Step 4: The DC supply

DC supply powers the electrolysis process....

To charge the supply, use a battery or dynamo/alternator.

Read the following instructable:


Now, the circuit is complete.

I hope this instructable makes sense and has some appeal to it.

I like to prefer soler energy .
<p>Oh an Air powered car might be even better. Though the Concept is TOO GREEN here.</p><p><a href="http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/air-car4.htm" rel="nofollow">http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehi...</a></p><p><a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a1665/4217016/" rel="nofollow">http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a1665/4217016...</a></p><p><a href="http://zeropollutionmotors.us/" rel="nofollow">http://zeropollutionmotors.us/</a></p><p></p>
The problem is the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is lost because the electrolysis of water is not 100% efficient, the combustion engine is nowhere near 100% efficient, neither is the alternater. Energy is lost through friction and heat. This is an ages old idea, and as impossible today as it was decades ago. If there was an additional source of energy to offset the losses, then it would be fine. A solar array, for example.
this argument that is based on the &quot; laws of thermodynamics&quot; is just plain foolishness. Merkidemis takes into account exactly what the other naysayers have spouted for years, and that is it, what is missing here is the benefit side of this ridiculas comment. It is true that it does take energy to produce brown gas, but what if<sub> I design a cell, test and install with an o2 and map enhancer, and save 50% on my gas useage........ is this an example of an energy source that does not work ? You naysayers need to do a FULL evaluation of this technology. Just spouting the laws of thermodynamics just doesn't cut it. I too studied therm in college and we advanced to Nuclear thermodynamics as well, ( that was nearly 45 years ago) and have used my engineering education my whole life. there are problems with any new or re-newed ideas, study the process, learn and experiment, you just piss me off with your narrowness.</sub><br/>
<p>An engineer is conservative on paper so the Values are probably much Higher. I have seen other inventions that Brake or fudge this law. You always produce more then what you need. to Compensate for the laws of thermodynamics. this is why you Do not exceed an engine over 2000cc's otherwise you will never be able to produce enough gas to run it at that point you would need to produce compress and store at 15,000 to 30,000Psi you will never get more then your average 30 Gallon tank of gas but it WILL BE A ZERO EMMIT ION CAR that is the point of a Hydrogen powered car right?</p>
I completely agree! Think outside the box! Don't rely on everything you were taught in school or everything you read in books. It's like questioning authority. Question &quot;proven facts&quot; because if you don't, yer gonna be stuck in the classroom that's been sitting in a school that teaches old &quot;facts&quot;. &quot;There is nothing special about me. I'm just intensely curious.&quot; ~ Albert Einstein in other words, &quot;What if?&quot;
Yeah, if you're such an expert then by all means, provide some examples where this has worked. Please provide a link to a frictionless alternator. And please don't accuse of narrowness. The whole reason all of us are even on this site is to find and share awesome new ideas and techniques. It just happens that this particular idea is neither new nor awesome.
