How an HHO generator works and helps you save gas

An HHO or Brown gas generator is an interesting and often misunderstood technology.
The Brown gas generator uses electrolysis to split water (H2O) into it´s base molecules, 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen molecule.
This is why it is often referred to as an HHO gas generator.The HHO in itself is not an alternative to gasoline but a additive
to boost the efficiency of the engine. Gasoline engines are unfortunately not burning gasoline to its full potential. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
The average gasoline engine in a car is about 18% to 20% efficient. That leaves a lot of room for improvement and Brown gas is one good way of improving the efficiency. The reason for this is simple, the hydrogen is highly flammable much more so than gasoline so when your engine ignites the hydrogen the explosion ignites the gasoline with much better results (cleaner, less waste and fewer emissions) than it would otherwise have done.

Some basics the burn speed of hydrogen is 0.098 to 0.197 ft/min (3 to 6 cm/min) compared
gasoline´s 0.00656 to 0.0295 ft/min (0.2 to 0.9 cm/min).

The hydrogen explosion is so fast that it fills the combustion cylinder at least 3 times faster then the gasoline explosion and subsequent ignites the gasoline from all directions  (it is like putting flue on a fire), instead of just a spark in one end of the combustion cylinder, and we would like to do that because the gasoline only has a short time in the combustion cylinder and if its not fully burnt in that short amount of time then it just goes out the exhaust and is lost.It is also preferable to ignite all of the gasoline when it is under maximum compression in combustion cylinder to get the maximum amount of energy out of it (this is a small time window),whonce the piston starts going down the energy transfer from the explosion to the engine becomes less efficient.

The hydrogen´s higher burn temperature and explosive force is such that it cleans the soot that collects in the engine (it is like having the engine consistent maintains) and with a cleaner engine you get better mileage and fewer oil changes .

Step 1: Tools and main components


Glue gun
Drill and bits
Metal saw
Soldering iron
wire crimp
wire cutters


HHO Generator
Pulse width modulator (PWM)
Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer (EFIE)
Electric wires
Air connector
On/Off switch
Cable connectors
One way air valve
Piece of sheet metal
Peace of rubber

<p>&quot;Accepted&quot; ideas of fuel and energy - not to mention commonly believed &quot;laws&quot; of physics - are based on a physical model of reality that doesn't exist. And the bizarre thing about people's beliefs IN such things is that they KNOW that. They KNOW they don't KNOW and they fight ANYway. They compartmentalize information as if there are &quot;worlds like that&quot; and &quot;worlds like this&quot; that have nothing to do with one another. They believe that, sub-atomically, things happen randomly and chaotically despite the fact that trillions of mammals have hearts and eyes and not just for random moments of things falling into position and circling one another - chaos can't DO that. </p><p>Your own body transmutes a huge variety of atomic structures into all kinds of OTHER atomic structures. And it does that at a temperature of around 98.6 degrees, all day, EVERYday. </p><p>Discoveries aren't made about things we know. When we &quot;know&quot; something, we've STOPPED exploring it - we've killed our potential for discovery. We've stopped considering it and labeled all of the &quot;exceptions to the rules&quot; as anomalies and declared what we think we know is &quot;right&quot;, but it isn't. IT CANNOT BE. We cannot see, smell, feel, hear or taste enough to be &quot;right&quot;. It isn't possible. ALL we can do is explore and TO explore and to make DISCOVERIES requires a MORATORIUM on &quot;knowledge&quot;.</p><p>People crack me up. They fight about things they don't believe and they trash one another for brownie points - in hopes they will be perceived as &quot;knowing&quot; - as if &quot;knowing&quot; is a GOOD thing - as if it's logical, ROFL! It's insane!</p><p>If you're an explorer...and this is a piece of advice so, take it or not, it's your choice...if you're an explorer, then logic says that there is zero reason to give critics even one moment of your attention. ZERO. They're irrelevant. There is no need to try to explain anything to them or convince them, there is no need to answer to them and there is no need to worry about what they think because what &quot;knowers&quot; think is of no USE to an explorer, whatsoever, so go forth and explore and discover and try to avoid blowing up the garage!</p>
