Picture of Hydroxy Gas Generator
YES, you can melt rock, fuse glass and even boost an I.C.E. ... no Cyril not the ice in a fridge, an Internal Combustion Engine.

But first you'll have to toss out the schoolboy experiments with carbon rods and paper clips dipped in saline or baking soda solutions.
That was fine to demonstrate a concept with lighting the soapy bubbles, but thats pretty much all you're going to do.
If you want to move into the future, then....

Its time to build a better electrolyser.

Better than what you ask?.... well better than all the glass pickle jar and tupperware container contraptions out there.

Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: Safety First and Procedures

Picture of Safety First and Procedures
Firstly, whether you call it HHO, Electrolytic Gas, Browns Gas or my personal choice Hydroxy * is irrelevant, the bottom line is that its very flammable and therefore suitable precautions must be taken.

I cant stress strongly enough that pickle jars or glass jars of any type are not suitable containers to generate hydroxy gas. The slightest accident is going to turn that glass jar into a glass grenade with the unpleasant side effects that usually accompany such events.

To prevent flashbacks you will need a water trap otherwise known as a bubbler, which also has the added benefit of scrubbing the gas clean of caustic vapours. Dont rely on existing arrestors as used on oxy/acet gas welders, the flame front speed of hydroxy is way too fast for them to contain the flame.

The electrolyte I will be using is NaOh a.k.a. Caustic Soda a.k.a. Sodium Hydroxide. Not baking soda, it creates carbon monoxide and erodes the stainless steel electrodes.

I get mine as caustic soda flake from the hardware store, but it is also possible to get decent quality from other places in drain cleaner form. Make sure if going the drain cleaner route that it doesnt have additives or aluminium shavings added.

Caustic soda is as its name implies very caustic, and rubber gloves will be the order of the day if you dont want to see your skin start peeling away. Its probably also wise to add eye protection too.
Initially I start a cleansing cycle with very dilute 5% caustic soda in distilled water, and then the conditioning phase with full strength 23% NaOh in distilled water which is then the time to keep your wits about you.

Note, I dont use river water or tap water or melted Italian snow water or something sucked out of a rock layer far below the surface. I dont want spiders, bugs and chemicals in my 'lyzer, so its less hassle if I start with the good and clean and fresh stuff...trraaalala.

Dont use baking soda, it creates carbon monoxide and erodes the stainless steel electrodes.
Dont use salt, it gives off chlorine gas, very nasty stuff.

  • I use the term Hydroxy in the loosest sense in that I infer it to mean a stoichiometric (2:1) mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen in a common duct electrolyzer, and not a gas consisting of mono-atomic Hydrogen.
1-40 of 197Next »
Kiteman6 years ago
This is a nice Instructable, except for one small point...


All you are making is plain old molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen. H2 and O2. Nothing else.

There's nothing special about burning underwater - it's a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen, of course it's going to burn, underwater or not.
neon41 Kiteman4 years ago
hey how about the fact that he gave us all a very good setup for producing hydroxy gas... who cares if its nothing special atleast this guy is trying to help people save fuel... you are a troll
Kiteman neon414 years ago
Hey, how about you check your facts before you make yourself look any sillier?

The author makes grand claims for simple electrolysis, and claims that the general public know nothing about it, even though most children do it as a basic school lab experiment.

Independent tests (by a variety of scientific bodies, plus Mythbusters and BBC TV) have shown that water electrolysis units (often incorrectly called "HHO generators", "Brown's gas generators", "hydroxy generators" etc) contribute, at best, absolutely nothing to fuel efficiency, and some designs actually make cars use more fuel, thanks to drains on the car's electrical system.

