How to Convert Water into Fuel by Building a DIY Oxyhydrogen Generator

FeaturedContest Winner
Picture of How to Convert Water into Fuel by Building a DIY Oxyhydrogen Generator
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.

Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

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.  

Step 2: Getting Metal For The Generator Plates

Picture of Getting Metal For The Generator Plates
For this project, you're going to need some stainless steel and some ABS pipe fittings. I visited a local fabrication company, and not only did they have plenty of scrap metal to choose from, they were even willing to help me cut it to custom sizes. A job that would have taken me hours with a pair of tin snips and a hacksaw took only a matter of minutes with their equipment.

I used 20 gauge stainless steel, and with the help of their hydraulic punch, cut precise holes in the tops and bottoms of the plates. When finished, I had 12 plates measuring 3" x 6", 4 plates at 1-1/2" x 6", and three 1" connector bands that were 6", 4-1/2", and 3 1/4". A belt sander was used for smoothing down the jagged edges around the hole.

Step 3: Increasing The Plates Surface Area

Picture of Increasing The Plates Surface Area
Next I used 100 grit sandpaper to sand each of the plates diagonally. You can see the "X" pattern I sanded into both sides of the plates. This increases the surface area of the plate, and will assist in producing more gas.
1-40 of 289Next »
Could you set up a system with this that would supply the gas for cooking and not water in the home?
Oops HOT water..

Seriously, all, please investigate the hydolysis of urine... The urea in the urine actually reduces (significantly) the current needed to electrolyse the water, just as seawater (with NaCl) requires less energy to electrolyse than pure water.

woodNfish1 year ago
If this were truly viable, everyone would be doing it, but I do have some prime swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you.'ve heard of hydrogen powered cars right? Well they use hydrogen and oxygen as fuel, and the only thing keeping them off the streets is the safety hazards of compressed hydrogen. Once a safety method is configured around that, this will be used in most likely every future car. "Electric cars" are simply a stepping off point, they won't last.
Yeah, I'm aware of them, but it takes more power to split the water than what you will get back from the hydrogen produced in addition to hydrogen being very unstable.
The biggest problem is not only safety issue, but the energy density of hydrogen or oxygen is so much ridiculously lower than fossil fuels. You will need to burn up a couple grams of Hydrogen and Oxygen to get the same energy from just burning a microgram of gasoline.
The difference being you can catch some rainwater in a cup.

Alternatively, go build an oil rig, drill a few thousand feet down with highly skilled workers and a ship-load of equipment, pump it into a holding tank, ship it to a refinery (hoping the captain isn't drunk or drugged up and runs aground killing an ecosystem and millions of wildlife), refine it, put it in a tanker and deliver it to a gas station where you use your own gas to get to and fill your tank up costing whatever the market feels like charging that day.

No thanks. I'll go for the water -> HHO any day. ;)
"No thanks. I'll go for the water -> HHO any day. ;)"
So , my question here is, if this became a viable option, and all cars, power stations and other bits and bobs ran on water, what are we going to do when the water runs out?
the thing is, the electricity is simply converted, the water doesn't actually burn.


It takes 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 molecule of oxygen to make 1 molecule of molecule of water

You have a cup holding 10 molecules of water.

You remove 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 molecule of oxygen from your cup?

You're saying that your cup still holds 10 molecules of water?

The difference is that when gasoline or any other fossil fuel is burned it is destroyed forever. When Hydrogen is burned the result is water so it is a renewable cycle. You break water into hydrogen and oxygen. You burn the hydrogen and you get water again.

I think some people are missing the actual benefits of hydrogen.

It is non-toxic. It readily combines with nearby molecules, so spills are never an issue as far as toxicity like petroleum. While it is bound up in other molecules, it is still the most abundant element in the universe. Which is why it is not pursued: it is not a commodity, and cannot be controlled as readily. Remember what happened to Nikola Tesla when JP Morgan found out he was researching to produce devices to broadcast electricity that people could "pick up" out of the atmosphere on an antennae. No more funding.

Hydrogen is portable as a storage mechanism, and can be transported to where it is needed, like electricity, but in tanks, or pipelines. It can be made with solar panels and water. The technology costs, but the source of energy in this case is free, minus the catalyst, which is negligible in cost.

