Author Options:

OxyHydrogen Internal Combustion Engine Boosting Anyone? Answered

So folks I think I'm gonna give the water-into-OxyHydrogen-into-fuel booster gag a try. There's a couple of shady ibles on the subject, so I wanted a little more professional input. I'd like to go about this all scientific like so my questions kinda boil down to:

  • Measure / calculate the amount of air used by my car in one second (in volume)
  • What's the best catalyst to use
  • Measure the amount of hydrogen and oxygen produced in one second (in volume)
  • Accurately measure fuel efficiency

I met a chap who did it to his car, I'll try to wrangle some out of him. Bit of an interesting blighter, 50-60ish black chap with dreadlocks from Gloucester.

I'll be giving it a try in a less then optimal test vehicle however. Carburated '94 Buick Century, V6. I'm sure the idea would "theoretically" work better in a smaller engine. If this system works at all (upwards of 10% increase in efficiency), I'll make an improved version and iblify it. The car will be used on primarily the same route, a good mix of highway and 40 ish speeds, and I'll leave the air conditioner off full time so's not to get false readings.

Any input plz? I'll post some pics of my brave victim car later.


Well, well, well. Either communications fell dead after I replied four years ago and all took my advice and succeeded, or were eliminated, or got scaranoid or simply 'boosted their own brains'-NOT!
Doesn't anybody read or was this exercise a flash in the pan? This is the BEST boost for diesel engines and you missed bigtime! Oh well, just shows to go ya- can lead HP to

Bought a Corvette, the kind of boost I'm looking at running involves turbines ;)

Just found your request while I was Googling oxyhydrogen combustion, so I signed on to reply. I'm "boosting" natural gas.<br /> To find the volume of air used in one second use one of these:<br /> theoretical cfm = rpm x displacement / 3456 (cfm =Cubic Feet per Minute)<br /> actual cfm is about 85% of theoretical<br /> cfm divided by 60 = amount of air used in a second<br /> The best electrolysis catalyst to use is nickel or platinum but there are many other factors involved in the electrode generation of oxygen and hydrogen as well as its releasing the bubbles. Oft, interrupting the current helps, like 12 V @ 12 times per second. This would be about 40 milliseconds on and 40 milliseconds off. Crank up the current until gas flows. Acid or alkali medium.<br /> You can measure the amount of hydrogen and oxygen produced by inverting a graduated cylinder filled with bath and time the volume displacement, dividing by the number of seconds, over each electrode. Note that hydrogen should be twice oxygen. If not, efficiency of the hydrogen evolution reaction and/or oxygen reduction reaction will indicate poor cathode and/or anode choice of material.<br /> Easiest way to measure fuel use is by a flowmeter, a calibrated ball pushed up a tapered cylinder detecting fuel flow rate. At steady-state speed conditions observe the rate. Turn car around and do again to correct for level, wind, etc. Do the same after installing booster system. You can then calculate mileages before and after to give percent improvement.<br /> So now, you should know what else to do to get that engine to efficiently parse needed fuel.<br /> As you "boost" you will use less fuel but will be taking in the same amount of air. You must alter the fuel flow rate to compensate for the extra energy made by combusting hydrogen and getting the gasoline to fire better. So you have to be able to change the timing of ignition, by retarding as you will be burning it all faster. Ideally you would like to be able to advance or retard at will while the jalopy's jumping. Along with all of this if you don't have fuel injection microprocessor control based on the exhaust oxygen sensor then it's change the jets time. You'll need smaller jets, changing them until your plugs read right or a thermocouple reading on the exhaust manifold. Boosting will also allow you to run leaner, anyway. You can also get better mileage with a certain amount of water injected but need to have the right mist size flowing at the right rate (it soaks up heat by vaporizing the right amount of mist so the peak pressure and temperature is reduced to contribute extra pressure later where more work can be done; the result is a higher average pressure doing more work). Don't forget to use a hotter coil and perhaps a multiple spark discharge (MSD-6) or capacitative unit for leaner conditions. They do work!<br /> These are some basic changes which will work. You should also catch any mist or fumes which might come off the gas generator since they will consist of caustic or acid from the bath (medium). Pipe the outlet of boost gas below the carb into the manifold. Engine vacuum helps pull the boost gases in. (Sorry, I did not read all of all the replies.) Just prompt me for any details or sources, etc. And thanks!<br />

Where's Kiteman??

