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>I have developed a technique whereby I can Convert Hydrogen and oxygen Into pure water ! .. it is amazing ! Please contact me and I will Email you My PDF Ebook with detailed information for $19.99 + 4.99 shipping . </p>
<p><a href="http://www.instructables.com/member/ThomasT20" rel="nofollow">ThomasT20</a> A communist Troll ! probably works for the Big oil companis</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>Lol, this is our science failor winner !<br><br>Haha, don't even coun't the energie you lose from your batterie with all the waste to make hydrogen.<br><br>And that's before the injection/combustion process.<br><br>At this rate, you make more economie to try to put directly your batterie energie into the motion. Lol<br><br>Thank's guy, i mean you don't just understand how bad you are in science, it's just like all you comment is issue from free/illimited energie.<br><br>Realy realy thanks, long time since i laugh that much ! ^^</p>
I'm supposed to take your word as FACT?<br><br>You need to show more than a simple &quot;I SAID SO AND THAT IS ALL!&quot;.<br><br>I trust you will sleep the sleep of the truly blissful...
<p>Weish and Kurt explain it to you clearly and paulH11 give you a link for if you realy want to know.<br><br>But at better you say you are sure they are wrong (at worst, you know it, but hope faith in you misundesrtanding gona alternate reality).<br><br>So why would you that i explain to you in an bad english (not my birth language by the way) when you don't listen on 3 people who explain clearly ?<br><br>Personaly i know why, cause you think you know science, because you read a lot about N. Tesla on Conspiracy theorist /Illuminati /UFO sites.<br><br>And for proving what i said, first YOU argh and proove nothing, second i'm not an expert, but the little i know is from real science book (in your language often for remebder. So you can easly find them) and the most important :<br><br>If a man argument that if he run enough fast and light weigh he can fly, lot of people gona try to explain to him that jumping nude from a cliff is not a good idea and a realy bad understanding of science studies. But if you don't listen to them and call them &quot;obstacle of new finding&quot; for exemple, i don't gona loose my breath for him and just watch him realise too late that he better have REALY read science than just aving faith in HIS reality.</p>
<p>Whatever the matter but guys atleast can we think about relative costs per km with diesel/petrol Vs hydroxy.Which one will be cheaper? Even though we use battery to seperate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen,ignite Hydroxy then again water formation.</p>
<p>&quot;relative costs per km with diesel/petrol Vs hydroxy.Which one will be cheaper?&quot; -&gt; That's not the point (for me).</p><p><br>First, it's much electrical engine VS hydroxy engine, because it's two different field were costs are not necessarily link. For example, in France, electrical power is 3 times cheaper than in the rest of the EU.<br><br>Second, you nead to look at the most reliable. First resources that can become expensive are Oil/Diesel/Petrol, next Clear water and last &quot;electricity&quot;. Why ? Cause we produce electricity in a lot of way, but not the others.<br><br>Third, you nead electrical power and clear water to power this.<br><br>If you take all the electrical power nead for this system, perhaps (and i think otherwise) you can go farthest in a lab.<br><br>But in reality, you have the weigh of the water to deal with and for every action, between producing electrical power and moving an engine, you lost efficiency.<br><br>In a all electrical engine, you have the battery direcly link to the engine which nead one &quot;not so bad&quot; conversion of energy (between 80 to 95%). In an hydroxy engine, you have the conversion were electricity produce hydrogen in water (witch is around 75%) and after that, you loose again some energy with the conversion of hydrogen in mechanical power (i can't find something clear on Internet for this one).<br><br>And it's with the omission of the &quot;tank&quot; of the car witch is filled with water.<br><br>To conclude. Thinking of witch is cheaper is not good i think, because that can change pretty quickly. But if you think of the one who is the more efficient and loose less energy, you probably obtain an engine which stay in the classement of the cheapests engines for a long time.</p>