I always love the rebuttals on these brown's gas generators, which are just electrolysis machines. Do they work? Of course they do. Do they provide something for free? of course they don't. But 10 to 20 amps of current draw is nothing your alternater isn't designed to handle. I mean no ones complaining about their stereo lowering their MPG are they? That's a 15 amps circuit.<br>All this machine is, is a battery in reverse. It unlocks the the chemicals in the water molecule, hydrogen a fuel, and oxygen, and oxidizer. These machines can be built using stuff just laying around a normal house.<br>The PWM is used to control the O2 sensors input now that the system would be passing excess O2 through the exhaust. Otherwise it will tell the engine management that the car is running lean, and it will enrich fuel air mixture.<br>The knee jerk reaction comes from people as they don't like finding out that we are all being robbed blind by the government, and the gas companies. Which of course we are. The 2007/8 gas price hike was nothing more than a move of greed by OPEAC (OPEC).<br>Simply put even the mythbusters, fobbed this test. When they tested this, no doubt, due to the fact it would be a bad idea for the unskilled to be building hydrogen bombs in their garages.<br>Does it make your engine get better mileage? I dont know. Ive built one, but Ive not connected it to an engine of any type to see if it would produce any benefit.<br>Does it produce flammable gas? yes. scarily so!<br>OK next, electrodes.<br>Electrodes should not be made from stainless steel, nor any other metal containing chromium. To do so releases Hexavalent Chromates into the solution, resulting in a very hazardous cancer causing liquid that can poison the water table. (see the Erin Brockovich movie)<br>To build a proper generator a lot of thought, planning and research must be performed. In the end, it may help some as many have claimed in the gas tank. But this is not a build for the part time wrench turner. You need to know your equipment, the process of how the machine works, and how your car will handle its use.<br>People have spent years working on a way to make these machine produce gas reliably, and at a high enough volume to make a real difference. Right now its not a feasible option as an augmented fuel source in cars to have the mass production companies look at it realistically. Then you have the population whom dont want more complication in their cars by adding a second fuel source, they want simple quick, and reliable. Having two tanks of fuel to fill, especially with one that requires you to mix chemicals would turn off a lot of people just for the hassle of it.<br><br>Just my 2 cents.<br>
<strong>That's </strong>the spirit!
on some other comments below. Does it take alot of energy to release hydrogen? no. as little as 6vdc and a few amps will release hydrogen and oxygen. Now to correct another its not called hho for fun. Its hydrogen x2 and one oxygen, or O. not H2 and O2. If it were that would be hydrogen peroxide. LOL<br><br>And as far as energy goes. Its in what were releasing. Hydrogen is very powerful. And its THE most abundant fuel source. So it make perfect sense to use it. as our methods to extract it become more efficient its use will become more prevalent. <br>The reason I would presume its not being used as a primary fuel source yet, it no one would make money off of it. honestly ask your self, would would profit from it, and you have your answer as to why its not being researched!
The reason that it isn't used as a primary fuel source is that it isn't a fuel source at all. A fuel is something that takes less energy to create than it yields. <br><br>Gasoline passes that test easily. Hydrogen does not.
Solar and wind are free. Furthermore there is plenty of power sent straight to ground on all cars with proper charge systems. It makes perfect sense to make use of the otherwise &quot;waste energy&quot; created by your alternator.
According to Webster, a fuel is <br>&quot;a material used to produce heat or power by burning&quot; <br> <br>If something yielded more energy than it took to create, that would break the laws of physics (namely the first law of thermodynamics). <br> <br>The thing with fossil fuels is, the ground work was done millions of years ago, but the energy was still put in there. It just takes us less energy to EXTRACT it from the ground. We get about 3 times more energy than we put in for petrol. <br> <br>With hydrogen as a fuel, you have to create it, not just extract it, so you have to put in the initial energy.
