Instructables
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 212Next »
Kiteman6 years ago
This is a nice Instructable, except for one small point...

IT DOES NOT MAKE ANYTHING SPECIAL. HHO, BROWN'S GAS, HYDROXY and KLEIN'S GAS ARE ALL SCAMS


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.

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.

SNiP
since every unit tested under laboratory conditions has resulted in either zero or a negative net increase in efficiency.
SNIP
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.

and yet if you never do the observation yourself you never have first hand knowledge. KNOWLEDGE is POWER.

If Henry Ford had listened to his naysayers we would be driving horses to work.

science

ˈsīəns/

noun

  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    note the last word in the definition "experiment"

    you have to do the work to understand the work.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
-- Albert Einstein

When you suddenly find naysayers and mediocre minds flocking to your reality, YOU ARE MAKING PROGRESS.

The observations have been done, but there are always those who refuse to accept facts that contradict their dreams.

Oh, and the Einstein quote is much-abused by those who fail to understand basic logic: if your actions are opposed, that does not mean you are a world-changing genius, or even right. It just means that your actions are opposed.

It's almost as misused as the "They laughed at Gallieo..." quote. They laugh at drunken fools walking on ice and playing with pickaxes as well...

"When you suddenly find naysayers and mediocre minds flocking to your reality..." ...Occam's Razor says that you are most likely in the wrong (and it enbiggens you to nobody to refer to people who disagree with you as "mediocre", when you yourself cannot understand basic logic).

Your right, you are the almighty and end all of this topic. While I believe that it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it, you resort to childish close-mindedness and accusations. You can sit there on your high and mighty throne and accuse people of not understanding basic logic, of which I think you truly understand even less. Having not done the work to support your hypothesis is a complete contradiction to the definition of science.

You are right again (you're on a roll) Occam's Razor says that you are most likely in the wrong. So congratulations you are most likely wrong even though I just said you were right.

It states that, "the fewer assumptions that are made, the better." You have to be able to show some work to support or disprove your hypothesis before you can claim you have less assumptions. Blogs and books are wonderful, but you can not base your whole belief system on something you read in a book.

Oh and just because you heard a word on the Simpson, ("it enbiggens you to nobody") and Merriam-Webster listed it under their "Slang" section does not make it a real word.

Also by the way the right spelling of your slang word is "EMBIGGENS"

Resorting to insults? So soon? What happened to your attempts at logic? Just as there was the potential for interest.

Is a simple typing error the only thing you can actually find to correct me on? (And are you aware of how you look, calling me out on the spelling of a word you say is not even real?)

Well, I'll leave you to comfort yourself with your fallacious logic, and look forward to you proving me (and the entire scientific community) wrong when you publish a project that demonstrably extracts more energy from the system than you put in.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, though.

Kiteman Kiteman4 hours ago

Oh, I just checked my comment-update email.

It contained a couple of interesting accusations from you.

I think you know the answer to that question. It is the same answer Stanley Meyer got with his assassination, and the Japanese company - Genepax (who created an electric car which was powered by an on-board hydroygen generator) was shut down without explanation. The answer, Big Fuel and government bureaucracy.

You do know that Meyer died of an aneurysm, in front of a restaurant full of witness?

And Genepax closed themselves down before they were done for fraud (the "onboard hydrogen generator" was most likely a metal-hydride cell, which does work when you fill it with water, but is also depleted as it runs, and takes more energy to build than it produces, just like any other battery. The car they demonstrated was actually a perfectly ordinary REVAi (or G-Wiz outside India) with a box in the boot (sorry, I know how you like your spelling, "trunk").

Here you go as a parting gift, I've found you a site you'll love, because it agrees with anything you like:

http://henrymakow.com/2013/11/Illuminati-Suppress-...

SNIP
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.
SNIP
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.
SNIP
"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.
SNIP
Sorry for my lack of precise wording. What needs be tested is not their claim since overunity breaks the laws. What needs be tested though is to see if their claimed RESULTS (not what they name the idea or try to match a name to what they see happening) are occurring. And if there are favorable results,then a re-interpretation of the actual events occurring needs to be re-visited. B/c if the results are there, the laws are being held to (or in some cases through the history of science, the laws have been found to be in error).
SNIP (concerning Galileo)
True, although nobody accused him of being foolish.
SNIP
In Galileo's time the authorities had no concept their observed movement of sun and moon were not proof enough for their earth-centered theory. The concept of using machines to better their knowledge was a new concept.

They threatened to excommunicate him from the church. What he was doing, although not maybe specifically stated as foolish was called heresy. the very concept, to the authorities, or being a heretic was also being a fool. In other words they thought anyone a fool to not believe what they "knew" to be true.

SNiP
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".
SNIP
No - this is not an accurate assessment b/c of the history of Galileo's time period.

We need to keep history in context. The people making the claims of the earth-centered solar system during Galileo's time, were the most educated people in their society. The culture then saw the church as being the supreme authority of God on earth. Hence they were thought of as being the experts. Remember there were very few people who could even read and write back then. It was people in the church who were held up as the most brilliant minds of their day.

SNIP
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.
SNIP
I am not sure where the train of discussion got twisted here. All of my examples have shown how there is no overunity. Please go back and review what i have been saying. And i am sorry if my wording has somehow led to the idea I was saying there is overunity.

I am saying I used a similar system, it worked, and it breaks no known scientific laws,

The avalanche, the gun, etc. were showing how you can sometimes SEEM to get more energy out of a system than is put in - but a study shows this is not the case. Electrolysis, when used with a car, can increase mileage by taking potential energy of the gases and converting it into kinetic energy in the combustion chamber.

From having hands on experience, I do know these systems can work (you have to sometimes fool the oxygen sensor and other things on newer cars). And I know believe there are no laws being broken.

However, if some day something occurs that seems to break a known law - it will not be a new thing in the history of science. It will simply be a time where we have been able to broaden our scope and see something from an entirely new angle not thought of before - like Galileo's telescope.
What a long post, and only one useful sentence:

"Electrolysis, when used with a car, can increase mileage by taking potential energy of the gases and converting it into kinetic energy in the combustion chamber."

No, it can't. Follow this sequence:

Chemical energy in fuel, burned to release thermal energy.
Thermal energy is converted to kinetic by the piston.
Several mechanical linkages transfer the kinetic energy to the alternator.
The alternator converts kinetic to electrical energy.
The electrical energy is converted to chemical energy through electrolysis.
The chemical energy is converted to thermal energy in the cylinder.

That's at least eight energy transfers betweennthe gasoline and burning the hydrogen and oxygen.

At every transfer, energy is lost to the surroundings.

Using internal combustion of gasoline to power electrolysis to inject hydrogen and oxygen back into the same gasoline-fuelled engine cannot increase the efficiency. At every energy transfer, energy is lost, and all you are doing is adding several energy-losing steps to end up at the same point, kinetic energy in the engine.

This is what happens when you distract yourself with the Galileo fallacy - you fail to do the actual science that you need to understand the system.

They derided Galileo because his svience threatened literal biblical interpretations. It wad religious heresy.
They deride those who proclaim overunity because they are fools fooling fools, not doing any actual science.

Like I keep saying, bring actual, verifiable evidence to the table, or pack up the chips you have left and leave with what little credibility you have remaining.
I have built different varieties of these devices and used them in 4 of my vehicles which gave me a 33% increase in gas mileage in my 83 AMC Eagle, around 25% in my 85 Chrysler Labaron, 25% in my 1979 Chevrolet Caprice Classic.

I have explained quite clearly what true science is and how it must be applied to this to see what is really happening and how the laws are not being broken.

I have explained quite clearly there is a difference between theoretical science and actual science.

I have explained the need to continually question and experiment on subjects that seem not to be falling into the realm of what we traditionally see as abiding by the laws in an effort to understand what is actually happening.

I have given examples that seem to parallel the notion that car-electrolysis system cannot work b/c you get more out of it than you put into it. And I have used these examples to show the fallacy of thinking these situations are breaking the laws.

Your replies have been along the lines of:
1. no you cannot, and I can prove it b/c you are breaking scientific laws; or
2. quit listing examples to explain what might be happening here

Add to this an ad hominem statement about the character of people who you do not agree with (thereby from the definition of ad hominem - negating your own credibility. And then you make a general statement about my credibility as if it is the universal opinion of those on this thread, when, in fact, so far the only one stating this on this thread is you.

I enjoy this kind of debate b/c I enjoy exploring the mindsets of people. You really need to learn the value of hands on experimentation when something seems not to fit your own ideas. True science can only advance this way.

Hello to the naysayers. Producing Hydrogen is a fairly simple process. It takes a few different elements to split the water molecule and release the gas's stored in it. Stainless steel 316L for the plates, tubes etc, electrolyte, electrical current and you're pretty much there. It can be dangerous so caution needs to be a priority. In a molecule of water when fracking using the common method in a home lab you end up with H2 O1, if the hydrogen cell is constructed in a certain fashion you can divide those two components into separate bubblers and use the hydrogen much more effectively than when there collected together. For all of us who use this as a means of fuel for torches or combustion engines what have you, it is easy to tweak the system to produce more or less. Due to the fact that hydrogen is made from water, the power that be like Oil, Gas, Electrical generator plant infrastructure will loose everything if this fuel is perfected and able to be stored. Being it is one of the lightest elements in the universe, it takes a huge amount of pressure to compress it, which makes it unsafe and a difficult process. It is easy to make though and can be done in anyones kitchen from a standing start in about 15 minutes. Everything you need is in the kitchen. As far as over unity goes that has a lot of variables but to those who thing that the old rules still hold true to this day, Think about the Hydrogen Bomb. Now put this in perspective. Overunity happens around us all the time. For some of us that includes the human brain.

Kiteman chevy12346 months ago

In a molecule of water when fracking using the common method in a home lab you end up with H2 O1

> "Fracking" is the process of extracting natural gas from sedimentary deposits.

> There is no such thing as "O1". The gases produced are H2 and O2. Perfectly normal hydrogen and oxygen.

Think about the Hydrogen Bomb.

> That's a fusion process, converting mass to pure energy. It is not burning, and it is not over-unity.

Overunity happens around us all the time.

> No, it doesn't. That's the point. It is an absolute impossibility.

For some of us that includes the human brain.

> Hmmm...

Maybe it's time I pointed out that I have spent most of my life "doing science", including 17 years as a science teacher?

You are getting yourself very mixed up. In previous posts you claimed that adding an electrolysis unit released more energy than you put in. This is an absolute impossibility, no matter how often you resort to the Galileo fallacy.

Now, though, you are claiming increases in gas mileage.

These are utterly different claims.

It is perfectly possible to increase the efficiency of a gasoline engine, as even the best only run at around 30-34% (ie useful kinetic compared to original stored chemical), and it is conceivable that the injection of hydrogen and oxygen along with the aerosolised gasoline and air could modify the dynamics of the combustion in a way that releases more useful energy from the gasoline.

However, you claim increases that would put the efficiency of the engine at over 40%, a remarkably high value for a two-stage transfer (chemical-thermal-kinetic).

Since you have still presented no actual data, I would postulate that your increases in mileage are actually due to a combination of improved engine maintenance and [unconsciously] more careful driving style, as the installation of an [alleged] efficiency device makes one much more aware of driving style.

You have stated that you have seen increases in milage, and stated percentages, but what you should present is data.

Since the large amount of information required will obviously not fit sensibly into a comment here, can I suggest that you upload the spreadsheet as if it were an image, and then post a link to the file in your image library (unless you have already written up the data elsewhere and more easily link to it there?)?

I look forward to your data, but until then, I shall apply Hitchen's Razor to your claims: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
That would mean that right about the time you started teaching was one year before I built and put the first one on my 83 AMC Eagle. I started teaching in 1986 - mainly physics, chemistry, biology, math and computer programming over the years.

At first when the system started working I presented it to the physical chemistry professor I had in college. His initial response was the same - that it looked like I was producing more energy than i was putting into the system. This was the response from two other professors at two other colleges. (Edinboro State University and Penn state main campus). They were fascinated with it but could only offer theories.

I do not have current data b/c the last time I ran one of these was 7 years ago. After I bought a new car I was having a problem b/c (I am assuming) the O2 sensor/computer. This is why I am planning on getting one of the systems from the guy on ebay who has a reputable business going in this - only the system is changed to being non-immersed plates.

The records I kept on the first three installations became trashed in a typical Microsoft Moment on the old XP system (backup - what's that?). I remember ending results mainly.

If an when I lick this problem, the other problem i will run into is what I did years ago when I started doing this myself - pre-everywhere-on-the-internet days. Even, years ago (online), when I did have some of the data and posted it, people were so sure that the system did not work (without every trying anything - b/c their perception of what was happening precluded any testing), that I was accused of just making up the numbers.

You see, I have never tried to profit from this. I have no interest in making money off of it. All I wanted was what I accomplished - a way to get around the ridiculous gasoline prices.

I did it, I am happy with that, if I can get it going again on the newer vehicles (always hated computers in cars - even the older ones), I may come back here and put some numbers up. However, I doubt it will do any good. It did not in the past.

Divorcing opinion and initial concepts on a situation is vital to the growth of science. Sometimes it is easy b/c of fewer variables. But as systems are made of more and more variables, the more actual study/hands on is required.

There are so many discoveries that have been made b/c people are willing to stick their necks out. I have discovered nothing. But at least I can understand how this system works and breaks no laws.

To be taken seriously, start by deciding what you are claiming - increased mileage, or overunity.

If you are claiming the former, there is hope for you.

If you are claiming the latter, my only hope is that you do not pass on such nonsense to your students, because a properly-qualified science teacher would not be claiming to have achieved the largest paradigm shift in the history of formal science, yet relying on the Galileo fallacy to persuade others that he has done so.

There is little point in carrying on with this thread if you have no formal data to work with. I would hope that, as a science teacher, you know where to start, what specific data to collect, and how to collect it, and will realise the importance of getting your data independently verified before proceeding with the peer review process.

We shall see.
It was quite a few posts back I specified very clearly this is not overunity. I have been trying to make clear that I think people who are applying overunity to this are misled as are those who say that the increase in gas mileage is impossible.


You need to be more careful in your use of language, then, because sometimes you claim to be able to get more out than you put in, which is overunity, or that running the car on hydrogen generated through electrolysis powered by the engine releases more energy than burning the gssoline directly , which is also overunity.

So, if all you are claiming is more mileage, I refer you again to the comments about maintenance and driving styles, and, most specifically, the request for data.

No reliable data, no credible claim.

As a science teacher, you should be aware of that.
(And can we stick to the point? This is about electrolysis, not catapults or gasoline. No need for long ramblings.)
A more accurate and real world increase is actually 10% to 20% for gasoline and maybe 15% to 22% for Diesel! But that return is for large displacement motors. I did have a return of 31% come from a 2.2 Isuzu Diesel. But that little motor barely made 58 horse power and already regularly hit 50+ MPG.
My question stands.
...brought to you by the GOP...
(so off subject)
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?
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?
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.
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.

again, adjustments are needed

What adjustments?

How exactly would they work?

You're new to the site - do you have any expertise in this area?

1-40 of 212Next »