It really is not a "fuel" in the sense of gasoline. it is not refined, or drilled out of the ground. it is not found in deposits, except in stars like our sun. And it does take more energy to make it than it puts out. That's OK, we do that every day. Only about 42.25% of the total energy we put into the US energy chute makes it to an end use.

But this HHO is recyclable, from water to HHO to water. Some of the oxygen is lost to nitrous oxides, but there is other oxygen in the atmosphere to combine with the hydrogen to make water again. The amount of NOx is small. With a sealed fuel cell it does not combine with the nitrogen in the atmosphere.

Hydrogen is an elegant energy carrier. We still need something to generate that electricity, but dams, wind generators, wood, and solar panels are renewable sources which can produce a portable fuel in HHO or hydrogen. Efficiency only plays a minor role.

Do a google search for "sea water to jet fuel." The US Navy has a prototype to create 100% synthetic, carbon-neutral, and recycleable hydro-carbon fuels. The infrastructure already exists for these fuels and it would be a monumental tax on the economy for a large scale fuel change over such as hydrogen fuel vehicles would require. Plus, it has the potential to solve that "rising sea levels" problem :D

'Swut I was gonna say. There ya go!

Billytz MichaelH53 months ago

Using regenerative braking, shock absorber generators, solar sun roofs and any other source of energy that could be put effectively on a car to power the Oxyhydrogen Generator rather than using fossil fuels would it not only lower the use of fossil fuel's and toxic batteries but if every car used it using water from the ocean could it lower the sea level as well as create fresh water for our rivers and streams like here in California?

The world is made up of 80% water. It has never dried up since the world developed (in a sense, after the "soupy-gunk" theory). Actually, water levels rose up by 1 ft. in the past year. Also, a comet that just went around the globe left a trail of ice in the atmosphere! Now since the world is being warmed by the sun, the ice will melt & fall to the earth (of course) causing floods deep enough to submerge Empire State Building, Eiffel tower, Petronas Towers, etc. So we need to harvest all the water need.

PS: A penny for your thoughts.

sea water wouldn't be ideal because the salt would corrode the engine to quickly. You would have to install a desalination unit which would use even more energy to produce the hydrogen. In a pinch at the beach I would say a gallon wouldn't harm it to much. Or even deep in the woods I would say urine would do.

As I understand it from scientific reasoners, the same drinking water that Marco Polo's aide carried in a leather pouch way back when - - is still circulating in today's eco-system. It simply moves away from arid places and ends up being somebodies flood somewhere.

H'lo again chastjones,

Ok, so you're telling me that you'll end up with just as much water to create HHO as you started with after the HHO has burned? Alone, HHO is a combustible mix, but it will still come into contact with the atmosphere at some point during it's combustion. Since our atmosphere is a blend of oxygen and other gases. When HHO burns it also burns the nitrogen, releasing various oxides of nitrogen as well as what's produced with the various other gases in the atmosphere. I do not believe it to be possible to end up with the same amount of water to create HHO as you will after the combustion of that same HHO.

Max just keep sucking down all them Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere and coming from your tail pipe while the rest of us try to find another solution. Oil isn't forever. Trying to do math will hurt your head. Gas ,coal etc, do nothing to clean the air. Hydrogen does do that. You can argue your water this water that theory, but in the end it will just be water under the bridge.

Assuming that no free hydrogen escapes to the atmosphere un-oxidized, then yes, you will end up with exactly the same number of water molecules as you started with. If some of your oxygen ends up reacting with carbon or nitrogen or some other element then free oxygen from the atmosphere will be required to completely oxidize the remaining hydrogen.

that kind of doesn't make sense. If water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, and you separate the two and then burn the hydrogen wouldn't you only have oxygen left over?

Well the word "burning" suggests that something is destroyed. This is true with a fossil fuel in that the process for "burning" or oxidizing permanently changes the fuel materiel. Remember, Oxygen must be present for anything the "burn", Hydrogen is no different. When hydrogen is burned it must combine with oxygen at a 2 to 1 ratio. This is because oxygen's valance is -2 so to fill that -2 shell it needs 2 electrons and since hydrogen has only 1 electron it take 2 hydrogen molecules. Rather than use the term "burn" it is more proper to use the term oxidation which more accurately describes a chemical reaction. So, using chemical or electrical electrolyses you liberate hydrogen and oxygen at exactly a 2 to 1 ration and when you oxidize hydrogen the reaction results in the release of heat energy (exothermic reaction) and the recombining of the hydrogen and oxygen in exactly the same ratio 2 to 1 which we know is just water. Neither gas is every destroyed in the process. The only way to destroy either of those two elements or any element for that matter is thru a nuclear reaction (fission or fusion).

hho burns clean and when burned reverts to h2o. therefore zero emmissions (except for the return water)

No, what none of you seem to understand or willfully ignore is the fact that it takes more energy to separate out the hydrogen than you will ever get back by burning the hydrogen as an energy source. In other words you will spend $10 to get $5 in return. Does that seem like a smart thing to do?

