loading
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.

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.  
 

I think I'm missing something... I'm wondering about how the current is delivered to each of the plates. I looked at the pictures, re-watched the relevant portion of the video (the plate-washer-plate-nut part) and checked the pictures. I can see how the current enters through the bolts to the bent steel and then passes to the roughed-up plates through some nuts, and of course the washers are insulating. What we have is essentially this (P = plate, W = washer, N = nut):

[from + lead] [N] [P] [W] [P] [N] [P] [W] [P] [N] [P] [W] [P] [N] [from - lead]

The first and last plates are clearly electrified. What about the others in between? Was there some method of conduction I didn't notice, or is are they in fact not connected? If not, how are those plates contributing? Do they "catch," so to speak, ions from the electrolyte by electrostatic attraction (being close together) and then simply act as additional reaction sites?

benjy3233 days ago

i was thinking of making a homade rc car..............

How large of a unit would I need to build to help an F-250 Powerstroke get better mileage?

would the effort result in more MPG?

And before the whiners start..

I DO NOT expect to make a diesel run on Hydrogen.

Just help on the economy.

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.

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?

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.

Mixing hydrogen with gasoline to improve fuel mileage does not 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.

Using electricity to make hydrogen in order to use the hydrogen as an energy source is a losing proposition. Just use the electricity instead.

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
gormly gnewman61 month ago

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.

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 "fly" (enclosed in the engine by itself without outside sources doing the conversion) it is not possible, you need energy to convert water into hydrogen "H20" is water.. The car you are referring to claims to do this with the help of the gasoline engine...

This is just basic science.

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.

You can simply do a google search to prove yourself completely wrong.

Stanley Meyer disproved Faraday by inventing a method to break water into its basic gases of Hydrogen & 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.

Stanley Meyer was a FRAUD!

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.

.....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?

I inherited it, do you want some!

Not if it means I have to go to Hamerica.

Was it your brother that inherited the Microsoft shares?

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.

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?

weish saleendvr1 month ago

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.

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.

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 "want" isn't reasonable, sensible, or even possible, it's time to move on, not defend a flawed idea because you want it to work.

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.

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.

Interesting concept....

A Pound of Hydrogen....

Everything that can be Invented has been Invented?

what an interesting concept.

In other words you failed to read the entirety of my comment?

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.

SCIENCE says otherwise.

I have personally watched vehicles converted than run fairly well on hydrogen and atmosphere.

Your stating unequivocally that it is fraud is hardly of value to the conversation.

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.

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.

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.

FINALLY!!!

An Answer from someone that READ the question and UNDERSTOOD the subject matter.

THANK YOU.

This Powerstroke is a 7.3 ltr 1997, produced my IHC.

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.

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.

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.

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 "Death Ray"), 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.

Seems "Grumpy"OldGoat and I are the only ones in this rudimentary argument to stay true to Instructables' "be nice" policy.. Nice work.

All the brilliance of a 3 watt bulb is shown in a lot of comments in this thread.

The majority seem to have come to the conclusion that 'their ...science' is all there is and any other beliefs that "SCIENCE" 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.

I have come to believe that, in order to achieve their lofty intelligence level, I woulds have to remove 60% of my brain.

Not something I find to be desirable.

TESLA was Right, and edison couldn't stand the competition. He used his political pull to destroy Tesla for purely EGOTISTICAL reasons.

Anybody that uses 4,000 words to say "it won't work" and fail to use 10 words to explain why, has something to hide from.

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.

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.

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.

I am not splitting water to get the energy back out of it when it recombines.

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!

On the face of it, I earn too much and drive too little for much in the way of dollar for dollar benefit gain.

The reply that the rule of thumb is about 1 liter (litre) of "dydroxy" gas per litre of engine size ignores rate of consumption of fuel and the portion of the engine's power that would pull that measly 30A. You're not going to get any return, even on that little 30A, with the extra baggage required to assemble and implement this hardware.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Lol, this is our science failor winner !

Haha, don't even coun't the energie you lose from your batterie with all the waste to make hydrogen.

And that's before the injection/combustion process.

At this rate, you make more economie to try to put directly your batterie energie into the motion. Lol

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.

Realy realy thanks, long time since i laugh that much ! ^^

ThomasT20, I am in complete agreement with you, and though I'd state it differently, I really like your style!

Thx ! Glad to ear that ! ^^

The thing is i don't care of conspiracy sites.

But on instructable, it's just innacceptable ^^

I appreciate your effort to prove my point, but I do not need acceptance of those who consider science to be 'settled by consensus'.


incidentally, you might try proof reading your comments for grammar and spelling.

It reflects directly on your intellectual capabilities.

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.

Haha! Prooving your point you eat a clown ? (Realy thx guy ^^)

For my spelling, english is not my birth language so arguement as you want, my english is far way better than "your" science ^^

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.

So yeah. Our comments reflects our intellectual capabilities !

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.

11 pm for me so have a nice night !

I'm supposed to take your word as FACT?

You need to show more than a simple "I SAID SO AND THAT IS ALL!".

I trust you will sleep the sleep of the truly blissful...

Weish and Kurt explain it to you clearly and paulH11 give you a link for if you realy want to know.

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).

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 ?

Personaly i know why, cause you think you know science, because you read a lot about N. Tesla on Conspiracy theorist /Illuminati /UFO sites.

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 :

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 "obstacle of new finding" 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.

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.

For my first generator I used 14 stainless steel sheets 4"x6". They produced about 16 liter gas per min. Without any electrolyt in the water. I would say try the 14 x 4"x6" and add some electrolyt and you should be fine for your 7.25 liter engine. I addded a second alternator and a second 95 amp battery into my vehicle that actually does the trick. These generators are quite power suckers. ;o)
Thats impressive. How are you doing that. Can you expand on your setup please.

Cheers in advance
I already have extra batteries, and the generator is far above the 'factory' model.

I figured the draw would be serious and was planning on controlling both the electricity and the current to see if it could be tweaked to provide a better return on investment of energy.

Thanks for the help. I think I'll double the length of the plates for more surface area.

That should help with the amount of current required.
Fantastic instructable and very amusing discussion. So full of of life. And grumpy old goat don't use a calculator or a science book. Build a hydrogen generator, fit it into your vehicle, feed your air inlet with the mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas mix and watch your exhaust, the feel when you accelerate, and your wallet at the end of he month. Simple. Oh and btw for a 2.5 litre engine you should produce about 8 litre gas per minute. I dont know why and how BUT IT WORKS. I get it daily proved what ever science is telling but I don't have rus coming out of the exhaust of my jeep any more. It seems to help to burn the fuel more effectively which is a win already.

How many gallons of water must my vehicle carry to generate 8 litres of hydrogen[gas] per minute? Since water weights 7-8 pounds per gallon how will this extra weight affect fuel efficiency? If I am on a trip will I be stopping for water more often than for fuel gas /diesel? What will my mileage per gallon of water be?

Thank You!

So, for a 7.3 I would need about 24 liters per minute.

All of that sqawling abs bawling by the 'smartest' bunch of guys on the Planet and all th diaper changes and monitor cleanings I get a nice, well worded, simple answer...

BuddyM111 days ago

Is there a way to make this process more energy efficient? See, I have an interest in deep space colonization. I have limited knowledge on the subject, but I would like to know if it could be possible to convert water/ice found in space into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for rocket fuel in a way that would be energy efficient. For example, if we were to use solar cells to energize the generator, would that be sufficient for long term survival on an alien planet such as Mars, or even the Moon?

codman7811 days ago

is there any way you could store the hydrogen in like a air compresser or something

I wonder why I can't see the "hydrogen bomb" phrase mentioned here.
... or at least some warnings about the explosions made during the embedded video.

Arturisk12 days ago
Very interesting, but for use as propulsion, wouldn't going pure electric be more efficient? Just wondering because this looks like a fun project.
null16 days ago

I want to make a generator for the purpose of making exploding baloons, but I cannot recreate your instructable becausae you use stuff for the casing I've never heard of. What is an ABS clean-out adapter? I'm in the UK

GraydonT17 days ago

to all the people saying stupid things there is some thing called conservation of matter meaning no matter can be destroyed or made we are not turning it in to hho it is going to condensate and will be reused.

There are too many comments here, most of them left by morons! This technology needs to be researched publicly and developed to the point of uber-efficiency. Once this has been accomplished, it is what we will use in the future, as it is what we should have been using from the very beginning.

Powerful families, groups, and secret societies have kept this technology buried in order to control human population and secure greedy, ill-gotten profits. Once all homes and vehicles are powered by hydroxygen fuel, humankind will finally reach the highest potential: Freedom for all and no more centralized control by the supposed Global Elite.

Hydrogen as a fuel to be burned is too difficult to store. If it's compressed, it results in either huge fuel tanks, or small, very heavy, high-pressure tanks. If liquefied, it results in a complex tank that needs to keep the fuel at an incredibly low temperature, and it will still boil off in fairly short order. Hydrogen powered cars are a case in point. They explicitly caution against parking them in closed garages, because the boil-off may result in an explosion.

Better to either:

A. Find a better way to store the stuff that's neither cryogenic nor compressed (maybe not doable), or,

B. Make hydrogen fusion reactors practical for generating electricity (probably doable), and improve battery efficiency in portable and vehicular applications (already being done). Thus the hydrogen is "burned" in a fixed location, and electricity is distributed.

No-one would use this regularly , as we're kind of running low on water atm , we need water more than we need FUEL .

Ocean is water...

Keep in mind that about 2% of water is fresh water, and i california, where i live, there is a horrible drought

Also where I live in california there is an Ocean that has a lot of fuel available water! Thank you common sense!

and salt water when under electrolysis gives jus hydrogen and oxygen? is that what you are saying?

Why a stupid thing to say...

he has point, in some regions wasting water on fuel is folly. of course if you happen to live near say lake Superior, that shouldn't be a problem

what do you get, when you burn hydrogen and oxygen? how about water, that can be condensed and reused?

The earth is composed of 70% water and 30% land.... we have enough water to make hydrogen gas as salt water(the ocean) is a strong choice for electrolysis. Thank you and you are welcome!

Does salt water work for electrolysis, doesn't it make chlorine gas?

I am sure you don't believe water is really running low? The earth is more than 70% water. How does it get finished if the waste product is water? It is not like the water is turned into sand. Drinking water might be short where you are, but you can catch rain or recycle waste water if you really wanted to.

in fact on burning it is turned back into water: clean water !!!!

do YOU want to pay $5.00 per galon of gasoline.

Hahaha, that is cheap. Where I live it is 1.80/liter. Presuming the US gallon to be 3.78 liters, that is 6.8 Euro/gallon. under the current exchange rate that is about 7.50USD/gallon.
mind you, most of that is taxes, duties, levies and even VAT on those taxes, duties and levies

I live in a country where we have to build high dikes and run mills to keep the water out. Also, if you use this fuel it turns back into ...... water

If you are using a site like instructables to build an oxyhydrogen fuel generator, then you cannot be considered a moron. Plus this technology has been researched quite extensively and there are several automobiles that use hydrogen as their main fuel-source. Also no one is keeping this a secret and in America we already have freedom.

@brandon
This technology is already widely widely known. It is called electrolysis and it converts H2O in H2 and O2. Technique was first applied by Dutchmen Jan Rudolph Deiman and Adriaan Paets van Troostwijk in 1789. It is often shown in chemistry class.

Ah, the powerful people who kept it buried... sure.
There is something you forget. This is not free fuel. You need to get the electricity from somewhere and yes, you can do that with solar, but those cells cost money.

Besides... when all homes and vehicles are powered by hydrogen....... where does that come from? Probably still from 'the Global Elite' who makes the hydrogen and exploits hydrogen gas stations alongside the highways.

That's the truth at its finest
M2aestro23 days ago

Please do not view this as a means to use "idle time," the time the alternator is not charging the battery or supporting vehicle accessories, to capture "Oxyhydrogen" fuel to supplement our gasoline or diesel fuel cars. It takes energy to haul around the water and containment vessels that would store the oxygen and hydrogen. One would need an appropriate means to inject the fuel under appropriate and safe control, metered for proper fuel mix and for acceleration or power demand. There is nothing in this DIY that points toward a useful implementation of an "Oxyhydrogen" in an automotive application. Where does this take us past a middle school science demonstration? I don't see that.

oz5es24 days ago

Actually, when the generator feels the battery is full, it "goes into idle", instead of blasting power in the air.

And, when it's charging, battery or other stuff, it creates a lot of "friction" to the engine, which then loses some power, (sometimes a lot), so the energy you're creating is far from free.

But, still a cool way to experiment, and who knows, one may need some hydrogen some day. :-) Keep up the spirit.

Best regards Ebbe

mrsmirf26 days ago

I know that most of the people on here are like, "This is not going to help your mpg, science says so...". Well I would like to submit the idea that this is not about a system that creates more energy than is used, but about recapturing lost/wasted energy.
From my understanding the alternater is going to charge generate power regardless if the car is moving or in idle. In essence there is a point where the power the alternator generates is not being used, but merely lost. So by adding the electrolysis system on shouldn't increase average load, or rather increase the amount of fuel used to turn the crankshaft.
So, if the average load is not increased and the water is split and resulting gas is sent into the fuel intake, it would decrease the amount of fuel needed in order to combust and push the pistons. Which in turn results in increased fuel efficiency. Water in this case would be acting as an external fuel source that electrolysis to a combustable form.

It takes energy to make energy in this case, but the energy that is being used is already there, and wasted.

Webster429 days ago

The deal is that the oxyhydrogen starts burning very fast, then it takes the gasoline with it. It does not replace the gasoline in this application. One reason that so much gasoline has to burn in the catylitic converter is that it did not have time to finish burning in the cylinder. The oxyhydrogen starts the burning faster. This is the theory I think.

Fab Muchada1 month ago

this was 1968 invention by a filipino, Mr. Daniel Dingle our government in the Philippines don't support this invention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_wUJ3XFi2Y

kayra1 month ago
this is from king of frandom check his youtube
rocketguy1 month ago

So, maybe I missed it, but there is no separation of oxygen from hydrogen in the gasses produced (I mean, while you're producing both gases, you're not filtering one from the other). This is extraordinarily dangerous if you attempt to store any significant amount of gas. Electrolysis rigs generally try to separate the two gases via filtration, which is difficult but necessary if you're going to store the gases for any sort of bulk use.

