Here's how to build a sexy looking generator that uses electricity to convert water into an extremely powerful fuel!  In this project, you'll learn how to build an OxyHydrogen generator from scratch.

Step 1: What Is an OxyHydrogen Generator?

An oxyhydrogen generator, like this one, uses electricity from your car battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gasses.  (Electricity + 2H20 --> 2H2 + O2)  Together, these make a fuel that is much more powerful than gasoline, and the only emission released is—water!

Of course, to be a completely clean fuel, the electricity used to generate the gas needs to be from a clean source.  Solar, wind, or water power could be a few examples.  

This video shows step-by-step how to make one.  

NOTE: The amount of electrical energy required to make the gas is more than the energy you can obtain from it.  This is NOT an energy generator so much as it is an energy converter.  
<p>&quot;This breaks the laws of physics! You can't get more energy out than you put in!&quot; OK, geniuses, I mean tools of the oil industry, you have to keep putting water in........... Please explain how this is creating energy out of nothing. If this were a &quot;perpetual motion machine&quot;, you'd have to put water in once and then like magic the system would run forever. That's not what anyone is claiming. Hmmm. Just like big pharma is behind the war on drugs, big oil is the reason hydrogen powered cars aren't commonplace. It ain't rocket science, it's money and big business.</p>
<p>I guess you forgot that the combustion of the oxyhydrogen mixture will release water vapour.... If we can find an efficient way of condensing this water vapour back into water from the exhaust and channel it into the fuel tank(which im sure we can) it would be quite advantageous:)</p>
<p>... And there's your Perpetual Motion Machine all over again...</p><p>Reminds me of The New York Times crucifying Robert Goddard for saying rocket engines could work in space. According to &quot;the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools,&quot; &quot;there was &quot;nothing to push against.&quot;</p><p>I guess High School has gotten worse at science since then.</p>
<p>It <strong>is </strong>rocket science... You use more kilowatt-hours (A unit of work) to get the hydrogen by electrolysis than you'll ever get out of burning the hydrogen. Period. End of discussion.</p>
<p>You may be right in this decade, but how about applying that resolute mind of your find a solution, instead of hurling criticism. I am certain there is unharnessed brilliance within you to unlock this puzzle. </p><p> The fact is the longer we burn crappy carbon fuels the longer we are &quot;stuffis fucktass.&quot; I am certain I need not give you the literal translation. </p><p>Now that you have worked that one out, how about applying yourself to finding a cheap power solution when producing hydrogen. May start the ball rolling. I suggest we do service to humanity by recruiting fat people (that want to look gorgeous): to put them upon bicycles with generators attached to wheels. My calculation is American and Europe are 80% obese, so 800 million people burning say 4,000 joules per evening could produce enough energey to heat a cup of tea. However, have you considered that to burn 2,000 joules takes about three hours of continuous exercise when heating would now be required, libido-building exercise would prevail and there would be no reason to import laborers to do the work. What a wonderful world would that be?</p>
<p>&quot;end of discussion&quot; &lt;-- you sound dogmatic, religiously over-zealous in your beliefs. Of course, you will get nowhere as you stay within the box that the big industrialists have put you in. I hate to break it to you, but you have spent 1,000's being lied to in college, about physics. Hint; There are open and closed loop systems. An open loop system CAN and does (it has been proven) generate extra energy by pulling it from the surrounding atmosphere. Anyone who has watched a lightning storm knows that this exists. A closed loop system, like a brainwashed mind, can not generate anything more than what is put into it. Good luck.</p>
<p>Zzzzz... Well, let me know when you tell the power company and the gas station to take a hike. And good luck catching that lightning.</p><p>&quot;In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.&quot;</p>
The core principle to remember in scientific pursuit is that you're only right until you're wrong. Then we can always advance. However, if we use our knowledge as a way to gain authority over others, (which is how the reason developed in the first place) we will never be farther than where we are currently. Discovering no new ideas, discovering no new concepts in a world, just waiting for that one guy who said I'm not going to take this book answer as all there is, what else can I know? <br>What law (of physics) is waiting to be broken?