Explain it to us woodNfish. If you are using free water and free energy from a solar panel how does you $10 in $5 out theory work?

After you buy the solar panel, how much does the sunshine cost that will make $5 worth of hydrogen? That's right, zero.

Take the cost of a solar panel, about $1 per watt and divide it by the energy generated over the lifetime of the panel. So, 250 watts, costs $250 to purchase the panel. It produces about 1250 watt-hours per day on average. That's 1.25 kWh, at say 16 cents per kWh or about 20 cents, per day, times 365, times 25. $1825 of electricity for $250. Pretty good. Even when I get $912 worth of hydrogen, it's still good.

So $250 per kWh divided by 11,400 kWh = 2.2 cents per kWh. or perhaps 4.4 cents per kWh of the equivalent amount of hydrogen. Still great.

The 25 is the years of life in the solar panel.

And $250 per panel. it's late...

That is the beauty of HHO, its self replicating. The engine burns the hydrogen thus expelling it to the atmosphere producing more water. Let's see what gas does for the atmosphere lol

the water will never run out because the car spits the used water back out. Or as RolanC suggested recapturing the water and reusing it. Altho now that I typed it it has occurred to me that once separated from the oxygen and burned the remaining hydrogen would have to be re-oxygenated to become "water" again. So I would think that this system would need the separator and a joiner of sorts.

It doesn't run out. Split water into HHO, burn it producing (mostly) H2O, and re-use.

Plus Earth has a truly unimaginable supply of water. It's everywhere. Even in a desert, using a solar still water can be wrung from thin air. (Probably not enough to power an engine but it IS there.)

Can't say that for oil - even if some of the oil is found in desert regions!

perfectly said markhutch. I for one am anticipating the "Ford H2gO" my own little watercar idea I kick around in my head

true but the efficiency of a fuel car is around 20% / 30% all the rest is lost... while HHO will bure more efficiently.... right?? ( I'm not entirely sure but i think is something to take in consideration

Well you are both right and wrong about that. Hydrogen has 1/7 the energy density as gasoline by volume but it has 5 times more energy density than gasoline by weight. This is why they uses hydrogen to power rocket engines. hydrogen is actually more stable than gasoline under the right conditions. Under the wrong conditions you get the Hindenburg.

catprog syntaxing11 months ago
Hydrogen has a value of 286 kilo-joules/mole

gasoline has a value of about 5460 kJ/mole

2g/mole for hydrogen
114.23 g/mole for octane

143 kilo-joules/ gram for hydrogen
47.8 kilo-joules/ gram for octane

Hydrogen is almost 3 times more energy dense by weight then gasoline.

Weight of gasoline 0.737 kg/L
Weight of hydrogen 0.009 kg/L

35,228.6 kilo-joules/Lfor octane
1,287 kilo-joules/L for hydrogen

Gasoline is about 30 times more energy dense by volume then hydrogen.

You are probably thinking per volume not by weight
I hear / read this statement a lot: takes more power to split water than ...".

Has anyone ever calculated how much energy it takes to dig up the iron ore (and make the machines to do the digging), smelt the ore into steel, forge the steel into oil rigs, tow the oil into position over the sea bed / transport and construct on a land site, transport the workers to operate the rig, actually operate the rig, pump the crude oil or transport it to a refinery, refine the oil, transport the gas to the gas station, and for the end-user to drive to the gas station to pump the gas?

I wonder how much energy there could possibly be a in a gallon of gasoline? And is there so much that it's MORE than the energy required to produce it?

I'd love to know the answer to those questions. Anyone?

Very nicely said, sadly we will never see those figures so we will just assume that it is a lot. on a small level one gallon of gas would never be worth the energy to produce it. They pump millions of gallons of crude which to them is worth the effort.

1-40 of 289Next »