okay, with all do respect I would like to mention that the mythbuster's test was not very fair, as they did not add electrolyte to the water, so their results ended up very bad. I think if they would have added electrolyte to the water in the generator, they would have gotten better results, though yes, it still would have been busted because the theory that you can get fuel efficiency from using energy that was already produced with the engine through burning fuel is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard (that is against the laws of physics, is it not?), and yes, it is a scam. I just don't think it is fair to list mythbusters as they did not bust the myth correctly.(it is a good show though :P)

although would you agree that this system would be good for things such as microtorches due to the extremely high heat hydrogen gas burns at?
Any time you increase thermodynamics, you embrace 'The Laws!' The Mythbusters are NOT the end all authority about this subject. They tore into this entire project with a toung in cheek attitude and only tackled the design because they got so many requests. They dd nothing about the fuel mixture and nothing about any throttle position sensor. All these things needed to be addressed and several weeks of tuning to Provide a real world return on the build and their build was barely 50% accurate! They did the same thing when they 'busted' the Bedini/Cole energy motor. I don't know where they found their PHD and I don't care. They had no idea how to correctly build the design and really wasted time deliberately sabotaging it! i didn't see any magnets employed and the coils where way too small. Think I don't know what I'm talking about? Check out this video of the man himself, John Bedini, , I was there when this beast was running. It had so much power it boiled the batteries, you could HEAR them boiling!
So, at risk of kicking off a conspiracy flame-war, if it works, why is it not in full production?
Not enough information available to the Non-technologically capable AND every time someone tries to get a production started, some one sends some goons out to threaten retaliation. It happened to Mayers and it happened to Bedini!
Like I said, conspiracy.

Meyer died of a brain aneurysm. Unless you think that both the police and county coroner were in the pay of dastardly oils companies?

Bediji is alive and well, posting his designs freely on his own websites. Hardly the behaviour of somebody under threat if he reveals anything...

You can contact him there and ask him, if you want.
Ive spoken with Mr. Bedini many times, over the years, and I've attended three of his conferences. I know how Mayer died, I also know his work, designs and models disappeared less than a week afterward! That wasn't my point, both men received threats from unknown powers about discontinuing the research they were doing. Bedini is just more 'In your Face!' about it. Anyone can buy and build one of his designs, all it takes is money! You can even buy the 14 foot ferris wheel in the video. Mr. Bedini HAS been threatened in the past, he told me so directly!
I don't doubt he has bern threatened.

Many perveyors of woowoo get threatened on a regular basis, usually by the truth.

Go ask him yourself, it's not too late to register for this event. He'll tell you the truth and show you how it works.


Hahaha! Thank you, but I'll save my money, rather than listen to people who think Tesla beamed energy around his intestines!

And somebody takes 45 min to say "LED lighting costs less and saves you money"?

No, sorry, I'd get more useful knowledge from eavesdropping at a comic convention...
1. No published plans for water splitters installed in cars call for an electrolyte.

2. Increased *efficiency* is possible - an IC engine is only around 35% efficient, so changing the way the fuel burns is a feasible method of increasing mileage.

3. Hydrogen is fairly useless as a heat-producing fuel. Larger-molecule gases are much better.

1. really... I didn't know that. I guess the mythbusters did do it correctly then...

2. you know more than me :P

3.hmm... I didn't know that either...

so you are saying other than for science experiments this kind of technology is essentially pointless?

A full blown electrolyte is not as important as the need to make water 'wetter!' In other words, to break the surface tension of the water itself and allow more contact with the Stainless Plates. I have heard of people going all the way to a fifty amp draw using ordinary Baking Soda. I use enough baking soda to provide a 20 amp draw using a PWM and a batch of capacitors running through a set of Zenner diodes arranged/soldered as a Rectifier. This produces an admirable amount of BG and the plates last a very long time. My 'Next Gen System is going to use 1/4 stainless rod. I'll publish the finished assembly after testing. I plumbed the outlet into the vacuum hose to the brake booster. The Next Gen System is going to have a port added directly over each intake port plastic welded to the plastic manifold. A plastic nipple will place the BG flow directly in the intake stream. I want 40 MPG, no matter what it takes. "Baking Soda is a Base opposite of an Acid, therefore it does not erode the stainless media as fast as an Acid."

Er, baking soda is an electrolyte. Materials are either electrolytes or not. There is no such thing as a "full blown electrolyte".

20A? At what voltage, for how long? What provides the current? Exactly how much gas is produced? What is your un-modified mpg?