<p>Never mind the list is at</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FHHOParts&redir_token=8VXjUgp0d05z8uoKzeMoBybRkGx8MTQ0MzkxOTA5NUAxNDQzODMyNjk1" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/HHOParts</a></p>
<p>Hey, can you please reply a parts list to my comment?</p>
<p>Please add a list of the required materials that help us to follow your technique. </p>
<p>I love it. I want to make such a generator for my home usage.</p>
Parts list ?
<p>How many amps does it draw at 12 volts on a car battery?</p>
<p>How many amps of current does the hydrogen generator draw?</p>
<p>Wow. I could not even get through all the comments, so bitter. Anyway, as the note says, this is not an energy generator, rather it is a converter. In my opinion the way to make this &quot;freeish&quot; energy, would be to use an off grid solar energy collection system to power it. If you could get things into place to compress it into a liquid you could use it for a lot of things. The benefit in my mind is having a system that does not rely on batteries which tend to have limited life spans at this time (09-23-2015). I'm not interested in something that will save me money as much as I am interested in having reliable power at a remote location. </p>
<p>How large of a unit would I need to build to help an F-250 Powerstroke get better mileage?<br><br>would the effort result in more MPG?</p><p>And before the whiners start..<br><br>I DO NOT expect to make a diesel run on Hydrogen.</p><p>Just help on the economy.</p>
<p>Those people that are putting a hydrogen generator on their vehicle to create hydrogen that they mix with the gasoline or diesel to get better mileage are either shysters trying to sell a system or deluded users that don't understand physics and conservation of energy. It can not work.</p><p>And if you had a hydrogen generator in your backyard how are you going to get the hydrogen to your vehicle anyway. A gallon jar full of hydrogen gas is very little hydrogen and you have to pressurize the hydrogen to make it a liquid. Can you do this? </p><p>Then even if you did get a source of hydrogen to your vehicle the mix of gasoline and hydrogen has less energy that pure gasoline. Same with diesel. Hydrogen has less energy per pound that either gasoline or diesel. </p><p>Mixing hydrogen with gasoline to improve fuel mileage <strong><em>does not</em></strong> work. You can reply to me and argue all you want, you can say it did or does for you, you can say you tried it and it does work. You measured incorrectly. It does not work. Don't reply and challenge me as to what makes me an expert. Read and learn some physics. It's not my idea, it's physics. </p><p>Using electricity to make hydrogen in order to use the hydrogen as an energy source is a losing proposition. Just use the electricity instead. </p>
<p>&quot;putting a hydrogen generator on their vehicle to create hydrogen that <br>they mix with the gasoline or diesel to get better mileage are either <br>shysters trying to sell a system or deluded users that don't understand <br>physics and conservation of energy&quot; &lt;-- I can tell you don't even know what one of these things looks like OR does. Out of hand though, without even looking or trying, you dismiss the possibility because &quot;science&quot;. Look into Nikola Tesla and see what he proved. He was a lot smarter than me, and definitely you, and the industrialists, after finding out his goals of free energy for everyone, shut him down. Your college education (if you have one) was a lie. Physics' &quot;laws&quot; are partly BS, and meant to keep people from even trying to generate free energy. Maybe you should spend some time out in nature and see what actually exists. Energy is all around us, abundant and free, and ready to be tapped into. We have lightning storms, magnetic north, positively charged earth, its all around us. Why guys like you feel the need to spout off with useless and self-defeating info is beyond me. It is thanks to brainwashed sheep that we are all stuck paying for energy.</p>
<p>These 'detractors' have been trained to believe that &quot;All possible knowledge has been learned, and All possible inventions have been invented&quot;.</p><p>I asked a simple question and they went to war over the need to protect their knowledge from possibly being proven to be outdated and of no further use to Humanity.</p>
<p>This is a place of learning and teaching, if your not doing either then I think in the wrong place, sir. </p>
<p>Dude you strike my as a backwards grandpa that is stuck with ideas of the past, if you where not you would not have take the grandpa way out with the &quot;don't question me&quot; mentality. Although I do agree that the idea of teaming it up with liquid fuel makes no sense your way of trying to &quot;shut people down&quot; makes you appear that way for you're completely missing the tranportation applications that it these are working on already.</p>
Well to be true it is possible as i have just watched it on tv a company have created a car than can run on hydrogen and you put the water in the car using the same system you are obviously out of date with your information i believe the car company called scorpion