If, however you're making the blend and burning it immediately in small batches, then go to town. I'm not trying to be a safety nazi here (you should see my workshop), but just a headsup not to attempt to store the two gases mixed, particularly compressed. Explosive gases are to be respected, etc etc.

Very interesting idea i like this very much

hugbear1 month ago

Why do people insist in getting the electrical energy necessary for electrolysis from the same source (petrol) the're trying to save? Focus instead on recovering the vast amount of THERMAL energy that is basically wasted. Try coating the engine and exhaust with Peltier cells using the Seebeck effect to extract usable electrical energy and you would be on a right(er) track. It's not perfect, it might not generate enough HHO for the engine's need but at least it won't be trying to pull itself up by the bootstraps...

This is very interesting. My question: Is it a fascinating mental educational exercise or is there practical cost effective applications that this can actually be used for? If so, what are they? Puppy Love from Inventing Joy & Furry Folk

badmoonryzn1 month ago
This more entertaing than the Voice! I really enjoy hearing from people from another universe where physics take on totally new properties! :-)
RedKobra1 month ago

Sounds interesting. How much chromium is your stainless steel producing? Specifically, hexavalent chromium.

three_jeeps1 month ago

Wow, this article, and particularly the majority of the comments, made me more aware of many things!

1) "Explorers just want to explore"....great! just please have an understanding of math and physics to add credibility to your claims.

2) 'new way to power automobiles"...been around for a while.

3) Our education system is failing badly. The technique to separate water into H and O is generally termed electrolysis. My 6th grade science teacher did a similar experiment. I went home and duplicated it. My 11th grade chem teacher taught me the chemistry behind it. My 11th grade physics enlightened me about the laws of physics, particularly energy balance and energy transformation (note: it is a 'truth' that energy cannot be created or destroyed...only altered). My hs/undergrad school math teachers gave the me tools to express observations into quantifiable 'truths'....just like the previous experimenters: Ohm, Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb, Heavyside, Maxwell, Rutheford, Boyle, and many, many more.

4) just because one makes a claim about a very small subsystem, doesn't mean the same claim holds when the entire system is considered. Learn to do analysis of the system.

Lastly, simple solutions is usually just that....simple.

loachridge1 month ago

Maybe the "King" should rewrite this and put the note paragraph at the top instead of the bottom.

"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."

This is only cost effective if you can use solar to start and maintain the process. And not in this model. The alternator does produce electrical, but at the cost of fuel. The alternator is designed of chosen for the engine its mounted with. Adding an extra large load will cost you in the end.

There are schematics and plans out there that use circuits instead of raw voltage. Those are better but still have a loss across the production vs need curve. The solar panels in this setup will produce enough to start and sustain the reaction needed. You will need some special equipment to make that happen as it requires some waveform tweaking that you cant just eyeball.

Now here are some lessons learned. This can be done on the car your driving right now as long as you have a mechanic willing to do it. There is danger if you do it yourself. If your intake isnt mixing the gases in the right ratio, your at a loss. If you put too much in the intake, you will burn your cylinders or blow something up that wasnt meant to be. I am not saying treat it like a nuclear reaction, but treat it safer than you would gasoline.

Things needed for this to be marketable:

Flexible solar panels. Which as I understand are available. $$

Electronics technician. Hire a good one.

Auto mechanic. One that understands the science of fuel to air ratios before start.

Venture capitalist. Because I cant afford to do the research anymore.

You can not use solar as you will not gain enough energy!

PV cells typically give less than 12%, an electrolyser less than 65% efficiency while our best domestic internal combustion engines are only 30% efficient (regardless of fuel type or mix) so we'd end up with a 2.4% fuel efficiency from our rather massive solar array which our vehicle will have to drag along with an equally large industrial electrolyser (some real tonnage here).

If we combine hydrogen systems with conventional fuel systems we simply increase the mass of the vehicle, which in turn requires more energy to accelerate which equates to lower fuel efficiency and greater running costs!

To put hydrogen and gasoline into relative perspective, 1 kg or gasolene contains 45 000,000 joules of chemical energy while stoichiometric gaseous mixture of O2 and H2 only contains roughly 45000 joules, a thousand times less energy!

To get an understanding of energy density 1 Kg of gasoline is 1.33 litres while the equivalent (in chemical energy terms) of stoichiometric gaseous 02 and H2 mixture has a volume of 11958 cubic meters! So assuming a 10 liter gasoline tank (I know this is a little small) and assuming we just carried our H2 and O2 gas, to get a 10% reduction in gasoline consumption using an 02 H2 mix at atmospheric pressure we need a fuel tank that measures 22x22x22 meters. To put it another way anyone claiming that they reduce their gasoline consumption by using any sort of hydrogen oxygen gas generator will need to generate a proportionate volume of gas to support their claims.

Looking in another direction, to produce an H2 O2 gaseous fuel that is worth the same in energy terms as 1 kg of gasoline we need to start with 1000 kg of pure water (plus additives), me thinks a 150 year old steam engine looks more attractive.

For reference see http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/~uhk/ENERGY-DENSITY.pdf and http://www.uigi.com/h2_conv.html as well as http://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weigh...

Thanks for stating the math that I didn't. No one seems to be interested in it so I decided to stick with the easy parts. Which as I scroll through few people accept anyhow.

I can argue you on using solar panels however, I wont because I currently don't have any of the supporting documents on hand, and don't feel that it would be productive. I cant build anything right now to work out the proofs either.

If you do some digging and cross reference different research still going you will find some electronic circuits that have proven effective at lower voltage and amperage. Systems with draws low enough to be supported by solar panels. Not cheap panels, but good quality producers.

So again, it boils down to cost. And its still an overall loss situation. Overall cost versus use life of equipment.

Thanks for agreeing in a different way.

woodNfish2 years 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.
Lol...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.
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?

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.

Solar panels are expensive and fragile to be installed in a vehicle. A simple alternator in existing engine system can do the work to sustain the HHO production while charging battery. Though, to start the system, it uses battery charge.

Exactly right. This system has been used to power vehicles already. There's a huge amount of Internet lore concerning the patents, the buyouts, the lawsuits, the conspiracy theories etc. surrounding the hydrogen engine. Pour water into the engine and go,it's real. Anyone who simply says "if that existed, we'd be usin' it" is blatantly ignoring the HUGE leverage of the existing petrol industry to continue the use of fossil fuel burning machines of all kinds.

...and you're ignoring the fact that fossil fuels are simply much better fuels than hydrogen - far more energy-dense, far easier to handle, much less explosive, much easier to store etc.

Unless you split the water using solar or wind power, this is an incredibly expensive way to power a car.

Solar and wind are effective when used to generate electricity, very very poor in efficiency terms creating hydrogen that then needs expensive and careful storage.

As far as generating hydrogen is concerned, the source of the electricity makes absolutely no difference to the efficiency.

As for storage, that is a different discussion.

Well overall efficiency has to take into account all the inputs, true the efficiency of a single stage can be quoted in isolation, but leaving aside all the pretend physics that some are quoting, the most important aspects to consider when choosing an energy source are economics, and engineering potential (I assume we always cover safety and the environment). If we use a solar panel to farm energy we have a choice in how we use the electricity generated. If we burn it in an engine and look at the overall efficiency we get a chain of percentages due to electrolyser efficiency:storage processor efficiency:distribution efficiency:end use efficiency. In contrast we could simply generate electricity and try to distribute that, which results is a better overall efficiency (though grid balancing may kill any gains if we are not careful).

The engineering potential of a successful hydrogen economy is not all that great currently. Hydrogen in liquid form is extremely hard to distribute, if you pipe it you need to insulate the pipes otherwise a great deal of your energy will leach away as heat, bottle and tanker distribution burns yet more fuel. Local production equates to massive multiplication of efforts. Granted there are a few hydrogen refueling stations with us already (California), these are all bottle fed by trucks with the hydrogen itself either steam reformed, gasified or electrolysed, very little of it bears any renewable significance and the true cost of the energy is likely buried under a pile of environmental subsidies.

May you please post a link? My interest has been piqued.

http://www.toyota.com/mirai/index.html

Nobody complains when it takes 2.3 gallons of petrofuel to produce one gallon of ethanol.

But mention using excess energy created when burning petrofuels to create an additional source of power....

The dirty diaper crowd comes out of the woodwork.

Yeah, nobody ever talks about the waste involved in making ethanol. Or the rain forests cleared to grow corn for ethanol. Or the huge waste involved in shipping ethanol. Or the fact that nobody wants the ethanol to begin with, and it's a public relations bandaid. Really? Nobodys talking about that?

I complain about the energy that it takes to make Ethanol.

I also complain how 10% ethanol reduces MPG buy ~12% causing the car to burn more fuel.

EliakimG

If "a simple alternator in exiting engine system" could do the work to sustain HHO production while charging the battery, we would all be driving electric cars. What you describe is not possible. You describe a vehicle that creates more energy than it uses. I'd like to live in your world.

Here's that 'more energy' phrase again! Do you know how much potential energy is in a molecule of hydrogen? It's not a matter of 'more', energy is energy. It's a matter of conversion- period. Can I use an abundant, replenishable source of energy to convert to usable energy for my application? That is the question. Nothing in the universe as we know it can make more than what's there...that'd be magic. Harnessing existing energy is the name of the game. You know the sun produces immense amounts of energy, certainly enough to 'potentially' power every car on earth. Unfortunately, nobody has built the perfect engine that runs on sunshine. I imagine that when the first guy looked at a waterfall and said, "look at all the energy, let's harness it somehow and power a large city" there were people lining up to tell him how impossible that was. If we stay around long enough, someone will read these comments and laugh at the idea that we drove cars on petrol at all. Columbus was going to fall off the edge of the world. Disease was bad spirit. And on and on. It's easy to say now that this or that can't be done... Until it is. Our ability to convert hydrogen to usable energy may be inefficient and unstable,etc. right NOW. But technology paired with forward thinking produces results, and it's only a matter of time.

Actually very few people with any significant wisdom ever told Columbus that he'd fall off the world, few still would have ever doubted the possibility of powering cities from waterfalls. But it is very unlikely we'll ever find a cheap way to convert water to usable hydrogen, physics supports this.

ChrisB13 EliakimG7 months ago

I think he was implying that building a solar powered fuel cell generator at home, then using that fuel in your vehicle would work. Not that you would generate your own fuel on the road.

Your alternator is powered by the fuel, at a low efficiency. This fuel is generated by electricity, at a low efficiency. So using your fuel to generate more fuel is so inefficient as to be a complete waste of time. The added work generated by adding load to the alternator would never come close to being recouped.

No it would not work, because the structure required to pressurize the hydrogen is just a little expensive and dangerous. One would have to tow a tank trailer to have enough hydrogen gas to run a vehicle 100 miles or more. A large tank.

I am sorry but you are mistaken. There are hydrogen fuel cell cars and they don't tow trailers of hydrogen gas. If you think that its too dangerous to recharge hydrogen fuel cells at home, that is one thing. Its not very expensive to do however, its a common high school lab experiment.

The system is not producing HHO. It is producing H2. The whole point is to separate the oxygen. HHO is water, H2 is hydrogen.

I agree with Waste of space. HHO is what people are calling it AFTER the water has been split. If you have two parts hydrogen gas and one part oxygen gas in a container you don't have water.
bazil23 wr137111 month ago

Honestly I keep seeing HHO, it’s the same as saying H2O. What
the system is producing is HO also known as Browns Gas. Burns great, will eventually
rust or corrode whatever metal you use it in, best bet is to save it and use a PEM
cell to convert it back to electricity.

Kiteman bazil231 month ago

There is no such thing as "Brown's gas". This project produces a mixture of two parts H2 to one part O2 by volume.

The monatomic claims pertaining to "Brown's gas" are pure nonsense.

H2 is actually hydrogen + hydrogen which does of course equal hydrogen.

H2O = 2 molecules of hydrogen to one molecule of oxygen.

And I know that you are fully aware of that yrralguthrie, I'm just being pedantic.

when talking about generation of power, you begin with no more than 0.5 of unity output. since 50% of the power is consumed by, the source generator. so you are starting off with a 50% reduction to begun with. with 50% maximum, left to work with. and combustion engines, are typically less than 25% efficient. and steam turbines, as high as 67% efficient. and you always loose power, generating electricity for powering anything. unity generation and consumption is an improbable dream of perpetual motion, and over unity is an impossible dream.

Laundry and dishes. That is true perpetual
motion. Whether it’s a dream or a nightmare, you have to decide for yourself.

cvachon EliakimG7 months ago
http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/

If the alternator makes electricity that fuels the HHO production, the alternator will have extra resistance, which will further tax the engine and burn more fuel. I agree that the HHO might make the combustion more efficient, but the electricity is not "free." It has a cost in gasoline as the alternator has more resistance. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and it just moves around. Solar panels have been on vehicles for fifty years, including vehicles in space. Solar car races happen in multiple places every year. Anyhow I was not thinking of HHO for car engines in particular, but in general for a fuel for other purposes.

Sure, you could dump some of that energy into making H2, and then use a bunch of that energy to compress the H2, and then build a car to run on the H2 (it takes a LOT of energy to build/convert an engine), and then waste a bunch of H2 on an inherently inefficient motive source, i.e. an internal combustion engine. Or you could use the electricity to run an electric car ... which makes more sense?

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

doubtful you will get 25 years of service, from any solar panel. especially in areas prone to hail, and lightning strikes. and the panels, loose efficiency over time. then there is the problem of the toxic substances used to make, solar cells.

even using a mirror array, to make steam to run a generator has maintenance problems. but it, may be a more viable solution. since solar cell transducers, are less than 21% efficient. however adding a thermopile, to each solar cell could increase output. but also an increase in production price and cost.

Correction jimmie.c.

Barring lightning (and I've never heard of a solar array getting hit anywhere in the world) there's no reason well-built panels can't last virtually forever.