(And why aim for only 40mpg? My unmodified Peugeot does that on on a careless urban cycle, and canhdo over 70mpg on a careful extra-urban cycle.)

No. It could be useful.

The problem is the expectations of those using the idea, and the advertised advantages from those currently selling it.

It *could* bring benefits in terms of fuel efficiency, but it cannot be used to get more energy from the gasoline than was originally stored there. Using a gsoline engine, for instance, purely to run an electrolytic plant so that the car could run entirely on the gases produced could work, but at a hugely-reduced milage.

I don't get it. It either increases fuel efficiency, or it doesn't, it's a scam or it isn't.
It's a scam when people claim it produces more energy than you put in, or that the gases produced are somehow more special than ordinary hydrogen and oxygen.

It has potential to be fine when people are using it as a way of modifying the combustion of fuel.
Good! I've never made any such claim. :)
Except that the energy required to break the molecular bonds in water has approximately NOTHING to do with the energetic contribution of the resulting H2 and O2 molecules to the combustion process of an ICE engine. Or hadn't you thought of that?
Pay attention at the back, there - the energy to run an electrolysis device in a car comes from that same combustion process, via the alternator.

Using an electrolysis unit cannot create more energy than not using one, but it is potentially possible that using one could change the efficiency of the combustion of the petroleum, thus releasing more of the energy already stored in it.

Unfortunately, as stated elsewhere, when placed under test conditions, none of these units produce results any better than "no benefit", and many actually reduce the engine's efficiency.
How about you guys do some research instead of arguying without any facts...

They got good results using vaporising water and splicing it into H2 - O using an electric arc, which arc is alimented by the car alternator. Those guys got fuel economy going from 20 to 30% and 80% less nitrous oxydes.

By the way, it's a study from the MIT... so there's no doubt about it's credibility...
You didn't even read the abstract, did you?

> Hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline.

> Hydrogen made from gasoline.

It also says that there is a possibility that hydrogen could increase the efficiency of the gasoline burn, something I said here on Sept 8th, 2010.