i would check out youtube for a more complete understanding of HHO, energybuildersnetwork, scarecrowlabs, zerofossilfuels to be more exact, rather than waste your time trying to build a system from scratch, this group is all ready way ahead of the curve, they have complete systems as well as "cells" and plenty of info so that you arent having to go thru the learning curve as they have already tried alot of different materials and catalyst's as for mythbusters, the fact that the car did run when they were foolish enough to try an unrestricted flow from a bottle of hydrogen is proof positive that an ice will run but there are problems with straight hydrogen but you will learn about that in your on-going research (i hope) be well and remember be safe hydrogen will hurt you if you are not careful

Personally I don't consider YouTube to be a great source for a complete understanding of anything- there are plenty of crazy claims around, from ostensibly working overunity machines (including an overbalanced wheel, proven not to work thousands of years ago IIRC) to that "Hollywood" guy claiming he had cold fusion by electrolysing some water/KOH and everything in between. There will probably be plenty of sensible people building electrolysers to boost their car engines, but they tend to get lost in the morass of Tesla conspiracy theorists and nutjobs. Is this Mythbusters episode available to watch online anywhere? I would love to see it myself and see what results they actually got.

PKM, it doest matter to me where the source of info is from ie..... you tube or any other site for that matter, but whether the device works or not and the device people i mentioned have working devices/systems

i am pretty sure the myth busters episode is available i think it was on you tube that i saw it could be wrong, but it is not a hard search, a few letters typing in google or that nonsense site............ you tube

but ill help a bit try this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydEkV-E0mP8 if you can cut and paste

Hm, fair point- I looked on YouTube but didn't find any of the original footage, just people commenting on it (in the usual white-on-blue WMM caption way), which strengthens my point- there is good stuff on YouTube, but it's hard to find even if you are motivated to do so because it's usually buried under a mountain of useless rubbish.

Cold Fusion, that thing that eluded physicists for decades, in a plastic tube with some electrodes running off mains electricity? Really?

Anyway, this is a tangent. Having looked around more I have found some good YouTube videos on how to build simple electrolysers, so for this purpose it's fine as a resource.

PKM the link i provided is footage of MBusters attempt did u watch it?

I did, hence my comment. I guess there would be trouble if someone put the whole episode up, stupid copyright law :P doesn't "scholarly research" count as fair use?

ooops what do you know Instructables converted it directly to a link, all u have to do is click on it, unbelievable think you can handle that

was born that way nova, rude crude and lewd, but enough about my mother, be well with your endeavors

i think they tried something like this on mythbusters, and it didn't work... but they were using a tiny tank and there wasnt enough current going through the water to create hydrogen fast enough. i would personally suggest using this on a go cart, or something small-scale first

I'm fairly sure Nova Hawk already knows it's crackpot pseudoscience, but going through a properly controlled analysis to actually prove that (or perhaps even disprove that!) is exactly the right approach. I hope that he gets the necessary good engineering input to make this work.

@k_man: "They tried this on Mythbusters and it didn't work" tells you nothing. Often, in the intersts of making the show interesting and going for the wilder "myths" they don't approach the test head-on. Furthermore, there are two completely different (but superficially similar) claims that can be made about this process, which I will cal "hydrogen boosting" and "hydrogen overunity"- I suspect Mythbusters were testing the demonstrably impossible overunity claim when they called it "busted". @kelseymh: see "two different claims" comment to k_man- yes, the hydrogen overunity cycle is rubbish science but I would guess Nova Hawk is trying the physically possible allegedly-efficiency-boosting configuration which I believe may yield actual results. Sorry to sound like a stuck record but I would realy like to get these two completely different claims treated separately as they deserve.


In fact, I've watched the Mythbusters episode on (multiple) fuel-economy myths multiple times. There are some very nice results the present (for example, the difference in drag on a pickup truck with vs. without the back door open).

For the hydrogen, they were specifically testing the fuel-economy boost, not the overunity claim (actually, they were testing whether an unmodified ICE could run directly off gaseous hydrogen). Rather than going through the electrolysis process, they simply hooked up a tank with a regulator to introduce H2 into the carburetor. This tests the basic question of propulsion, without worrying about absurd thrermodynamic claims. What they found was that they engine simply wouldn't run.

Whether you get some percentage improvement in efficiency by mixing H2 with gasoline is another question, and (I think) the one Nova Hawk wants to answer. It's a good question, with a non-obvious answer (it might actually work, I just don't know).

I played around with it, and saw a consistent improvement of 4 mpg (from 37mpg to 41 mpg). Itested it for about 4000 miles. It interests me, and I'm sure SOMETHING good can come out of this sort of test. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to keep experimenting. I also blew up part of the intake when I forgot and left the electrolysis on for an hour before ****trying*** to start the car. The explosion was deafening, and the car was out of commission for a few days.