Thank you for doing such a fine job of proving my point. <br> <br>BTW, I'm pretty sure that's the second law of thermodynamics.
ha interesting, looks like it breaks a couple of laws. <br> <br>I was taking it as &quot;energy can be neither created nor destroyed&quot; therefore, where did the extra energy come from in the reaction, if you didn't create any. <br> <br>But it also works with &quot;the entropy of a system always increases&quot; i.e. you can't end up with more energy in a system than you started with. <br> <br>Either way, perpetual motion is impossible (though that's on the list of things to do)
oh, wait! I'm not proving your point i'm trying to point out flaws in your argument! XD <br> <br>Your definition of 'fuel' breaks both those laws. So hydrogen is a fuel because it fits under webster's definition of 'something used to produce heat or power by burning' <br> <br>And it's not going to cause bad things to our planet if produced using green electricity because all its energy comes from energy that is here now. Using fossil fuels get energy that was taken out of our system millions of years ago and releases it, warming our system and increasing entropy
Baloney! My definition of &quot;fuel&quot; breaks NEITHER law. For instance, oil takes less energy to extract from the ground than the oil produces when you consume it. How it got to be that way, and how that is different than hydrogen &quot;fuel&quot;, is irrelevant. <br> <br>Your &quot;green energy&quot; malarkey is simply an ad hoc logical fallacy.
Well then you need to change your terminology. You said petrol takes less energy to CREATE than it produces. That is physically impossible. Taking less energy to EXTRACT is a completely different matter, and quite an important point in this argument, so please be careful which words you use. Especially if you're trying to say 'create' and 'extract' are synonyms, which they're not. <br> <br>'How it got to be that way' is extremely relevant. It is the whole basis of the green fuel vs. fossil fuel argument. How it got to be that way: <br>It took ~60-100 years of sunlight to grow a tree or animal (feeding off trees), then it took millions of years and a whole lot of geological pressure to turn that into oil. That is a huge amount of energy stored in the oil, and a huge amount of energy which has been locked away, out of our system, for a very long time. During which time the Earth developed to live without it. When you release all that energy back into the system in 50-100 years, the system can't take it and you screw things up. Hydrogen fuel is created on the spot, using energy (hopefully from the sun or wind or water) which is in the system now. It is used again days or years (but not millennia) later, releasing the energy back into the system. <br> <br>Please elaborate. Don't just say &quot;green energy is a logical fallacy&quot;, please give some examples and counter arguments.
error in the text about the PWM, I meant EEIE.
I'm pretty sure the additional electricity your alternator has to provide to generate the hydrogen outweighs the additional efficiency provided (a.k.a. perpetual motion). Throw some large solar panels on the top of your car/truck to power the HHO generator exclusively and then you might have something.
You couldn't be more wrong. There is a lot of unused power generated by the alternator that simply gets sent to ground once 14.4v is achieved with the use of a properly tuned system one can make use of the otherwise &quot;waste energy&quot; for hho creation. Additional power will be created by the more complete burn of the already existing fuel in the combustion chamber. The use of a pwm (pulse with modulator) is ideal for such tuning. EFIE is used to resist the signal coming from the oxygen sensor. The oxygen sensor sees the additional oxygen (the &quot;o&quot; in your hho) and reacts by asking for more fuel.
So u say that electrolysis of water takes up more energy than hydrogen explosions?<br>Hydrogen burning=Chemical energy harvested<br>Hydrogen separating=bonding energy destroyed<br>I know u are applying conservation of energy.<br>But the energy liberated after burning H was not the energy provided by electrolysis.It is chemical energy,it was already there.
Bond energy IS chemical energy. Breaking the bonds in water molecules requires exactly the same amount as is released when those same bonds form in an explosion. wikipedia enthalpy if you would like to know more.<br>The problem is though, that alternators are not 100% efficient, and nor is the electrolysis process, due to electrical resistance. Therefore, it takes more energy to split the water you get back from the combustion.<br>HOWEVER<br>To my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but using HHO as a fuel additive isn't as simple as getting only as much energy as the HHO provides, but I think it actually improves the efficiency of the petrol combustion, so you would end up getting more out of your engine despite working the alternator extra hard.<br>Can someone confirm this?