<p>The engine doesn't have to be 100% efficient to use water as a medium to tap in to the ether/unlimited energy that is all around us that comes from the sun. </p>
<p>I agree the gas you put in combustible engines are not efficient now at all for one reason they made the fuel heavier around the 1950's I believe so the fuel wouldn't get all the way burnt up and would come out the tail pipe look it up. If you just do a little research in history you can find credible people that have found way's of doing what this guy is talking about and been ridiculed, suppressed by the government's, and even some cases murdered like Stanley Myers for obvious reasons. It seems whatever someone says whatever someone invents even using the proper equipment to prove the results there is always someone saying the same thing over and over about the second law of thermodynamics. A lot of people say that the people who post such things are a part of the government but I just think some people are just brain washed by what they are taught in school. I have saw unlimited energy or free energy or over unity call it what you will but it happens it doesn't matter how as long as it works so please for the good of humanity just try and help instead of misquoting a law taken out of text.</p>
yeah it seems as though solar cells will be required for this and a plug in charger for bad weather
<p>Same as trying to pick yourself up with your shoelaces. </p>
<p>Get a Fuel Injected engine do not exceed 2.6L Engine or you will never be able to produce Enough gas to run it at speed... you Need 6-8lpm to Idol and up to 25Lpm to Run 4000 to 6000 RPM Adjust timing to 1 degree after TDC also you will Need a Secondary Alternator and a Surge Bottle Capable of 100PSI I am Converting a Subaru Outback.</p>
When u use electrolysis you'll get oxygen and hydrogen. There's really no reason to not to use the oxygen that is released as well. The use of both gases make a more efficient burn when sent through the air intake. Look on YouTube and look for small engine runs on HHO. The man has made a rather efficient dry HHO producer. He powers a small gas motor on HHO only. Go to his channel and subscribe to his channel. He wears a ball cap and is not very tall. Hope this helps
<p>It all depends on what you are trying to do.</p><p>1. If you want to save on running your car. It will save you.</p><p>2. If you want to run your car only from water. This is not the place to start.</p><p>One explanation.</p><p>I live at 6000 feet. If I travel to the coast (0 feet) when I get there the car pings.</p><p>The garage man says it is because there is more Oxygen in the air at sea level than at 6000 feet and so the fuel/air mixture having more oxygen burns faster. (Apparently the more oxygen you have the faster (and hotter - see oxyactelyne torches) and so the timing needs to be advanced. These garage men say that I can get up to 15% more power at the coast.</p><p>If I then, using the principles of electrolysis, separate water into oxygen and hydrogen and feed these into the air intake then the proportion of oxygen and hydrogen compared to the other gases will be greater, and so by doing this I will produce at least 15% more power, which would result in a 15% reduction of petrol and so save me 15% of my fuel bill. (minimum saving).</p><p>What is the down side. Yes there are downsides. One is that if you run out of water or the electrolysis system fails, then you would have to adjust your car timing. However if the oxygen sensor, which I would hope would be in the intake system of the car, picks this up, it would adjust you timing automatically.</p><p>Yes there would be an extra load on the alternator, the garage man says that power steering and air-conditioning also requires extra power as does the water pump and if I remember his guesstimates of this it would be 4%, consequently there would be a minimum saving of 11%. The figures in this article give up to 50% saving, that is a lot of bucks being saved.</p><p>In reading through the above comments - at least most of them - they seem to use 'Brown Gas', it should be easy enough to only siphon just the oxygen and not the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, but as hydrogen is 'combustible' it may just be safer and wiser to feed in brown gas.</p>
<p>It seems as if your video's were deleted?</p>
merkidemis the bit that you fail to grasp is that if you can run an engine on this type of generator but not use all of the electricity from the alternator then the excess can be used to charge batteries or run an inverter and the other added benefit is that the heat generated from the engine can also be used to heat the watertank in the house and keep the engine running at a constant temp. The project I am building is for microgeneration so that I can be permanently disconnected from the grid and therefore not contributing to the carbon footprint. I am not looking to challenge the world of thermodynamics just harnessing energy to my advantage and not line the pockets of the greedy utilities companies.
Let's see, the theoretical max efficiency for electrolysis is about 82% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water), the most efficient alternator is currently around 22% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator), and most ICE engines, even with turbocharging, average around 20%, 37% being on the high end. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine). Even if you could capture some of the waste heat, converting it into usable energy to accomplish work (like heating the water to increase the electrolysis efficiency) is not going to get you to 100%. Plus you need to take into account the work you're actually trying to accomplish, such as moving a vehicle. Road surface friction, wind resistance, etc will all sap efficiency from the system. <br> <br>Also, please read past the first sentence in my initial post. This is a perfectly fine method to power an engine, but will not provide the closed energy loop the author is proposing it does. It would prove to be a fine hybrid system provided that the &quot;DC Voltage Supply&quot; step is getting additional power from another source, such as solar panels. But, at that point, you might as well cut out all the horrible efficiency losses and just use electric motors. <br> <br>This kind of project has been popping up for decades, and for clear reasons none have ever worked. And none of those reasons have been because of the greed of energy companies.