Certainly rate of conversion will decrease marginally, but such deterioration isn't nearly as great as in, say, your body. (and pv panels don't grow beards, either!)

There are "toxic substances" involved with the production and maintainence of just about anything you can name: including people.

.......AND they don't work as efficiently as pv panels ( the efficiency of which is about to nearly triple in the foreseeable future.)

I put up my first panels in 1982. They were 2nd hand Unisys rated at 45 watts the second-biggest ones available back then. (and I paid $13.80 per watt for them ~ not cheap 30-odd years ago.

Point is they're still producing up to 36/38 watts on a good day ~ by a friend of mine who lives at altitude (cold climate) in a smog-free area.

These days good pv panels cost bugger-all, and any drop in production is easily compensated for by mounting another panel ...or six.

The real problem has always been storage: cost of, in terms of resources AND cash. But as more and more people (and governments!) look to alternative power those prices have come down dramatically and new technology in the pipeline will bring price and efficiency to a level as reasonable as is deemed acceptable in any other product. (and MUCH better than the cost and efficiency that can be achieved by human bodies. (particularly the hairy ones. ;) )

And though I'm a great fan of appropriate technology I'm still convinced that the KISS principle should always be the benchmark.

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

Lets do some math. 1 watt is about 1/750th of a horsepower. Even assuming that the solar works 12 hours a day but you only drive 1 hour/day you still need 7500 watts of cells to get 1 hour at 100 horsepower.

Plus you haven't taken into account the HUGE amount of energy required to compress the hydrogen to make it possible to carry enough to actually run an engine for more than a faction of a second. Energy used to compress the fuel is wasted energy. I leave it to you to look up the power specs to take say 10 kilograms of hydrogen at atmospheric pressure (which is what the hydrolysis cell will produce) and compress it enough so you can carry it in a tank in a car. 10 Kg of H2 is about 10Kg/2Kg*22400Liters at STP. So you are starting with about 100,000 liters (roughly 25,000 gallons) of H2 at STP. So figure out the cost to compress that 25,000 gallons down to say 10 gallons. Your final pressure will roughly 2500 atmospheres (ignoring liquifaction).

If any of these electrolysis scams actually worked every car maker in the world would already be using them. Car makers are scrambling to boost mileage by fractions of an MPG and they'll do a lot to pick up 0.5 MPG (like under sizing the battery). The first company that sold a car with these "magical" systems would dominate the market (if they worked) since fuel economy is a HUGE selling point. Within a couple years all car companies would be doing it. Since this hasn't happened that provides IRREFUTABLE real-world PROOF that the whole idea is a giant SCAM.

MichaelH5 That is a totally illogical argument. More than that it is just not smart. If the hydrogen generated by solar costs nothing, then electricity generated by it cost nothing. Run the car on batteries and electric motors. It costs far less to make an electric car than an engine that will run economically on hydrogen. Plus the tank and associated hardware to run the car on hydrogen are large, expensive and not safe.

On a closed-system, the energy absorbed by the HHO during electrolysis is equal to the amount of energy released during oxidation. The actual energy loss is at the electrolysis device. But, internal combustion engines use atmospheric gases energized by the sun 24/7. As HHO and Atmospheric Oxygen is mixed, there is a probability that the sun-energized oxygen is used to oxidize the hydrogen. That reaction, releases more power than what is needed to separate the hydrogen. Thus, HHO used in engines can release extra energy to run the alternator (to release more hydrogen) and enough energy to do work.

While that seems sound that my friend is a perpetual energy machine. Regardless if the gases DO make more energy than it takes to separate the engine will NEVER be near 100% efficient. That means that energy will be lost due to heat, light, and incomplete combustion. In theory it "might" work but IRL it cannot happen.

This is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as "sun-energized oxygen," and the combustion of hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen produces the same amount of energy as the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen from any other source.

Beyond this, there is an absolutely unavoidable, major loss of energy in going from gasoline to hydrogen by electrolysis and then burning the hydrogen. The heat released by burning gasoline can only be converted to mechanical or electrical energy at an efficiency of 30 - 40%. This is a fundamental thermodynamic limit. If you drive the wheels directly with this energy, that's your net efficiency. If instead you make hydrogen by electrolysis, even at 100% maximum efficiency, you still have another factor of 30 - 40% efficiency when you burn the hydrogen to produce mechanical power to drive the wheels. The maximum theoretical efficiency of such a system would be something like 15% of the energy in the fuel directed to the wheels, and an actual system would be very unlikely to capture as much as 10% of the energy originally obtained by burning gasoline (or any other liquid fuel).

These anti-scientific fantasies simply obscure the very important discussion we need to have about energy and its efficient use. If you would care to cite any reputable source for your fantast of "sun-energized oxygen," I'd be happy to read it. But there is no such study, because the idea is imbecilic.

I think what he may mean is
vortex11 EliakimG5 months ago

What sort of water would you recommend using i.e. rainwater, tapwater, distilles water

Makedo vortex111 month ago

distilled, of purified. and there is a guy in oregon who make a mix called holy water . if you can find him near Eugene.

Makedo Makedo1 month ago

the fuel cell is the same as a battery you have electrolytes by mixing caustic or acid with water this causes the seperation when a current is applied. as you evap off the water just add more to get the mix right.

LOL

That is complete and utter bs. Actually gobblety gook. Just thoughts or ideas put together than make some sense individually, but don't when combined. No I take it back, that is just words strung together for the purpose of confusion and obfuscation. A con.

A closed system? How can it be a closed system? Also, you are not accounting for the energy used to generate the electricity required for electrolysis. Unless you think solar and wind power will provide enough electricity to sustain the system while it is operational. Unfortunately it will not.

haunj EliakimG7 months ago

Energy efficiency in internal combustion engines does not change with the fuel used. Efficiency is all about heat gradients. You have to get rid of the heat, and that take energy. The more heat you generate, the more work has to be done to remove it. So it is self limiting. Most IC engine only get about 38% to 40%.

And what you don't seem to be addressing is or willfully ignore is the fact gasoline has to be collected by some means, transported, and refined. The energy process to get oil into gasoline and into you car overall is still likely greater you can't just collect gasoline in the form we use it from anywhere.

How do you think your solar panels and wind generators come into existence and into their optimum locations? Their is a trade off for everything.

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?

redox, or the process of un-burning something always takes more energy to un-burn it, than the energy output produced burning it.

Huh?

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.

the gasoline is not destroyed forever, it happens naturally, it just takes a lot of sunshine and a forest and a whole lot of time to produce oil from the co2 in the air and evolve creatures to take the oil and create gas eventually killing themselves and the cycle repeats. renewable cycle. Personally I like the cycles with a faster turnaround that don't involve extinction of anything.

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.

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.

Hydrogen is one of the most reactive (if not the most reactive) elements. With the mixture HHO+atmospheric gases, it is improbable that free (not reacted) hydrogen escapes in the exhaust.

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.

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.

http://www.sankey-diagrams.com/wp-content/gallery/o_gallery_205/bloomberg_energy_sankey_1.jpg

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 MichaelH511 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.

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).

law of conservation of matter: matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only displaced or converted. He is not saying that nothing is being used. Water is converted to its basic parts hydrogen and oxygen. They are volatile. Catalyzed with a spark a hydrogen breaks its H2 bond and forms with the oxygen forming oxygen as an exhaust. Also, that BS about "taking more energy to produce than it a generator can make" can be fixed by just putting an alternator on the engine to generate more electricity to replenish the battery/batteries. They also have these magical things called pulse width modulator that keeps a perfect stoich for this kind of reaction. This is a perfectly good idea, I have seen people run trucks on this idea. You will see this in the future.

stempe5j stempe5j7 months ago

i said "oxygen as the exhaust" i meant "water as the exhaust" my bad

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

It doesn't run out - the reaction produces water.

I love all the squabbling here over this tech. Which has been oft discussed in the popular press and isn't ready for prime time. This is a cool project, not a way to power your bunker, guys. As for energy loss? All energy on Earth starts as sunlight. Oil is an extremely inefficient use of that, just as eating beef is. But using solar, which we have plenty of, to cycle water as a fuel, has great potential for the future - when the tech is ready! This is pretty much the science. Learn it so you'll understand hydrogen when it finally hits the market.

Thanks, King of Random, your projects are awesome!

Stop electing democrats would be a good start.

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!

You can't split water into HHO, the process splits water into H and O. Hydrogen and oxygen.

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

If "producing (mostly) were true then indeed the water would run out.

Electrolysis produces hydrogen (H or H2) and oxygen (O). Then burning releases the energy introduced by the electrolysis process and recombines the H2 and O into HH0 which is an alternative way of writing H2O.

The only energy actually released by the process is the additional energy gained from the electricity. Energy in the form of electricity is used to separate the hydrogen from the water. The energy in the water is now in the H2 and O. All of that energy is used up by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen. While the energy of the electricity is used to power the car.

It is not possible to take water, break it down and then recombine it and get any energy from it, unless additional energy is introduced.

If one burns hydrogen from another source, then it would seem that the car is being propelled by the hydrogen. What actually happens is that the free hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen have more energy than water. Either the additional energy from electrolysis or the energy used to create the hydrogen in a far away place. When the hydrogen is "burned" or recombined with oxygen, this additional energy is released. The hydrogen is still there in the water. As some have said it is an energy conversion process, but the conversion process requires outside energy.

You do have a true understanding of this. People that put these hydrogen generators on there car is just converting more fuel into electricity and then using that electricity to convert water to hydrogen gas just to use as fuel energy that was taken from the fuel(gasoline) in the first place. It really does not improve the power from the engine and because of all the conversions, energy is lost in the form of heat in each step of conversion.

Makedo deviator1 month ago

fill the fuel cell again when the water runs out.

Over 75% of the planet is covered in water, much of it already has an electrolyte in it to speed this process. NACL . Seawater is H²O with NACL and other minerals in lesser amounts, perfect for use, though a bit (quite a bit) corrosive. The thoughtful use of stainless to avoid excessive corrosion of plates is good. Use of a solar panel generating 15VDC would be good. I don't see a downside. Energy from the Sun, breaks down the water into H² and O² channeling O² and H² to compression and use in a vehicle. Cleanest means of powering a car yet. Only product is water for the exhaust. No CO² or hydrocarbons emitted.

As Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells are now viable in cars, that's not too difficult..

It looks pretty good. Compression and storage of the gas would be the only thing I'd go commercial on, for added safety. You could get licensed to sell fuel cell filling.... You'd only have to contain & compress the H².

Very well done instructable!

RodneyY deviator9 months ago

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

Well that sounds good. The problem being that electricity has to be used to make the hydrogen and the process used to make electricity does create emissions in the atmosphere. Even if nuclear fuel is used to create the electricity, emissions into the atmosphere occur is the gathering and creating the fuel.

Plus the creation of hydrogen from water and electricity is a net loss in energy conversion. Just use the electricity to run an electric car. That will create fewer emissions that creating additional infrastructure to make the hydrogen, store it and pressurize it.

Making hydrogen from electricity and water necessarily has to be less "green" that just using the electricity itself. LOL

OlmoF deviator1 month ago

The beauty of hydrogen powered engines is that hydrogen is NOT a power source in itself, but rather a way of storing energy: you get hydrogen by the electrolysis of water, then when hydrogen is used it's converted back to water.

As this is a cycle, water would not be finishing as it is "recreated" the exact moment hydrogen it's used. In order for water to finish one should either store the hydrogen indefinitely or ship it off outside our planet.

The biggest problem is that you need more energy to produce hydrogen than what it will give you back, this making electric cars a better solution in the medium term. I heard talking about hydrogen cars in the mid 90s for the first time (a Swiss made the first prototype), yet 20 years later we still have no hydrogen car anywhere nearby commercialization.

Why would the water run out?

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.

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

problems with your thinking, no matter what is the source of hydrogen. two molecules of hydrogen, combined with one molecule of oxygen always produce the same amount of heat.

plus you left out, the carbon bond with the hydrogen associated with fossil fuels. with carbon being, more inefficient than hydrogen. especially when it tends to become, carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide. without even getting into the inefficiencies of the oxides of nitrogen being produced.

one pound of hydrogen, will produce more heat than one pound of fossil fuel. and is even a more powerful energy output, than one pound of tnt or dynamite.

your using the gas as soon as your making it. you use the engine to suck the gas from the hose and the fuel cell is under a slight vacuum. there is no problem if grounded and no leaks where they shouldn't be. the hose is less than 1/2 dia id. you can just stop the making process by shutting off the electricity about 2 minutes before you shut the engine off. you are not trying to run the car on it your just adding a little bit to the mix. so your not understanding the way it is applied and the results by proper mixing.

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.

Hydrogen has a value of 286 kilo-joules/mole
http://cleanenergy.ucla.edu/engen_hydrogenproduction.html

gasoline has a value of about 5460 kJ/mole
http://www.ausetute.com.au/heatcomb.html

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
No, what you are ignoring is that this is the case for EVERY form of energy storage. Please feel free to cite ANY exception. Good luck with that, as doing so would violate the zeroeth law.
Car batteries DO NOT store all the energy put into them. Electric generators do not output as much power as they receive. Fossil fuels do not contain even a tenth of the energy that went in to creating it. Refineries put even more energy into the process. Gas engines do not convert 100% of the energy in fossil fuel. It is an issue of storage and energy density NOT conversion efficiency.

hydrogen, without an available oxidizer is not unstable. unless you, reach the point of compression and heat to cause fusion.

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.

Let me jump in here with my 2 cents. My take on hydrogen powered cars is that the rapid adoption is not so much an issue of safety my as it is of lack infrastructure. If battery powered electric cars won't last I believe they will become much more a part of daily life before hydrogen powered vehicles. OK that's my 2 cents.

the volts used to run is less than 15 . and when mixed in the fuel you get a better burn. it cleans up the process. look up the properties of using water-gas torches and you find that the gas is strange in the way it works. using the same idea and not trying to reinvent the wheel the people who are caught up in science need to apply it to see what happens. new things are discovered when you apply ideas. don't get caught up details that may not apply to the situation. yes safety first complain less later. you are not trying to make a giant amount of gas here your just making a little to mix in to get great results. you can get confused when you have too much information. if your still a naysayer then don't even try to build one. just understand many will. Like I said I bought one in a kit and so did thousands of others . I need a computer tech to help build a differnt controller to make it work.