What you propose (splitting water with an electric arc run from an alternator driven by burning the split water) is *not* feasible - it runs counter to all the laws of thermodynamics. Kiteman3 years ago
Not entirely useless, just mostly. It is fun to blow stuff up with like the mythbusters shooting through milk episode.
Also "No" is a little strong, you just have to look deep and have a good set of people and other sources, so basically mythbusters did it right.
One last thing, who doesn't like to talk about how many Liters per Minute they make. ha ha
neon41 Kiteman3 years ago
before you make yourself look sillier do research on fuel saving devices, half of them dont work its just the driver that changes their habits subconciously resulting in fuel saving
You are right - there are a lot of scams out there. Generally the people trying to make a mint off of these units are the scammers.
Kiteman neon413 years ago
If that was addressed to me, you ought to read more closely, since that is what I said.
(removed by author or community request)
don't use one on a lawn mower or any other small engine that is 2 cycle, as they need a 50:1 (usually) gas/fuel mixture in order to run correctly, or else it would run too lean, and damage the engine forever
Goodness, some people can sound so negative, the problem is the preceding reply is half right. The wrong set-up IS a scam! Too many times people build these devices and when they don't work they start screaming SCAM, Scam, it doesn't work, it doesn't.....! Well, it is NOT the gas that does the improvement, if it was you could idle the engine on the gas alone and that does not happen. BTW, this is how to 'be nice!" when replying to an Instructable, so I am not replying to a specific person, I am supplying information, nothing more! To reply is to make it personal, this is not, it IS science and NOT about Gases. the gas is a by product of a Sub Atomic release. This release is streaming at a pace fast enough to provide a Catalytic reaction in the combustion chamber that breaks and shortens the long strings of Carbon Molecules milliseconds before they are burned. It is this increase in the efficiency of 'The Burn' that provides an improvement in the distance covered by each gallon of fuel. There ARE craftmen who build HUGE reaction chambers and pressurize them and use the Gas to run their vehicle, much like Meyers did. Wonderful if you know how, I don't, so I settle for 20% to 30% improvements because this is safer than pressurized vessels or tanks. I have used several different configurations and from twenty years of 'EXPERIMENTING' (Read that as 'Trial and Error') I have made mistakes and occasionally caught my vehicle on fire, thank goodness for fire extinguishers! I have done 24 plates and as many as 80 plates. And the size does not make any difference in the performance of the system. How easily it can BLOW IS affected by size and number of plates.Currently I use 24 11 gauge plates, 3" by 12". the plates are Negative-Positive-Negative-Neutral-repeat. Using an 'Amp Clamp' to measure applied amperage from the 12 to 14.25 volt alternator output, improved with a 50 amp PWM fed by four big Capacitors. I don't know how big the capacitors are, they are look about two inches tall and one inch in diameter. I robbed them out of an old Television and they pack a real whollup if you touch the wrong connection. I am not a scientist, I am a Tinkerer who tries and tries, again until something works. When I finally figured out it was the release of the radiant or Radioactive part of splitting molecules of water. That is when I started build something that ACTUALLY works. The first 8 units failed terribly and in fact my mileage was worse. Then I discovered what an EFIE does and why the unit was not working correctly and fixed the problems and 'eureka', I got a 13% return on my fuel economy. The important bits to remember are, No metal between the plates and the output into the motor. the more reasonable the amperage, the longer the plates last. Use a Base as your electrolyte, acids eat your plates faster. Use an on/off switch and make sure the unit is off when the engine is off. Use an EFIE and PWM to improve the amperage and voltage and keep the unit cooler as a result. I run twenty amps and this has good output and makes the plates last a long time. A steady flow works better than a heavy flow of gas. My chamber of Acrylic, the fittings are nylon, the tube woven fiber vinyl and because the intake is plastic on my V6 S10, plumbed directly to the intake via the Brake Vacuum line! Make sure the EFIE says 'Leaner' ONLY. You cannot make the mixture richer, only leaner and if it says 'richer' you probably bought a lemon (A mistake I already made! The EFIE I bought/use has a switch that selects City-off-Highway. Knobs for 'City' and 'Highway' make adjustments that are 'set it and forget it!' Real simple, turn the knob down until you here some pinging, then turn it up until it JUST stops pinging for both. The S10 gets a best of 31.8 without and 39.6 MPG WITH the unit on. That's highway ONLY The overall average is 28.9 without and almost 34 with the unit functioning. I know my truck needs an alignment and the tires are old and hard and I don't keep them full of air enough. What can I say, I'm busy. The next unit I build will use solid 1/4" Stainless Rods arranged like heat tubes in a steam locomotive. The unit will be 16 inches long and I am going to try the large bubbler with a heater core as a cooler. I am going to try 30 to 35 amps and 60 rods, 40 positive and 20 negative, no neutral rods. When I have it up and running, I'll type again and share my results.

Reality is only negative when you've been living in a fantasy...

If you've figured out "it was the release of the radiant or Radioactive part of splitting molecules of water", publish your findings NOW, and you will be a millionaire by the end of the week.

So many experts without experience - books are great until reality steps in.

I do not know if this specific unit works or not - but some of these do result in better mileage - yes - I have hands on experience since 1998. The average is around 33% increase in mpg.

You are not making energy out of nothing - there is potential energy in the nature of the product. Just as a small yell from someone can make a tremendous release of energy from an avalanche (oh no - more energy produced than what you started with!), producing flammable gases from an electric current, and then burning taking advantage of the gas' flammable nature (which also interact with the gasoline and improve its flammability) is not magic and "free energy".

You obviously have never tried one and probably never will.

Statements made without hands-on experience are as reliable as Obama making a promise.

... 'nuff said - until after you have tried it personally. Heresy is how mistakes like Obama end up plaguing us.
I'd like to see your results published properly, since every unit tested under laboratory conditions has resulted in either zero or a negative net increase in efficiency.

If your units *genuinely* increase efficiency by 33%, then why are they not in massive production, earning you millions of dolars a year in licenses?