<p>Yes... I have tried a locally made fuel saving device which produces HHO, has given me an additional mileage of 30% in city and more than 50% on long drive in my 2 wheeler. I am from Mumbai, India.</p>
During electrolysis,H20 separates,so molecular bonds are broken.<br>during HYRDROGEN explosion,I don't know the actual REACTION EQUATION.So I maybe wrong there.But understanding the amount of energy evolved in a hydrogen gas explosion I don't really think it is supplied by the battery.
Sorry I didn't really understand your response, but am I right in thinking you meant to say:<br> &quot;Electrolysis supplies energy to breaks molecular bonds. Hydrogen gas explosions release a lot of&nbsp;energy, which was not originally put in by the battery&quot;.<br> If that's what you meant, then this is my reply:<br> <br> The equation for electrolysis of water is as follows<br> 2H<sub>2</sub>O&nbsp;+ energy =&gt; 2H<sub>2</sub> + O<sub>2</sub><br> <br> The equation for combustion of hydrogen is thus<br> 2H<sub>2</sub> + O<sub>2</sub> =&gt; 2H<sub>2</sub>O + energy<br> <br> It's the exact reverse.&nbsp;Hydrolysis&nbsp;is just a backwards explosion.<br> If you don't believe me there, here's something to ponder...<br> <br> The first law of thermodynamics states that &quot;energy can be neither created nor destroyed&quot;<br> This means that the total energy of the system, in all its forms, must be equal both before and after a reaction. So...<br> If the system has x amount of energy, provided by the battery to&nbsp;electrolyse&nbsp;the water, where does the extra energy come from which is released by the hydrogen explosion?<br> The energy has to be in there originally, to be released, so according to your explanation, if you electrolyse water, then combust the hydrogen, electrolyse that same water and repeat 100 times, then the hydrogen would eventually run out of energy because electrolysis doesn't put back in as much as combustion releases...<br>
All you say is right,provided the explosion reaction reaction of hydrogen is the same as you have written.I don't know,though that's logically right(the reaction).<br>So,yes if thats right then the combustion helps in the fuel burning properly.<br>:P Thanks :P
Yeah he's got a rather poorly designed pseudo electric car. Forget the fact that even with a pretty good energy source thees devices can't produce that much gas/minute. producing the same amount of force from thees it take 3 times the mass of water then gasoline. You rarely see one of thees devices with more than a few gallons of water. And again is you have the perfect device at the theoretical best efficiency 94% (best devices ever made are in the range of 70%, I've not tested this device but a device in a lab under perfect conditions are working at 70% this ain't even close.)
For every gallon of water you can get 4707 litres of H2, thats at atmospheric pressure and freezing point. So, it would seem on the face of it that H2 production by electrolysis is worthwhile. I agree the main problem is producing enough to properly suppliment your current fuel, but this talk of inefficiencies and costing more to produce than it delivers is hogwash. The weight of an H2 generator is under 10kg fully loaded. The H2 generated will improve combustion, reduce emmissions and should save money long term. Thats 3 positive benefits. &quot;There are none so blind as those who will not see&quot;
<p>Flat out no it doesn't. Messing with the O2 sensor changes compression increases pollution and damages the vehicle. Adding the trickle of brown gas does just about nothing either way. Don't trust me. Look up tests where the system is turned on and off without messing with the O2 censor. Hell do it yourself. Efficiency increases when the brown gas generator is off.</p>
3 ways to easily bypass the O2 sensors, remove them, remove the cat(s or fool the ecu into thinking your not running too lean. If you take off the cat(s) you gain a much free'r flowing exhaust. If you then are able to produce sufficient hydrogen to effect efficient combustion then you will have a cleaner burning more efficient SI/CI engine. Just bypassing or removing the O2 sensors wont have a detrimental effect on the engine, it will have a detrimental effect on the cat(s), so best to remove them.