There are several things keeping hydrogen powered cars off the streets.

First and foremost, is the inefficiency of creating the hydrogen. If you're going to burn fuel to make electricity, and then use electricity to make hydrogen fuel, you might as just burn the original fuel to accomplish your task, and skip the electricity and the hydrogen in between.

The second bar to hydrogen powered cars is lack of infrastructure. This *could* be overcome -- notice how we're putting electric cars on the roads, even though *most* of the infrastructure is oriented towards gasoline and diesel. Electric car infrastructure is growing, but people started buying the cars back when they could (mostly) only charge them at home.

Third is storage. Hydrogen requires either cryogenic temperatures, or insane pressures, or fancy molecular adsorbents.

Fourth, hydrogen has a bad reputation. Who hasn't heard of the Hindenburg Disaster? Sure, you know and I know that it's no more explody than gasoline (which isn't saying much), but people think about these things with their guts, not their brains.

bgoldberg1, gasoline is not nearly as "explody" as hydrogen. Gasoline vapor on the other hand is another issue.

before the invention of the model T, weren't there electric cars with powerstations almost everywher in NYC

STEVE LINDSAY

Making hydrogen, using hydrogen cells to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen and then introducing the hydrogen into the air intake of the engine does not require it to be compressed and if the power is cut to the cell all the cell has in it is water, couldn't be safer, far safer than gasoline, propane, natural gas. there is no fuel storage tank with a hydrogen cell. It can be used to enhance gasoline combustion or used all on it's own. To turn hydrogen into a storable gas would take about 5000 PSI or greater, I believe it is closer to 8000 psi . It is a very difficult gas to compress into a liquid storable fuel, and it doesn't need to be making it one of if not the safest fuel systems there is.

JanK6 woodNfish1 month ago

You don't think oil companies might have anything to do with it? You're talking about the disintegration of one of (if not thee) largest industry on Earth. I'm sure they are just dying to leave go of those trillions of dollars... Hydrogen powered cars are easily possible and viable. There are technical hurdles of course... and yes supplementing your car fuel does work, but so minutely that it isn't a noticeable improvement. There are actually elements much better than hydrogen as a fuel source. One of which is Thorium... look it up. Also, space rockets run on Hydrogen and Oxygen... Hydrogen is unstable but that is the point... so is gasoline. My buddy has a motorcycle with a sterling engine that runs on hot and cold water.

ctdahle JanK61 month ago

If it worked, oil companies would not bother messing with all that expensive drilling and exploration and environmental regulation, they'd buy water for pennies per acre foot rather than oil by the barrel. They could charge a dime a gallon for fuel and still be rolling in the profits.

Doubt if it ran very fast or far. Sterling engines run on heat differential. It's not the water that runs them, but the difference in heat. And the motorcycle would only have as much energy max. as the energy in kcal produced by the small difference in heat. Not very blessed much. A sterling engine will quit running when this heat difference dissipates, so to run a motorcycle you would have to burn fuel to keep it running. It might run in a shallow ditch filled with cold water.

haunj woodNfish7 months ago

Every new technology at first is inefficient, unreliable and expensive. It is only after time and development that you reap the benefits. Automobiles started out this way. So did computers. It just the way it works.

mikiex haunj7 months ago

unfortunately it was first used in the 1700s

Makedo1 month ago

before some of you pop a gasket the fuel cell does work and has been proven. jeffotto.com has the information. and before you start claiming it failed you need to understand that when they stopped production they ran out of money with the fight with the government . they sold or gave it to another company to market it. I have seen vehicles with it attached that did gain the fuel mileage. it is intended to mix with fuel to burn more of the fuel better to give more mileage. it never was to be used alone. there are many people who are stuck in the science and have never applied anything to the real world. the system made here can be used to be inhaled by the intakes of engines to gain more. just as truckers had used propane to gain fuel economy.

Marsh1 month ago

What is the purpose of having the bubbler?

jdc187 Marsh1 month ago

the bubbler is fail safe if for some reason fire burned back up the line it would end at the bubbler

Marsh jdc1871 month ago
I thought that was the purpose of the check valve.
it cleans the gas by absorbing materials that the bubbles carry. (better for combustion engines because it leaves less residue)
caruncles1 month ago

you science geeks don't get it. It's not about the physics. It's about saving money. When gasoline is $4/gallon, any improvement on gas mileage is a savings. When the price of gas goes down, then at some point there will be diminished returns and the effort wont' be worth it.

mandu07311 month ago

Huh.

caruncles1 month ago

I looked into these systems a few years ago for my vehicle. Some people call it Brown's gas. I have a cousin who installed it on his truck and claims he gets higher gas mileage. With computer controlled ignition system nowadays, the computer adjusts the fuel consumption. By adding this additional fuel via the air intake, the computer detects richer mixture and leans down the consumption of gasoline. "supposedly". I've thought about trying it, but it never made it to the top of my priority list. Regardless of the claims that you don't save because you are using more energy to produce the hydrogen, I believe you still come out ahead. None of the people who take that stance have actually proven it to be true. Just talk. I remember when gasoline was 45 cents/gallon. It's 2.50+ now, but a year ago it was $4. So, I think the amount you pay for petroleum would be the determining factor in deciding whether the investment in this system is worth it or not for a vehicle.

BTW- this was the most professional looking system I've seen. I think it would need some better mounting hardware for a vehicle, but good job!

"None of the people who take that stance have actually proven it to be true."

The burden of proof is not on those who say you can't get more energy out of an energy conversion process than you put into it. That has already been proven many times over (nevertheless, there is proof below). The burden of proof is on those that think your car can break the laws of physics.

If you make some hydrogen at home and then augment the fuel in your car, you may well save some gas. In fact, (depending on your engine and it's sensors) you could replace petroleum as fuel with hydrogen entirely (there will likely be internal corrosion problems to deal with, but the hydrogen will burn and turn your engine). The drag that the alternator puts on your engine depends on the required load. The more things that need electricity, the harder the alternator is to turn. If you turn your alternator off, it will be free-spinning. There will still be some friction from the bearings, but no drag between the stator and the rotor, and you'll save quite a bit of gas. Unfortunately, your battery will drain pretty quickly and your car will die. If you add a circuit to your alternator (in this case, to produce hydrogen from water), the total electrical demand increases and the alternator becomes harder to turn (that's how recuperative breaking in electric cars works). This means that the engine has to use more fuel to maintain the same rpm. The fuel has chemical energy which the engine then converts to mechanical energy (with heat and friction losses). The engine turns the alternator converting mechanical energy into electrical energy (again, with friction and heat losses). If you have an electrolysis system in your car, you then use some of the electricity (which, again, you do not get for free) to break the molecular bond between hydrogen and oxygen creating, once again, chemical energy. Now, you pump that thrice-converted chemical energy back into your engine to convert it back into mechanical energy, but you cannot get as much out of the hydrogen as it took to make it due to thermodynamics. Even if the electrolytic process was 100% efficient, in that it used exactly the same amount of energy to break the molecular bond as the hydrogen can then produce, (it's not) you still have had at the very least, friction and heat losses from three of, now, four conversions. The math proving the law of thermodynamics as it applies to water electrolysis is a little over my head, but if you're interested in fact-checking here is a handy wikipedia article that breaks it down. Enjoy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Marsh caruncles1 month ago

The issue I had with mine is that it wouldn't produce enough to make a difference to my gas mileage. Your car's electrical system has plenty of surplus energy to spare, but the biggest generator I made could only produce about 3 liters per minute of gas. To have any real impact, you would need to produce at least ten times that amount. As a motor fuel, this isn't really practical, but it's still fun to play with explosive gasses. If you have a deep freeze you can even get the oxygen to drop out and have pure hydrogen.

coachgeo1 month ago

Please Please PLEASE....... in our lifetime I hope NO ONE EVER anywhere..... anyhow figures out how to make water molecules a transport or comfort fuel. You see Water like Air is a staple of life. WE MUST HAVE IT TO LIVE. If you add in the complexity of it as a fuel commodity, as a tool of political power; more so than it is now, then you spell a disaster for society and for the world.

AGAIN PLEASE....... NO FUEL / ENERGY from WATER* EVER!

Hydroelectric is NOT power from water's molecular components.. it is fuel from Water in motion like a wind generator is not power created from the components that make up air.. but from motion. These are fine gifts from mother nature to man.

Also, since you can't use pure water for this, on a grand scale it could be a useful way of cleaning or desalinating water which (if we used it as much as we do petroleum) would certainly invigorate the water cycle and probably create a lot of precipitation. Of course then you have to deal with the waste/precipitate in your electrolysis chamber.

On the other hand, water vapor (in a given immediate area) exacerbates the greenhouse effect of CO2. So, there's that.

I've thought that it might make both electrolytic desalinization and hydrogen as temporary energy storage more economically viable if you included them in a single system. Assuming you are using some renewable source for the initial energy production, it wouldn't be net positive, but it might make for a handy on-site way to smooth out energy demand cycles while also producing clean water.

If you burn hydrogen gas you make gaseous water that will just turn into rain and rain down later. I dont see anything logical in your opinion.

weish1 month ago

cool project, it's a shame so many scam artists and the people they're bamboozled still insist that they could huck this thing into a car and magically make it run cheaper, when as you said, this is just a cool demonstration of electrolysis and H-O combustion

steve20151 month ago

Also the stainless electrodes corrode furiously

tinkerist1 month ago

People on here keep talking about using "excess energy" from the alternator to make hydrogen. The energy it takes to make the hydrogen isn't excess. You are increasing the drag on the engine, via the alternator, to make the electricity to electrolize the water. The increased drag on the motor takes extra fuel. The resulting hydrogen physically cannot produce as much power when burned in the engine as it took to make. Even putting solar panels on the car to this end would almost certainly create more aerodynamic drag than you could make-up for. Nothing that spins or reciprocates on a car has "excess" energy.

Now, if you were using Peltiers on the exhaust or in-line with your coolant to produce the hydrogen, that might be worth it. But it would be more worth it to use something like that to charge your battery. If they were efficient enough (currently available tech probably isn't), you might even be able to get rid of your alternator and save quite a bit of gas.

We could make arguments all day about the viability of producing hydrogen with solar or wind power and so on. Maybe there's a place for it. But making it with petroleum or, worse, from the alternator in the car you are also burning it in, is an extraordinary waste. I promise you will burn much, much more gasoline per mile using anything like that method.

Yes, I recognize that solar panels don't have to increase aerodynamic drag. But I would hazard a guess that very few, if any, DIYers are installing perfectly flush photovoltaic cells on their body molding, and that's just about what it would take.

astrong01 month ago
Awesome instructable, I won't comment on people talking about "free energy" and "perpetual motion machine" and "the HAARP array" (that one isn't in the comments below I just thought it was humorous) anyway, great instructable. Yes free energy is a myth. Anyone that posts the magnet spinning fan thing that lasts "forever" is full of it, and by it I mean poop. Lots of poop.
Hydrogen IC and fuel-cell cars are technically viable, but far from economical, and it has nothing to do with oil-company intervention. Besides the problem of on-board storage, the hydrogen has to COME FROM somewhere, either fossil fuels or electrolysis of water, usually -- the former is less efficient than using the fossil fuel directly, and the latter is MUCH less efficient that using the electricity, however it may be generated, as electricity. Hydrogen is hard to transport and store, and would require an infrastructure comparable to the multi-trillion dollar infrastructures already in place for natural gas, electricity, and crude oil & refined products. All without ADDING any energy SUPPLY at all -- hydrogen is nothing but a FORM of energy, and an extraordinarily inefficient one at that.

Hydrogen-powered cars are a very long-term solution at best. Much better is to increase efficiency (i.e., "mileage") of all vehicles, continue to add plug-in hybrids so we can drive short trips on electricity, use EV's and CNG for second / "commute" and local delivery vehicles, and change our BEHAVIOR (more use of public transit, "Zip" cars & conventional rentals, mass-transit, etc.). plus renewable fuels for long-haul trucks and planes where there is no good alternative to liquid fuels. Pipe dreams like hydrogen and utter nonsense like cars that supposedly run on water just detract from focusing on workable solutions.
Get you some LED. With a wave length to match oxygen atom. Make a cylinder and place leds inside make the interior mirror like so the led light will bounce around well and place it on your cars intake. Place a wire mesh at the end of tube that has a electrical connection and connect that to the positive batt. Terminal. You can use a pwm to control the leds pulses are use the cars output pulses to the injectors. What this does is primes the oxygen on the intake with light which the atoms nucleus will absorbe which in turn will push the electrons quantum orbital position outward making it much easier to strip off when passing trough the wire mesh grid that is connected to positive terminal.
wb7ptr1 month ago
Interesting. I'd like to see a way to make this process much more efficient. As others have noted, this is both inefficient and can be dangerous. I see no reason NOT to pursue this further though. I made one of these in high school.
OK. A perhaps little known fact. Toyota - the most successful electrical car maker to date - is now investing in hydrogen fuel cell technology big time. So by definition this is a "hydrogen future" . Why not just improve their lithium ion battery technology until it makes the electric car plug-in option ludicrously obvious as our transport mode both cheap and environmentally the best choice?
Because they are working with the oil companies. Where do you think all the worlds hydrogen comes from now? Yep - the cracking of oil distillates. They are not stupid. Neither Toyota nor our polluting devious pals in oil. The argument could be made that it is a more viable transition to all electric cars as battery technology will still be expensive compared to burning oil distillates for some time to come. But given that the electric car WILL come of age and it is a movement that cannot be stopped - if you were an oil CEO how would you keep your profits from declining? They can put a hydrogen infrastructure in place tomorrow and they manufacture it in vast quantities already. We will still be consuming fossil fuels for years to come. Battery technology is advancing rapidly though. Let's hope that renewables win in the end, but markets decide and politics prevail
thormj1 month ago

Oh, and keep your production chamber full of water! If it gets to 50% full or less, the explosion will be quite loud and may be harmful!

thormj1 month ago

As an odd thought in the people for / against using it on cars:

One thing that can be good is that the HHO combustion occurs at a prodigious pace and that it is extremely resistant to knocking. Now, in order to take full advantage of those features requires tuning and possibly even tinkering like shaving the head, but I think there are some cars (probably older ones; eg a 1974 Ford 302 only made 98 hp -- that's less than a modern 2.5l 4 banger) that can use any/all the help they can get. So there is room for tinkering, but don't let an initial setback stop you; you should be able to get much more complete burns (I imagine a RX engine could really use this!), and a much higher detonation threshold (but I don't think it can prevent preignition from low-octane gas).