And, FYI, if you bother to read what I posted, I did not claim electrolysis produces free energy. That was the project author.

since every unit tested under laboratory conditions has resulted in either zero or a negative net increase in efficiency.
As would be expected by someone with no personal experience, an impossible absolute is "used" to "defend" what they are saying, but instead, ends up with a scientifically negative affect n their theoretical position.

"Every unit tested under laboratory conditions" sounds great - but I would venture to say this statement is something I doubt you can actually back up with solid, factual evidence since it is impossible that you, yourself, could ever have personally witnessed every unit ever tested.

It also becomes abundantly clear after many years of dealing with people vs science, that the person who allows emotions to dictate their thinking those who will make such absolute statements since they have nothing else to go on.

Never will hypothetical absolutes without hands-on experience lead to anything but future mistakes which will waste others' time.

The main argument behind this problem is always someone saying you are getting more energy out of the system than you are putting in. This is a fallacy as shown by the example of an avalanche. A release of potential energy is a commonplace thing in machinery.

Another example is that the force of a gun's hammer hitting the primer releases a whole lot more energy than that of the spring which powered the trigger. If people mis-applying the laws of physics were around when the gun was being developed, their argument would have been similar to yours,,,"Well youy cannot get more power out of the bullet that the force setting it off - so the concept of a gun will not work." Transfer this concept to bows and arrows etc.

The release of potential energy by a smaller force is easily within the limits of the laws that govern science. Under the hood, a current from the alternator splits apart a molecule that produces burnable components. These components are fred into a combustion chamber along with gasoline and you end up with the laws of physics/chemistry taking over. You have not added energy, you have added burnable gases.

... the pull of the trigger releases the hammer to hit the primer of the case containing the (potential energy changed to kinetic) of the chemicals within.

.... the muscles of the man pull back the bowstring and the resulting impact of the resistance to pull of the bow (potential energy changes to kinetic) increases the penetration ability of the arrow.

... A skier yells and sets off an avalanche (potential energy in the weight of the snow changes to kinetic) that totally wipes out the forest below on the mountain

...... A person pulls back the pouch on a slingshot (potential energy in the bands) and ends up hurling a rock much farther than he could have thrown it.

... the thrower of the spear utilizes an atlatl to greatly increase the distance and power the spear will have on impact. This is energy increase due to properties of levers. It is not breaking any laws, it is factual, and yet would appear to some that there is free energy being created b/c the man could never throw a spear this far and hard without the atlatl.

... The car's alternator supplies current to break up a molecule. The resulting elements are very flammable (potential energy changed to kinetic), so they are fed into a combustion chamber. And b/c someone with only theoretical knowledge misunderstands the situation, the gases fail to combust b/c the theory-only naysayers dictate the gases are not aloud to follow the laws of physics/chemistry and ignite.

Until you have hands on experience, and can do it with a totally objective mindset - as in wanting to find the truth vs wanting to prove something, please understand that this kind of response, thinking, is what hinders factual science utilizing the scientific method.

All true science, based on the very definition of the word, is based on observation. You have none, yet are dead sure you know the facts. By definition, your conclusions cannot be scientific and only theoretical.

I have used a system like this in the past. I am planning on putting it on the car I am getting as a secondary car this coming Saturday (an old Caprice). You can theorize all you want to while I am enjoying the extra cash in my pocket.

Until you can give some solid, personal, scientific evidence - instead of reading what is on the internet and apparently missing the actual science behind the process, your position remains theoretical only.

BTW - as to why these are not being sold - take a look on ebay. There is one seller that has similar system, has been selling a long time, directs you to a forum where you can go to discuss the system being installed on the specific make of their own vehicles, offers money back guarantee, and is still going strong.

One of the main problems behind a system like this is that most people are programmed into thinking they cannot do anything for themselves or seem too lazy to do so. I used to tell people and show them my system. They were impressed, but only 3 out of many ever decided to do it for themselves (and saved money doing it). Welcome to the 21st century where the reality is that the majority of people would rather pay someone else to do things for them.