Awesome! What did you use for an electrode?

I experimented with several things, but ended up using aircraft-grade aluminium. It was cast off parts from work.

I was thinking of making coils or plates from stainless steel, for anti corosion

There are some good sites that'll tell you what works best. Also, decide if you'll need a catalys/electrolyte, or just pure water.

Any idea if you could use graphite for both electrodes? I guess there would be efficiency implications because of its lower conductivity, but if you want to avoid electrode corrosion it's basically that or platinum, isn't it? Hmm.. I wonder if a very thin coating of an unreactive metal on a bulk electrode could work. I guess the problem is how do you attach leads to the electrodes, etc.

I dunno. Probably the best way to test is to hook it up to a 12 volt battery charger and see which materials produce the most "hydr-oxy" over the longest period of time. My kids experimented like that for a couple of weeks before I settled on aluminum. But the old Mazda I experiment with (I only paid $250 for it), is temporarily out of service (CV joints), and I'm unwilling to experiment with my "better" vehicles.

sweet, I've got some sheet aluminum. I was thinking of rolling a double spiral for maximum surface area...

That's good. But do consider going with stainless. Aluminum is very effective untill it glazes over. Stainless might last much longer. As a side note, my experiment with common steel rusted it out so quickly, that after 200 miles, all I had were rusty nubs that no longer contacted the water (but I think I was using salt in the solution).

You'd be rusty too if you were dumped in salt water AND had oxygen bubbles floating around :P

I'm already rusty! Maybe that why my doc keeps telling me to cut back on the salt......

The guy I've spoken with (From gloucester, ex RAF) said graphite makes for crap electrodes, he uses a purchased stainless steel plates and salt.

Ten percent! That's not bad at all. I'd be quite happy to bump my own new car's mileage from 26 to 30 mpg. I'd get an extra 30-40 miles between fill ups. Conceivably, a focused engineering research effort could do even better.

I think the safety issues (as you allude) would limit the willingness of manufacturers to deploy such a system without some expensive interlocks. I also don't know how much mileage loss might arise from the added weight of these systems in a given car. Surely not a 10% effect (i.e., cancelling out the benefit), but not zero, either.

Thanks very much for adding to the discussion!

Mine was a bit labour intensive. It burned through aluminum wire frequently, and the electrodes corroded quickly. Once they were covered in corrosion, they became inneffective. But changing them out frequently (over my 4000 mile experiment), kept the thing producing. I'm pretty confident that you couldn't make enough to completely run a car (as you are driving it), but the mileage boost was a pretty neat reward for my efforts.

. You may be able to use a MAF to measure all the gas flows. You will most likely have to come up with new calibration curves for H2 and O2 , but it should be within your capabilities to do that.
. Keep in mind that H2 is highly compressible so pressure and temp are important when doing calculations. Don't scrimp on the transducers.
. A car with OBD will give a lot of data (air flow, gaso flow, &c) in real-time.

I'm not an automotive engineer, so I can't give you the practical details for this. However, I've done enough process-control stuff to know what kind of equipment and mods you would need for your steps 1, 3, and 4.

1) To measure the air used by your car, hook up a gas volume flowmeter to your intake manifold, on the main line before distribution. You can get these calibrated for air or for specific gases (such as helium). You'll want to get one with an electronic (4-20 mA, probably) output so you don't need to be under the hood watching a little ball float up and down :-)

3) Measuring the output rate of electrolysis is best done on the lab bench, not in the car. Use inverted graduated cylinders, completely filled with water. As the H2 and O2 form, they will displace the water from the cylinder back out into the tank. You can read off the volume of gas (at atmospheric pressure) directly from the cylinders' graduations.

4) There are commercial fuel economy displays you can hook up to your car, but they're generally only good to a few tenths of an MPG (i.e., 1-2% precision). If you want better, use an electronic liquid volume flowmeter on your fuel line (you can probably attach it next to the fuel filter, without having to cut the line). That'll get you the petrol flow to the engine; your odometer gives you your distance travelled.

If you are extraordinarily ambitious you could even build yourself a microcontroller circuit to take both flowmeter inputs, plus a tap off your vehicle's odometer, and either display the three readings, or do the calculations on the fly. To my mind, that's a bit more than you need for a one-off experiment like this, but you may enjoy the challenge.

Note to readers less observant than Nova Hawk: the boldface terms above are what you should type into a Google search to find suppliers.