As far as water in the oil, all cars get it (most minivans are worse than cars even because for a while the valve covers were "cooled" by the cool airflow past the engine)... the solution to mayonnaise-oil is to drive the car more so that the oil temp gets hot enough to evaporate the water off. This is also a major problem in propane or CNG cars since the fuel is cooler and has less power than gasoline, but oil lasts longer in those cars because the combustion side products are much less nasty than gasoline.

So, while there's no free lunch (this won't make power from nothing), and it needs tinkering to take full advantage of it, it brings some unique benefits to the combustion table...it has a power when it's there....

Makedo1 month ago

they company went under. they were hoping Obama's people would go for it and instead they helped kill it. my Uncle has one on his kia and is getting 5 mpg more . the computer is still the issue. and if people who are so into numbers and such don't build one to see if it works then why do they claim it won't work? I have put one on a generator and I can get it tripled in fuel savings. I can go 2 days before filling the fuel tank. and the engine is no better than a briggs 6 hp . too bad I cannot run my house with that all the time. the engine was not designed to long term use.

As yrralguthrie said, adding hydrogen will not improve the mpg of a conventional-propellant internal combustion engine. They can make vehicles that rune solely on hydrogen, but that is a different matter, as they are engineered completely differently. By using incorrect fuel, you decrease efficiency, increase wear, and vastly increase the chances for catastrophic (and likely deadly) system failure.

On the issue of "green" energy, though it might be economical to the consumer, due to various subsidies, to use hydrogen as a fuel source instead of refined petroleum, the energy cost is greater. In any system, efficiency is less than 100%, so changing fuel (like oil, coal, or wood) to electricity using a turbine (losing energy in the form of heat and light), transmitting it over distance via power line (losing energy), using it to generate hydrogen and oxygen from water (losing energy to heat and imperfect systems), and finally using that in an internal combustion engine to drive mechanical motion or electrical potential (yet again losing energy) is a very poor way to do it.

To simplify that, all energy created by the hydrogen as fuel when it burns must have been put into the water in the first place to get hydrogen. Thus, it must by its very nature be inefficient.

This experiment demonstrates a scientific principle, and is a source of usable hydrogen gas, but do not pretend it has some mystical place as part of a vehicle not designed for such. That is pure foolishness.

Credentials: B.S. in Chemical Engineering from UC Berkeley

Thanks

I also don't see much here about the fact that if you burn Hydrogen in the presence of Oxygen you get water... in your oil. You can't just add Hydrogen to gas. It has to be designed to burn Hydrogen.

You uncle may have one on his Kia, but he is not getting 5 mpg more. And you can't get it tripled in fuel savings, whatever it is. I can go 2 weeks without filling my gasoline tank. I told you to read some physics. And actually I followed a friends activities very closely who did this, because I wanted to laugh at him. His mileage actually decreased. He used one of the systems sold on the internet. Big web site. Con. It is actually quite silly and uneducated to believe you can put something extra on a car and get more energy out of it than the car puts into it. If that were true we could make more energy than we consume and put some oil back in the ground.

What is truly silly is the assumption that "phsyics" is "known". "Knowing" completely cuts you off from anything and everything that contradicts what you believe you know. The "faith" of the "knower" renders contrary discoveries "fake" or "impossible" in their own mind.

That's why people who prefer exploration to belief and knowing and assumption are the ones who make all of the discoveries that are blown off, initially, until they become unignorable, at which point those who blew it off for years try to claim "I already knew that. That is old news.". That is why there are a lot more physics "fans" than there are Einsteins - a lot more "knowers" than explorers or discoverers. Society teaches faith and "fandom" so thoroughly that explorers are considered crazy renegades by their own generations. C'es la vie! It just leaves an explorer with more time to explore with less interruptions!

Actually there is a bit of difference between thinking there is more to learn and thinking that all we have learned is false. You profess to prefer exploration to belief and knowing and assumption. That is exactly how all those people, Einstein, Plank, Rutherford, Newton thought also. What we know today from these men is based on experimentation and exploration. Even today with the study of very small particles nothing is "proven" until one person does an experiment to show it and then several others do their experiments to show the same thing. You dismiss what you claim to believe.

One can't start with a false premise to prove a truth. You are just making stuff up and then trying to prove a truth. You in effect are one of the those knowers trying render the experiments of others as false. You are saying because you believe something will work all those people who came before you and preformed experiments and explorations are false. You would have been one of those trying to turn lead into gold. Or to fly by flapping a flat wing up and down. You are not a explorer, you are soothsayer. You base your beliefs on false or non-existent knowledge. If you want to say beliefs up to now are false then prove it. It is not the responsibility of believers to prove again what is already proven.

I know one thing you cannot prove that a hydrogen generator run by an alternator will increase mpg. You can think it all you want and you can botch up an exploration and say you proved it, but there will be flaws in your numbers.

I don't believe. I explore.

The beauty of exploration is that no premise is required. You see something new and interesting and you explore it and play with it and the other new things it reveals. There is none of that in turning lead into gold. What would be the point? There's no reason to explore beliefs. Not when when one is surrounded by such awesomeness. Things you can touch and see and play with.

There are things right beneath your feet that you would not believe and there is no one, anywhere, who has any obligation, whatsoever, to prove it to you.

Some of us explore things and that has nothing to do with what others are doing with their lives. It isn't up for a vote. It's not something that is decided democratically. We're already outcasts. Your approval of us is of no value, whatsoever. In a lifetime of DISapproval, we had no choice but to find a perspective that doesn't include such things. And as it turns out, the perspective of exploring without the "supervision" that comes from coveting approval from others is WAY more fun.

Turning lead to gold...pffft. Only one who fears disapproval wants gold. Gold is nothing.

Neither can one legitimately make absolute statements like:- "

"One can't start with a false premise to prove a truth."

For one thing, science doesn't deal in 'truth'.

For another, If you're silly enough to begin with a false premise it stands to reason you're silly enough to make an error in the reasoning process based on the false premise.

...and 2 minuses STILL make a plus.

Amen.

LucyT2 Makedo1 month ago

"...the company went under."

Like yrralguthrie's land, d'you mean? :)

fcuk441 month ago
Water you riding? Super clean motorcycle runs on H20 from a polluted river and can travel 310 MILES on a single litre
  • T Power H20 motorcycle was created by public officer Ricardo Azevedo
  • Bike produces clean water vapour and can be filled up with polluted H20
  • It also has remarkable ability to travel up to 310 miles on a litre of water



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169716/Motorcycle-runs-water-polluted-river-travel-310-miles-single-litre.html#ixzz3h79VhpZF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

ghenesy1 month ago

I can't believe all the little squabbles an debates over this neat instructable. The purpose is to detail out neat projects and ideas so that other people may get better ideas to post. The author clearly reached that goal. Is it the answer to all our energy problems? No, and the author made no such claim. However, someone else may look at it and may have an idea on how to make it more efficient. Well done, the king of random. This is a great one to show the kids.

67spyder1 month ago

Discussions about HHO viability as a motor fuel aside, this is a nicley built HHO generator. I always enjoy your ibles, great job.

M4n0v3y1 month ago

To avoid the occasional mini explosion I think that It could be controlled for a micro processed system that synchronize the needing HHO flow for the regular fuel flow into the engine. Some chemistry and electronic engineering are needed here! :D

bony1431 month ago
ChandanZ1 month ago
very nice project
vbe44bfm1 month ago

(too hasty to click submit) .... similarly if somehow one can just spray controlled quantity fine mist of water just warmed up around the engine, one can have it reduced to water-gas inside the IC engine --- only cons is that the engine bore may be prone to rust and other water borne damages but otherwise (maybe) the engine will run cool -- with <slight> improvement of mileage. My 2c.

hanryjames1 month ago

Not getting technical at all. If this were truly viable, everyone would be doing it,

vbe44bfm1 month ago

HHO or water gas is a good possibility in blast furnaces. Spray fine mist of water thru the tuyere where it gets converted to water gas by the actions of carbon compounds -- most probable benefit is lowering of coke rate (endangered fossil fuel of the planet)

Not getting technical at all. I fitted my DIY hydrogen generator into my Landrover 4x4 2.5 liter diesel. The fuel consumption was 23.5 miles/gallon without h2 generator, by feeding the air inlet with H / O gas I'm running it now by 40 miles/gallon. As a fuel additive it's just BRILLIANT.
AllSookedUp1 month ago

This may be a viable way to produce one energy source from another however, as in any conversion, from one form of energy to another and using the newly converted energy to drive a spark ignition engine, there will always be significant losses along the chain of conversion and final use. If one is going to gather electrical energy from any renewable source (PV panels or wind turbines for example) then the best thing way to reduce energy loss is to store it in an accumulator then use that electrical energy is to power an electric vehicle.

lahines1 month ago

The Hydrogen Sponge provides a non-fossil fuel means of generation, safe
storage, and recovery of hydrogen gas for use in fuel cell
technologies. It uses solar powered water electrolysis to generate and
safely store hydrogen gas in uniquely designed silicon substrate
microstructures. The Hydrogen Sponge can be tailored to suit specific
hydrogen applications, providing a wide range of solutions for the
hydrogen fuel cell market.

https://youtu.be/VXfEY4n7HRw

http://www.businessinsider.com/toyota-releasing-hy...

fcuk441 month ago

what about if i added a big fan belt to my

combustion engine and had it turn as many altinators possible. would that not create alot of power?. im only askin. thanks

mrandle fcuk441 month ago
A bigger alternator may work better. The only reason this isn't done now is you add friction and it will take more fuel to create the electricity. A generator would be much more efficient.
fcuk44 fcuk441 month ago

even if were set out like a block and tackle kind of system as you can lift tons of weight with ease

PaulH11 fcuk441 month ago

A lot of alternators (or just one really big alternator)would transform a lot of mechanical energy into electrical power, and induce a lot of drag on the engine. The increased drag on the engine would necessitate using more fuel, so you don't gain anything.

Dear Sir: This is nothing new! People have been trying to make a hydrogen fuel for at least (Last energy seminar I attended was 1979 @ Anaheim (CA) Convention Center)--at that time Hx fuel was $8 bucks a gallon. (It was NOT availabe for sale either! The guy would start his engine and put a gas mask hooked to the exhaust pipe on his face. The engine allegedly put out water vapor (H20) and 02 gas. Nothing has been done in the 35 years that followed. In Germany however they have a "hydrogen highway" and BMW's that run on hydrogen fuel.

'nuff said. YOU can't do enough fuel to be financially viable and AND there is no infrastructure to support this product. Good luck. Hope the LORD blesses your efforts. Big Dan Bonewacker, city of Hespermia, CA 92345 U.S.A.

dreadeno1 month ago

Very nice setup!!! If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive source for the stainless steel plates, I used stainless steel light switch plates. Worked wonderfully!

All.Thumbs1 month ago
Great instructable! Well designed and executed.
There's some interssting background info at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
It also addresses some of the thoughts/applications raised here...
ThomasNL1 month ago
If you would separate the cathode and the anode (but maintain a fluid-connection of course), could you then collect the hydrogen separately from the oxygen? You can then use the oxygen in a bottle rocket (isopropanol driven) and the hydrogen in a balloon (with a fuse for a nice boom). For the bottle, I don't know if the mixture alcohol/oxygen would be too rich in oxygen, but better more oxygen then too little I'd think...?) In the case of the balloon, the oxygen in the air should do the trick too (cur. Hindenburg).

What do you think?
chevy12341 month ago

Great job, very well done.

I'm a fan of people just doing it and not procrastinating. Especially when it's a young lad. I've been building stuff my entire life and became very intrigued with Hydrogen generator's ever since Stan built the dune buggy. He had it nailed down pretty much and they not only took his plans they took his life. The technology for building hydrogen or hydroxy gen's is so much better today than then. You have a fantastic shot at making a buttoned down retail unit that works continually. Many have tried some have succeeded but getting consistent results is the trick.

In order to get everything in the system to remain the same or balanced would be a better word. Volt's amp's media, containers, volumes. When working with a vehicle such as a car and using the electrical system you have to use the right electronic components. I'm cheering you on and look forward to the next step in your evolution in this field. I have built a few and had success. I have never been able to pursue it uninterrupted by life and might just take up the challenge again after being inspired by your work. I'm semi-retired now and have more time to devote. I'm sure you have heard about the lads in Austrailia years ago who were running their daily drivers on hydrogen gen's and were threatened by the men in black. They had made successful units powering their old beaters and everyone wanted one in their community. Then all heck broke loose and they had to stop making them. We have exposure now they did not have. What I'm saying is there is less threat, and many many people have been making these generators powering any combustion engine known to man, pretty much. Keep working at it, perfect it, and make it yours. You have a good design with good materials that have lasting qualities. It's cutting edge tech and will make a global difference in these trying times. Thank you for sharing with us.

ferd_berfal1 month ago

Small correction, the statement "make a fuel that is much more powerful than gasoline" is incorrect. Gasoline, as it is used in an engine, is pretty much the highest energy density fuel there is. Gasoline, as used in an engine, has a higher energy content per pound than explosives or rocket fuel. (Diesel is a bit higher energy content that gas).

The secret is that for an explosive, or rocket fuel or hydrogen+oxygen you are carrying both the fuel and the oxidizer. For a gasoline engine you are only carrying the fuel, the oxidizer is free and isn't carried as part of the fuel (since the oxidizer is air). To burn one pound of hydrogen you need to carry 8 pounds of oxygen. It is generally more efficient to not actually carry the oxygen (even if it is pure) and to just use atmospheric oxygen.