Also, in the State of PA where I live, it is law to have your car inspected every year. The inspection laws say that the car must be powered by electric or an internal combustion engine and the inspectors are not allowed to pass a car with a fuel mileage enhancing device on it. I always had to take mine off to get it inspected. It is not illegal to have one, but it is illegal to install them for someone else and the people doing state inspections are not allowed to pass the car if one is present.

BTW - do not believe me on this please - check out the PA state inspection laws yourself.
None of your examples release more energy than was put in.

It is put in slowly, and released quickly. Different power ratings, over different timescales.
Aha! Exactly...and now we get somewhere ...

But the metaphor remains - the kinetic energy of the skier's yell is nowhere near the resulting power/devastation of the potential energy converted to kinetic of the tons of the snow in the avalanche. This breaks no rules b/c of stored, potential energy - just like making H2 and O2 gas and then burning them.

Or let's take this a little closer to home. B/c gasoline vapors are highly flammable, there is lot more energy released from a 5 gallon gas of gasoline exploding than the amount of energy it took to light the match to ignite the vapors.

Or, let's go a step closer yet.

If you take a 9 volt battery and one of the small wire "primers" they used to use (maybe still do?) to launch model rockets, but instead put the primer in a 5 gallon tank of gasoline - the power released by the explosion is a lot more than the battery could ever provide, mixed with whatever little energy it took to rig up the system and apply the battery.

And it takes no more input energy into the system to ignite it whether ort not it is 5, 50 , 500, or 500, gallons of gas that are ignited. But the energy output is much more powerful for each scenario. So where is the increase in energy coming from? Stored, potential/chemical energy due to the nature of the elements involved.

Paralleling the metaphor... the car battery & alternator provide the amperage to produce the flammable gases (the primer). The gases (potential/chemical energy due to the nature of the elements involved) are burned and supply more energy than if they were not introduced into the combustion chamber to be burned.

And I quote a main section of my last post:

"All true science, based on the very definition of the word, is based on observation. You have none, yet are dead sure you know the facts. By definition, your conclusions cannot be scientific and only theoretical. "

"All true science, based on the very definition of the word, is based on observation. You have none, yet are dead sure you know the facts. By definition, your conclusions cannot be scientific and only theoretical. " 

True, and yet very wrong.

The devices claim overunity - I do not need to build and test them to know they do not work, because millions of man-hours of practical and theoretical work have already been put into formulating and testing the Laws of Thermodynamics.

One of the joys of "true science" is that I don't have to do all the observations myself, I can trust the processes used by others.
One of the joys of "true science" is that I don't have to do all the observations myself, I can trust the processes used by others.
You seem to be confusing proven laws with the application of those laws.
The laws are sound. The application of the laws is what needs be tested.

Our perception of how the laws actually apply can be tainted by human error. This is why experimentation is needed. It helps to verify if we have perceived the situation properly.

Mankind "proved" the earth was the center of the solar system by viewing the sun moving across the sky. This was excepted as observable fact and therefore irrefutable. Thankfully Galileo tested the theory no matter how foolish it seemed. His findings were scientific and factual.

Also, in this case, it turned out the laws themselves were flawed b/c of how mankind had interpreted the data.

"The application of the laws is what needs be tested."
No, it doesn't. The claim was overunity. We do not need to test to prove the claim is false.

"Mankind "proved" the earth was the center of the solar system by viewing the sun moving across the sky. This was excepted as observable fact and therefore irrefutable."
False. It was assumed without testing.

"Thankfully Galileo tested the theory no matter how foolish it seemed. His findings were scientific and factual."
True, although nobody accused him of being foolish.

What you are saying is "vague assumptions by non-scientists were found to be wrong when tested scientifically, therefore hard scientific laws formulated through years of intesive testing will be proven wrong by amateurs if they insist loudly enough".

That's practically the mantra of woowoo; "They laughed at Galileo, but he was right. They laugh at me, so I must be right".

Now, get back to the point and stop distracting yourself: present the verifiable evidence of overunity in electrolysis, or admit that it does not exist.
1-40 of 197Next »