<p>&quot;Here's what's really been happening. I've been working with NBC's Dateline to debunk the whole hydrogen-on-demand industry. The show's producer bought a car, an ordinary five-year old Honda Accord, to perform our tests. I checked the car over to make sure it was up to spec. Then we did some over-the-road and steady-state dynamometer testing to establish base-line fuel economy numbers. NBC followed my testing up with additional testing at an EPA-certified emissions lab, which wasn't cheap. The lab used its climate-controlled emissions dyno to establish fuel economy numbers in our Accord with the same protocols the EPA uses to generate the numbers on the window sticker of new cars. They're accurate and reproducible to well under 1 percent.</p><p>Then we took the car to a specialist who installed, for nearly $1900(!), a hydrogen generator and a system of other enhancements. There was a fuel heater, fuel-line magnets (which I debunked <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=2" rel="nofollow">here</a>), and several inscrutable boxes full of electronics designed to fool the car's computer into using less fuel. There was even a bottle of acetone to add to the fuel. (This is something that I've mentioned doesn't work <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_clinic/3593711.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_clinic/4237073.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). The specialist guaranteed major improvements in fuel consumption. One week and nearly two grand later, the producer from NBC (who still hadn't identified himself as anyone except a guy who was tired of spending $50 to fill up his tank) picked up the car. He got a gas receipt proving the installer had seen 96 mpg, nearly triple the original economy.</p><p>We took the car straight back to that same EPA lab for another round of testing. It was followed shortly by a week's worth of road testing, dyno testing and general poking about to see what we could discover.</p><p>You can guess, right? The total improvement in fuel economy after $1800 plus of expenditure? Bupkis. Too small to measure. Nada. In fact, if you look at the EPA tests with the system switched on and then off, there's a tiny <em>increase</em> in fuel consumption when the system is turned on. I attribute this to the 15 amps or so of current the electrolysis cell consumes to produce hydrogen. That current uses horsepower to spin the generator, and that consumes gasoline. The hydrogen &quot;boost&quot; couldn't even compensate for its own losses.</p><p>And that is exactly what I've been saying for years. These systems don't work. But don't take my word for it, check out <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29899191/" rel="nofollow">Dateline's coverage</a> and then judge for yourself.&quot;</p><p>http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a3983/4310717/</p>
<strong>That's </strong>the spirit!
Actually, modern day alternators are designed in such a way with such thick windings that the average auto owner will never use more than 50% or 60% of the what the alternator is capable of producing. That includes when you have all your lights on and every accessory in the vehicle going simultaneously. Auto makers have put over sized alternators in their vehicles(at least the domestics) since the mid to late 80s. Which consequently is about when they started EFI (Electronic Fuel Injection) as a standard, which an HHO application would require to have any effect anyway. The alternators used in modern vehicle's use electro magnets and voltage regulators in order to be able to restrain the alternators way back as to not over charge the system. Your HHO generator would have to be putting quite a draw to really have much, if any, effect on your engine or fuel consumption. <br><br>Long and short, your analysis isn't INCORRECT entirely. There are clearly some variables to be considered in each case. However your line of thinking is more in line with the generators they used to put in vehicles in the 60s and earlier, which had permanent magnets and were affected by every extra voltage draw as opposed to the alternators of today with electro magnets. <br><br>Please excuse my rant, I'm by far no chemical expert, I'm just starting my research on HHO generators in automotive applications. I do however know cars and quite a bit about generators and building them, so I just wanted to throw my 2-cents in. Thanks, this rant was fun!