PiEyedDave1 month ago

These things are a joke, they don't produce enough HH to make any real difference on your vehicle. The unit depicted is IDENTICAL to the one I built 7 years ago. It will make enough fuel for a brazing torch. This can be EXTREMELY dangerous if you aren't careful. If you spend more than $10 to build this thing you are wasting your money.

wynkin1 month ago

They sell these systems to plumb into a cars carburettor to increase mileage per gallon. My question is do they gain anything as the battery has to be charged from the alternator which produces drag and lowers mpg?

steve000 wynkin1 month ago

I knew a guy who tried this in a 1999 model ford falcon (australia) He said it gave him 2-3 l better economy but he had to deal with the occasional mini explosion when starting. Start car, let warm up, start HHO, hope doesn't explode in face, drive. Also he didn't have the output adjustable so if you were idling it would produce more gas than needed and explode in the air box. If you adjusted to equal idle requirements it would produce too little to drive with reducing the benefit. Still 2-3l is better than nothing.

Im sure if some bright spark made a safer computer controlled unit that tapped into the ECU it would work.

You have a keen grasp of the obvious. You get less energy out than you put in. and, you will upset a system balanced for best mileage and lowest emissions. If your car is too rich or lean, adding a different fuel might make it run better (or worse); but tuning it or cleaning the injectors will be more effective.

LucyT21 month ago
JamesL321 month ago

A very nice demonstration of the hydrolysis of water. A very nice demonstration of the gullibility of people.

A gasoline powered internal combustion engine burns the gasoline in a controlled explosion which thru various lever arms is converted into useful motion: move a vehicle, pump water, compress a gas into a liquid, etc. This gasoline is produced in a process from raw petroleum, drawn from underground. It takes immense amounts of energy (electrical, more petro-chemical, even nuclear) to do this conversion. The BTU equivalent contained in a liter of gasoline is no way near the BTU equivalent needed to produce that liter of gasoline. The KM per Liter a car gets represents a very small fraction of the real energy expended in the production of that liter, it's transportation to your cars tank, the promotion of convincing you to BUY THAT liter , rather than another brand and the loss by evaporation.

The above demonstration of the production of water into hydrogen and oxygen, to be used in the production of useful motion/energy is nice to discuss, but not really worth it commercially.

Google "High Mileage Cars" or "High Efficiency Steam Engines" to learn about heat conservation, friction reduction, , steam/gas recycling, and thermodynamic theory.

Bon Appetite.

kevshouse1 month ago

It pains me to jump into these discussions but I feel I must.

Although hydrogen may be perfectly usable as an energy storage medium in some circumstances.

The question that must be asked is whether or not a suitable hydrogen infrastructure can or can not be built that is safe, effective, affordable, and does not require a radical change to our lifestyle.

Before I continue I will point out that I fully accept that I our reliance on fossil fuels has to end soon if there is any chance of avoiding our own destruction. That is assuming we have not already passed the point of no return.

Getting back to those four criteria for a successful energy infrastructure we can see that those criteria are interrelated, e.g. there is no effectiveness without safety or affordability. Thus far I have never come across a scheme that describes a hydrogen infrastructure that comes close to meeting all four elements.

We could all try to do something similar to what this instructable suggests and build our own electrolyser, but we'd still need a large energy supply and some machine to liquefy the hydrogen (or store it in metal hydrides if we wanted to use it portably). The DIY, aspect, however, may break our safety criteria, and when one considers the efficiency of running an electrolyser (at best about 65%) combined with the efficiency of technologies such as solar PV (under 12%) we in fact end up with a combined figure of < 8% when and where the sun shines. This paltry sum is before we have even thought about storing any hydrogen and a long way before we get to use any. if we pretended that we can store it for free our best internal combustion engines are only 30% efficient so we'd end up with a 2.4% fuel efficiency - not great. If we go with fuel cells and electric motors we could expect about 4.8% fuel efficiency at cell output and 3.84% at motor output at very best! In favourable contrast the world's first practical engine ever built, a few miles from my home, in 1712 by Newcomen and Savery managed about 0.5%

We could possibly up those pessimistic forecasts if we used a wide portfolio of renewable sources, but frankly I doubt that enough of us have access to a wide enough variety of useable sources of wind, tide, geothermal, solar, etc. This I fear is the most worrying problem of all, there simply isn't enough renewable to go around (unless we are happy to go back to the global lifestyle habits of a century ago) regardless of how many wind/solar/tide farms we build.

Ten years ago the thought that I would write this would have amazed me, but the only technology that I think capable of leading us to climate safety is the much maligned atomic power station. If we take care we can neutralise its waste and ensure its safety and in return it won't destroy our environment.

For those that that doubt my reasoning (for others too) I suggest thoroughly reading David JC MacKay's excellent and entertaining book 'Without Hot Air' which can be downloaded for free via http://www.withouthotair.com/

So if I were to use salt outside would it be ok and not kill me?
roncody1 month ago

The one other thing most people miss. Hopefully even the folks the for some reason choose not to believe in science will understand. If you look on the periodic table that is the first element? Hydrogen right? It's the smallest atom so containing it is HARD. The other issue is simple contact with most metals under heat and pressure like in a IC engine will cause hydrogen embrittlement. This is not a good thing for your car.

The those who think you are getting more energy out this you can do a simple test. Just post an instructable of the following test.

Built a hydrogen generator that can run a small engine on it's own. Attached a DC generator to the motor that can run the hydrogen generator. It should run as long as you keep adding water the "power source" .This is NOT perpetual motion as per the theory water is a power source.

If you truly believe this system works this test should be a simple easy demonstration.

po941101 month ago

This is just like the electrolysis experiments we used to do in 1970's grade school science. It was cool then and it still is now.

But there are a number reasons Hydrogen produced this way, or Hydrogen at all will never become a practical alternative fuel for automobiles.

1. It has been determined that it takes 4-5 times as much electrical energy to produce the same amount of energy by the Hydrogen produced (Scientific American). Currently the most efficient way to create Hydrogen is currently from fossil fuels.

2. You would not want to carry around enough Hydrogen to get you anywhere. To get that much Hydrogen in your tank, it would have to be highly compressed, perhaps to the point of liquefaction. Hydrogen is the most volatile single element on earth. It would be like driving a Corvair around with the space shuttle tank attached. This is currently the biggest stumbling block in creating a hydrogen fueled car.

3. While Hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth, most of it is bound up in seawater. Hydrolysis with seawater creates some nasty pollutants like chlorine gas, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen sulfide. Seawater would have to be desalinated first.

4. Potable water is starting to become scare. In some places fossil fuels are more readily available than water.

"This breaks the laws of physics! You can't get more energy out than you put in!" 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 "perpetual motion machine", 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.

djo41 month ago

maybe if it is low on energy it can power a phone

sugarbaby631 month ago

I wish you had showed your gas as a power to move something instead of moving by blowing up, thanks anyway it is great what you did

Can I use something like salt instead of potassium hydroxide?

no! salt will produce toxic chlorine gas, and sodium hypochlorite, chlorate, or perchlorate.

it will though in so little portions that it does not matter, when using potassum hydroxide there will also toxic gases be produced.

all it will produce, is pure chlorine gas. one pound of salt, will produce more than half a pound, of chlorine gas. that is enough, to fill your house with a lethal dose.

and there is no toxic fumes, associated with sodium or potassium hydroxide. even though the solution, itself remains toxic. the hydroxides remain in solution, as hydroxides unless you are using contaminated hydroxides.

i make potassium chlorate, and perchlorates using potassium chloride as an electrolyte. and will get the same result using, sodium chloride salt.

and chlorine and hypochlorite's, are made by using the electrolysis of sea water.

skeptikool1 month ago

I don't believe a vehicle's on-board hydrogen or HHO production can produce volume enough to be of great significance. However, I think there is great promise in water injection. Nonetheless, an interesting project that, in a static setup, might be coupled with solar panels for other useful purposes.

crogshockey5 months ago

What sort of water should you use i.e. rainwater, tapwater, distilled??

Distilled water mate, as it has little (or no impurities)
Will help keep the generator cleaner for longer as it will not corrode the plate as quickly...

Distilled water cannot conduct electricity... This is why it does not matter what water you use as long as you add an electrolytic compound like Potassium Hydroxide or Sodium Chloride.

-- Think before you speak

maybe you shld think before you speak as well :-) if you use Sodium Chloride ( 'salt') the result will be chlorine gas due to competing half reactions :

2 NaCl + 2 H2O → 2 NaOH + H2 + Cl
instead of

2 H2O → 2 H2 + O2;
by the way, the NREL
estimated that 1 kg of hydrogen (roughly equivalent to 3 kg, or 4 L, of
petroleum in energy terms) could be produced by wind powered
electrolysis for between $5.55 in the near term and $2.27 in the long
term

yes but you left out the intermediate reactions, involving sodium and dissolved chlorine prior to producing sodium hydroxide.

i worked for the predecessor of NREL when it was called SERI, as a jr scientist. and you are correct on the energy output, of hydrogen vs fossil fuels. as you go up the hydrocarbon chain, the greater is the discrepancy. the octane rating, will make a difference in the ratio. a mixture with more hexane, heptane, octane, will be more energy than with more nonane, decane and unodecane. and even a greater discrepancy, for diesel.

but i am, surprised they have brought the cost of production down that much with wind generation.

Since distilled water is purified and does not
contain any impurities, it is unable to conduct electricity. Water
molecules on their own have no charge and as a result they cannot swap
electrons. Without the swapping of electrons, electricity is unable to
travel through distilled water.

-- I'm a teenager by the way

i can tell :/... you should show a little more respect

Respect? No, not if one is not understanding my response and adding unnecessary comments like competing half reactions when hydrogen gas is still a product of the reaction as I was only talking about the efficiencies of different catalysts for the production of hydrogen gas... not chlorine.

There is an open door and you are kicking it in. There are a hoist of salts you can add, but again, I simply said that NaCl is a bad choice to add.

Dude.. I wasn't talking about the byproducts of sodium chloride and dihydrogen monoxide electrolysis. All I was talking about was the fact that distilled water without any electrolytes will not conduct electricity. Think before you speak.

Obviously you weren't, but you suggested NaCl. I simply said that is a bad choice because you get Chlorine gas that way that mixes with the H2. You dont want that in yr car or in the air and it makes the process less efficient.And yes I was thinking before I spoke. That is why i mentioned it

it shouldn't matter, you add things to the water anyways.

juntjoon1 month ago
"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."

So what's the point then? Or who does this project benefit best and how?

The apparatus generates hydrogen. Though it can be used as a fuel in internal combustion engines, that is inefficient. However, as noted above, hydrogen has other uses as fuel where electricity would not work,prominently high-temperature torches and welding, but also rocket fuel in some instances. Most other uses of hydrogen are in manufacturing and pure science.

also, the statement that burning hydrogen produces more energy than gasoline is just wrong.

you can verify by looking up the energy densities, but it's also common sense. a hydrocarbon is a chain of many hydrogen atoms that can be oxidized, which is why it's used so much.

two molecules of hydrogen, with one molecule of oxygen shall always produce the same amount of heat output. but when hydrogen is coupled with carbon, the redox involved breaking the carbon chain apart consumes a small amount of the energy. and producing carbon monoxide, is also less efficient than producing carbon dioxide. then you have the problems of the oxides of nitrogen, added to the process which also detracts from the efficiency.

so one pound of hydrogen, is not the equivalent of one pound of fossil fuel. the one pound of hydrogen, will always have a greater heat output than one pound of fossil fuel. with CH3 being, the next closest equivalent.

Notbob juntjoon1 month ago

The gaseous output from this device can be used to make a very high temperature ( >2000 deg C) torch, which has its own uses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and...

GaryC61 month ago

The mix of Hydrogen and oxygen you are making is the most explosive gas on earth you need to do some serious studying of Hydrogen explosions. It doesn't take much hydrogen to level a building and H2 and O2 are never transported together. I admire your handiness with the steel and plastic but, one disconnect of that battery with the wind blowing in the right direction and you may not be alive to tell about it. At least talk to a chemist or combustion engineer. There have been factories leveled over that stuff.

What about using the Hydrogen to lift the dead weight of the vehicle, thus requiring very little power to thrust the load forward?

Gravity has a pull on everything, and adding hydrogen would only continue to weigh down the vehicle you would add it to.

I apologize, what I should have said was any improvement in fuel saving did not come from the device added to your uncles car.

He did/is doing one or more of the following:
Used a mpg he remembers from the old days.
Calculated mpg on different routes
Is invested in the process and used a lighter foot.
Drives slower now. Just 2-3 mile an hour speed decrease can easily account for the 5mpg.

You and your briggs generator are just delusional.

It is impossible within the laws of physics and conservation of energy to put a device on a car to create fuel that increases fuel mileage. You are arguing with a 1000 years of physicists and mathematicians including those such as Einstein, Plank and many others. I'm just repeating what 1000 or more years of work by the most brilliant minds there ever were have proven.

Argue all you want, you can't change physics and you seem to be saying you are smarter than all physicists put together. That is delusional.

To the moderator, by using the word delusional I am being nice.
Sorry, I didn't see that part, I could use salt.

do not! use salt, NaCl produces chlorine gas instead of oxygen. and depending upon the energy input, will produce sodium hypochlorite, sodium chlorate, or sodium perchlorate.

Len7261 month ago

Cool project, but the biggest problem with Hydrogen is storage. It is the smallest of the Molecules and is very hard to store. I would also be concerned with having Hydrogen and Oxygen in proximity, they get to each other and you get a big boom.

Not sure about this particular apparatus, but with an on-board converter, the hydrogen is perfectly "stored" in the water. There is no "storing of hydrogen". It is spent as it is released.

"Storing" hydrogen is about making money - not energy.

hydrogen, can be safely liquefied though it takes more energy, to compress it to a liquid. not sure it would be feasible, to add the cost to liquefy the oxygen. for the slight amount of power increase over using air.

lbrewer421 month ago

Well now the King of Random also has weighed in on this issue, and yet the naysayers who have NEVER TRIED IT, but stick to applying the theories they think are at play into the equation and call it nonsense.