<p>hello, </p><p> please check out us patent 7,789,048 for possible help in your inquiry. thanks for your help and kindness, ray</p>
<p>hello, </p><p> please check out us patent 7,789,048 for possible help in your inquiry. thanks for your help and kindness, ray</p>
<p>hello, </p><p> please check out us patent 7,789,048 for possible help in your inquiry. thanks for your help and kindness, ray</p>
Link does not work. <br>Sounds nice, beautifull and cool and whatever... but 1. Noone ever saw a plans of how to do it. 2. If its worth, i can for a few if price is logical. 3. No plans, no option to build. If i would do something like it i would release it allmost for free... just to break power monopoly.
There is a way to make free energy batteries, see my website on my profile.
any microcontroller can do PWM, which will be fine for your purposes
I find the heated discussions about this ible highly ammusing, I'm not an anyone's side, but you might be interested to know that both mercedes benz and BMW will be fitting Brown's gas systems(electrolytic hydrogen/oxygen from water)to most of there cars within the next year or so. Having discussed these systems with a engineering mate of mine at Mercedes, he tells me they will be used in addition to standard petrol/diesel engines and will improve fuel economy by upto 15%. The only issue they currently have is premature failure of the electrodes due to dificulties in purifying the water. He tells me the German motor industry has spent well in eccess of a billion euros researching this technology and although it does have potential to boost fuel economy we will never see it replace the need to burn another fuel as well. Basically you simply cannot generate the gas fast enough with any electrode materail yet dicovered. but you never know, unobtanium might work!
&quot;you might be interested to know that both mercedes benz and BMW will be fitting Brown's gas systems(electrolytic hydrogen/oxygen from water)to most of there cars within the next year or so.&quot;<br><br>I smell bull... That's not true. You might be talking about hybrid cars, but no car manufactory is going to fit brown's gas devices to their cars.<br><br>There is no way at all that any car using H2 and O2 as &quot;additive&quot; is going to run more efficient. Take a normal alternator on a diesel with 160HP: 2.5kW output max. we're not talking of 170kW. all that happens, if you feed your modern car hydrogen is that the ECU gets a serious headache and tells you to see your friendly mechanic.<br><br>but whatever, i'm fighting against windmills...
Using NaBH4 as a catalyst for Charge Shell Confined and Internally Resonant Double Shell Plasma specifically as a mechanism for Hydrogen Fusion in a rotary engine. This working fluid modification of a processes patented at Micro-Combustion, Inc. does useful work in a wide range of applications including automotive. The reaction is Boron Proton +&nbsp;Hydrogen + Hydrogen<br /> <br /> The nuclear reaction modification produces about 206 cal/mol excess heat from doped water added to the 103 cal/mol of heat from oil.&nbsp;This expands fractions of dissociation of the eliments of doped water in oil &nbsp;to drive the reaction thrust engine. Radiation is neutron emission limited with low level X-Rays and 4He that remain dissolved in sodium hydroxyl solution in a closed loop system. A lead oxide impregnated wool blanket provides ample radiation shielding. Problem is NRC Licensing and Patent Office acceptance based upon current Pier Review of the process. This is a simple engine made of Stainless Steel and using Tilting Pad bearings. throughout. This is not a free energy machine contrary to published claims. However the engine is about 85-90% efficient as a rotary thermal cycle reaction engine and is scalable. Water is indeed an amazing fluid and not always subject to the Coulomb Barrier mechanics given Quantum Ring Dynamics and the &quot;Ball Lightning&quot; Charged Double Shell or Kubleblitz und Zwitterbewegung.