<p>Glad you mentioned Tesla and Conspiracy Theorists in the same sentence! There are some scams that depend on the inability of the average bloke to understand engineering and science and who would persuade the gullible few to attempt to build expensive engines that cannot possibly achieve the goal of generating more power out than power put in. These scam artists ignore the inefficiencies of induction engines and pretend that we are going to draw power from the ethers via tuned antenna systems to cause an alternator or generator to resonate with something imagined by the poor Tesla worshippers (who don't understand the man's work ) in the generator or alternator to create an over-unity system. Sorry for those who'd try to build those systems, and also for those who think there is something of advantage to them in building an electrolysis system onto their fossil fuels cars or trucks.</p>
<p>ThomasT20, I am in complete agreement with you, and though I'd state it differently, I really like your style!</p>
<p>Thx ! Glad to ear that ! ^^<br><br>The thing is i don't care of conspiracy sites.<br><br>But on instructable, it's just innacceptable ^^</p>
I appreciate your effort to prove my point, but I do not need acceptance of those who consider science to be 'settled by consensus'.<br><br><br>incidentally, you might try proof reading your comments for grammar and spelling.<br><br>It reflects directly on your intellectual capabilities.<br>
<p>GrumpyOldGoat: Regardless of what you think about ThomasT20's English skills, in this thread it is the absolutely lamentably poor science and engineering in the basic proposal that seems most to reflect on intellects of those who would pursue such a project.</p>
<p>Haha! Prooving your point you eat a clown ? (Realy thx guy ^^)<br><br>For my spelling, english is not my birth language so arguement as you want, my english is far way better than &quot;your&quot; science ^^<br><br>So yeah, i'm not fluent in english but am enough good to use it regulary in my job and to translate document in birth language and you are not capable of understanding basics of physics.<br><br>So yeah. Our comments reflects our intellectual capabilities !<br><br>A tips for the futur, if you don't want to sound like a conspiratie fan, read science mag and books where they don't speak about illuminati and UFO. It's easy to find in your language most of my science books are in your language.<br><br>11 pm for me so have a nice night !</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>first the only thing you are right on is the generators being sold wont help gas mileage. </p><p>first they are hydroxy generators, not hydrogen generators.</p><p>second hydrogen by the pound has way way way more energy than gasoline or diesel.</p><p>third mixing hydrogen with gasoline would most defiantly give you better fuel economy.( not hydroxy)</p><p>forth yes anyone could pressurize hydrogen, even down to a liquid state.( not hydroxy)</p><p>fifth even hydroxy even has way way way more energy buy the pound than gasoline does.</p><p>hydrogen is not flammable until it has oxygen. if you pull the hydrogen away from the oxygen you can pressurize it in cold down to liquid. store it in a tank like a propane tank, however if you due this with the gas from h2o2 (hydroxy generator then even the static electricity of the tank touching the air will ignite it, and booooooom.</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>Just following up on the play nice rules.<br><br>I built the unit per the instructions.</p><p>Mounted it behind the grill, ran a tube to the air breather and put a switch under the dash.</p><p>Regulated the current to 10 amps.</p><p>Previous mileage was a consistent 19 +/- a few tenths.</p><p>1100 mile round trip I averaged 19 +/- a few tenths.</p><p>ergo, no gain and no loss.</p><p>Perhaps if i doubled. or even tripled the unit....?</p><p>Bumped the amps?</p>
<p>okay guys, I'm going to propose something simple, that apparently you have been missing. NO ONE IS SAYING THIS WILL MAKE A 100% EFFICIENT SYSTEM. So get over it. That's not even a viable counter-argument, because it's irrelevant. &quot;You'll need an outside power source!&quot; GREAT. ADD ONE IN. Cars have batteries already right? Or is your beloved gasoline engine 100% efficient?<br><br>Jesus guys... keep it objective, please. <br><br>No one is saying &quot;replace your gasoline engine with a 100% efficient hydrogen engine where you dont need a battery or anything only water because it's magic&quot;. Got it? No one is saying that.</p><p>Try some constructive thinking for a change.</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>&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>
<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>