So King of random, despite showing this fuel burning, there is some magical way in which, when its put under the hood of a car, the engine knows its there and decides change the laws of physcis and not burn it.

Naysayer's basing their *opinions* on an incomplete concept of the process under the hood only think they have the complete picture. When a system is built and seen to work (nowadays have to fool the O2 sensor in the car though), it is only then the facts comes to light that this is not energy creation like naysayers think it is.

The HHO system is simply utilizing a chemical advantage as a "lever" to make fuel burn more efficiently. Lighting a stick of dynamite also releases a lot more energy than it took to strike the match - but it does not create energy from nothing. The heat and flame release the potential energy inherent in the chemical properties of the TNT. Burning HHO made from a car battery does not create energy - it uses the chemical advantage of the gases being highly flammable to improve burn efficieny.

I am not affiliated with the following ebayer - but he has close to 4000 satisfied customers who also have a forum - who utilize this type of system to imporve gas mileage:

http://stores.ebay.com/HydroClubUSA?_trksid=p20476...

NickO91 month ago

Very impressive! (Also a lot of work to put this video together -well done!)
The only additional thing I would add is perhaps a simple circuit diagram of what is going on in the generator -or perhaps a link to an explanation of hydrolysis...
Anyway well done!

wdesilvey1 month ago

I personally appreciate this, and I may well have most of this laying around in scrap SOMEWHERE............

And a question; is it possible with a few mods to collect the O2 separately? (Before anyone screams "Bill, you missed it! it is Just O!" No, it isn't H,N,O, and a few others are di-atomic; taking 2 of the atoms to comprise the actual element. The likelihood of a free radical simply continuing to exist after this is close to zero.)

Makedo1 month ago

some of you assume it is pressurized .you use it as it is being made and using the suction of the engine would put the system in a vacuum . you don't need all the expensive equipment. you need only 12 to 15 volts to generate the mix you need. just place a volume control knob in line to adjust the volts. the mix of electrolytes will change on it's own as the mix becomes concentrated . just add water to thin it back out and you get the right mix and volts. the system you need is no bigger than what he made. why do people make it complicated. the heater fan in most cars use 15 + volts does it not? you can put a propelar driven generator on the car so it only makes gas while moving. and the prop stops no gas . many ways to solve the issue and not have to build factories to buil something you don't need to build.

BobP91 month ago
Oh frack!
Makedo1 month ago

sorry that is 6 each 1 gallon pickel jars some have added a 5 gallon jug or two it they have room.

Makedo1 month ago

many simi trucks had installed and have gotten them up to 18 to 27 miles a gallon. they are using up to 6 1 gallon pickle jars turned into fuel cells. a guy in Vancouver Washington has been helping out the truckers. the smog is almost not testable coming out the exhaust pipe you get a cleaner engine. just understand that you will get some temperature rise and will be in the normal range for your engine. try using a hand held sensor to confirm what’s normal when your not running the fuel cell vs when your running it. using a synthetic oil would help. they have higher range protection than petroleum oils.

DonnH11 month ago

Someone mentioned electric cars won't last. So far they have lasted the longest of any cars. The original electric cars were powered by nickel iron batteries, something that many of us yearn for if we build solar electric systems for our homes. Still waiting for a more economical way to produce hydrogen gas, transport it, store it. There is some promise there but more development is required.

Makedo1 month ago

when you use the gas produced it makes the type fuel in your car burn better. it is the way hydrogen works. so your making a hybrid out of your car. no you do not want to just run this mix because you will not get the power you need by it self. gasoline with this mix will completely burn and you will get water coming out the pipe. and you can do this because it has been done. a chevy silverado got 65 miles to gallon when not loaded and yes under load it is less. yet still over 20 mpg when pulling a trailer. (30ft boat) try that with a prius.

naomi.hoch1 month ago

Hi sorry I'm not really clear on how the chemistry of this whole project ( it's my Dad not me who has a degree in chemistry) but if I should manage to successfully make this project could I take the gas and use it somehow? For example is ther away to conect it to my stove and use it to cook food? Could I convert it to electricity and run my air conditioner?? - (It's hot enough to cook an egg out here). What I'm tryong to undestand is how can I use this energy now.

Makedo1 month ago

I have one of these. I bought one a couple of years ago. It comes with a controller that is suppose to trick the computer by changing the sensor signals to the computer before it gets to the computer. basically is is a logic circuit that changes the sensor signals by resistance. when you inject the oxygen/hydrogen into the engine the oxygen sensors will sense too much oxygen and will dump more fuel into the engine . and you will loose any fuel mileage gain. You can put this on a old car with out a computer and get a v8 with very litte power difference at the level of 80 MPG. This is better than a prius. and you can haul loads the prius can only dream about. if you want to build a controller to fool the computer you need to be able to adjust the signals from the sensors this includes the engine temp sensors. I have no skill to do this. I have been thinking about using a bank of adjustable resistors with digital read outs and just do it manually. The best I can get is 1/2 mile to the gallon before the computer goes to default and dumps more fuel into the engine to satisfy the programming. The government used law suits to kill the company which was marketing the device. note by law you cannot tamper directly with the programming of your computer any more than what is allowed . in Oregon the DEQ only checks the computer while it runs to see if anyone had done that. that is why you also need a way to shut off the device before you run through the tests. also you need to adjust the voltage used to generate the fuel cell. one way is the percentage of electrolytes . like 50 % caustic/ 50% water. you need to get an analogue meter in line to the fuel cell to read 12- 15 volts. mine runs at 14.5 volts. you do not want foam to be more than a couple of inches high above the liquid. if you have it going out the tube not good. you are putting caustic into the engine. you just want the gas produced so keep the foam to no more than 2 inches above the liquid. as you use the water up the volts will go up as the mix become more concentrated. so just add water to the original level and volts will drop back to where they need to be. when you add fuel to your car add distilled water to the device. simple.

Where do you get the parts?
schixal1 month ago

there are some things i'd like to ask about this and some things i want to point out.
my first question is why you have the second barrel attached to the first ?
then im wondering why u use that many plates of stainless steel, if u only lead currency on the the most inner and outer ones ?

@mjbedford stainless is the best material, since using platinum or gold will not make the profit any bigger, pure iron or pure steel would be better though but it would just rust in seconds attached to 24 V's. to check it just check elektrolysis on wikipedia there u'll find proof to it.

@dan.blake.7583 btw this is not browns gas, as simple as that, and it does not matter wether u use destiled or normal water. actually normal water would be better, if u would not care about a clean tube, since more minerals in the water will make it easier for it to transport the currency.

kilroy_501 month ago

Unfortunately, the energy input to electrolyze water is greater than the energy that is obtained by burning the resultant hydrogen. That's just insurmountable with current technology with the possibility that using solar or geothermal energy _could_ break that barrier.

Secondly (and probably most important concerning this type of electrolyzer), the gas generated herein is the mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen with the proportions of two parts Hydrogen to one part Oxygen and that particular ratio of H to O is extremely explosive. A single, small spark is all that is necessary to set it off. A large quantity of the generated gas would produce a large explosion. Look up Hindenburg disaster to see what a Hydrogen explosion can do.

On a side note, the mix produced here is also known as "Brown's Gas". It (*is*) a handy fuel for some types of engines but put it in your car or motorcycle and you will probably create a very large piece of lawn art.

Anyway, it's a good instructible so be careful and have fun.

BTW, common table salt, as mentioned in the 'ible, is not quite as dangerous to handle as is the lye.

It would be amazing if you had a generator that would provide most or all of your energy as hydrogen is hard to store. If you did have a source of hydrogen the losses from compression would steal a lot of your stored energy. But wait there is a technology that can provide all your energy or at least most of it and is a lot less complicated. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2767806/Meet-Stella-solar-powered-car-drives-500-miles-SINGLE-charge-warns-traffic-lights-change.html This vehicle driven under 150 miles a day could provide very inexpensive transportation. It won the 2013 World Solar challenge Cruiser Class. Stella Lux has even more range and is scheduled to compete in the 2015 Challenge. Until the Cruiser Class competition most solar vehicles looked like rolling ping pong tables. The Cruiser Class was designed to foster practical 4 passenger solar vehicles.

mjbedford1 month ago
I wanted to point out 3 facts:
1. If you are going to make this, you should research better metals for the plates. Stainless is cheaper and easier to obtain but not the best choice. When used in electrolysis, the metal will also release compunds from the metal such as Chromium which makes the water toxic.

2. Dome areas of the country are in a severe drought!

3. People that use forums and comments to argue and bash each other ruin the essence of forums and comments. Makes me sick. We should all be able to add our comments without getting attacked. It is frustrating when i am trying to get everyones opinion and i have to sort through this garbage. It doesnt make you look smarter than the person you are bashing FYI.

This is VERY old tech. It's called, "Browns gas". And to settle the distilled water debate..you ALWAYS use distilled water in auto batteries !

razzer_n3 months ago

Can I use NaOH instead of KOH??

yes you can

I will be willing to buy / barter one for parts and labor.

jfpion1 month ago

I 've just seen this one today. you are making a bomb !!! you generate gas mix with the perfect ration for the more powerful blast possible !!!

it is dongereous !! you can blast a house if you let it work in a closed room, the next one getting in and switching the light on .....kaboom !!

it is far more useful to get the gas separatly from over the anode and the cathod to get the hydrogène and the oxygen séparatly for later use.

anode5051 month ago

Law of diminishing returns.

But *really* nice build.

Thatoneguy992 months ago
Does it matter what thickness the steel is?
brightled2 months ago
there is a patent on this project also check on an old report about the car that ran on water that outlines the whole thing ,it explains how to build the conversion system and alos how to adapt a carburator car motor to run on hyd gas.....I believe its called the water carburator the whole thing was bought by the oil companies back then.....WCH
Kevanf13 months ago

Fantastic Instructable, thank you. I have been reading about this sort of hydrogen/oxygen splitter for years. I was at first intrigued by the claims of some to be able to run a car on this technology. Ok, that was soon pretty well disproven despite some clinging to the myth... Maybe now is the time that the myth can be revisited and possibly becoming proof finally? I say this because solar photovoltaic panels are now much more efficient. Maybe these higher quality and cheaper panels could be used say on the roof of a car or other vehicle. It does not then matter that the energy you get out is less (which I fully accept) as it is still free. As you say this is 'converted energy'. Gas is easier to use to propel a vehicle than solar PV produced electricity. Perhaps a hybrid vehicle to start with? Just some thoughts of mine :)

is there a way i could use this to run a go kart or mini bike

columbiansnow4 months ago
would using copper plates increase conductivity and effiency?

No Copper is not efficient in this application as it will oxidize and create copper oxide (that is why the Statue of Liberty is green, it's made of copper)

Hey, i was wondering if this would work with copper plates or will it react with something while doing it. I know that the stainless steel will corrode over time so what works the best??

it is such a great video it help me for making my college project thankx for share this video

jayeshshinai4 months ago
So its not as efficient to use since it uses electricity? hmm also hydrogen is very flammable so difficult to use? Could anyone forward me to a any website with accurate data on h2o splitting?

Hydrogen is very explosive. The energy you put in is to split H form O. It is possible to make one effecient enough, but this probably is not.

germas3694 months ago

Im very confused by the metal plates . To me it just seems like the plates in between the connectors are just sitting there doing nothing. It would be extremely helpful if someone could maybe draw some fort of diagram to explain how this works. Thank you.

Okay so I just found out that those inbetween plates are neutral, this reduces the amount of heat being built up. Heres a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yItH6S_dUd0

MauroS24 months ago

The gas produced by the generator can be used in a water heater?

Stroover8 months ago

I'm wondering the same thing abrown39 and krash are. My fragmented mind is telling me that if the middle plates are just kind of floating there unconnected that they wouldn't produce any gas without currant flowing through them.

No it's not like that at all. Even I was a bit puzzled in the beginning but now it makes sense:
The plates are in pairs - sort of like how capacitors are but instead of having 8 pairs of plates connected in series, it has 2 sets of 4 pairs each. Essentially it's like having 1 set of 4 pairs of plates with twice the surface area. from the "terminal" in the middle, the current splits in 2. The one which goes right is pretty straightforward. the one which goes left, goes to the last plate, then goes through the U-bracket to join in the last plate at the terminal.

hope it helps.

Perhaps they're connected through the electrolyte.

The whole point is that the gap between the plates causes the electricity to jump the gap between the two plates by traveling through the water. When the electricity does this is ionizes the water into 2H+ and O-. Once two of the water molecules have been ionized the Ions then combine to make H2 gas and O2 gas which are more stable than the separated ions.

Gotcha! Makes perfect sense now. Thanks.

aidan.kuhn.75 months ago
Hey so I've made the generator and spent about $50 doing it. Now all I need is a power source, but I'm not really comfortable using my car battery and being in high school, don't have a lot of money to just buy a spare battery. Anyone got a suggestion for a cheap alternative power source?
12v mains adaptor from anything electrical such as laptop chargers, etc. They all have the rating on them somewhere
ChrisK115 months ago

There is a public company that has implemented a similar technology for automobiles and commercial equipment that is poised to go big and just started road-testing this week: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-planets-demand-hydrogen-generator-130000689.html

vortex115 months ago

What sort of water should you use i.e. rainwater, tapwater, distilled??

In the video he recommends distilled water. I would recommend this to avoid any complications with the minerals in tap water or rainwater messing with your plates.
H2evolution5 months ago

you can get one from ebay and install it on your vehicle it will save you up to 30% on fuel,even the police have started to use it

hydrogenreport1.jpgpolice.jpg
ilarion.moga6 months ago

Take a look at this: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512996/a-cheaper-way-to-make-hydrogen-from-water/

ekimmu7776 months ago

another method for producing hydrogen from water cheaply is to use photonic metamaterials. see instructions here: http://alternativeenergy777.blogspot.com

These materials are only available in laboratories apparently so ....

bybecker6 months ago

Much time is lost trying to get 100% free energy which is very difficult and expensive.

If we could only spend 5 or 10% of gasoline would be enough and would allow many projects of this kind ...

Let's be more realistic and less utopian.