<p>Darkstar is correct, even though an alternator is capable of producing more than what the vehicle needs to run the electronics. It is only generating what is required. There isn't 100 amps of current being generated and simply waiting to get used. As you increase energy demands the magnetic field inside the alternator gets stronger, the engine uses more fuel to overcome the stronger field and in return outputs more energy to meet the demands of the system. The question at hand is, if you have a system that is running at 30A and you add an hho generator that wants and additional 10A. How much more fuel do you have to burn to overcome the additonal load? And how does that compare to the efficiency the hho adds to the combustion process?</p>
<p>Right on the head for the solar panels! Since the govenrment charges us for the water, maybe someday they might charge us for the solar rays we harvest! LOL!</p>
<p>So you make hydrogen from battery power which is generated by the alternator driven by your motor which is supplied by fuel? So you use more fuel to add some hydrogen to the fuel?</p>
No the car is started off of regular fuel the battery is already receiving enough energy from the alternator so the energy the energy that's being robbed is barely noticeable when the pressure in the hydrogen cell gets high enough the hydrogen fuel goes in through the air intake so when the engine opens to basically inhale air it pulls some hydrogen in too so the car isn't trying to do anything more than it was already doing the difference is is that the car won't have to use as much fuel in the combustion chamber to move the piston down it will use a smaller amount to receive the same input so imagine if this is how it was broken down.<br><br>Only an example not real values from an experiment<br>(1unit of gas + 1 unit of oxygen + spark= 2 units of power <br><br>With the hydrogen cell it'll be like this <br><br>1/2 unit of gas + 1/2 unit of hydrogen + 1 unit of oxygen + spark= 2 units of power)<br><br>In the end you received the same output power with less fuel input and we all know it's cheaper to put water in the tank than it'd be to put gas so the savings would be outstanding. Use this in your daily driver to save gas.<br>
<p>Tip: Attach water hose because it will consume some</p>
<p>I think some of the arguments of how HHO cannot work have <br>some validity, however, in real life, are not exactly accurate, let me try to <br>explain.</p><p>The argument I have the most trouble reconciling is the <br>power consumption of the HHO generator. Let's <br>use headlights as an example; my 79 Dodge has 4 Halogen headlights if I use the <br>high beams (65 watts each) It should be pulling about 20 amps. In order to keep the math simple let&rsquo;s call <br>it 60 watts each 60x4/12=20.I have <br>never heard anyone complain about their mileage dropping because they had their <br>headlights on. Have you?</p><p>Most of the demonstrations for HHO generators are running at <br>less than 10 amps and are producing more than a liter per minute.For ease of math let&rsquo;s say it&rsquo;s a quart. A quart is slightly less than as liter.</p><p>Another argument I have some problems with is that you <br>cannot produce enough HHO for it to improve fuel economy. For a car getting 40 miles per gallon at 60 <br>miles an hour (1 mile per minute), it is using 1/40 of a gallon of gas per <br>minute (or 1/10th of a quart).If we are pumping in a whole quart of a highly volatile fuel into the <br>engine, I could see how it could help with mileage. My understanding is that HHO has about 3.9 <br>times the energy as the same amount of gas.</p><p>The O2 sensor is an easy one, let&rsquo;s experiment on carbureted <br>vehicles. This also allows us to retard <br>the timing to accommodate the quicker burn rate of the HHO.</p><p>Yes I look at things differently, I&rsquo;m probably nuts, and don&rsquo;t <br>know if my logic is reasonable or not. I <br>don&rsquo;t know if it will work, but that doesn&rsquo;t mean we shouldn&rsquo;t try. A friend of mine frequently says &ldquo;people who <br>say it can&rsquo;t be done, should get out of the way of those who are actually doing <br>it&rdquo;.</p>
Say all this is true, burns hotter... you'd rune your engine up! Running rich will gunk up your engine but at least it can be cleaned out, running lean with burn up your engine. Running lean is more efficient, more complete burn, hotter burn and you'll pay the price by reducing the engines life.