<p>This site has a be nice policy but so far it's really difficult to be nice here. I would imagine anyone posting anything here wouldn't change your mind, but honestly, you really should do some research on energy sources. How energy is converted from one source to another. <br><br>Yes, you can create a car that runs on Hydrogen, it's been done and done well, but you cannot make a car that runs on water converted into hydrogen on the &quot;fly&quot; (enclosed in the engine by itself without outside sources doing the conversion) it is not possible, you need energy to convert water into hydrogen &quot;H20&quot; is water.. The car you are referring to claims to do this with the help of the gasoline engine...<br><br>This is just basic science.<br><br>Each water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, each hydrogen atom is attached to the oxygen atom with a polar covalent bond, you need to split off the oxygen to create pure hydrogen, doing that takes energy, which by the way currently takes more energy than you get out of it. and at best, a perfect system (of which there will never be one) it will be 99.9% efficient and never a net gain. If we could freely convert H20 to hydrogen we would have unlimited energy on the planet right now.<br><br> You can simply do a google search to prove yourself completely wrong.</p>
<p>Stanley Meyer disproved Faraday by inventing a method to break water into its basic gases of Hydrogen &amp; Oxygen, at a WHOOPING 1600% efficiency. This permitted him to run an engine on water, because he needed very little energy to run his gas generator. The reason why this has not yet come out into the open is anybody's guess. Read between the lines and you might get the answers.</p>
Basic science. Nothing in this world is even 100% efficient. One of the most efficient processes is the motor that turns a flagellum in E Coli. is almost 100% efficient but not quite. (Brown, W.,&nbsp;In the Beginning: compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood, 7th&nbsp;ed., Center for Scientific Creation, Arizona, USA, pp. 17&ndash;18, 2001.)
<p>Stanley Meyer was a FRAUD!</p>
<p>Tonyreveiro: It is very sad if you believe the Stanley Meyer claim; you have company, to be sure, for there are always those who seek miracles or chances to find cheap energy. His method was not one of those.</p>
<p>No, it is not possible. No I am not out of date. That system has been around for 40 years. It does not work. It is a scam. You believe everything you read on the internet. I have some swamp land I'd like to sell. It's pretty cheap and you can drain it with a $10.00 drill pump.</p>
<p>fyck u how can u say that its outdated .......</p>
<p>.....er, how did such a clever person as you, yrralguthrie, come to get stuck with swampland? Did you get an irresistible offer of a FREE (economically-attractive!) drill when you bought it?</p>
<p>I inherited it, do you want some!</p>
<p>Not if it means I have to go to Hamerica.</p><p>Was it your brother that inherited the Microsoft shares?</p>
<p>Even if there were a good means to inject the hydrogen with the fossil fuel and the oxygen with the air, the latter would interfere with or be compensated in the Oxygen sensor - modulated combustion controls handled by the car's computers, and the former would add complexity, a great deal of weight and consequent inefficiency. There is absolutely nothing of value that this instructable presents. I see that gnewman6 is confusing this instructable with hydrogen - fueled vehicles, which are already here. I believe that Toyota has stated that the future is in hydrogen - fueled vehicles, not in hybrids. Scorpion is not likely the leader in Hydrogen - fueled vehicles, and the statement by gnewman6 shows a great deal of confusion between the suggestions of the author of this instructable and the builders of hydrogen - fueled vehicles.</p>
<p>I agree with everything you have said, and I have read thus far, but I have one question. Wouldn't the amount of energy provided by the combustion of the gas be increased because it's a mixture of Hydrogen AND Oxygen gas? Or does the presence of Oxygen just merely facilitate the Hydrogen's ability to combust?</p>
<p>electrolysis breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen by breaking the bonds between the atoms. if you then take that perfect stoichiometric mix of H and O, and ignite it with a spark, there will then be a release of energy as the bonds between the H and O reform. the kicker is, less energy is released when those bonds form, than is needed to break them in the first place, a net loss of energy.</p><p>if you're driving an electrolytic cell using your car's alternator, that creates an additional load on the alternator, meaning more effort is needed from the engine. now if you're injecting the hydrogen and oxygen gas from your electrolytic cell into your fuel mix, you're actually reducing the amount of potential energy going into the cylinder to ignite and produce work, because gasoline has a higher energy density than the H O mix you're adding. literally, there is more energy in a pound of pure gasoline, than there is in a pound of water(and converting that water into hydrogen and oxygen costs energy as well, making it an even worse fuel). sadly, this means that by adding an electrolytic cell to your car adds load onto the alternator, and reduces the overall efficiency of the fuel mix being burned, thus requiring that you burn more of that mix of gasoline, oxygen and hydrogen to produce the same amount of work as a lesser amount of pure gasoline. that's why you aren't going to improve fuel efficiency or make your vehicle run more economically by generating and burning hydrogen on the fly.