as much energy back from burning the hydrogen as it took to produce - even if you could generate enough hydrogen to run your car from on-board electrolysis, your batteries would still need recharging from an external source after every journey. The hydrogen produced cannot be used to both move the vehicle and recharge the battery - it is either/or, not both, and even then (as you have finally admitted), there will be losses.

Now, will you please show me where I said a car cannot run on hydrogen? They can. They do. However - they cannot run on hydrogen that is produced by on-board electrolysis and recharge the batteries. Any claim that it is possible is a claim, by definition, for overunity. You say you are not claiming overunity, yet you also claim you can run a car on self-electrolysed hydrogen. Make up your mind.

You say that, because I have not added a hydrogen "booster" to my car I am not qualified to point out the fact that your claims that a car can fun on self-electrolysed hydrogen are false. Wrong. That is like saying that because I have never launched my own moon mission I am not allowed to comment on the viability of flying to Mars on a broomstick.

And you're being careless about your comparisons in language. "Ain't" is a contraction of an existing phrase. It has been part of language for several hundred years.

"HHO" is a term deliberately invented by people who claim that their "version" of hydrogen and oxygen is chemically different from that which exists elsewhere in the universe. It is not lazy, it is not an evolution of language, nor is it an alternative convention, it is plain wrong, in the same way that it is wrong to talk about centrifugal forces instead of centripetal forces.

If you wish to continue this conversation, or to make any more wild claims, then please be clear on this:

  • Hydrogen may improve the efficiency of a petrol-driven internal combustion engine. Even proper engineers and scientists are not convinced either way, since there are many variables to consider. I am not disputing the possibility that H2 could be adequately produced by electrolysis powered by the engine - as PKW pointed out, IC is an inefficient process anyway.
  • Hydrogen can be used to power cars, either highly inefficiently by IC, or much more efficiently through a fuel cell.
  • The use of hydrogen as a fuel (either in an IC engine or a fuel cell) cannot produce as much energy as was used to manufacture the hydrogen in the first place (that is such basic thermodynamics as to be axiomatic).
  • If a system was designed to produce hydrogen "on demand" for the running of a fuel cell or internal combustion engine, running the electrolysis from batteries, then the output of the system would be able to either run the vehicle or charge the batteries to a level approaching (but not equalling, see above) their original charge.
Anything outside these facts are what are termed "extraordinary claims", and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Basically, the only way you will convince me, or anybody else outside the woowoo community, that a car can run the way you claim is to build it and drive it without ever needing new batteries or top-up charging from external sources.

As far as I am concerned, this conversation is over until you (or anybody) manages to do that. Feel free to have the last word if you really need to, but read the other comments on this thread before you do, and think about something: who are you trying to convince that you are right - me? Or yourself?
We're not talking about over unity. We're talking about harnessing more energy that was formerly wasted as the primary benefit. > A combustion engine works by having many explosions timed just right occurring within specially designed chambers. Each explosion drives a cylinder up, and through the wonders of mechanical engineering, back down again. > When you add the HHO into the mix, the resulting fuel burns cleaner and cooler with roughly the same amount of kinetic force per explosion, with less gasoline in the fuel mix. > As less gasoline is used per explosion, your mileage is extended. > As it burns slightly cooler (and you are using less gasoline) per explosion, there is less waste heat generated from the gasoline per explosion. > With less of the potential energy of the gasoline wasted as heat, and less gasoline expended per explosion, you are running more efficiently on your fuel. This is all about efficiency, not about over unity! As to those who claim to electrolyze water differently, I have only ever seen one who made that claim, and I don't buy into it. Others have used some of his concepts to increase the efficiency of a hydrogen generator, but I haven't seen any of them claim anything other than electrolysis - in fact 90% of them use that very word (electrolysis) to explain what they're doing.
MY (author)  karossii9 years ago
Finally someone "gets it"! Thank you Karossii for your succinct assessment. At no point did I ever give credence to overunity, perpetual motion, nor any other spurious claims. Ironically, I also own a 2004 Chrysler Sebring and would LOVE to retrofit an experimental HHO device. May I pick your brain?
Goodhart MY9 years ago
completely dismiss anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony as entirely without merit.

The reason for this ? If you have 5 people that witness an accident, you WILL get five versions of what happened. All are not correct, in fact, NONE of them will be absolutely correct. BUT, science can put the pieces together and discover "what happened". Also, read down to Kiteman's reply as he again has organized his thoughts a little better then I have.