90% free energy is much better than 0% free. Or not?

terahertz radiation can be made into ultrasound and reacted with zinc oxide and water to make hydrogen gas

Hi, thanks. Some people here in Brazil are using oxyhydrogen generators as an additional fuel in cars that run on gasoline and claim to have good fuel economy . This may be true? This is feasible or possible ?

ekimmu7776 months ago

another method for producing hydrogen from water cheaply is to use photonic metamaterials. see instructions here: http://alternativeenergy777.blogspot.com

jap.oyabun7 months ago

well i belived in this one man..perhaps i am already doing some of this here in the philippines,and already installed one to my van..

spatuladle7 months ago

That is super awesome and I am totally going to try it but I think you should add a detailed supply list. That would help a lot. Thanks

teknohawk7 months ago
So is this basically a fuel cell, such as the ones now found in some new cars? Anyway, this Instructable is awesome! Nice work!
ipad17 months ago

i think all the technology we used will exhaust any natural reserved at the end... but i agree for hho to save money for daily gas... and magnet motor/electric... or any perpetual motion... and so on solar panel, remember one thing... that the oil are nearly empty on our earth... for some country they did not have the oil...

neil.bruce.777 months ago
Running the car on ethanol and using hho as additional economizer would give car the greenest footprint and best return on dolar spent. If you have a permit and distill your own ethanol it would mean all your fuel is renewable and no more gas pumps visits ever.
AstroFire7 months ago

What is the average cost of production?

primosanch7 months ago
Very nice.
azhabiel7 months ago

have you ever tried with sewage water? what would be the result ?

bradjensen687 months ago

Also consider that one of the problems with renewable energy is storage. There is too much energy available when the sun is shining brightly or the wind is blowing hard. You need some sort of energy storage, whether it be batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage, flywheels, or some other methods. Hydrogen creation would be another method of energy storage.

Could this gas actually run an engine?

Yes it can

How would it work?

instead of a vapor gasoline:air mixture and igniting, you would use the gas instead of gasoline hence cars that run off of water

technically, separated water components and not the water.

I realize this is old, but in carbureted engines you can simply feed the hydrogen into the intake of the carb. They actually do this on an episode of mythbusters with a tank of hydrogen gas and get the car to run. I'm sure it would be a little more practical if you did it with a weedwacker or something smaller.

NASA uses it to power their rockets

Jose EribertoP10 months ago

How about attaching a downtube from the generator to let it pass through a radiator or cooling system then route it back to the generator?

That way, you are radiating (wasting) more of the energy (heat) to the air. Basically, a boiling water in electrolysis generator is very inefficient process concerning energy to splitting ratio.

To prevent too much heating, increase the face area of the electrodes and decrease the amount of electrolytes in the solution. That way, the current needed in the system is decreased.

What happens to the oxygen once it leaves the bubbler?

Oxygen goes out with hydrogen to the combustion process and probably recombines with hydrogen during oxidation.

Bit of a question, would it be possible to store a standard pressurised form of tank for slow release at a later stage, say instead of using LPG for a BBQ, or as a replacement for the gas system for hot water heating?

Just ideas at the moment, i'm not a gas-fitter or scientist...

Also, an inversion topic, would a hydrogen fuel cell be able to power say, this device, or would the metals corrode too fast to be viable?

A still for making distilled water is not a problem.

john.sansbury8 months ago

Is there a reason you are using stainless steel plates as opposed to aluminum? While both are resistant to oxidation I would think aluminum would be better as it is going to remain submerged in the water.

I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I was experimenting myself with different materials, aluminum included. The process is technically and electrolysis.aluminum seemed to me to transfer electrolize easier or more readily than stainless steel did. Electrolysis literally removes an atom from one plate and places it on the surface of the next plate. I tried combinations of different plates, as in using aluminum on the cathode and stainless on the anode, vice versa. Also lead and copper we're tried. Stainless seemed to be the most stable.

The process generates heat, and all metals will distort to some degree from heat. Stainless seemed to be rather stable in this as well.one thing to consider, because of the close proximity of plates is too maybe use an intrinsic insulator between the plates. This obviously needs to be porous, and the best thing I have found is, oddly as it sounds, tulle from the fabric and sewing stores. the thicker the plate, the more stable it will be also.

I'll also comment on oxidation. Aluminum itself is very reactive and does oxidize quite readily. Life experience and work as a welder and show me this. consider a roll of aluminum foil in the kitchen. As you roll it out you will notice a thin charcoal grey film. That is oxidation well simply sitting in the box not in the water. Stainless does not develop this as rapidly.it was called stainless steel for a reason, it is not as reactive.

one more thing to consider is that acidity is measured by counting free hydrogen.the more free hydrogen available in an environment the more acidic it is. Aluminum is highly reactive to acid.
very nice project
temp_277489978.jpg
ahirdstudent8 months ago
Could you set up a system with this that would supply the gas for cooking and not water in the home?
Oops HOT water..
sai swaroops8 months ago

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.

caimartin9 months ago

Can lye be used as koh

let me correct what I said. Lye cannot be used as KOH but it can be used instead of KOH. Lye's chemical compound is NaOH. They are both strong electrolytes and Alkali Salts. You could also use table salt (NaCl) or any other strong electrolyte though if you use table salt you will also create Chlorine Gas which is dangerous so I would not suggest that.

Yes

Dill pickles9 months ago
Will this machine work on its side

No, the air will not reach the tue and water would be pumped through instead.

Ok thxs that makes perfect sense
caimartin9 months ago

can you provide a shopping cart for these items

MikeB159 months ago

Could humans use Hydrogen gas as an alternative fuel source in the future?

wangg9 months ago

Bruh

galihpa19 months ago

What kind of problem might I encounter if I use this project on my motorcycle? I was thinking of getting rid of gasoline and replace it with water since the prices of gasoline in my country just went way up. Please kindly answer my question.

ethan.allred29 months ago
These generators are not used for converting engines to hydrogen. They generate hydrogen using the excess electricity of the cars battery and alternator, and feed the hydrogen directly to the air intake, creating a hybrid engine. Increased MPG is what we want.
moxmox9 months ago

Hi there,
Thanks for this great tutorial!
I have one question. You talk about the voltage applied to the system but you didn't refer the total current drain. Did you measured it? I think that although the voltage is an important parameter, the current is a more relevant one.

If you're having a high current passing over the system, this means that you are transmitting more energy than the system really needs to an efficient electrolysis and that drives you to extreme heating and thus, energy loss by heat.
I'm taking in serious consideration the built of a generator like yours.
Your answer will help me determine if i'll do it like you or with a different design.
Thanks!

H2evolution10 months ago

Pepsi,intel uses this tech to save fuel, you can install them to your car too

intel hho.jpghqdefault.jpg
AngelT110 months ago

This is a neat design and I know what's being demonstrated is an Oxy Hydrogen here Generator. With a couple of modifications one could generate almost pure hydrogen and get rid of the Oxygen . I am intrigued with someone's comment on using a PWM based power supply. I really like that great idea. Sounds like a win win. A bit of thinking would be needed to keep it from exploding with prolonged use however, the price of experimentation. Definitely worth a try.

RolanC11 months ago

just a few shot in the dark questions, wouldn't magnets help seperate the particles since they are ionic in nature. but regardless of that, storing the gas would be a terrible idea enough said on that. secondly would changing the plates into two cork screw shapes one inside the other both of them without touching each other help in the conversion process? thirdly could the geet system be used with the hho generator? also how about recapturing the released water? consider if u buy ten gallons of water and just keep reusing it wouldn't the cost eventually be a profit? also some other curious thoughts to ponder. the capacitor idea, can it be charged using solar power. then u could use the entire surface to directly charge the capacitor during the day. also some other thoughts, what about using that sterling motor to help the performance? ideally set it in the exhaust system and use it to help generate electical energy. or how about a turbine in the exhaust system to help recapture some of that energy since it is free energy.there are a few other questions to be had mind u. for instance what about a few wind turbines integrated in the car to help collect more free energy? also does the water come out hot after it has been rebonded? and is there anyway to tie this back into your power grid at home , i.e. i would love to flip my electrical meter back and have my power company pay me for producing energy. see i have this idea of using solar panels with this HHO generator to produce energy during the day and at night turn it off. so any energy i dont use just gets plugged back into the power grid and flips my meter.

saran.moule12 months ago

could u lend me this for 3 days i will give u 82.69 $ i am doin it for a fair plssssss

though the water is a renewable resource, the iron/steel used is an oxidizing metal, meaning it will eventually rust to nothing. using other similar superconductors like copper will result in the same. Stainless steel will even corrode over time, though not as quickly... Gold or titanium, though more expensive, are better choices and will last indefinitely. consider a gold plated metal so that you may maintain a high conductive surface area

aasylum1 year ago

hey i would like help on this where did you get your plastic/acrylic tubes?

Have you considered using a Pulse Width Modulated power source as opposed to a car battery? Supposedly the heat you got in your 24v test is a result of inefficiencies and too much current being turned to heat instead of gas. PWM allows the water to stay cooler with higher voltages by pulsing the voltage instead of a continuous flow. It's worth a shot.

selectum21 year ago
Could I get a complete list of the parts and there sizes and dimensions please?

Reading over the comments here, many questions...sodium or potassium hydroxide can be ordered from Duda Diesel, 1lb or more. I've seen a unit to power a car, roughly 100-6x6 inch plates in a 1" thick plexaglass box with a 12v to 110 inverter supply for power. Urine for electrolyte produces hydrogen only. Hydrogen can be stored in a sintered titanium/iron mix at low pressure and density as great as liquid, Mercedes busses in germany were hydrogen powered and used this storage method.

Hi Gerry! Please tell me more about Urine as an electrolyte! What ratio? And you say an "inverter" as in 12DC to 110 AC? surely you meant "transformer"?

Peace to you and your's, Glenn.

I found the 'Urine' converter in a new's report about 3 African girls who had built a system from a couple of bottles and were using their urine to run a generator and a university study/report that said the voltage required was lower. There are "P" power systems on you tube. The 100+ plate system is built by a man named Boyce and the output of the inverter drives mosfet oscillators at 3 different frequencies feeding a toroid transformer. His system produces 50-100 liters per minute of HHO.

abrown392 years ago
so I have a question, just the inner 2 and outer 2 plates are connected to power? the outer 2 being connected electrically by the bottom "bracket" and the 2 inner being connected by the nuts correct? And then the remaining 4 plates are neutral being separated from direct current by the plastic washers? if you could explain that a little more that would be a huge help. or if my assumptions are correct a simple yes will do.

Hey abrown39, did you ever get an answer?

krash abrown392 years ago
I have been wondering the same thing.
krash krash2 years ago
Just found this. Here's our answer! http://hho4free.com/neutral_plates.htm

instead of a vapor gasoline:air mixture and igniting, you would use the
gas instead of gasoline hence cars that run off of water

Fastaco2261 year ago

How were you able to keep the gas in an open water bottle, without it escaping?

it would have come out eventually, he just used it quick enough before it have flowed out

hello, good item ,butt were did the video go. now that's unfair and sign up now usd$ 39.99 one time paypment , that if I pay this payment is the only one time/ of payment I will ever pay is right. p/s I would like to pay the one time payment of usd$39.99, butt im afraid to, just there mite be hiden charges by a unknowen third party. please return the video? not fair to any one. thankyou.

F5UW86QHAQ35M10_MEDIUM.jpg
You can also use salt or baking powder but they can dirty the electrodes.
hnilsson1 year ago
The video is gone
oraddad1 year ago

cool

Hi im kinda noob in this, so i have to ask: When you put electricity into water, the hydrogen atom get extracted drom the water? (2 hydrogen atom) On school we used hydrochloric acid and zink dust.

Water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Thus, it is known as H2O. When you apply an electric current, it splits it into 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. This creates the gas you see.

chubby81 year ago
apparently.... "Stainless steel contains chromium and thus the chromium is consumed, and you end up with poisonous chromates in your electrolyte. Dumping these on the ground or down the drain is illegal. The compounds can cause severe skin problems and ultimately, cancer. Hexavalent chromate is poisonous.
Does your electrolyte turn yellow? That's a sign of chromates.
Best bet - don't use stainless steel no matter how tempting it is."

It seems that carbon rods such as the graphite found in pencils may work well since it is harmless and is conductive.

though it is tempting..... and electrolysis is awesome.
adesmarais1 year ago
Hello.
I'm am not fully educated in electical lingo, but I am just wondering how you would make this model, produce sufficient fule to increase mpg, and reduce amprage as to not fry my electrical source.

Increase voltage if you cannot increase the amps.

I love this, very professional looking. I hope I can make one soon.

gazumpglue1 year ago

yes but needs to be a little bigger, need to be hooked up correctly

chimplost1 year ago

How much did this cost to make?

yes but needs to be a little bigger, need to be hooked up correctly
lewster2 years ago
Hi,
This looks like a really awesome Instructable, I can't wait to make my own. My only problem is that I can't really obtain any potassium hydroxide, and I don't know where I could. Can anyone point me to another catalyst that works, or where to obtain potassium hydroxide? Thanks,
~Lewster
you can use baking soda or salt dissolved in the water to increase conductivity
Thanks!
can you please tell me which bold size
sorry, don't use salt or it will produce chlorine gas
Aaand now I'm glad that I haven't got around to doing this yet.. Many thanks!
u can also use battery water (sulfuric acid)
thaliks1 year ago
please answer me steel nuts and bolds size
thaliks1 year ago
can you please tell me which bold size
Hey couldn't I use aluminum instead of stainless steal its more conductive and doesn't have chromium and is pretty corrosion resistant
Jedeyez1 year ago
A hho generator is very simalar to a battery lead acid battery cell when over charged. they maintain 2volts and when given 3-5 they begin electrolysis. hence test your electrolite's resistance (witch is your final limmitation of power consumption)start with distilled adding concentrated baking soda solution in steps measuring as you add. idealy (i have found) 3-5volts will overload your hho cell @ 30-40amps and give you maximum efficency and maxim production also. rember the continuity you found to make this work best so it can be repriduced.
though it is tempting..... and electrolysis is awesome.
h3manth1 year ago
Can you connect this to AC?
pg1315 h3manth1 year ago
this can be done using a simple AC to DC converter (AKA a dc power supply)