people, i think that alot of people here are thinking of this as what muscelz said that it is like "getting a generator to generate power to turn a motor which turns its generator to turns it power source (the motor)" but its not. because the hydrogen is the FUEL, but unlike petrol fuels, when it is burned with oxygen it turns back into what it used to be. water. think of it this way when gas is burned the hydrogen in it reacts with oxygen and forms water vapor while the unburned carbon molecules that were linked to it split apart without completely reacting with oxygen to for CO insted of CO2. the same thing happens with hydrogen and oxygen alone but without the carbon. so gas and hydrogen burn oppositely while hydrogen burns in air to form re-electrolysable water, gas burns and splits into carbon and hydrogen which at the high temperatures of the burning bond with oxygen and oxygen.
you can technicaly re bond the hydrogen and carbons from te gas but it would require extreme conditions
and a lot of time
So.....I created an account here just to respond to this.<br/><br/>Ne ways, your interest in alternative energies is excellent and much needed in our world. Unfortunately the ideas you present here are somewhat impractical. I do not mean to bash these ideas, but rather guide you with a little scientific thought. <br/><br/>Your idea, as i understand it, is to use batteries (as an on board power source) to supply energy to an electrolysis system that supplies hydrogen to run an internal combustion engine. <br/><br/>The problem i see lies in the chain of energy conversions here. With the proposed design, and assuming standard efficiencies for all processes, you would be lucky to see 20% of the energy supplied to the batteries actually output to move the vehicle. I say this because standard electrolysis is around 50% efficient, meaning that half of the energy supplied to the process is lost to heat. Good batteries are only around 95% efficient. And the internal combustion engine is only around 30% efficient. With all of these losses it results in an overall efficiency of less than 20%. This also doesn't account for the weight of these systems as the batteries and additional electronic equipment on top of the need for a full size IC (internal combustion) engine would make this a VERY heavy car, which only serves to reduce overall efficiency further. <br/><br/>A little food for thought, if batteries are 95% efficient, and brushless motors more than 90% efficient, vehicles made using only these two systems would then be more 85% efficient. We even have the infrastructure already in place.<br/><br/>Why then is the world investing in &quot;hydrogen economies&quot; with features like an all new infrastructure that must be built (and paid for somehow), vehicles that are less energy efficient then petroleum engines (on a grand scale), and further dependence on non-renewable resources (the most efficient way to produce hydrogen is not electrolysis or proton exchange membranes, but rather a process called ethane steam cracking (ethane=natural gas essentially, and is still roughly only 75% efficient)<br/><br/>I apologize to all for the massive post (i have written more than a dozen papers on the subject so i have a lot to say :) )<br/>
Yes - I am sure the efficiency rating is not very good. Just like the internal combustion engine in our cars is only 20% efficient also! The key that everyone misses who knocks these systems is not how well the textbook melds into the system -- its the fact that people using these do save mileage and, therefore, their own money stays in their own pockets. I know when I presented the unit to my old physical chemistry professor, his first reaction was the same. He started into all of the theoretical problems with the system. And I agreed they were there. And then I told him how on the trip to visit the university, I had doubled my gas mileage from the previous trip (with the same vehicle) and could show him the figures. I got a laugh b/c his wife, sitting next to him, gave him a comical hit and said, "why didn't YOU come up with something like that?" I will say, again, like I have in other places, that yes, this system probably wears out the battery faster - and the alternator. However, I have yet to experience problems with either of these things. And, even if it does, it is a lot cheaper to replace a battery/alternator maybe one year earlier than I would have had to than to keep pouring a ton of money in the tank each week. In other places I have likened the system similar to increasing the pitch on a ceiling fan's blades. You do get more air movement, you do get more "cooling" benefit. Yes, it has to create a larger drag on the motor - however - it also seems to be within the design of the fans motor to handle the increased drag. The people I find who have something to say about how these units do not work have been, mostly, those with no hands-on experience with these units. Even the most educated have been theories/laws-only. I am a former physics