<p>People..if you are going to do electrolysis please be aware of the DANGERS in using STAINLESS STEEL for your electrode and cathode...do to the plating process that makes stainless steel, stainless steel using this metal in electrolysis creates the production of <b>Hexavalent chromium</b> (chromium(VI), Cr(VI)) please see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexavalent_chromium" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexavalent_chromium</a> for more info and the health risks. It is best to use TITANIUM for the electrode and cathode although titanium is not cheap compared to S.S but much safer to use and produces a much higher grade HHO gas if that is what your going for</p>
<p>I think that Tungsten will be even better, and it does not react with Hydrogen like other metals.</p>
<p>Other metals don't cause steel to rust (oxidize).... oxygen does... And you're producing a whole lot of it when you perform electrolysis of water. </p><p>Also, tap water has plenty of electrolytes in it. The only reason tap water conducts any electricity at all, is because of the electrolytes. Pure water doesn't conduct electricity whatsoever, so buying bottled water just to add electrolytes to it, just seems wasteful when you could have used free, electrolyte-filled tap water.</p>
<p>Only problem with tap water is that there is no control on the amount of electrolytes in it, that's the reason why it is recommended to use DI or de-mineralized water and add an electrolyte (typically Sodium or Potassium hydroxide) to it in a controlled manner.</p>
<p>Stainless steel is required in the plates and any other part, (or non-corrosive material such as glass, plastic, etc) exposed to the process.<br><br>It the picture it appears that the container is stainless steel and the plates are also. <br><br>Second, You would not want to you tap water in some parts as it contains chlorine. Chlorine is a very deadly gas and this a another reason you do not want to use table salt, as it will produce Chloride gas also. <br>So it is much safer to use pure water. </p>
<p>Good day,. is it possible to run a gasoline type engine with only hydrogen from water through electrolysis? if so, what would be the effect on the engine parts? thanks you and God bless.</p>
<p>Is it possible? Absolutely, if we eliminate the bottlenecks. However, the technology to produce that much HHO through electrolysis does not exist. Essentially, your bottleneck is in the alternator. If you're applying 12 volts at 100 amps, as is standard in most alternators, you'll never be able to generate enough HHO to power the engine by itself. You could add more alternators in series along the drive train, but that's going to be stolen from the power output to the wheels. This is why HHO works as a supplemental fuel to increase the efficiency of a gasoline / diesel fuel system, but not as the primary / only fuel for the engine. That being said, if we could find a way to output 100 volts and 1000 amps (guestimates, I haven't done the math because this isn't possible with current technology that I'm aware of) from a super-efficient alternator that could power a standard 15 gallon fuel cell sized HHO cell, this could absolutely work, but as it stands, that does not exist.</p>
<p> <br> <br>Very good points <br> you wrote here..Great stuff...I think you've made some truly interesting <br> points.Keep up the good work.</p><p><a href="http://www.monacopropertylistings.com" rel="nofollow">Monaco</a></p>
<p>My thoughts are this,</p><p>I am absolutely positive that it does increase efficiency but I read most of the post and think it is altogether different reason than what is being discussed.. </p><p>What do you get when you burn the (H2 + O)? Water again.. .or water vapor, as it is too hot from the reaction.. but anyway.. most cars and combustion engines thrive on water injection.. I think that this is just a very efficient (insomuch as how it reacts in the combustion chamber) way of delivering water injection into the engine. </p><p>Many many articles have been written on the advantages of water injection.. </p><p>What do you think? </p><p>Bdd</p>
<p>Thank you and God Bles</p>
<p>Angelo Morgado invented the M.Y.T. (Massive Yet Tiny) Engine which has a much higher efficiency rating than the I.C.E. (Internal Combustion Engine). Moreover there are many other alternative energy systems... Earth Electron Captors, the N-Machine, Electrostatics (Methernitha Machine), Thorium Molten Salt reactors, bead bed reactors, toroidal electron vortex generators, and many others. Many of these Inventions have been proven to work and have already been awarded patents.</p><p>The problem with devices like these lies primarily within a flaw in the capitalistic system that we operate within. When an infrastructure has been established that in itself constitutes a large portion of the fiscal and employment market any system that opposes or threatens the stability of said infrastructure is often opposed with vigorous zeal. A good example is how it took the educational infrastructure over 25 years to make textbook changes that supported quantum theory despite the fact that many theories put forth by quantum physicist had already been proven through laboratory observations. Hell... If you read textbooks today they still tell kids in school that Christopher Columbus discovered America. Read the book America B.C. and you will find that many cultures and societies lived in and discovered the Americas long before Columbus. <br></p>
