How to assemble a HHO Generator and why it works

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
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 .

Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up
1-40 of 56Next »
jj.inc2 years ago
The most efficient, powerful, and money conserving device you can build is a dry cell. (If we aren't talking those high tech membrane machines) It has multiple plates which aren't fully submerged, but instead contain the mixture inside. They are easy to access electrically, and can produce huge amounts of HHO. The most important thing for people to know is that no-matter what, this is going to produce toxic gasses. This can include Chlorine, something formed with chromium, and many others. Hopefully they re-bond to something during combustion and aren't a problem.

For all the nay-sayers please explain why a super and or turbo charger benefit your car.
elstev0 jj.inc8 months ago
They increase the volume of air. elstev08 months ago

I'm aware of that, it was a semi-rhetorical statement touching on the idea of if using your engine to power a device which will increase its power which is already proven.

StevenR1 jj.inc23 days ago

Yeah but superchargers make it so less of the fuel evaporates into the atmosphere. In an HHO generator, you have a circular process, which in a perfect world would bring you back to where you started, but when you take into account the added friction created by the generator's added weight to the wheels and whatnot, your ending up with a loss.

TruFord jj.inc4 months ago

Actually the toxic gases come from how you make the electrolyte for the electrolysis process. If you use basic table salt then yes. If you do the chemical formulas and equations you will find you actually only get hydrogen and a toxic gas (I think chlorine if I remember) However, if you use ______ (I cant remember the chemical...I want to say potassium hydroxide but iam not positive) The chemical reaction/exchange only gives off oxygen and hydrogen. So this does not always give off toxic gases but you should be careful when working with things like this ....with chemical reactions. I just dont want people getting scared/turned away from this cause they think its always going to be toxic. This can actually be rather safe and fun to work with. (although the gases are maybe its not the safest thing in the world...but its still fun)

frollard1 year ago
Here's my back of envelope calculations that I have a problem with it...
According to (someone who clearly knows what they're talking about and not inflating numbers) states for about 160 watts you get 1 litre of hho/minute. 10.6V at 15 amps in a strong electrolyte and good catalyst.
1 litre per minute. At 35 amps as per this instructable, you should get about double the output. maybe triple. I'll be totally overkill fair and say 3 litres per minute of hho.

A naturally aspirated 2L engine near idle (say 1000RPM for easy math, best case scenario for this thought) breathes 2 litres per 2 revolutions (4 stroke), Thus, it consumes 2000/2 = 1000 L/m of air (and fuel, which as a mist is only a few mL, negligible)
At high revs (say, 5000rpm) it's consuming 5000L/minute of mostly air.

Air, is
Chemical % by volume
Nitrogen (N2) 78.08
Oxygen (O2) 20.95
Argon (Ar) 0.93
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.033
Other trace elements 0.007
Source is

780 litres of nitrogen
210 litres of oxygen
10 litres of argon
3 litres of CO2

If you take 1000 litres of air, and add 3 litres of HHO, the percentages go to
780L Nitrogen 79.3%
211L Oxygen 21.5%
10L Argon 1.0%
1.8L Hydrogen. 0.18%
982.8 total
The lower explosive limit for hydrogen is 4% Until you get 4% (to a max of 75% in air) hydrogen will not even explode. An explosion is what makes an internal combustion engine run. It will not increase the burn rate of the air fuel mixture in any measurable way.

At high RPM it's ridiculously lower difference as a percentage.
Yes, the new 'fuel' and 'fuel additive' nature will happen -- straight gasoline will be .2fps, and hydrogen will be .4...but the difference is in the hundredth of a percent.

The difference is so astronomically low that it simply won't change the chemistry of how the fuel burns.
Compound the inefficiency of the engine to extract that as mechanical energy (20-30% at best, coupled with the alternator 70% at best, coupled with the HHO generator (I don't know but I suspect since it gets hot 50% at best), you have a 9% efficient system aimed at increasing efficiency. Correct me if I'm wrong, (these are loose quick numbers) but it says a lot.
RamaM frollard27 days ago

I am totally with you on this frollard. It makes naff all difference. If hydrogen generated is above the LEL limits maybe the technology stands a chance. The technology is an order of magnitude off-target.

pawsintime3 months ago
The comment section always makes me laugh, so much time spent writing comments and posting this or that. Life isn't meant to be so complicated take a big deep breath and enjoy it as it was meant to be. And no I'm not Omnish.. I'm sure a lot of you will have great comments about the one I just wrote. That's OK I'm going outside.

HAHA! "Im going outside". Thats glorious!

guyfawkes17764 months ago

Another thing to consider is that the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS are a mathematical theory that was put forth by James Clark Maxwell... The same Maxwell that spoke of anomalies in the mathematics which he called Maxwell's Demon. Maxwell's Demon allows for the possibility of anomalous energy gain irrespective to the processes being utilized. In the chain reaction of a nuclear explosion the total energy output is much higher than the measured energy and material input to the device.

guyfawkes17764 months ago

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.

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.

guyfawkes17764 months ago

First... to the goose stepping morons who site laws of thermodynamics whenever someone theorizes an alternative to the mainstream. The world is not flat... that used to be a law. The solar system is not flat... Look up the Rosslyn Model of the solar system. As far as the comments from squiggy and others... Crude Oil and the associated extraction process is highly inn=efficient and wasteful. Exxon Valdez and BP oil spill disasters aside, crude oil extraction requires massive infrastructure and logistics. Rigs, drills, pumps, millions of miles of pipework, refineries, shipping facilities, gas stations, and a workforce large enough to build over 4000 manhatten projects. Lets not forget that in the United States our OIL IS SUBSIDIZED heavily. In fact If taxpayer money didnt subsidize Oil and Gas we would be spending about $12-$16 per gallon at the pump. Also much of the HIDDEN price of oil is in the cost of blood and bombs we throw at the other oil bearing nations,

With that being said it is a no-brainer that localized Hydrogen Electrolyzers will be a viable source for energy because even with the cost of production. Personally I have already ran a car on electrically disassociated water. The military has been using these systems for years. My father worked at Lockheed Skunkworks San Jose an has personally seen the military Hydrogen systems.

forever35896 months ago

HHO works very well. you need a computer efie controller chip for map/ maf, intake fuel temp. etc. under 79$ to 99$ depending on make and model of car or truck; also works very well on diesel; natural gas; propane . I have used wet and dry cells for years. I usually sell these to retired; or low income. persons .with . my experience resulted in improve fuel economy 28% to 40% or more. Very good work. don't be discouraged by nay Sayers. Persons like you keep to world go round. PS were did you get the container. FOREVER3589

heindekock6 months ago

Is there not all ready a shortage of oxygen in the piston? Wont the fuel and the hydrogen compete to bind with the Oxygen? And lets say there is enough oxygen and the higher burn speed does make for more fuel ignition, would the increased pressure not cause a mechanical problem on the valves? I mean I would really like this to work but it seems to not be as simple as described. Increased volume in the piston due to more efficient burn will need the timing to be altered like you would in a race car.

heindekock6 months ago

So what happens to the water formed when the 2 x H molecules combines back with the O? Wont it mess up the piston?

demoss8 months ago
The Hydrogen Economy has Started.

With all the solar that has been mass deployed around the world government have now realized that if they are placed on or near river or water bodies they can add electrolyzers and make and sell hydrogen on the spot.

You better start to learn how to make your own before that happens
All plans advice parts and examples are on

PLease support and Join us to change the world
AxelMorisson11 months ago
Energy cannot be created or destroyed,but converted from one form to another.So using this or anything that uses your system's energy to do work that is again converted to energy (car alternator is turned by the engine, a part of its output breaks h20 and creates the HHO that then gets combusted with the fuel..) will not ultimately increase the syste's energy. That being said, it CAN increase POWER- that is just the energy released in a given amount of time. Think of a keg of beer with a tap.Open the tap fully, and you get more beer per second, but unfortunately the same amount as opening it half-way but waiting longer. If anything, provided this partial concentration of hydrogen is enough to act as a catalyst- it theoretically could INCREASE the fuel consumption BUT ,theoretically again, give you more POWER- again,keeping the same energy, thus a shorter time between refills. Just as a turbo: more power, more consumption- same energy, shorter time. But more power, yaay! and more trips to the gas station- even with HHO....
crazypj1 year ago
Really like the idea of PWM.
I'm going to make a small unit for motorcycle and see if I get a performance boost
fretted1 year ago
I'll give you an "A" for effort pal o mine came to the house awhile back all excited about one of these he built had it all rigged up to his truck in a peanut butter jars says it saves him about a quarter tank of gas per fill up ....

I'm still on the fence but i've already started collecting the things to build one minus the peanut butter jars ! ....."maybe"
higgrobot3 years ago
Ah this old claim again, I remember when NASA used exhaust heat and a catalyst to generate hydrogen and they decided it was pointless. Then, many years later, scambags convinced people a 60% efficient alternator could do a much better job, lol. Also, faster burning fuel does not equal more efficiency, more power or more anything, just gives the engine management system a headache.
oh, but we, the ones who think with logic, are just idiots...

I'm pissed off about this pseudoscience going on and on in the internet. and it hides behind the conspiranoic belief.

thank YOU for thinking and do a little research!
That's the spirit!
gtreseder1 year ago
i may be wrong but if 1/3 of the volume of gas generated is oxygen, would the enrichment of oxygen in the charge actually do more to help the petrol or diesel burn than the hydrogen?

if the atmosphere is made up of about 80% nitrogen and about 20% oxygen then this is what would normally be drawn into the cylinder on induction. if the HHO generator was providing 10% of the volume of gas for induction then the percentage of nitrogen would drop to 72% the oxygen would increase to 21.33% and the remaining 6.66% is hydrogen. The ECU is adjusted to put less fuel in the charge due to the hydrogen being fuel.

has anyone tried adding pure hydrogen to a charge? id be very interested to hear what the result was
That's 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

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.
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.

Gasoline passes that test easily. Hydrogen does not.
According to Webster, a fuel is
"a material used to produce heat or power by burning"

If something yielded more energy than it took to create, that would break the laws of physics (namely the first law of thermodynamics).

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.

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.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that's the second law of thermodynamics.
ha interesting, looks like it breaks a couple of laws.

I was taking it as "energy can be neither created nor destroyed" therefore, where did the extra energy come from in the reaction, if you didn't create any.

But it also works with "the entropy of a system always increases" i.e. you can't end up with more energy in a system than you started with.

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

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'

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 "fuel" 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 "fuel", is irrelevant.

Your "green energy" 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.

'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:
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.

Please elaborate. Don't just say "green energy is a logical fallacy", please give some examples and counter arguments.
error in the text about the PWM, I meant EEIE.
It is my understanding that hydrogen has a higher octane rating(130, wikipedia), ergo it doesn't ignite as easily through compression. in modern engines this may cause the electronic management trouble, as combustion engines are tuned for a certain octane rating.
simplistically calculating through ratios, at 20% hydrogen and using 95RON gasoline you end up with a 9RON mix.
The existence or not of problems depends largely on additional factors, for example the sensitivity of the electronics etc.
Anyway this is just some food for thought for anyone thinking about trying this.
The underlying theory in this has it's kinks, and AFAIK fuel is already burnt thoroughly, owning largely to modern design and technical understanding of the whole thing.
Maybe the additional efficiency you notice is due to the replacement of some gasoline with hydrogen, therefore reducing the amount of gasoline used.

just my 2cents.
I meant 99 RON
rayton2 years ago
I'm amazed at the reaction of some people. The production of HHO by electrolysis has been with us for at least a hundred years. In that time people started to fly and eventually went into space.

There will always be "nay sayers". The great majority of those who say nay really have no idea of the subject they are attempting to disparage. Don't dismiss out of hand that which you don't fully understand. Accept that most things are possible, just think! Cloned sheep, heart transplants, television, jet engines. These were all pipedreams when I was a boy. The only thing I am really sure of now is that just about everything that can be discovered or invented will eventually be so.

I have worked with HHO for long enough now to know that it is only a matter of time before the technology that will allow us the finite control needed to make HHO production a viable and safe option is available.

Someone has already pointed out that it is only the fact that once discovered there won't be a lot of money in it for the big boys. Unless the governments of the world give big business absolute control of all water. You think that's a stupid comment? Consider that we could have had this technology many years ago if big business hadn't wielded it's political stick. In Europe certainly, the majority of water is now owned by major companies. It might fall on my roof but the moment it touches the ground it's theirs.

Who put this soapbox here? All I really wanted to say was that the concept of HHO use is sound. As soon as HHO is burned it turns back to water so there is no wasteage. The energy needed to convert water to HHO gas is minimal. The amount of HHO needed and added to your fuel can be as low as 5% to make a real difference. Equally don't expect your engine to run solely on HHO gas. There is an inherent danger with HHO that too many people aren't aware of. We rely on HHO to increase the speed of the burn rather than by adding to the power of the explosion in it's own right. We are trying to turn a 20% efficiency into a 30 or 40% efficiency in the short term. It's the overall efficiency that is important. Not the inefficiency of electrolysis.
DarkStarPDX3 years ago
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.
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.)
lloydrmc lucek2 years ago
That's the spirit!
So u say that electrolysis of water takes up more energy than hydrogen explosions?
Hydrogen burning=Chemical energy harvested
Hydrogen separating=bonding energy destroyed
I know u are applying conservation of energy.
But the energy liberated after burning H was not the energy provided by electrolysis.It is chemical energy,it was already there.
1-40 of 56Next »