and chemistry teacher so am informed on what the books say. But I went ahead and tried it anyway (back in '98) just because I wanted to see what would happen (experimentation). Building one nowadays is a little more complicated as you need bypass the O2 sensor - I have not yet done this - health issues have halted my own research. I researched into why I was seeing great improvement (OK - it boils down to cash staying in my pocket instead of being burned in the engine!). I wanted to know why, on the molecular/atomic level, why hydrolysis actually works. I was told by 3 different university professors that the actual working of hydrolysis are unknown. Ie. -- why does passing current through water split the H2O molecule? Yes, the simplistic answer is that the electricity breaks the bonds. We all know that. I wondered WHY does the electricity break the bonds? How does it accomplish this? I have seen that since we even have trouble knowing exactly what electricity/electrons is/are (at the deepest levels), we actually do not know why hydrolysis does what it accomplishes. Somewhere in my old notes I had once theorized the physical structure of the H2O molecule itself - and w.r.t. to available bonding sites - figured into it. I need to find those notes - health issues hinder recall. You asked why a new infrastructure, etc. The reason behind this is simple. The real world we live in, anymore, (above the personal world of individuals), has little connection with doing what is best for everyone. Greed is a more powerful drive than ever before. We do not NEED any large infrastructure when these type of systems are used. The H2 systems the "big guys" want us to use would have us solely dependent on them. I did not need anyone/anything but 12.00 to build my throw-together system (I had planned to refine it) - and I saved a lot of money. When gas was 2.25-2.50, my data from gas used/mileage showed that, on an average, I was "paying" 1.14 a gallon. I was filling up once a week instead of twice (during my normal, weekly routines). I had not changed anything except put my hydrolysis unit under the hood. No, it is NOT free energy - but it works - and I do not have all the facts as to why - yet. However, I did not mind since the REAL issue was that my money was in MY pocket! Would the people without this hands-on experience want me to rip the unit out of a car because it does not (seem to) fit into textbook ideas? Merry Christmas!
Just about the idea, this is a bit off topic, but I was thinking, about a year ago that if you had a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine that powered the car and charged a battery, that in turn performed electrolysis to get the H2+O mix then put it back into the engine and the water that came out get re-cycled into more fuel and in turn powered the engine again, etc. etc. etc. Then I was told abut the fact that there is a set amount of energy and that the energy would eventually (quite quickly) run out,so it would not work at all. But here is my off topic part, if there is only a set amount of energy in the world, would it be imposable to get energy from JOINING atoms and SEPARATING atoms, a bit like my original idea, but on a much different scale. My point is would it not defy all logic that if you got 2 H atoms, joined them together, took the energy they created, converted it into electricity, then split the He atom back into H atoms and got that energy, giving you an infinite, but most importantly FREE energy source that lasted for ever? Or is this just some big conspiracy theory set by the international world powers so they can get more money producing energy from fossil fuels, which costs money to them, but even more to us and the planet. That or I am just plain confused, or mixed up or something, please reply to this with your comments.
There are many facets to your question. So let me just try to state some things and see if you can glean what you need to.<br/><br/>The second Law of Thermodynamics shows that everything in the universe will run down or ie. go toward an increasing state of disorder (rot, corrode, etc.). When you use energy, it is gone. <br/><br/>Hydrogen atoms are bonded in pairs - diatomic molecules - in nature. They do not occur as single atoms. As soon as there is a separation of Hydrogen from a substance such as HCL, there is an immediate bonding again of the H2. This is its nature.<br/><br/>H2 atoms, when they bond, do not give off energy. The reason they bond is that we know the lowest orbital around a proton will be &quot;stable&quot; if there are 2 electrons in it. Since each H atom has only one proton and one electron, the protons share their electrons and form an H2 molecule. The actual forces within an atom are not yet understood fully. But a theory is that the positive pull of the protons on the electrons is at least part (major, if not all) of what keeps the atoms together into one molecule.<br/><br/>Chemical reactions are one way to split bonds - hence you need to replenish the chemicals once they are used. Electricity is used in electrolysis, hence energy is used.