</p><p>on the other hand, lets say you had a cheap way of producing and compressing hydrogen gas, lets imagine for now it's running off solar power and getting the water from a stream or lake, so you don't need to add anything to this theoretical hydrogen bottling plant. if you carried a bottle of pre made compressed hydrogen, and injected that into your fuel mix, that actually could improve fuel economy, because you're not creating an extra load on the car's electrical system to produce the gas you're burning. but even then, the savings wouldn't be great and would be unlikely to be worth the costs of the equipment to make the bottled hydrogen, or the modifications to your car necessary to properly burn hydrogen as a supplementary fuel ala nitrous oxide. we all like the idea of getting something for free, whether it's lunch, fuel, energy, or a science lesson, but when what you &quot;want&quot; isn't reasonable, sensible, or even possible, it's time to move on, not defend a flawed idea because you want it to work.</p>
<p>Don't be so EXACTING about what you seem to know in PHYSICS. A lot of the stuff around, that actually does work or exist, is not explained by main stream physics. Check out the work of Stanley Meyer before you become so damn sure of what you're saying. His work was suppressed for better reasons. </p>
<p>Thanks yyralguthrie, you're doing humanity a favor. At this point I'm going to say I agree completely with everything you say, and just save myself the time and effort of explaining the most basic science. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) You hereby have my proxy.</p>
<p>Interesting concept....</p><p>A Pound of Hydrogen....</p>Everything that can be Invented has been Invented?<p>what an interesting concept.</p>
In other words you failed to read the entirety of my comment?
<p>I didn't fail to read anything. Using hydrogen to increase economy will not work. That's what you asked and that's what I answered. </p>
<p>SCIENCE says otherwise.</p><p>I have personally watched vehicles converted than run fairly well on hydrogen and atmosphere.</p><p>Your stating unequivocally that it is fraud is hardly of value to the conversation.</p>
<p>Not what I said, grumpy, engines will run well on hydrogen. I said you can't economically use electrolysis to generate said energy. And I also said it was impossible to use a hydrogen generator run by the alternator to increase mpg. In case you missed it I also said people who believe this are delusional. </p>
<p>Is there anything in creation more arrogant than ignorance? (eg yrralyoyo)<br><br>RMIT in Melbourne was driving around for months (30-odd years ago) in an old Ford test-bed running on hydrogen.<br>A couple of young whizkids living just down the road from me until recently covered more than a million miles in another old Ford which produced hydrogen onboard as needed. (ie. no storage/compression/transport problems.) <br><br> There were some complicated electronics involved, which I don't pretend to understand, but I watched them fit a similar system to an old International truck in four hours and drive it 475 km home ~ all in one day.<br><br>The basis for the system involved a lot of (pre-charged from solar/wind on the garage roof) battery-power in the boot and a recharging system which partially depended on momentum along with an old truck generator (as distinct from an alternator.).<br>All of which is not very different from the engineering used in some of the hybrid technology getting around all over the place.<br><br>I'm not driving a car fitted with their system because it'd cost me twice what the car cost. THAT'S what fuel efficiency is all about: costs. Who cares if hydrogen provides half the power of petrol if it COSTS one-tenth of the price of petrol.<br><br>Another good example is solar/wind-power, which isn't 1/100th as productive as nuclear or coal power ~ but costs 10000 (?) times less.<br><br>Or wood-gas power: I ran a large generator for years on wood-waste/grass-clippings, etc. fed through an old truck engine.<br>A farmer of my acquaintance in Tasmania ran a whole dairy-farm on power generated from wood-chips and t-tree scrub.<br><br>....and then there's pig-shit!.....One suspects yrralguthrie is familiar with that process, at least.<br>There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in the pointy little heads of arrogant Richard Craniums.<br>(with apologies to William)<br><br>If such know-alls had their way we'd still be swinging around in the tree-tops by our tails</p>
<p>Not sure what a F-250 powerstroke is, but rule of thunmb is generally about 1 litre hydroxy gas per litre of engine size. The unit shouldnt need to pull more than about 30 amps give or take depending on the size of your engine. </p><p>However if your engine is a very new diesel with common rail, etc and very efficient you probably wont get much extra out of it. But dont take my word I havent tried this on a modern engine with all electronuic sensors etc.</p>
FINALLY!!!<br><br>An Answer from someone that READ the question and UNDERSTOOD the subject matter.<br><br>THANK YOU.<br><br>This Powerstroke is a 7.3 ltr 1997, produced my IHC.