<p>I don't reply to posts much but I'm going to on this one. I'm an absolute technophile; I love technology, new ideas, new machines, etc. Additionally, I do feel that our society has a &quot;momentum&quot; that inhibits the adoption of new ideas at times. Don't label me as a &quot;hater&quot; or a general &quot;naysayer&quot; though as that is simply not true. I WANT these things to exist and work, but the reality is often very far from that and so I'm forced to be a bit skeptical until there is real proof. </p><p>I'm going to pick on the MYT in particular as it is most clearly debunked - just look at the &quot;technical issues and claims&quot; section here:<br><a href="http://revolution-green.com/raphial-morgado-myt-engine-trick-treat/" rel="nofollow">http://revolution-green.com/raphial-morgado-myt-en...</a></p><p>It's not even a unique idea - it was kicked around clear back in the 1800s and then again in WW2:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing-piston_engine" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing-piston_engine</a></p><p>If it worked as well as he keeps touting, he'd just build a version running properly on actual fuel and let people see it. He says he has done that and then converted it to air but now is converting it back to fuel. Sounds fishy to me. If it worked so well he'd stop with the goofy sideshow trying to sell a personal jetpack and all that garbage. He'd just make one and let everyone see it running. It sells itself! This is the case of a huge number of these free-energy scenarios. Some amazing idea and it's the world's fault it isn't adopted or the inventors won't explain how to work so they can be sure to keep the idea to themselves. You know what? I call BS. The burden of proof is on the inventor. Prove it works and the world will come to you.</p><p>Getting an investor if you have a good idea that is visibly provable isn't terribly hard in this day and age. There is an entire industry of extremely wealthy people willing to throw money at what they feel are good ideas and do so every single day: venture capitalists. </p><p>Ignoring the free-energy stuff, you mention bead bed (I assume you mean pebble bed) and thorium molten-salt reactors. I put these totally in a different category. They are based on sound physics and can be proven to work (and have in both cases at various scales). The problem is they pose huge engineering problems before they can be made in the real world. Their lack of adoption is clearly understandable at multiple levels (expense to change over from existing systems for questionable economic beneifts, huge overhead in R &amp; D to get workable designs, etc. etc.) Wikipedia has nice &quot;advantages and disadvantages&quot; sections for both and makes a lot of sense. </p>
<p>&lt;thumbs up&gt; mgrundvig</p>
<p>I still hold to the fact that HHO will (with the right parts) increase your ICE vehicle to some varying degree depending on the components you add to it. I believe Hydrogen the main constituent in gasoline to make energy can be had in other ways than burning gasoline. The real issue isnt the HHO nor the ICE. It is that we are combining the 2 items when they should not be.</p><p>I postulate that if we made an engine solely with the purpose of burning HHO fuel and no other. We would have to tackle some issues I am sure - but I believe we would design and built an engine nothing like an ICE.</p><p>Diesel is the first example of this. The fuel has different burning properties so we build the engine to match the fuel. If anyone knows the difference in a gasoline and diesel engine then they know why this has to be built differently.</p><p>Now if you take HHO as your base and work up from there then you will start to design things like different injection systems including multi-per-cylinder-moment-stroke injection systems. You will design combustion chambers that are meant to burn HHO not gasoline and the list goes on.</p><p>Why do I say start from scratch? Because water is much easier and more widely available to use as a fuel. The sun can produce the electricity. We can make &quot;Hybrid&quot; systems that use a combination of 2 engines - 1 diesel/gas and 1 HHO to produce onboard electricity - then use electric drive. Stop hooking these engines directly to the wheels - just plain dumb.</p><p>Anyway my 2 molecules worth. Not trying to troll or start an argument - just believe we the people can reinvent around a new (old) fuel like HHO and replace what we are doing in a better way. We just need more research into HHO engines - not gasoline engines burning HHO.</p><p>That is where I am headed anyway.</p>
<p>can anyone here tell me how i can hook up an hho generator, purchased online, to a gas genset utilizing one of the plugs without burning up the generator? I was going to run a plug from an outlet too a 15 amp inline fuse to a toggle switch, to the generator, but thought that would produce too much heat from what i read. also how do i measure current with the voltmeter?</p>

About This Instructable


197 favorites


More by Electrified: How to assemble a HHO Generator and why it works
Tags: HHO Brown Gas fuel
Add instructable to: