Author Options:

Hydrogen Generators Answered

Does anyone know how to test for output quantity of HHO gas from a Hydrogen Generator when connected to a vacuum such as your intake manifold? The output is easy to test when just checking with a submerged bottle with the generator running on its own without being hooked to a vacuum source. The generator will put out substantially more volume under vacuum than when not. How do you check for output volume when under vacuum? Pylgram


. turbine meter?
. I doubt that the slight difference in pressure will have much effect on output. A quick search didn't turn up anything on the effects of pressure on production, but it seems to me that current would be the major factor.

Thanks for your comment Nacho There is a very big difference in output when connected to the vacuum source at the intake manifold. To demonstrate you can watch the hydrogen being formed with just atmospheric pressure and then connect it to the intake manifold and you can see a huge amount of more hydrogen being made. My search is for the method to measure how much hydrogen is being formed and delivered to the intake manifold while under vacuum is something I haven't been able to locate yet. Thanks for your reply. Pylgram

Is more hydrogen being formed? Or are the bubbles simply larger because they're under vacuum?

Thanks for your comment Tool The bubbles stay the same size. You can tell the quantity of gas increases when the vacuum is applied. All the vacuum does is suck the gas out of the generator so the generator can make more gas without having to push it out of the generator. I think the next poster may be onto something that might work. Thanks for your post. Pylgram

AFAIK, the ambient pressure might have a slight effect on the electrolysis process that breaks the covalent bonds holding the constituent atoms together.

But you don't get anything for free. Any increased gas production will be offset by the energy required to maintain the vacuum.

Just for fun, I searched for "water electrolysis vacuum", and checked out the "evidence." No one ever cites any concrete, experimental data--they just use phrases like "you can see the difference."

gmoon Thanks for commenting on my post but you didn't address my question. Only goes to show how new this HHO Technology really is. It seems that some people are trying to appear intelligent without any knowledge of what they speak. The energy you referred to is supplied by the engine and has nothing to do with producing hydrogen. Supplying the energy is not a problem. My concern is; How to measure the output under vacuum? Pylgram

It seems that some people are trying to appear intelligent without any knowledge of what they speak

hehe. You're pretty typical, responding with the personal attacks. Just give us science, not BS.

-- There's nothing new about producing H + O via electrolysis. Nor about using hydrogen a fuel.

-- You can't achieve a vacuum, and still produce the gases. If you're producing gases, it's not a vacuum :-)

Indeed, the greater the output, the harder it is to hold a vacuum. So theoretically, higher gas production makes the system less efficient..(if it worked at all.)

Here's how to measure the gas production:

1) load the cell with water
2) lower the pressure by pumping the gas output into a pressure vessel
3) wait until the water is reduced by a measurable amount (weight the cell to be precise.)
4) have the pressure vessels analyzed for purity by a lab.

I can tell you one thing for sure: Water vaporises (evaporates) much more rapidly in low pressure environments. That plus the H + O gases would expand (not increase in amount), resulting in a much greater surface area and more vaporisation.

When you check the vessels for purity, you'll find a lot of condensed water that wasn't separated at all.... Sure, there might be a slight increase in H and O.

Your flow gauge alone will give you a wonderful result--but it won't tell you that much of the volume is water vapor. And it won't measure the pressure within the flow. You'll get figures like 10, or 100 times the production--and they will be bogus (gas / vapor expands to fill the partial pressure vacuum.)

gmoon Appreciate you comment. How did we get from measuring volume through a vacuum to having a pressurized vessel analyzed for purity by a lab? There has to be a scientific method of measuring hydrogen production under vacuum without having to pressurize it and send it off to a lab. It might be as easy as I don't know that's why I'm asking. Pylgram

If you're trying to hold a partial vacuum (the best you can do), then the gases will exit the electrolysis cell through the vacuum pump....which is ideal for trapping and storing gas. There are other ways of collecting them--balloon, inverted container in water, etc. Ultimately, you'll learn more if you have them chemically analyzed. Isn't that the goal?

gmoon What vacuum pump? The engine creates vacuum while it is running and sucks the hydrogen into it. No. The goal is to measure the amount of hydrogen going into the engine from the vacuum source. If you don't know how it is done then you can't BS your way of explaining something you don't know. No matter how many words you use to make a full circle to get back to the original question, it remains the same. How do you measure the quantity of hydrogen being produced in a vacuum? Pylgram

So why didn't you say you wanted to fake the outcome? You clearly are trying to, if you don't want to test it under laboratory conditions.

How do you measure the quantity of hydrogen being produced in a vacuum?

Exactly as I described. Sorry, I though you actually wanted to know the answer.

gmoon That is quantity (AMOUNT OF). Not quality. I can't take my truck to a lab and have them pressurize it in a huge vessel so they can tell me the quality of the hydrogen produced. I think Jackalope answered my question best when he suggested I find a flow meter. I don't know why you felt compelled to respond to a question for information when you don't have a clue about how to solve what I asked for. Please. Stop the gobly guke. I got my answer from someone else so you don't have to keep proving you don't know the answer to my question. Pylgram

I really thought you wanted to know. Too bad.

Stop the gobly guke.

Yeah, all that science and reality stuff sure is a pain.

gmoon Blah, Blah, Blah, Word. Pylgram

Hey, you don't want proper answers, don't ask questions. If you wanted somebody to help you look for numbers to support HHO woowoo, rather than evidence to decide one way or the other, then you're on the wrong site.

Kiteman I believe asking questions is what this site is about. Without questions this would be only half the site that it is. Opinions aren't science until they are proven to be correct. If someones opinion is scientifically correct then, the scientific proof would be included in the posted opinion. If the scientific proof isn't included with the opinion then, the opinion is just a opinion. Jackalope answered the question better than anyone else here did. Sorry your friend didn't have a better opinion to offer to my question. I can use scientific proof. I can't use opinions that are not correct. Pylgram

I believe asking questions is what this site is about.

Then you believe wrong - it's about making stuff and showing other people how to do it. Read the top of the page.

...Opinions aren't science until they are proven to be correct...

That is something you ought to remember.

You are convinced that "HHO" is real, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary. You are convinced that injecting H2 and O2 into an IC engine will dramatically increase the efficiency, yet there is not evidence to support this.

You may not have much time for other people's opinions, but your own are fine, even when they're wrong?

And, as an aside, in proper scientific methodology, it is impossible to prove most things correct, only to show that attempts at disproof are wrong.

Kiteman I stand corrected about scientific methodology. We can only eliminate things that don't work. Any high school science class can show you how to extract hydrogen and oxygen from water. What you do with that is what is important. are you saying there is no use for anything other than gasoline for IC engines? Come on. You're arguing for the sake of arguing to support your friends opinion. If you don't know how to solve the question I asked then why are you so disturbed about not knowing the correct answer to that question? So professor, I will ask you the same original question. How do you measure output from a hydrogen generator under vacuum? Now please, if you don't know the answer to this question, just don't show ignorance by saying that hydrogen won't burn in a IC engine. Any added fuel to a IC engine will cause an increase. Pylgram

Though being fairly suspicious of HHO and the like I do know that you can gt increased power or efficiency by adding a second more combustible fuel to the engine.

Get a lawnmower or a micro scooter, add a line from a lighter tank full of butane in, only small amounts and you'll find a massive increase, mostly from the addition of fuel but the exhaust cleans up massively as everything seems to get burnt now.

That's the only place that adding a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen to the intake of the engine can really help, though I suspect a line of pure oxygen being added could do a better job...

Jackalope I agree wholeheartedly that oxygen would probably be a excellent choice for better performance all the way around and we certainly need all the environmental help we can get. Our limitations are what keeps us from using the best materials for the job. Right now, from a economical point, the HHO Generators are more popular than anything else because they are accessable to more people, simply because of the costs involved. If it weren't for the expensive cost of petroleum we might not be experimenting with alternative sources of energy. Brown's Gas deffinately works. It's just a matter of building a system that is best for your particular needs. Without the proper measuring devices, we can't perform the experiments necessary to develop a reliable source. That is why I turned to this site for advice about how to measure the output of a HHO Generator when hooked to a vacuum source such as under its designed load of operation. I appreciate everyone's input whether is helps my project or not. The conversation is usefull to advance the worthy cause. Pylgram

Well some time, when I'm in a better place I plan to do a proper experiment on several different things to test true fuel savings, using a constant load generator and the different systems to do so, if the hydrogen and oxygen mix saves more fuel than the load uses I'll bow out to it, until I see hard facts I will always be speculative about it, there are so many myths and lies rolling around hydrogen generation ever since someone re-invented electrolysis... I do really want to know more about using it as a cutting torch power source, since I wish to debunk certain things and also prove to myself if it's any use since it would be such a cheap setup if it can truly generate the temperatures people say. No amount of youtube videos will cut it either, most of them use pretty poor special effects for a start, some of them look real but as said until I see it in person... My plan for a generator is carbon rods, a high voltage, high frequency power source such as the scanner inverter on my desk and then running it like that, current causes heat in circuits and from what I've seen so far that would lower the efficiency of the process, where as putting the same energy in at high voltages and low currents would yield much more effective results. I still know that the process is fundamentally flawed since you can't use less energy to break those bonds than putting them back together, that's a scientific fact.

The research I've done indicate high voltage and and low amperage works best. The generator I built puts out two quarts of HHO per minute at atmospheric pressure. When I hook it the the engine intake, it immediately produces more gas. Water will boil at a much lower temperature in a vacuum than it does at atmospheric pressure so, temperature in the generator is critical to maintain below the boiling point. I have all the research on the generator completed except for measuring how much more it will produce under vacuum. If you are sceptical about if it will work, just go the the patent office website and do some research. You have to scientically prove that something will work and it is your own idea before you can get a patent. I had to build my own before I would believe it myself so I know what you are saying. Good luck with your research. Pylgram

How have you determined that the cell produces "more gas" when connected to the manifold?

Kiteman I observed the increase in production of gas just by site alone. It is obvious there is more gas being produced. That is why I am in need of a device to measure the amount of increase in gas production so I can calculate that increase into determining the correct size of generator for each vehicle I install them on. If I know and can determine the constant amount of increased gas production according to amounts of vacuum applied, the correct size of generator can be determined with this calculation considered. The first step is to determine the amount of vacuum that each engine will produce. From there it is a matter of R&D; to determine the possible output of a generator according to its size. Since I know the measurement of gas being produced at atmospheric pressure I need to find the amount of increased gas production. The flow meters I have located will probably do the job. They are fairly expensive for a middle of the line meter. I was hoping for an alternative device that will do the calculations I need. Thanks for the relpy Pylgram

I observed the increase in production of gas just by site alone. It is obvious there is more gas being produced.

Ah, I see what's happening - you looked and saw more or larger bubbles. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you would see under vacuum without any increase in he actual mass of gas being produced. You are looking at the amount of gas, but expanding under the influence of low pressure. You are looking at air coming out of solution in the water (because of the low pressure). You may even be looking at the water itself boiling, because of the low pressure.

Try this experiment: take a simple syringe (no needle, an oral medicine syringe is fine), put a small amount of water in it, then push in the plnger to expel all the air. Put your finger over the end of the syringe to stop air gatting in, then pull the plunger - you will see huge volumes of gas bubble out of the water, even though nothing new is being made - it's purely an artefact of the reduced pressure.

That is why I recommended the electrical method for measuring the output - it is wholly independent of pressure and volume, based entirely on the exact numbers of gas molecules generated by the electrolysis.

Kiteman That is a good explanation of your theory but baseless. The reason for the increase in gas production is that the atmospheric pressure is reduced in the generator which reduces the balance of pressure. When you have a unbalanced pressure area, even with the weather, it causes the higher pressure to rush into the vacuum area. If the pressure is equal on both sides, in this case from the water to the gas chamber, the amount of gas produced will depend on the ability of the electrolysis process to fill the gas chamber against the resistance of the atmospheric balance. When you lower the atmospheric pressure on the gas chamber, it causes the electrolysis process to work easier because of the low pressure area it supplies. The gas rushes into the vacuum area. This permits the electrolysis plates to be able to produce more gas because the previous gas produced is exited faster because of the vacuum. A good explaination of this is with the exhaust system on a vehicle. The larger the exhaust pipe is, the more power is produced by the engine because it breathes easier. The exhaust gases are able to exit the exhaust pipe quicker causing the engine to work easier. It is the same way with the HHO Generator. You can consider the gas chamber and vacuum as bigger exhaust pipes so the generator works easier and produces more gas. If you are going to condemn the HHO Generators you really should build one and conduct your own experiments rather than rely on what someone has told you about them. Pylgram Pylgram

That would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that the gas production is limited by the current flowing. It doesn't matter how hard you suck, if you don't add more energy you won't get more molecules of gas, they'll just be spread out more. Instead of arguing against something you haven't researched or tested, check the current & voltage with the manifold connected and the engine running. As it's running, crack the vacuum and watch the readouts. If they change, you're on to something. If they don't, you're not.

Kiteman Every time you answer one of my posts you are making less sense. You are just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing. If you haven't built a HHO generator and experimented with it then you know absolutely nothing about one. I could sit here and type for days and explain the characteristics of the HHO generator to you and you will disagree with every word I say regardless of what it is. You are showing everyone who reads these threads just how ignorant you are about this subject. If you would care to continue to show the world your ignorance about HHO Generators, I will continue to inform you about the characteristic of them so you can disagree with every word I say. Does that make you feel good the argue with every word I type? Are you psychotic to the point that you can't understand anything that anyone has to say about whatever conversation you are involved in? Or is this just your little game of disagree with everything everyone says. Really fun isn't it? Now, here is you some more words to disagree with. The pwm controller delivers a set amount of voltage and current to the HHO generator. The larger the exhaust pipes are the less work the engine has to do to produce more power. Therefore the engine requires less fuel because of better ventilation of the exhaust system. Therefore the engine is more effecient on less fuel. So, the reason we have wind is because a low pressure system is pulling air from a higher pressure system. Is there anything about what I just typed that you will agree with?\ Pylgram

Point one: as I have said from the beginning, there is no such thing as HHO - all you are doing is electrolysis water and mixing the product gases - H2 and O2. I have already posted evidence about the fraudulent nature of HHO (AKA Brown's Gas, AKA Kleins' Gas).

Secondly, as a Science teacher, I do have some experience of electrolysis, how it works and how to measure the production.

I would assume that you have realised that these methods, which I have already explained to you in this thread, would clearly demonstrate that directing the output of electrolysis into a vacuum line will not increase the rate of gas production, because you have chosen to ignore my recommendations.

Instead, you have chosen to see a critique of the science as a personal attack, and have responded with a personal attack, in direct contradiction of site rules.

...everyone who reads these threads...

Haven't you counted how many people are answering you? And how many on those are agreeing with you?

...pwm controller...

Genuine question: why are you using pulsed current to control a continuous process?

..large exhaust pipes...

To a point, this is true. However, that point has already been reached - make the exhaust too wide, and the back-pressure drops, dramatically reducing the efficiency of the engine. But that it entirely irrelevant to this discussion.


Weather systems are entirely irrelevant to this discussion, the mechanics are entirely different - in the weather, a low-pressure area is filled by air that already exists, you don't have to make the air electrochemically on the fly.

Before replying with more paranoia and irrelevance, consider something: if electrolysis is such a wonderful boost to an engine, why is it not done commercially?

1 (expecting 2 any moment), 3, 9, 12, (verging on 20), 22, (waiting for 28)

Kiteman I can see you have ramped up your attempts to intimidate me. I don't know why you feel threatened by my presents here but I am going to contact the administrators of this site and have them review these posts to see why you have tried so hard to intimidate me into submission of accepting your domination on this site. No one believes you are a science teacher. You are a bully who has found a home where you can intimidate people with your overbearing attitude. If I leave this site it will be because the administrators have decided that. Not you. That is unless you are a administrator of this site. You need some psychiatric counseling to learn why you feel you have to dominate people and learn how to co exist with everyone else. I hope for the best in your recovery. Pylgram

Kiteman I have contacted Administration and asked them to review my posts and your participation in them. I have also asked to have the posts of others viewed to see if there is any attempts to be overbearing with any other members of this site. Have a Good Day Pylgram

. I would love to see the response you get. . . Before you make an attack of any sort, you really ought to have some idea of who the attackee is. . Just to fill you in a little bit, Kiteman is a longtime member who has a LOT of street cred around here. Do the research you suggest to Admin and you will see what I mean. . While you're doing your research, notice that Kiteman is also a member of the Feature Team, ie, a user who is trusted by Admin. . Good luck. You're gonna need it.

Aww, you warned him...

I just noticed - he hasn't posted anything since that comment.

. You are soooooo overbearing that you probably ran him off. heehee . Hope the psychiatric counseling is going well.

Not really - she won't come out from under the desk until I leave.

Kiteman, trying to think here, pressure or vacuum for electrolysis, remember I plan to put all these things to the test, I know gaseous reactions are best under pressure to increase reaction rate but would lowering the resistance to the formation of hydrogen and oxygen by extricating from the solution cause the increase, more energy would automatically flow through the lower resistance solution, if I'm not getting confused with the jump between electronics and chemistry, basically it makes no difference to me but I'd like to understand that kind of stuff when doing my proof tests. As said before I want to see the facts before me.

If it was a purely chemical reaction, then pressure usually makes a difference. Electrolysis is limited by current, though - if you can't put any more current in, you can't get any greater mass of gas out (we must remember the mass/volume distinction).

I have a feeling (no evidence, but it is intuitive) that increasing pressure will reduce the rate of electrolysis, as it would trap electrically-neutral gas molecules in solution that could obstruct the flow of ions.

But, I've been wrong before. Pylgram really needs to test his claims before arguing any further.

Kiteman You answered your own arguement right there when you said that raising the pressure would limit the production. Now, lower the pressure past the point of atmospheric equal and you now start to make a gain in gas production. I'm wondering why it took someone else to enter this conversation to say the same thing I have been trying to get you to recognize since we have been discussing this, for you to own up to the fact that you knew what I was saying all along. I also notice that Jackalope sounds like he is afraid to say what he is thinking to you out of fear that you will turn this technique of arguing with everything he says his way. Are you a bully on this site? Pylgram

I also said that the production is limited by the current - lowering the pressure will not increase the current, so will not increase production. All you will get is more volume - the same amount of gas, but spread out more.

It's about time you started reading what I post, rather than picking through it for things to support your beliefs.

Well my assumptions are similar then... Well they're forcibly dissolved in the solution and don't conduct so it makes sense, I think... It's the same reason I am to believe a high voltage and low current is best since heat is both dangerous and should theoretically increase resistances... I guess I'm trying to learn all I can before trying this...

Jackalope Your thoughts are on the right track. the higher the voltage and lower the current the more gas is produced at lower temperatures. Also, a PWM and Frequency contoller to stablize the input power are essential before you can run any standard tests. I am putting a transmission oil cooler on my generator to circulate the electrolite when it reaches a certain temperature. All these parts are a must if you are going to maintain a steady rate of gas production. That is the only way to measure a consistant production of gas and how it will benefit your vehicle. Pylgram

Well mine simply uses a constant source of wall power plus an inverter that provides a permanent high frequency same current pulse for that reason and it's predictable... Other than that i need to take vacuum effects in to consideration since volume is not the only thing I need a constant source like that, if the resistance changes in certain things then it needs to stay the same, which it will....

What kind of voltages and amperages were you using? Just out of question... I'm planning on using it as a test bed for multiple experiments so it'll need to have a decent capacity....

You're arguing for the sake of arguing to support your friends opinion.

No, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy regarding "opinion" and science. I'm not defending anybody, I'm trying to educate you. You are, as usual, reading opinion and meaning where there was none.

I answered your question some time ago, giving you a method that would work no matter what the output of your electrolysis cell was connected to, but you chose to ignore me, responding only to engender argument and bad feeling in an attempt to bolster your own failing confidence in an unproven and unreliable technology.

Give it up, Kiteman. No amount of straight talk will shift this guy from his stance. I was flabbergasted (and speechless) when he stated:

That is quantity (AMOUNT OF). Not quality.

So he's perfectly happy to measure a flow of 30% hydrogen and 70% water vapor (at low pressure, by volume only.) In his world, that's equal to 100% hydrogen at atmospheric pressure...

I'm equally flabbergasted when these, um, persons (being good here, takes an effort) believe that everyone is against them. That somehow we're anti-hydrogen power.

I've been a huge fan of hydrogen-powered vehicles for some 30+ years. Then someone comes a long and pretends to invent something new, slaps a pseudo-scientific name on it (HHO) and :P (be nice policy)

At his point, I'm hoping these persons don't set the hydrogen fuel cause back another 30 years...

. Granted, gmoon's suggestions and comments are not very practical for a DIYer, but he has given you a lot of good info to work with. Learn to be a little more grateful.
. For the last time, most flow meter do not care about pressure - almost all flow meters will work perfectly well at sub-ambient pressures. Although you will have to compensate your measurements (as gmoon so graciously points out) when working with compressible gases, such as H2 .
. BTW, some automotive MAFs use a hot wire to measure flow. Not a good thing to insert into an HHO stream.

. Most flow meters, including the turbine meters I mentioned above, operate on pressure differential and will work just fine under a slight vacuum. You're reading is likely to be slightly high at reduced pressures ( PVT ), but you should be able to compensate.