3 Simple Ways to
Share What You Make

With Instructables you can share what you make with the world — and tap into an ever-growing community of creative experts.

PhotosPhotos

Share one or more photos of a project, recipe, or whatever you've made, quickly and easily.

Step by StepStep-By-Step

Share your step-by-step photos with text instructions of what you made so others can do it too!

VideoVideo

Share your how-to video. You'll need your embed code from a video site such as YouTube.

Hydroxy Gas Generator

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 1Safety First and Procedures

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.
« Previous StepDownload PDFView All StepsNext Step »
159 comments
1-40 of 159next »
Jul 31, 2008. 2:42 PMKiteman says:
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.
Apr 3, 2011. 5:57 PMlbrewer42 says:

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.
Jul 12, 2011. 12:54 PMtamahlg says:
...brought to you by the GOP...
(so off subject)
Apr 4, 2011. 1:57 AMKiteman says:
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.

Sep 25, 2010. 9:41 PMLemon says:
Thank you.. finally... a remark on the electrolysis of water that doesn't make me cringe and want to yell through the screen at the self-proclaimed masters of chemistry
May 28, 2010. 12:47 AMneon41 says:
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
May 28, 2010. 11:47 AMKiteman says:
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.

Jan 20, 2011. 10:33 PMneon41 says:
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
Apr 3, 2011. 5:58 PMlbrewer42 says:
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.
Jan 21, 2011. 1:49 AMKiteman says:
If that was addressed to me, you ought to read more closely, since that is what I said.
Sep 7, 2010. 10:50 PMcarrierpilot1357 says:
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?
Sep 8, 2010. 2:28 AMKiteman says:
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.

Jan 8, 2011. 9:22 PMjj.inc says:
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
Sep 8, 2010. 3:43 PMcarrierpilot1357 says:
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?
Sep 9, 2010. 4:00 AMKiteman says:
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.

Mar 30, 2012. 1:57 PMlloydrmc says:
I don't get it. It either increases fuel efficiency, or it doesn't, it's a scam or it isn't.
Mar 30, 2012. 2:34 PMKiteman says:
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.
Apr 2, 2012. 3:30 PMlloydrmc says:
Good! I've never made any such claim. :)
Mar 30, 2012. 4:13 PMlloydrmc says:
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?
Mar 31, 2012. 1:28 AMKiteman says:
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.
Feb 2, 2011. 7:19 PMhipercool12 says:
How about you guys do some research instead of arguying without any facts...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-498MBG5-103&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1994&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1628676173&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0f281d5587ee900759f8f1841012ee44&searchtype=a

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...
Feb 3, 2011. 10:02 AMKiteman says:
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.

Sep 7, 2010. 5:50 PMrsmith5413 says:
(removed by author or community request)
Jan 15, 2011. 5:49 PMtheburn7 says:
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
Nov 20, 2008. 5:38 PMdark sponge says:
Someone needs a nap...
Aug 18, 2010. 8:33 AMdark sponge says:
I was just looking thought this Instructable and saw my old comment here, and decided to do some clarifying.

What I meant was, while there is nothing "special" about the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen generated by this, to most people it's very exciting and fun to have a homemade cheap electric torch that burns underwater. And there is nothing "special" about a torch that burns underwater, it's just because it supplies oxygen to the hydrogen. But most people don't have anything that can burn underwater like this, so to them it is exciting.

Yes, many people think it improves efficiency of engines which it does NOT, and some people even think up crazier things about it. It is just hydrogen and oxygen, nothing special, but this can be quite an exciting project for fun.

I respect your effort to correct the pseudosciences of the world, it's just that sometimes you have to see what people are actually claiming before you correct them. All of those names like hydroxy that he used, he was simply using them to refer to the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen (at least I hope so), not some "special" gas. Although he does say you can "boost an I.C.E" right at the beginning, everything else seems valid to me.
Jun 6, 2010. 5:52 PMjonjones48 says:
You do realize that HO mixed with the other unreacted hydrogen atoms would imediately form H2O, and by the way HHO is the same as saying H - H - O thats imposibe what your creating is 2x H - H & O = O Hydrogen can ONLY form one bond oxygen forms two bonds or in other word cut-the-**** and do your research. PS: I barely ever contribute to this site btw
Oct 24, 2008. 5:44 AMNRen2k5 says:
"Hydroxy my preffered label for essentially "electrolytic gas" means a Hydrogen and Oxygen gas combined. Some used to call it oxyhydrogen...rather clumsy in my opinion."'

A little more appropriate, though. Like how a torch that uses acetylene and oxygen is called an oxyacetylene torch.

"Its plain to the eye that its NO SCAM."

Selling people on the idea that the reaction chain somehow conjures free energy out of nowhere is a scam.

"What is a SCAM, is the fact that in todays day and age people should have to pay decent money for info that is free, well if this instructable ends "that" scam, then mission accomplished."

Empty rhetoric.
Jul 31, 2008. 7:22 PMdchall8 says:
KITEMAN! What is so wrong that this merits shouting in large font? My flashlight Instructable makes plain ordinary light by connecting (almost) ordinary batteries to an (almost) ordinary light bulb inside an ordinary flashlight. Certainly my Instructable is less spectacular than this one.
Jan 8, 2011. 9:23 PMjj.inc says:
You are awesome, such an insult with such plain words.
Jul 31, 2008. 5:19 PMARVash says:
Also salt as an electrolyte does not make Chlorine gas, this is a common misconception. It would not be fair to say that it is a "scam", it just doesn't do all that much, but if you're using a milk jug and water bottle bubbler, it can be cheap fun (: .
Sep 7, 2010. 6:48 PMrsmith5413 says:
thank you. my next comment was going to be that people living next to
our oceans or salt water would have a gold mine here.

but, for simple and basic carb type engines. lawn mowers, garden tractors,
etc. and also for pre 1970 automobiles that were built without those nasty
devices called 'oxygen sensors'.

but hey! if you could expand yet 1 more section to this. see what happens, is
both the H and O gases are pointed into the engine. the sensors sense more
oxygen coming in than normal. and the results is the computer pumps in
more gas. it'll work fine for about a week. but after that, hmmm! yes, no.

but, if you could seperate the H gas from the O gas, pipe the H gas into the
engine. and discard the O. this could work.

you can purchase plans, etc. for a device to trick the sensors. but, in most
states if not all, it is again illegal to tamper with these sensors. go figure.
haha!

Jul 31, 2008. 5:34 PMKiteman says:
I don't mean this author is a scam artist, I mean he has fallen for a scam.
Jul 31, 2008. 8:42 PMskunkbait says:
Kite, I agree tha Brown's, Klein's, etc. are over-hyped, but I can't deny the 7mpg gain (tested over 4000 miles) with a similar contraption. Maybe it was cooling the intake better, I don't know, but as long as he's not selling anything, I wouldn't go so far as to say "SCAM".
Sep 7, 2010. 6:59 PMrsmith5413 says:
hints on what your's will right now.
and hints on changes that could be made to improve it.
nothing more, nothing less.

thank you,
Sep 7, 2010. 6:58 PMrsmith5413 says:
Peter, I too am on your side. these devices do work. people just need to be
aware what they will work on and what they won't. I'm just throwing out hints.
Aug 1, 2008. 2:46 AMskunkbait says:
That comment was for kiteman, wasn't it? I was actually sticking up for you!
1-40 of 159next »

Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

All Steps Viewing
View all steps of an Instructable on the same page when you're a Pro Member.

Upgrade to Pro today!
44
Followers
14
Author:petercd
general bloke type of tinkering