<p>Personally, I don't see how this is supposed to do anything. At the same time though there wasn't much explanation in your question, so M2aestro and Thomas can't possibly have a solid argument.. I'd be very interested to learn what your idea was to have an H2/O2-assisted Diesel. Always up for learning something new.</p><p>As for Thomas over there, it saddens me to see someone speak of Tesla as if he were in the same boat as the guy from Ancient Aliens. I could go on for days on just about anything on Tesla, from his personality to his habits to the way he thought and all his projects, failed or not.</p><p>What you do not seem to understand is that Tesla gave us the base to nearly everything we have today, most importantly AC electricity and the transformers we use to transmit it hundreds, if not thousands, of times further than Edison's Direct Current.</p><p>I will give you the fact that Tesla built some crazy-a** stuff that we still don't understand with today's technology. He designed a working particle beam (aka. his &quot;Death Ray&quot;), wireless energy, the basics for robotics, and an earthquake generator. However, they all worked, so DO NOT call Tesla a conspiracy theorist simply because you don't know how to explain what he built, much less construct it yourself. He was not given the plans to anything he did. He was an amazing thinker, and could design, test, and perfect models in his mind, much like our CADD computer programs do today.</p><p>Seems &quot;Grumpy&quot;OldGoat and I are the only ones in this rudimentary argument to stay true to Instructables' &quot;be nice&quot; policy.. Nice work.</p>
<p>All the brilliance of a 3 watt bulb is shown in a lot of comments in this thread.</p><p>The majority seem to have come to the conclusion that 'their ...science' is all there is and any other beliefs that &quot;SCIENCE&quot; is always progressing is blasphemous and the believers in a brighter future should be hung or crucified, lest those bad thoughts begin to propagate into workable theories which would cause the collapse of the known world.</p><p>I have come to believe that, in order to achieve their lofty intelligence level, I woulds have to remove 60% of my brain. </p><p>Not something I find to be desirable.</p><p>TESLA was Right, and edison couldn't stand the competition. He used his political pull to destroy Tesla for purely EGOTISTICAL reasons.</p><p>Anybody that uses 4,000 words to say &quot;it won't work&quot; and fail to use 10 words to explain why, has something to hide from.</p>
<p>7.3 litre. !! Thats bigger than my house old chap. If you want better economy I would just leave that on the driveway and walk everywhere, but as I assume youre in America thats probably not an option. </p><p>That was 1 litre per minute of hydroxy gas per litre of engine so youre looking at 7 litres per minute, drawing something like 70/80 Amps depending on the setup. Hope you have access to some decent copper. Make sure your alternator is man enough to cope. You can play around with the variables to see what works best, there's still a lot to be learnt. But I think you know all this anyway.</p><p>As for all those going on about over unity machines , well yes, all well and good for you, aren't you all very clever. But you really have to understand the question before being so sure of the answer.</p><p>I am not splitting water to get the energy back out of it when it recombines.</p>
<p>LesterC2: If you were not setting up electrolysis to reclaim energy through its recombination, then what would be the point in this exercise? Most kids have seen demonstrations of electrolysis or read about it in grammar school. I'm questioning what you think folks don't understand that you believe that you understand. This appears to be on its face about the most useless exercise that I've seen suggested in instructables, dollar in per dollar benefit gained!</p>