<br/><br/>The amount of energy you get out of a system, because of the second law, is not enough to run the process and make more energy.<br/><br/>This is where people who have never used a Hydrolysis unit take their stand. And then they continue to argue theory.<br/><br/>The problem is that none of the people (I personally have experienced) who argue against this system have any hands-on experience. The Mythbusters DID actually make a show on it - their unit did not work b/c they could not get it to make hardly any Hydrogen at all. They had water and electrodes. I made my unit and, before I put it into my car I put a car battery charger on it to test it. It did not matter how much amperage I put into the unit - I did not get very much hydrogen. When I put Epsom salt - as a catalyst - into the water, the electrodes started fizzing like Alka-Seltzer. I was making a lot of hydrogen.<br/><br/>The Mythbusters did not have anything as a catalyst in their water, hence they did not get a lot of hydrogen. If they would have had a catalyst - they would have seen a lot more hydrogen made. The Hydrogen (and Oxygen from the other electrode) are highly combustible. And, again, people can naysay this all they want to. But until they have had hands on experience, they really have nothing of value to say after they point out that it LOOKS like the system should not make an increase in mileage.<br/><br/>I know it does. I used it. I saved a lot of money. I realized I did not know everything there was to know! <br/><br/>When (If) a naysayer builds one, installs it, (and now with newer cars than I used mine on there also needs be a circuit to fool the car's O2 sensor), and publish their results, they, too, will probably be trying to find out why it works. They will have more than just theory to back up their claims it cannot work not work.<br/><br/>Our scientific laws change constantly based on observation. The problem is that there are a lot of book geniuses out there who &quot;know&quot; something is impossible so why try it. After all, if man were meant to fly, he'd have been born with wings. Also, what goes up must come down - remember to tell that to Voyager I for me OK? :<sup>)</sup><br/><br/>
Ye, but i mean if you used nuclear fusion, then fission with the same things, joining them then splitting them, would that work???
Tough to say. Right now, there's no such thing as controlled fusion... and fusion and fission are done with elements at complete opposite ends of the periodic table.
And on completely opposite principles, if you could split He atoms, then you would get H² and lots of energy wouldn't you?
<strong>if</strong>... I guess.<br/><br/>Lighter atoms are easy (relatively speaking) to fuse and heavier atoms are easy to split. I really don't know how the opposite could be done.<br/>
But if you had a stupidly accurate particle gun, and loads of He, then there would be a good enough chance of SOME fission happening is there not???
Maybe. Where are you going with all this, anyway?
An everlasting source of energy, think of it as a bit of a loophole in physics, and chemistry. An everlasting source of energy that the energy companies have probably already bought up all the patents for...
Your mistake.
But what if scientists have been wrong???
About thermodynamics? ROFL!
Ye, just like you are wrong about most of the stuff you "KNOW" your right about!!!
You have yet to prove that. Like everything else you've claimed.
BTW who are you to comment on just about every post on this website saying it is imposable??? You say it will not boost efficiency, ask most of the other people that have tried it, ask Ibrewer42 ask most other people, u don't have a clue!!!
<em>&ldquo;BTW who are you to comment on just about every post on this website saying it is imposable???&rdquo;</em><br/><br/>Someone who passed high school level physics.<br/><br/><em>&ldquo;You say it will not boost efficiency, ask most of the other people that have tried it, ask Ibrewer42 ask most other people, u don't have a clue!!!&rdquo;</em><br/><br/>No, they&rsquo;re the ones who don&rsquo;t have a clue.<br/>
ask most of the people here if they have saved money, ask SHELL HYDROGEN ® or BP HYDROGEN ®. U DON'T HAVE A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can some one please tell this NUT CASE that he is wrong (or she is wrong if that is the case). Come on who is with me???
I don't think it would be impossible to eek a little bit more efficiency from an innefficient motor by adding a little bit of concentrated oxygen and hydrogen. Faster burn and explosion means that more enerygy goes towards pushing the tires and less towards heating the radiator.
Sure, that's not impossible, but if you're producing that oxygen and hydrogen onboard, then you're wasting more energy than you're getting.

About This Instructable



More by ajparag:Track your location without using GPS (using LAC and CID) How to make Linux simple and easy Herbal cigarette 
Add instructable to: