HHO

Please repeat after me, TVP45 has a good answer!

You should become TVP46 you know!

Actually, I've been thinking about going in the other direction as my various parts stop working. But, why are you not incrementing your Case#?

Thks, I did not mean a chemical compound, some companies claim they have a cheap mean for hydrogen generation for cars that will save 20% fuel, for $1200 to $380 a unit, and if this were completely true, most automoviles in the US would be using it, I was planning to buy one but did not fing any seriuos information from a US university

"I was planning to buy one but did not fing any serious information from a US university"

Go ahead, do whatever you want. We here at CR4 have been trying to warn everyone who's thinking of buying into these scams not to fall for them, but still, some people just won't listen. I guess I've been vindicated for being blunt to the point of rudeness towards someone who wanted to invest in these scams.

Do you know what you'll get for your money? Not an actual working device, but rather a book that teaches you how to perform electrolysis of water i.e. nothing more than basic high school chemistry. And you'll spend more energy electrolysing the water than you'll recover burning the H₂ gas.

The reason why you'll never see this nonsense in information from a university because universities have to deal in fact , not bullshit. If I still haven't manage to dissuade you by now, then all I can say is, "Good luck. You're really gonna need it." To quote P.T. Barnum: "There's one born every minute."

Ever tried thinking out side the square? And one thing more. If fuel injection and the modern motor is so good how come the consumption figures are not reflecting 50 years of development. Under the observation of scrutineers back in '56 my father and co driver achieved over 60mpg driving a Dyna Panhard in the Mobilgas Economy Run. I would also add that we , a family of six went on at least one camping hoiday in this car and on the race track it beat a Auto Union (DKW) despite the windscreen having been punched out. ( A stone had hit it and except for the special piece in front of the driver the rest had shattered]. The point is that there is room for improvement and the more folks looking for it the more likely someone is likely to find something considering the woeful efficiency of the current reciprocating engine.

And thanks to the contributor who shed useful light on the injection of water in aircraft.

Precisely, I did´n want to buy it even if it sounds too good before asking any experience in this Forum. After been impossible to find a good coment form a university, thanks a lot DVader

Though it doesn´t mean we can´t find an good alternate solution for cheaper Hydrogen in the future...

I referenced this thread in a short blog posting regarding hydrogen on demand systems. Not intended as proof but small step at gathering any relevant research claimed to be scientific. http://aquygen.blogspot.com/2008/05/where-do-you-look-for-scientific-proof.html

I can't believe an $80 kit made it to news TV today so that I actually saw it!!! Show me the chemistry, math and engineering principles involved...where can I see/find this info, and I will get back to you with a verdict. I would have immediately dismissed it as fiction given the "double" your mileage claim, but the guy wasn't selling anything. If anyone can find me the info I need, I'd like to separate a little fantasy from reality here for my own personal edification. I want to see how far off we are from actually implementing this technology...baking soda and water?!?!?! The new fuel??!? It's kinda funny.

Besides it would be HOH or H₂O. No H-H bond with O.

The only serious study I've seen is http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/15525#newcomments

Done in 2004. So far the rest have been snake oil salesmen I've seen.

The link did not work!

I tried it and it took me to a CR4 entry......

Got it the second time

go to www.eagle-research.com and water4gas.com there is plenty to think about there. Most discoveries and developments are made by optimists - not pessimists. How come many fighter aircraft had water inection if there is nothing to it?

Andy,

Amen! All you have to do is listen to Chuck Berry's Maybelline.

I went and found the lyrics (not heard it for a long time) and you are right!!!! I had completely forgotten those important lines!!!

Well noted from you and thanks from me!!

For anyone else who would like to read them, I found them at this link:-

Maybelline Lyrics, Chuck Berry

I'm not arguing that water welders don't work. Apparently, they do. I'm simply saying that HHO is not a real compound. Did you read the link in the earlier post by Case491 about a chemical reaction used to produce hydrogen on demand? That kind of approach will probably be what turns out to be a viable technology in those instances where we don't want to transport hydrogen.

Maybe this will help!

Could you explain why water welders work? I think you should do some reading.

I have been getting a 42% increase in miles per kilometer since installing a "PWM" watter splitter in a 1.9 litre VW diesel. It must be an illusion.

I am running the input power at 12 volts and .5 amps. pulsed at 37.5

MHz to 49.7 MHz. constrained/reflected back to the reactor by chokes.

The water is tap water and contains no electrolite. This can not be explained by thermodynamics.

There are many thousands of people doing this qiuetly with "home made" pulse circuits and reactors/generators.

Please try this yourself. It is easy enough for even an engineer to master without the help of a grade 5 student. If you do some research you will find that many of the diesel transport fleets are already enjoying a 10+ % reduction in their fuel costs. The couple of large companys producing and selling the HHO generators are enjoying the happy customers that are saving 600$-1200$ per month on each of their trucks.

Regards,

Solexx

I've said this many times. The amount of energy needed to break water down into H₂ & O2 is MUCH HIGHER than the amount that can be recovered from burning the H₂ gas. Deal with it.

End of story.

Maybe some free energy could be used to make the hydrolysis process for use in cars more viable. Like using thermal electrical generators on the exhaust manifolds to convert some of the wasted heat to electricity (free energy). Or adding solar cells to the roof of rhe car for some more free electrical energy. Or maybe a Bedini charger with an extra battery or 2 in the trunk. These chargers seems to charge batteries for free or right next to it. Lets not forget the idea of using HHO or whatever you want to call it, in cars, is that it aids combustion, reduces some bad emissions and lowers the amount of gas you have to use per mile (of course varying from vehicle to vehicle). And because of the extra heat in the combustion chamber the mix is said to burn off some of the carbon build up. I think it has a future. It can only get better as there are a large number of experimenters working to find better and safer ways to do it. Many are using the technology now. Of course I don't believe all the claims but I believe they are having some success. It probably works better in small displacement cars where the proportion of the Brown gas (HHO) is higher compared to the gas in the mix. Anyone? Don

DVader You seem to be a very negative person. If you gain 10-15% in mileage and clean up your emissions where is the downside? Granted the alternator has to work a little harder causing your vehicle to use a bit more gas and maybe your battery and alternator would have to be replaced a month sooner than normal but who cares! Why deny what is real? The amount of money saved on gas would far more than make up for the slight loss of having to replace the alterator and battery a little early. The motor is working more efficiently than before and you are more than making up for any losses as evidenced by the fact you are getting more miles per gallon. This is despite the slightly higher amp drain. Hydrogen isn't burned by itself, it is an inhancer to the burn process, period. Thats why you can't measure it correctly. I think some engineers and scientist think they know all there is to know and they simply close there minds to anything new or foreign. I believe one reason automakers don't want to put it on a vehicle because it would require a little more maintenance for the vehicle owner and make the manufacturing process a bit more complicated. The mileage gain does vary from vehicle to vehicle. I'm not sure why the hydrogen boost system works well on some and not on others. There are many many variables, including engine displacement fuel feed systems and how efficiently the motor was working before the add on hydrogen set-up. On some injected vehicles you have to fool the O2 sensor because the burn is more efficient and the sensor sees the burn as too lean and will feed in more fuel. This of course would offset any gain that you had. My point to all this is that it doesn't cost anything to keep an open mind and you just may learn something. To all of you negative egg heads out there, you can close your minds if you want to but as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on this hydrogen add-on. It is not a done deal whatever way you look at it. Don

Is there anyone out there who has a link to a free guide that would explain exactly how/where to purchase the parts required for an HHO automobile conversion? I would also like a manual on how to install an HHO system on a car. There are manuals similar to this on the internet but they seem very expensive. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Chris

The manuals are expensive because they are being sold by fools who bought them and now are looking for new fools to excuse their stupidity. Why is all this energy being wasted in the name of saving energy?

A scam is a scam is a scam.

OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH......................YOUR THE SAME AS THE NASAYERS OF THE LATE 1800'S THAT SAID WHE COULDN'T FLY.........DO YOU REALLY THINK WE HAVE REACHED THE END OF OUR NEW DISCOVERY ABILITY? SHUT UP AND TAKE A BACK SEAT OR BETTER YET GET OFF THE FREAKIN BUS!!!!! THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS DISCOVERED IN THE EARLY 1900'S THEY JUST COULDN'T PERFECT IT AT THAT TIME. OUR GOVERNMENT AND BIG INDUSTRY HAS JUST TRIED TO BURY IT TO PROTECT THEIR PROFITS. THE HHO GENERATOR DOES WORK!

go to ebay .com theirs more info and products than you can imagine be careful on what you buy so research it very well their are a few site that you might find interesting fire in the water .com sids cell it a dry cell set up and you can buy the plates and everything to produce brown gas and the reason the call it brown gas is because the process turns the water brown their are ways around the o2 sensor and the map sensors on 96 and newer cars good luck I've personally am saving 25% on my fuel bill every time so believe it or not I've had them on my vehicles for about 4 month w/ no ill effects except gas savings and water out the tail pipe the emission go to about nothing at about 2l per min.

I build a simple cell,generates 1/4 to 1/2 liter per minute uses 1 to 3 amp can be installed in about an hour,the units that I have produced,enriches the air to up the efficiency of the burn,got my engine running smoother,and gives me better milage,I dont care what these other people say,it works for me,have installed on friends cars and truck,with little or no alterations to engines and have a lot of happy people,maybe it's an illusion but I've cut gas consumption,I was spending $60 aweek for gas now $35 good illusion.Dont mind sending plans,but found some of the materials have to be bought in large quanities,so I set up to by enough to build 100 units,which can be built and installed for less than $100.I sell the generator and bubbler for $50.00.if you are a renegade like me get back to me for the instructions,I'm not a scientist,and not too good with instruction but I can get you started and will answer any questions I can as you go.

Hi Guest

Can you share more info on how to build it, or explain how we can buy it form you, do you have a website?

where are you located ? I'll send you the plans,but like I said the parts might be hard to find,preticurly the catalyst I use,have found that I get a usable amount of gas at 8 to 12 amps.do have a website with contact info www.sandbagdaddy.com sounds funny but you can get to me through that website email me and we'll get back to you.ASAP as I'm proud of the inroads I've made using on the farm technology

I'M INTERESTED............jameshamm78 at yahoo

get back to me,after you read my thread,I'll work with you on putting it together.the gas passer

centervilledon,

I am skeptical of most hydrogen schemes, but I try to keep my skepticism at the level of disagreeing with the technology, not attacking the poster. Why is it necessary to refer to anyone as a "negative egg head"? People that doubt this want to see some proof. Do you have any? Telling me to try it myself is not proof.

To TVP45 Sorry, The term "negative eggheads" was a little harsh. These forums do drive me crazy. So I reaally don't know what to believe either. Many of the people coming on here say the the HHO boost (or whatever you call the gas made from hydrolysis ) say it works and they are are using it and many just say it isn't worth it or is impossible to get anything out of. There are so many people that are not selling anything but have claimed some success as far as higher mileage and cleaner emissions go that I personally am inclined to believe. I think this forum should be more for people that try ideas and share them rather than skeptics. Skeptics are a dime a dozen. Doers and experimenters are rare and should be encouraged. They are the ones that will get the breakthroughs if there are any to be had. There have been many so called uneducated men and women who have made great discoveries. And new discoveries are being made everyday. We should not put people down just because we personally believe it is a bad idea. That we don't need. If you do some searches and you'll find many people that have claimed success. Sorry I personally don't have the proof but why would so many people keep trying this if it is all bologna? Don

Don,

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that there is a need for the experimenter and basement inventer to try new things and I encourage that. The reason I wrote the previous post is that many of us are engineers who are really obligated to almost always base our work on proven technology. If we do things very far out of the mainstream, we usually get our butts kicked by our boss or we get sued by the family of whoever we injured. When we do engineering notes, many of us will put the source of any value or strange formula on the note. That limits us in how much "blue sky" speculation we can do, but it's not a negative. Nobody wants to get on an elevator in a building where the engineer hoped A36 steel was good for 180,000 psi. So, we are cautious, conservative, hard-nosed, whatever adjective you might pick, and it does make us slow to rush to new technologies. But, we will go there - just at our pace with some hard proof.

And, I'm an OF and that makes me even more cautious than others, but I'm open to being proved wrong (I have been a number of times on here and I respect the people who have shown me my errors). So, keep doing your speculation - it's needed - and I'll keep doing my doubting - I can't help it - but maybe within a civil argument, we can find some new ways. Hope so.

(end of bad Eddie Albert imitation for other OFs)

With people like you we will still be looking for oil. I am not a tree hugger but HHO works. I have a neighbor that has a 93 chevy pickup with a 350 and with a water generator he is getting around 30mpg. We need less pessimist and more experimenters. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs do not even have college educations and what have they done. Universities need to get off there tails and save this country before we bow to the middle east.

you are missing the simple point.

the engine is already using gas to turn. the engine is already turning the alternator. they are not saying its FREE energy. (it takes extreme amounts of energy to pull oil out of the ground and make fuel, you use more than you get). HHO is simply the term marketers are using instead of saying hydrogen and oxygen. now since the engine is already turning the alternator and the alternator is designed to produce more energy than the vehicle needs. the "HHO" generator uses this excess electricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen, which burns more efficiently than any fossil fuel. when you introduce the "HHO" into the intake it HELPS the fuel produce more power than it would without "HHO" therefor using less fuel, made from oil, that we buy from people who want to kill us.

if that were true our bodies would not be able to function with the only 98percent efficient chlorophyl molecule that electrolyzes which exists in synchronicity with the heme molecule,according to physics the current state of hydrogen dissociation and reassociation electro couloumb barrier bonds are equal,so in theory we could use sub temperature electrochemical transducers to achieve the chemical energy transfer through hydrogen which by the way is successfully being done by national vapor systems,in relation to hp corporation.They have successfully installed many large hydrogen on demand units on public transportation vehicles in santa clara county and in canada by the way many of these so called hokey cant possibly work nay sayed by all the phys head slide rule geeks are being produced for commercial size vehicles today as we speak .an improvement of just one mile per gallon in a big rig is a serious chunk of change.Applied science my friend.long before you were born hydrogen per oxide rockets were being tested oxides of nitrogen,hydrogen filled dirigibles and zepplins where do you think they got all that gas chum?textbooks were dumbed down in the 30s and you apparently have become one of the casualties.No the universe is not entropic,couloumbs barrier has been broken and defied for many years by practical scientists and inventors including tesla,transmutation of the elements first successfully occurred also in the 30s by Lord Rutherfords work. realize back into the limelight of how different chemicals react ,producing low energy electrical reactions that could be nuclear transformations happening. Dave S.cyborganica lab sf.ps.today the acs concludes its lenr discussion of the vary things you are dissvalidating.

make sure you type them in correctly - i've visited both sites and learned a lot as I have accessed them more than once. Otherwise google the subject - there is a lot out there. I've not tried it yet but will give it a go as I've jeard about these ideas for 40 years or more but never got enough information. Vested interests will allways try to kill off these idea especially governments owing to the taxes they get from the present set up.

Here is the article from science magizine

Reports

Renewable Hydrogen from Ethanol by Autothermal Reforming

G. A. Deluga,¹ J. R. Salge,¹ L. D. Schmidt,^1* X. E. Verykios²

Ethanol and ethanol-water mixtures were converted directly into H₂ with 100% selectivity and >95% conversion by catalytic partial oxidation, with a residence time on rhodium-ceria catalysts of <10 milliseconds.Rapid vaporization and mixing with air with an automotive fuel injector were performed at temperatures sufficiently low and times sufficiently fast that homogeneous reactions producing carbon, acetaldehyde, ethylene, and total combustion products can be minimized.This process has great potential for low-cost H₂ generation in fuel cells for small portable applications where liquid fuel storage is essential and where systems must be small, simple, and robust.

¹ Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN 55455, USA.
² Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Patras, GR-26500 Patras Greece.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: schmidt@cems.umn.edu

In order for hydrogen fuel cells to have a large impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the hydrogen needs to be derived from sunlight, either directly or indirectly from biomass through photosynthesis. The use of hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles or in portable power plants will require lightweight H₂ storage or "on-board" reforming of hydrogen-containing compounds into H₂ (1).

Biomass candidates for H₂ generation include sugar, starch, oils, and crop wastes. The production of hydrogen from sugar by catalytic reaction has been demonstrated (1, 2), but the process from glucose thus far has shown only 50% selectivity to H₂ and requires a long reaction time. A fuel cell operating directly on sugars has been demonstrated (3), but the power densities are extremely low. Biodiesel (the methyl ester of vegetable oil) should be a good candidate for direct reforming to H₂ because the analogous fossil diesel can be reformed (4, 5), although the higher cost of soy oil limits its economics. Ethanol is now formed by fermentation of starch or sugar, and research suggests that it may also be produced from lower-cost vegetation such as crop wastes (6).

Ethanol is readily and increasingly available in the United States because of the requirement for an ethanol additive in gasoline fuels, and 2.8 billion gallons/year are now produced throughout the country by the fermentation of biomass at a cost of approximately $1 per gallon, which is competitive with petroleum fuels. However, a significant fraction of ethanol's production cost as a gasoline fuel additive comes from the need to remove all water, which requires distillation and water separation from the azeotrope using zeolite adsorption.

We recently demonstrated direct H₂ generation (7–9) from ethanol via oxidation, which was carried out by preheating ethanol to 500°C over lanthanates, Ru, and Ni. There has been discussion of the desirability of autothermal reforming of ethanol (10), but ethanol oxidation presents energetic and flammability issues. The partial oxidation reaction

(1)

(where H_R is the enthalpy change or heat of reaction) is slightly endothermic, so this reaction alone will not generate heat for autothermal operation at the 700° to 1000°C necessary for sustained fast reaction without some total oxidation

(2)

to form CO₂ and H₂O and generate heat.

Homogeneous reaction and the production of flames are the second problem that has limited the examination of the catalytic partial oxidation of ethanol. Ethanol-air mixtures are flammable over a wide composition range and, although the combustion reaction is highly exothermic, flames also form coke and soot, acetaldehyde, and ethylene, which are severe poisons to fuel cell electrodes.

Most processes converting ethanol into hydrogen involve reaction with water in the steam-reforming reaction (11–13)

(3)

This reaction is strongly endothermic, requiring a flame to heat a reactor to the 800°C necessary to achieve high conversion at residence times of 1 s. In all of these reactions, the water-gas shift (WGS) reaction

(4)

generally goes to equilibrium at the high temperature required for oxidation reactions. This reaction has a favorable H₂ equilibrium only at lower temperatures and with large amounts of water added.

A final advantage of ethanol is that it is miscible with water, and water is needed in polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells. Ideally, one wants to combine partial oxidation with steam reforming and the WGS reaction to take advantage of the heat generated by total oxidation and the extra H₂ produced in the WGS reaction.

These three reactions can be written stoichiometrically as

(5)

which indicates that adding water with air should maximize hydrogen production and minimize CO in an exothermic process. We define H₂ and CO selectivities as the fraction of H and C atoms in the ethanol molecule converted into H₂ and CO, respectively, so that 3 H₂ molecules from C₂H₅OH represent 100% H₂ selectivity. Because the H atoms from H₂O can also be converted into H₂, complete conversion of the ethanol and water from this reaction could generate 5 H₂ per C₂H₅OH, which gives a maximum H₂ selectivity of 5/3 or 167%.

We have used several noble metals (Ni, Ru, Rh, Pt, and Pd) and metals with additives (cerium oxide, lanthanum oxide, and magnesium oxide) (7–9) as catalysts for this reaction. All were deposited from salt solutions on low-area alumina foams or alumina spheres (14). We show here only results from Rh-ceria because it was more stable and gave greater WGS activity than noble metals alone (15).

Ethanol and ethanol-water mixtures were injected into a tube through an electronically controlled automotive fuel injector that sprayed small droplets onto the walls of the tube, heated to 140°C, as sketched in Fig. 1. This produced rapid vaporization and mixing with room-temperature air, so that reactants went from liquids at room temperature to products exiting the catalyst in less than 50 ms.

Fig. 1. Ethanol conversion (X) and reactor temperature (T) versus C/O ratio for partial oxidation of pure ethanol (100%) and an ethanol-water mixture containing 25 mol % ethanol. The catalyst was Rh-ceria on a ceramic foam with a total flow rate of 4 standard liters/min (GHSV 1 x 10⁵ hour^–1), which corresponds to a residence time of the gases on the catalyst of 10 ms. Liquid ethanol and water were injected through a fuel injector onto the walls of a tube heated to 140°C, rapidly vaporizing the liquid and mixing it with air to avoid homogenous reaction and carbon formation before the catalyst. A C/O of 1.0 corresponds to the ideal stoichiometry for producing syngas (H₂ and CO). The ratios of upper and lower flammability limits, combustion, and pure ethanol are also shown.

Products were analyzed by gas chromatography, with mass balances closing to within 2%. All experiments were run for up to 30 hours on a given catalyst, and most experiments were repeated on several catalysts. No significant deactivation or variations between catalysts were noted in these experiments.

Typical results of ethanol reforming on Rh-ceria on a ceramic foam are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. These experiments were done at a total flow rate of 4 standard liters/min [gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) 1 x 10⁵ hour^–1], with preheating to 140°C. Curves shown are for 100% ethanol and 25% ethanol in water, calculated on a mole basis. (On a weight basis, 25 mol % ethanol corresponds to 54 weight % H₂O, or 103 "proof.") Results are plotted versus the carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratio: A ratio of 2.0 corresponds to pure ethanol, a ratio of 1.0 corresponds to the syngas (or H₂ and CO) stoichiometry according to Eq. 1, and a ratio of 0.29 corresponds to combustion according to Eq. 2.

Fig. 2. Plots of (A) H and (B) C atom selectivities (S) for ethanol partial oxidation for the experiments described in Fig. 1. (A) The major hydrogen products are H₂ and H₂O. For pure ethanol, the hydrogen selectivity peaks at 80% at C/O 0.7. With added water, the selectivity to H₂ exceeds 100%, because both ethanol and water contribute H₂. (B) Major carbon products are CO and CO₂, with small amounts of minor products (CH₄, C₂H₄, C₂H₆, and CH₃CHO). With added water, the selectivity to CO decreases because of the WGS reaction.

The ethanol conversion remained at >95% for all C/O compositions, and the O₂ conversion (not shown in Figs. 1 and 2) was >99% in all experiments. The H₂ and CO selectivities without the addition of water peaked at 80%, and this occurred at C/O 0.7.

Selectivities to H₂ and H₂O and to CO and CO₂ are plotted as the percent of H and C atoms converted to the specified molecules in Fig. 2, A and B. The minor products are CH₄, C₂H₄, C₂H₆, and CH₃CHO, and the sum of the carbon atom selectivities to these products is also shown in Fig. 2B for the 100% ethanol situation. The total of these products is <3% at the H₂ maximum of C/O 0.7, and it rises as C/O increases. The largest of these minor products is CH₄ ( 2%), which is inert in PEM fuel cells.

Additional H₂ and less CO can be produced if the WGS reaction (Eq. 4) can go to completion, because H₂O can also produce H₂ (167% selectivity to H₂ based on the hydrogen in ethanol alone), but this requires a lower reactor temperature than that required for fast partial oxidation. Thus, we used a two-stage reactor with a high-temperature partial oxidation catalyst operating autothermally at 700°C followed by a longer WGS section in which the temperature was reduced to 400°C. This reactor was identical to that shown in Fig. 1, except that a second stage of Pt-ceria (15) on alumina spheres 4.5 cm in length was added after the 1-cm Rh-ceria partial oxidation catalyst.

Figure 3A shows the H₂ and CO selectivities for 25% ethanol in water with and without the WGS stage. Selectivities to H₂ increased to 130% when the WGS stage was added. These experiments were done at a total flow rate of 6 standard liters/min (GHSV 1.5 x 10⁵ hour^–1). The total residence time in these experiments was 7 ms with the partial oxidation catalyst alone and 60 ms with the two-stage system. A longer residence time in this stage should increase the amount of hydrogen even further toward the 167% maximum.

Fig. 3. (A) Hydrogen and CO selectivities with and without a second stage added to promote the WGS reaction at lower temperatures for a total residence time of 60 ms on Rh-ceria followed by Pt-ceria. The hydrogen selectivity exceeds 100%, because H₂ comes from both ethanol and water. With a second stage of Pt-ceria, the selectivity to H₂ rises to 130% and the CO₂/CO ratio falls to 4/1 to give H₂/CO 10/1. The selectivity to water becomes negative because water is consumed to produce hydrogen by the WGS reaction. (B) Effect of reactor temperature on selectivities and conversions in a reactor using a longer residence time and dilution to adjust temperature. The ethanol conversion is much lower and minor products are more abundant at lower temperatures, indicating that catalyst temperatures above 700°C are needed for optimum performance.

The temperature of an autothermal reactor is determined by preheating, heat generation, and heat losses. To explicitly examine the effect of temperature on conversion and selectivities, we diluted the reactants with 75% He using a Rh catalyst and heated the reactor to maintain the reactor nearly isothermal at C/O = 1. The flow was also reduced so that the residence time was 10 times longer than in the experiments described above.

Figure 3B shows a plot of selectivities and conversions versus temperature. The conversion of ethanol is only 40% at 400°C but rises to above 95% by 650°C. At 400°C, acetaldehyde and CH₄ selectivities are 16 and 14%, respectively, for a total selectivity to undesired minor products of >30%. Both of these species decrease with increasing temperature, and acetaldehyde falls to a negligible level by 650°C. These results show that, even at longer residence times, higher conversions and selectivity to H₂ and reduced minor products are obtained by using the higher temperatures of autothermal operation. Lower temperatures and longer residence times give unacceptable performance.

The mechanism of these reactions is probably similar to those of hydrocarbon fuels, such as the reaction of CH₄ or C₁₀H₂₂, which have been studied previously (4). The weakest C-H bond in ethanol is 401 kJ/mol, compared to 435 kJ/mol for the C-H bond in CH₄, so one expects greater potential for homogeneous pyrolysis and combustion with ethanol. However, under the conditions used here, all reactions appear to occur on the surface, except possibly the formation of minor products such as acetaldehyde, ethylene, and methane (a product of acetaldehyde decarbonylation).

Carbon formation on the catalyst is intolerable because its buildup will rapidly deactivate the catalyst and eventually block channels in the catalyst. Because these experiments used as much as 350 g of ethanol per hour on 2 g of catalyst, selectivities to solid carbon must be essentially zero for sustained operation. We have operated the reactor for as long as 30 hours on a single Rh-ceria catalyst with no evidence of deactivation or carbon buildup. Additional water should further suppress carbon formation by the carbon gasification reaction.

The energy diagram in Fig. 4 shows standard enthalpy ( G°) and free energy changes ( H°) in kJ/mol for the reactions in a renewable energy cycle operating between CO₂ and biomass. Photosynthesis first converts CO₂ and H₂O into carbohydrates and sugars, represented here as glucose, C₆H₁₂O₆. In the reaction sequence through ethanol, fermentation converts glucose into ethanol and CO₂. Ethanol conversion to CO₂ and H₂ (Eq. 5, the reaction described in this paper) is shown in the upper right of the figure. Finally, the hydrogen is oxidized to H₂O in a fuel cell. Six moles of O₂ are formed in photosynthesis, and 1 mol of O₂ is consumed in autothermal reforming of ethanol, so 5 mol of O₂ are available for oxidizing H₂ back to H₂O in a fuel cell. These reactions are therefore C₆H₁₂O₆ 2C₂H₅OH 10H₂ 20e^–.

Fig. 4. An energy diagram indicating the standard enthalpy ( H°) and free energy changes ( G°) in kJ/mol for the reactions in a renewable energy cycle operating between CO₂ and biomass. Very little of the energy contained in carbohydrates is lost by first converting to ethanol and then to H₂, so a fuel cell operated on renewable energy could ideally capture most of the energy in photosynthesis (h ) as electricity.

Because the idealized fermentation reaction is slightly endothermic and ethanol oxidation to H₂ is slightly exothermic, this diagram shows that in principle less than 20% of the energy content in sugar is lost in first forming ethanol and then reacting it to H₂. Therefore, most of the energy in sugar (or any carbohydrate) remains available for reforming to hydrogen. Because fermentation is highly efficient and autothermal reforming of ethanol requires only a small and simple reactor, the overall process sketched in Fig. 4 should be highly competitive commercially.

Because the reactions forming H₂ from glucose are nearly thermally neutral, most of the energy of combustion of glucose is ideally available as hydrogen for a fuel cell (16). Thus, 1 mol of ethanol (46 g or 58 cm³) could in principle generate 1.27 x 10⁶ J, or enough hydrogen for 350 Wh of electricity. If ethanol is assumed to cost $1 per gallon, the fuel cost in this ideal process (in a perfect fuel cell) would be $0.04 per kWh.

The lab reactor on which these data were obtained generated enough H₂ for a 700-W fuel cell using 2.5 cm³ of catalyst containing 0.05 g of Rh with a residence time on the catalyst of 10 ms. This predicts the cost of the Rh catalyst to be approximately $1.40 or $2/kW.

The overall objective of renewable hydrogen production is to provide fuels for high-efficiency fuel cells. The process described here (Fig. 3A) produces an output stream consisting of approximately 50% hydrogen on a water-free basis. This would be suitable as a direct fuel for a solid oxide fuel cell but not for a PEM fuel cell, which requires <10 parts per million of CO. We believe that simple changes in the experimental conditions and catalysts should be capable of reducing these undesired species by factors of at least 2. However, additional fuel processing such as preferential CO oxidation would be required to produce a fuel that is directly usable by currently available PEM fuel cells. These autothermal reactor systems also have extremely short startup times (less than 5 s) and wide flow ranges (flow rates differing by a factor of at least 4), so that the manufacture of small portable fuel reformers should be possible using this technology.

There has been considerable discussion regarding the efficiency of ethanol production from corn because of the energy used in planting and harvesting, fertilizer, transportation, and processing of corn into ethanol (17). Recent studies indicate that the energy in the fuel ethanol is at least 1.34 times the energy used in its production. Because most of this energy is used in processing to remove all water and because the process we describe uses ethanol with 3 mole of water, the cost of water removal after fermentation (which produces 10 to 20 mol of water per mole of ethanol) should be considerably reduced when ethanol is used in a reformed hydrogen fuel cell rather than as a fuel mixed with gasoline. Further, combustion used for transportation has 20% efficiency as compared with up to 60% efficiency for a fuel cell.

Fast and efficient renewable fuel reforming is one of the critical steps in producing H₂ for fuel cells and the "hydrogen economy," and ethanol is now the most available and economical renewable fuel. These simple experiments demonstrate that ethanol can be converted into H₂ simply and with high efficiency. The efficiency of these processes for a fuel cell suggests that it may be possible to capture >50% of the energy from photosynthesis as electricity in an economical chemical process that can be operated at large or small scales.

References and Notes

· 1. G. W. Huber, J. W. Shabaker, J. A. Dumesic, Science 300, 2075 (2003).

· 2. R. D. Cortright, R. R. Davda, J. A. Dumesic, Nature 418, 964 (2002).

· 3. S. K. Chaudhuri, D. R. Lovley, Nature 21, 1229 (2003).

· 4. J. J. Krummenacher, K. N. West, L. D. Schmidt, J. Catal. 215, 332 (2003).

· 5. L. Garcia, R. French, S. Czernik, E. Chornet, Appl. Catal. A 201, 225 (2000).

· 6. The direct use of ethanol in PEM fuel cells is possible, but power densities obtainable are less than 10% of that obtainable from the corresponding H₂ fuel cell (18).

· 7. D. K. Liguras, D. I. Kondarides, X. E. Verykios, Appl. Catal. B 43, 345 (2003).

· 8. D. K. Liguras, K. Goundani, X. E. Verykios, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, in press.

· 9. D. K. Liguras, K. Goundani, X. E. Verykios, J. Power Sources, in press.

· 10. L. F. Brown, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26, 381 (2001).

· 11. A. N. Fatsikostas, D. I. Kondarides, X. E. Verykios, Chem. Commun. 2001, 851 (2001).

· 12. A. N. Fatsikostas, D. I. Kondarides, X. E. Verykios, Catal. Today 75, 145 (2003).

· 13. S. Cavallaro, Energy Fuels 14, 1195 (2000).

· 14. Typical foam catalysts had an 80% void fraction with metal loadings of 5%. The catalysts were dried and heated to 600°C in air to decompose the salts. Catalyst foams were sealed in an 18-mm-diameter quartz tube using an alumina cloth gasket with blank foams before and after the catalyst to act as radiation shields.

· 15. C. Wheeler, A. Jhalani, E. Klien, S. Tumalla, L. D. Schmidt, J. Catal., in press.

· 16. J. R. Rostrup-Nielsen, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 3, 283 (2001).

· 17. H. Shapouri, J. A. Duffield, M. Wang, The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 2002).

· 18. C. Lamy, E. M. Belgsir, J.-M. Leger, J. Appl. Electrochem. 31, 799 (2001).

· 19. Partially sponsored by grants from NSF under grant CTS-0211890, the U. S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-88ER13878, the University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment and the Commission of the European, Union under contract ERK6/CT1999/00012.

Received for publication 28 October 2003. Accepted for publication 13 January 2004.

Ok.:

HHO: is H2O, is water. - End of story.

Hydrogen Generation: Energy In = Energy Out - losses

No amount of fiddling is going to change that.

The Hydrogen Fuel idea is worthless without an efficient

non-polluting source. It 'ain't agonna happen`.

Correct

My understanding of the process is that the oxygen and/or hydrogen serve to facilitate the combustion process and allow a higher degree of thermal efficiency than is otherwise available. They are not, per se, "fuel" in and of themselves. There is no claim to being a perpetual motion machine or shortcut in the laws of physics, just a way to improve the efficiency of a very tired and outdated technology. To scorn the process as a hoax without any research, is just as lacking in merit as posting a claim or hypothesis without the numbers to back it up.

http://www.chechfi.ca/pdfs/hydrogen_injection.pdf

From your post, a comertial model to be ready in 2 to 5 years..

http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/wip/0804wip21.html

Well said, I just starting to look into this 'water for gas' thing and it certainly has my attention.

Your statement has verbilized my thoughts on this to this point. I am going to copy it and save it. Thanks, John

Hi. I am a no account person. No degree, no awards, nothing to my credit. I don't even know what HHO is?

Just guessing at what you are talking about, would it mean anything to any of you if I told you I heated my home with water this winter and with a little more work, I will be able to run and v-8 engine under full load at 4500 RPM's. The engine does run on water right now but can only start it with gas. I use radio waves transmitted into a controlled environment of copper and lead. The power comes from and alternator generating a/c current for the radio-waves. Sorry but I do not have numbers for you. I've been guessing at everything. My troubles are with the water having a high mineral content messes things up in hour of run time. Steam distilled water works without trouble for heating the home and after the system is running for and hour, it is self supportive.

I do not want to share anymore information. I am not sure I would know how to explain it any way? I am not interested in getting rich either. What I would like is a little feed back from you all in words I can understand so I can complete my project engine.

I had read and article from 1971 many, many years ago about a man who had built an a system for his car to run on water. Their was a picture or two with it. I worked from my memory to build what I have today. As I understand the government bought the rights and all was lost in 1971. There was a water shortage then like the global warming thing now. I just don't want to pay for the gas to power my car. I just want to have enough money to get by and not be taken for a ride anymore.

Thank you, from and old guy in the USA

Water that won´t run gets rotten,

Why don´t you share it? that´s what this forum is for, at least you can win some friends.

Sorry about the post. My "wise guy son" took advantage and had a little fun at my expense, which is our practical joke nature for each other. Truthfully, I had no idea that anything was written in re guard HHO? I am seeing it for the first time today. He does spend a little time in my shop to see what dad is up to. Thankfully, overseas duty keeps him busy for the most of a year.

Like nearly everyone of us, I have a project or two going on. One of which is water for fuel. Does it work? To some degree yes. Am I ready to share it? No.

I will admit however, that my son did have some of the facts semi correct. The builder of the car that ran on water lived in Michigan and I am working off from memory from what I saw at that time. It would seem true that I can no longer find any news record of this car and it is likely the builder has long since passed away? He would be 107 years old at this time.

Radio waves are used to separate H2O and the system does take care of itself in a matter of speaking. A copper web pot, cased by lead, (to prevent wave interference, etc.)is used.

Do I think it is a good idea to market or lower pollution? No. Mass marketing would not be a good idea at all. It is nothing more than a shop project for the challenge.

Are my ideas new? No. This information has been around for years. Again, it is just a shop project.

As for my son, I am sorry. He will be home in 3 months and maybe I will fill his new car, "that is parked in my drive under a car cover", with Styrofoam beads? I've got a little time to think about it anyway.

Can you show us your work done in photos? and how many hho in cc shuck in the piston per minute? and how to keep the output hho steady when engine running 6000 rpm.Please explain more detail.thanks.

first off, the mention of alcohol additives fries my a**, the plants produce food grade and sell it for human consumption @ $.5/gallon, if used for gasoline mix, it's priced $.50 over gasoline. Just try and help cut fuel costs with that! Raising food costs was inevitable, and with profits like they make, why are the plants govt subsidized?

Second, HHO may not be a 'official term' for the gas produced, more likely orthohydrogen and protohydrogen. Who cares what its called? it works! The best theory for making engineers and scientist sit up and pay attention to what is going on was proposed, to take just a few hundred of these 'running and operating' vehicles to DC and drive right up to Congress' door! Force the nation to look!

I can try to persuade anyone it's a working technology, but all it takes is a few doubters to keep it out of the mainstream technology. Look at it like this, If we were in court and I provided all the schematics, photos, and recorded data, and 1 expert said he say 1 flaw in 1 page of data, he would cast doubt on the whole batch of evidence and the case, and I would lose. Even as I drove away burning water in my car, to my water heated house, My evidence is now in doubt and dismissed as a farce.

And as long as any of you are willing to 'quote facts' on why it wont work without testing it yourself, you have no right to condemn the idea. Imagine if Edison or Bell was trying to get their inventions into mainstream today! Many things stranger than HHO production have come to pass as true fact.

I found this bit of information interesting. Make your own call as to if it is doable or not. I think this is a plan to run a car on water alone though, and not just an add-on. It sounds similar to Stan Meyers set-up that was claimed to run on water alone. I don't know if it has enough details to actually build it. And it would be rather expensive especially if it didn't work. But anyway maybe some of you engineers might want to examine the plans and see what conclusions you might draw. To me it sounds like someone actually did it. Unfortunately it was sent in anonymously so we can't go to the source. For your entertainment? here it is.... http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans_doc.htm

H2O powered vehicle is a reality.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561&videoChannel=1

Please keep us posted, videos and pictures would be great!

I would like to reiterate the original question that started this thread, since so many post have gone "off topic". "Does anyone have serious information on HHO or Hydrogen generation for automobiles, did any university test them?" I would also like to refine this question by asking one of my own. "Are there any studies on the production of explosive gases (you may call them whatever you desire) generated by applying a low voltage potential to stainless steel anodes and cathodes in water? Which by the way has little to do with water injection, steam, alcohol, or anything else that gets stirred into the pot to distract people from the fact that water is a fuel.

In reading this thread I am very disappointed in everyone. I have been researching this subject for over a week and have found nothing that satisfies my concept of "the scientific method" from either party of this hotly disputed concept. Okay, I only expected scientific methodology from the scientific community, but sadly their only responses are "Perpetual motion!" and "Electrolysis!" (correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't electrolysis require current, and lots of it?). Even more disturbing is the criticism of one post for failing to properly describe an explosive gas produced by applying a low voltage potential to pure water. Isn't this the job of the scientific community? Just give it a name. I sincerely hope that the "It ain't gonna happen" and "End of story" comments are not coming from actual scientist. If so I would like to see the data where every potential variable has been tested and failed. I would rather see responses based on empirical research. I would like to do this myself but I don't have the instruments that will measure 1/100 of an amp of current, an ocilloscope, or a way to measure the energy produced by those exploding bubbles with no name.

I'm not going to jump to any conclusions that the lack of research in using water for fuel is correlated with the 285% increase over the last eight years in oil well royalty checks. After all water has fueled torches that need to exceed 3500 degrees, for over a hundered years and oil has only dominated and polluted for the past...oh never mind. UV nailed it with his quote "If you really want to know what is going on follow the money. Tatsujin" But the sad fact remains that there is very little research available, there is no standardized terminology, no quantative analysis of volumes of gas produced by different modifications to DC voltage such a square wave pulses at different frequencies, no emperical information on the best size, shape, thickness, ect. for the anodes and cathodes, and most annoying because I was guilty of this for the first 40 years of my life, the predominate belief that water will not burn - even with a little help from a 12 volt battery using less than one tenth of an amp.

Could someone refer me to the table that will indicate how much hydrogen and oxygen are produced by passing 999 hundereths of an ampere of 12.5 volts DC through water for one hour?

Barchetta,

Good response, but you misunderstand the nature of the scientific method, which is what many of us are committed to. It is not up to the rest of us to disprove HHO; that's not how it works. If someone has a new theory, they have to put it forth with sufficient detail and data that the rest of the community can then try to duplicate that work to see if we get the same results. If a bunch of us do, that theory becomes a "law"; if a bunch of us find something else, that theory becomes wrong. This might not satisfy some of the fans of hydrogen, but that's all they'll ever get out of scientists and engineers. I may be pig-headed (actually I'm sure I am) but I'm not gonna throw away 5 decades of experience, a couple of degrees, and thousands of hours of reading papers, continuing ed, attending seminars, etc to suddenly be convinced by YouTube.

TPV45,

I would never ask you to throw away one day of experience or education. And the only thing YouTube convinced me to do was go out to the garage and drop the only two pieces of stainless steel I could find, into a jar of water and hook them up to my trolling motor battery. After the first explosion I was amazed to say the least (from your perspective this probably doesn't say much for my undergraduate chemistry course) that I was producing an explosive gas from tap water using no apparent current. My amp clamp read 00.0. After my initial amazement wore off and popping the bubbles with my lighter began to bore me, I couldn't help but wonder that, if I could do this in 20 minutes in my garage with a receptacle cover and ceiling fan extension (at least 15 minutes looking for these pieces of stainless) imagine what someone could do in a laboratory with more instruments than a multimeter with an amp clamp attached.

I suppose I ended up here at CR4 because I was looking for something more substantial than someone making bubbles on a YouTube video. Although I'd like to think my understanding of the scientific method is a couple standard deviations higher than the mean of the general population that is tempered by the fact that I am just now realizing bubbles from water can explode. I'm nowhere near forming a hypothesis to test with a reliable and valid experiment, let alone a theory, but I do have questions that when answered, will help put this idea to rest...or to work. Unfortunately after sifting through all the mysticism and marketing on the internet I don't have enough information to know where to begin at the university's library where my search won't be polluted by hits on YouTube. Or will it? It's been a while.

Here is a plan set for a Smack's booster using fairly cheap parts. It has several safety features built in. I don't know if the plans cover the Oxygen sensor bypass(?) which you would probably need if your car has fuel injection. Without it your O2 sensor would add more gas to the mix because I gather the mix burns leaner. This would cancel any gains that you had made. I called our local electirc supply house yesterday and they had the stainless steel blank switch plate covers for little over a dollar apiece. I thought about building one myself for the fun of it and to see if it would work. If I lived a good ways from work, or traveled a lot, I think I surely would try it. Let us know how it works out if you do try it. From what I have gathered the smaller booster systems work better on a small displacement motors. I saw somewhwere on the internet where a guy designed a little circuit board he used to fool the O2 sensor but I can't find it now. Anyone know where I can find the plans?

Oops! Sorry,I forgot to put the site address with my comment. Here it is http://smacksboosters.110mb.com/Smack.pdf

I found this You-Tube video(s) of free instructions for making your own E F I E which is what you'll probably need to use if your vehicle has a fuel injection system. It is well done. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw8MtfTx2cU&feature=related or you can buy assembled units if ou like from his website. Also here is some more good information about the Smack HHO(Brown's gas) booster. http://smacksboosters.110mb.com/FAQ.doc You can buy the Smack booster also if you don't want to build your own. http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/Hope this helps. This info may help you decide if you want to build one or not.

I wish you guys would sign in so we would know who to thank for these links.

It's surprising the forum will allow people to post who aren't signed in.....

by extending the distance from the exhaust on the o2 sensor,you can fool your computer,they sell these on ebay for about $5 or you can build one using 2 sparkplug adapters,put them together and drill the top one to 9/16 to give the sensor room to fit.(GM takes 18 mm threads)

Barchetta,

Thanks for the reasoned response. I understand some of the frustration you must feel when trying to sort through all these claims and arguments. I wish I had a good, convincing source I could refer to you, but I don't.

All that I can say is that over almost fifty years of working with machinery, electricity, fluids, fuels, and chemicals, I've always (ever single time) seen conservation of energy. Everyone like me that I've ever worked with has seen the same thing (or at least said they did). We might all be wrong, but I'm gonna be hardheaded about it till I'm shown to be wrong.

I honestly believe that there are possible increases in the efficiency of the ICE, but it's gotta be done in an honest, open way. Hydrogen enrichment might help gasoline mileage, but we'll never really know until the proponents submit to rigorous testing. I'm not against hydrogen addition - I'm against scams that hide as "science" and claim big government or big oil or big GM are suppressing the technology.

Why do I even care? A significant portion of the American people (I can't speak for other countries but they might be as bad as us) believe that we will return to plentiful, cheap energy soon. And so they will not make the changes and investments needed to create a sustainable energy system. These scams fuel that naive belief in cheap energy.

hho is currently in use and has been for several years on fleets, big rigs and private automobiles. a quasi diligent search of the web will provide this info.

supposition: lead used to effectively raise the octane of fuel because it enabled a faster and more homogeneous burn. hho probably does the same, more better.

credibility Links:

http://www.i-b-r.org/HHO-IJHE-I.pdf
http://www.gasadvancesystem.com/Sothwest%20Research%20Test.pdf

rjn,

There are plenty of web sites. HHO is not a real substance. There is no such molecule. It is a hoax word. Hydrogen enhancement of gasoline powered internal combustion engines has not been shown to be an effective mileage improvement. Are you familiar with the names Tizard and Pye? Or Harry Ricardo?

Just out of curiosity, what is the substance produced? It will obviously burn with a pop or a fizzle if it is foamy. If it is a hydrogen and oxygen mixture (in some form of molecularly correct terminology) when it burns it should return to H2O, correct? Would it also be correct to assume that if the temperature at which it burns is over 212 degrees Fahrenheit that water would be in the form of steam? Which has more volume, H2O as a gas(steam) or or the sum of the parts before they were combined by oxidation? I'm asking this because it seems that if this gas burned at a lower temperature and turned to liquid water it would create a vacuum, which would require a little re-engineering to the cam of your traditional ICE. Also, another thing I'm curious about is the effect of pressure on electrolysis of water. If lowering pressure will cause water to boil at a lower temperature will a vacuum cause electrolysis to occur at a lower voltage or at a greater rate at the same voltage. Some experimenters claim that it is simply the voltage potential that releases the gas and not the current. I have read earlier in the post about the huge amounts of energy needed and I'm certain my amp clamp works, but it will only blink a 0.1 occasionally. Is the amount of gas produced proportional to the current? And the current relative to the distance between the plates and whether or not intermediate plates are used between the anode and cathode. And finally the issue of pulse width modulation(PWM). Is it possible for stainless steel in water to resonate at a certain frequency of voltage pulses similar to the way it would resonate if delivered the right frequency of sound waves (I'm thinking of the wine glass breaking). What this PWM could do to improve gas production I can't fathom, other than shaking the bubbles loose to increase the surface area available to the water. I do appreciate your years of education and experience and I'm sorry to be such a bother with so many questions but these are the thoughts that go through my mind when I'm watching You Tube videos.

And to all you conspiracy theorist out there, it is ridiculous to think that the oil companies would try to suppress this type of research simply because it might threaten their multi-billion dollar industry and the back pockets of people powerful enough to have you killed for discussing it before you can say

"what is the substance produced" A more or less damp mixture of hydrogen and oxygen plus possible gases from other substances in the water (e.g., a little chlorine if there is salt present).

"Which has more volume, H2O as a gas(steam) or or the sum of the parts before they were combined by oxidation?" The individual components will occupy a greater volume than the sum IF you stay at the same temperature and pressure. I'm not sure how to quantify what really happens. There's somebody on this forum that I've seen do those kind of calculations, but it's not me for sure.

"effect of pressure on electrolysis" I don't know except to say that I would not expect the pressure drop (if it happens) from the cylinder to feed back into the electrolysis chamber. I'm not sure what physical arrangement you have, so I'm only supposing here.

"Some experimenters claim that it is simply the voltage potential that releases the gas" Absolutely, positively not correct. Water is a conductor - if you apply a Voltage across it, you get a current. And, the people making this claim (if they are legit, which is often not the case) obviously know nothing about chemical bonds, or plating for that matter.

"Is the amount of gas produced proportional to the current?" Everything else being equal, yes.

"Is it possible for stainless steel in water to resonate at a certain frequency" Obviously this could happen (think of an MRI or a microwave, albeit different substances). But, what would be the amount of energy you would have to put in, and what would the effect be? The Laws of Thermodynamics are quite unambiguous - there is no "free lunch".

Cheers.

It' to my uderstanding that it's the current not the voltage that does the work,also if your using an amp probe that is used for ac current it possibly wont work on dc current.To measure DC you need to put the amp guage in line and run the current through it to get a proper reading. The Gas passer

AMEN, We need more experiments like this. I actually contacted 2 Senators and several congressmen about this and none of them responded. I thik that the Oil Mob has Governments around the world hand cuffed.

Not much science in the term put your money where your mouth is

Any one in doubt of hydrogen systems for engines you are invited to try one free of charge installed on any car or truck of your choice if it does not work I pay you..if it works you pay me.Pretty simple..visit www.h2ohybrid.org pick one then call 310-623-4392

leonard

Hi Leonard

How do I try it, I live in a foreign country? after trying it and making some demos I would like to sell it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMCwXn8woqI

here is a video of a HHO generator that I made. I belive that you could include a second seperate alt. and battery in a car to produce more energy to be used to create the hho. I will test this and post more videos, and send the link here.

Dan

1988rs

Everybody is welcome to research the following for themselves. The discussion took place while Nicolai Tesla was studying at university. The hot topic of the time was DC vs AC which had not been mastered yet. Nicolai Tesla remarked in class that AC would be more efficient and therefore one should seriously consider building an AC motor. His professor remarked sarcastically that: Mr Tesla may have many remarkable achievements in his lifetime but he will NEVER build an AC motor. Any guesse as to who invented the AC motor? It seems as if we still have much of that mentality around. Especially on this forum.

For goodness sakes! You've been taken in by that old wive's tale. The person known as Tesla was actually one of the personalities of the well-known schitzophrenic inventor, Charles Steinmetz. The tale of Steinmetz's illness has been documented in the book The Three Phases of Eve (One of his personalities was the first person to die in a Schenectady electric chair, Eve Bode).

And Thomas Edison was the other character in her book?

Yes. If you play his original tinfoil cylinder phongraph backwards at 60 Hz, it says, "Westinghouse is dead."

i have read this thred fully and i got to tell you there is alot of confusion on the subject.First the law of thermal dynamics does not apply here.The altanator produces more amprage than is needed on a vehicle ,basicly you are just putting it to good use.High school chemistry explains how through electrolisis you can produce a diatomic gas where you have a hydrogen and oxyagen mixture that can rattle the rafters in your shop.The new generator fad is simply to produce enough gas to ensure a clean burn of the fuel you are already useing thus giveing you an increase in mpg.I have seen this tested on a dynamo and the results lead to a 32%increse in gas milage.Ihave been told that arodynamicly a bumblebee cant fly but i have been stung before so there is allways room for seeing is beliveing

We've been over this a number of times.

Alternators DO NOT produce extra current.

Hydrogen enrichment DOES NOT ensure a clean burn of gasoline.

Hydrogen enrichment HAS NEVER been shown to produce a 32% mileage increase on a dynamometer.

It is an urban myth that aeronautical engineers once said bumblebees can't fly. They did say at one point that you could not use fixed wing theory to explain bumblebee flight. Well, duh!

well guest there you have it,wonder if this guy works for a petroleum company,I've been running mine for abou 2 months getting consistant 4 mpg more and I've got 205,000 miles on my gmc,and the engine is as clean as a whistle,and runs smoother,maybe it's cleaning up this low octane gas,but whatever if you want plans to build you one and try it get back to me,and I'll get em to you,like I said before It,s farm tech,orville and wilber kept at it and turned a bike into an airplane.I would not advise trying to manufacture enuogh gas to totally run your engine,but a few more mpg is nice. The Gaspasser

No, I don't work for a petroleum company. And to be clear, the Wrights did not invent airplanes. They didn't even invent powered flight. What they did was combine a runway, wing-warping, and a small engine in the right combination (all these had been pioneered by others but not in the same combination) in order to carry a pilot aloft.

the thing is they were thinking out of the box,and found the balls to put it together and make it work,dont you think,that just maybe there is others out there that want to try?We dont learn if we dont try it.If something wont work,I keep trying till I get it right.about the alternater thing,mine produces 102 amps my truck uses 45 amps to run the other 57 amps are for charging the battery,which takes appx 25 minutes at 10 amps,using 18 amps or less does not make my engine struggle,therefore any gas I can make is added to my milage.does this make any sence,it does to me and my friends.My friends that are using these are electrical engineers and avionics technicians you think they do this to humor me?

No, I agree with you that people ought to dream and try things. That's always been good for the country. But, Guest was making statements that many of us know from first hand experience aren't accurate. There are legitimate standards of proof that most of us agree to and new technology has to come up that bar.

There is real harm in ridiculing hard science at a time when we Americans simply aren't measuring up against our global competitors.

Gaspasser

Please send me your drawings, I belong to an NGO and we want to make some experiments on HHO or whatever we want to call it. Please mail me to ing_albanes at yahoo dot com dot mx

One of the large energy companies in my country is supossed to be already manufacturing their items to put HHo in 30 vehicles they run, they are a geothermal company producing about 180 MW electric power

thanks in advance

cuyanausul please go to my site sandbagdaddy.com this will email directly to me and we can get started with the basic generator,be good to have somebody to compare results with,just finished replcing two transisters in my square wave amplifier for my next generation hho machine,but you need to get started with the basic one first.direct email back and forth can make this happen faster.the gaspasser

I have built a very small (cylindrical cell housed in PVC) HHO generator that will run off of the car battery to see if the system works. I have a tube going into the intake just before the throttlebody. On a V8 Triton I was able with a very half ass system to gain about 4-6 miles to the gallon. I'm now working on a much larger one that I take my time with and hope to get far better gains!! It really is amazing that it is so easy to make. I'm nineteen and have no real educaution other than self research. Great topic.

more is not always better here. Fortunately the ford computer is very well programed and it may catch on to the changes in combustion. Keep at it , its a great learning hobby. There is a EFIE designed by covert engineering that's easy to make and get some circuit board experience on.

I am Mr.Wrenches and I have the answer you are searching for HHO is a good way to save fuel however the trick is that you must teach the car how to use it via the ecm and it,s sensors in order to fool the sensors you must have a firm grip on how the ecm controls fuel trim,timing,and a very in depth understandng of how the engine works this is a job for a well rounded mechanic. I am curentley certified in the instalation and tuning of the hydrogen asist fuel cell developed by duchman ent. The price of the kit is 1050 and I get 1000 to install it and it is guranteed to to increase your milage by 50% if installed by someone who is certified or your money back any questions. Mr.Wrenches

Yes. Please provide a detailed explanation, with verified data, of the horsepower/torque curves when your device is installed.

Who certifies such installers?

Also please provide the link to this supplier?

Hi all, Popular Mechanics will perform a test...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4271579.html

here is the site and the explanation is coming... www.preignitioncc.com the picc is not yet avalible but the hafc is

Invalid Affiliate ID

This web site requires an Affiliate ID. The URL you entered does not contain an Affiliate ID or it contained an invalid Affiliate ID. Without a valid Affilate ID you will not be permitted to enter the web site. Please make sure you entered the Affiliate ID correctly. If you believe you entered the URL correctly, please go back to the person who sent you to this site to get a valid URL (including the affiliate ID).

Can you send please the mentioned affiliate ID?

ok here goes the asist fuel cell is mounted under the hood in front of the radiator. The supply tank is located in the engine compartment and conected via hoses,1 supply 1return and 1 hho supply to the air intake you must use distilled water and we mix it with KOH potasium hydroxcide to regulate the amp flow.The more KOH the more amps. We are toping out at 30 amps and getting 120 liters of gas for a big 6 cyl and 8 cyl for a 4 cyl we use les KOH and regulate amp flo to about 15 to 20. The system has a kill switch but is generaly turned on and off by the fuel pump relay the rest is all tuning. The problem with tuning is that every car is different and requires a different aproach. There are two other parts to the system the vaporiser and coliviser.The vaporiser is basicaly a series of magnets that ionises the gasoline and heats it. You must conect it in line with the fuel supply and strap it to the radiator hose for the heat. The idea is to heat the fuel so it will vaporise quicker and burn better.The coaliviser is a gas additive you must use 1 oz for a small tank and 2 oz for a large tank this helps break down. The fuel hho is is not so much a fuel,but a combustion inhanser.By adding hho we are increasing volumetric efic and making the fuel burn faster and more compleatly so you must retard timming by adjusting volatage to the ECM via the IAT (intake air temp) ECT (colent temp) when doing that you must find the best crank angle to support your new AFR (air fuel ratio) the ECM will sense a lean condition and try and corect it by adding fuel. This company makes a control unit that in short sends a bougus signal back to the ecm in the IAT signal ECT, and all o2's you must also use a MAP adjust or MAS adjust depending on the veichle.

Well, this was not what I asked, but I do generally understand what you're doing (except for the magnets on the gas line - now that's not even wrong). At days end you're running lean and that will often give you better gas mileage. On another thread, Sparky and Bob C mentioned an old hit and miss engine; those engines were very good at showing how you could lean down an engine and get better fuel/hour (since hit and misses didn't usually go anywhere) at the expense of horsepower.

But, if this is what you want, why not buy a smaller engine to start with? That'll do the same thing.

And, for the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as HHO. The laws of chemistry haven't been repealed yet. All you have is an oxygen/hydrogen gas mixture.

Now about that dynamometer data I asked for...

I'm not sure about the magnets either and the old hit and mis engine was a caddy i remember it and you are right they could not get out of their own way because of all the computer problems when those came out kids were playing ATRI .the ECM was a toaster however you are right we are running the car lean but that is ok because we are only doing it at curise speed when you don't need the power and by the way when NASCAR and other racers want a little more HP they lean out thier mixture and get it.I do not have a HP dyno but I will tell you that there is no loss of power I have driven cars that have it installed and felt the results and Iam curently installing it on my own car an 04 grand cherokee that gets 21 mpg on super right now I should have it done by next week some time and I will post my results I have a busy repair shop and 3 kids so I am a little behind I invite you to come check it out for yourself you can contact me through mrwrenches.com I think you will become a beliver once you see for your self by the way about the HHO thing I know calm down it's going to be ok

So this is what I don't get. Any mileage improvement can be attributed to running the engine lean. All that hogwash about magnetizing the gas or adding miniscule amounts of hydrogen are just a sideshow, kinda like the pretty girl assistant who gets you to look at her instead of the magician's sleight-of-hand.

So why not just put an adjustable bias on your lambda sensor and be done with it? Sure it's illegal a lot of places and it'll void your warranty, but you don't seem to be worried about that. A dohickey like that would only cost maybe $20 and almost anybody could do it. You can download the bias info (or at least you could last time I looked).

I mean why get people to spend thousands of dollars to harm their self-interests when they can do it almost for free?

ok first of all you need to take a look at the GEET engine google it.Now please understand that by putting an adjustable bias on the lambda sensor will help you save nothing that you would notice because you would not be able to take away enough fuel. if you just lean it out you would get lots of pinging and loose lots of power.What we are trying to acomplish is a more complete and faster burn of less fuel.By adding Hydrogen and Oxygen into the air charge what it does is increase the flame propagation in the combustion chamber.In order to to really reduce the amount of fuel you need to do the same job you must lower the engines sensed load via the MAP/MAS sensors then the O2's and then retard timing via the ECT and IAT sensors (higher temps less need for advance) and add somthing,anything that will help make a bigger bang.If we all drove carburated cars this cell could be used as either a fuel saver (take some jetting out and retard timing)or a power upgrade(Increase jetting or just leave it and retard timing).As for miniscule amounts of hydrogen the cell we are using produces 2 LPM as far as I know that is 3 times as much as most people are getting from home made stuff.Now about money.I don't know about you but I don't have the things I have because I do things for free.The total install and tuning procces takes up most of the day.Time is money and at 89 dollars an hour it adds up quick and I don't make alot of money on the kit it self.besides when you tell someone that drives 40 to 60 miles a day that you can get them a 50% gain for as long as they own that veicle guaranteed then hit them the fact that they can take the kit with them to the next car and get the same results or better they say wow thats great when can I get one.Please understand that this product is not the answer to the worlds enegery problems put a good start to to putting money back into peoples pockets.50% of the money most people spend on gas adds up quick around here,everyone comutes to the city at least 25 miles or more my father did an 80 mile round trip to College Point Queens 5 days a week in a 93 accord that got 27 mpg thats 400 miles a week,15 gallons of gas at 3.50 a gallon 52.50 a week plus tolls the George Washington Bridge is 8 bucks a day theres another 40 bucks then if you get caught in trafic (not if but when)there goes your fuel economy so it's over 100 dollars just to get to that job every day in an economy car 2 grand is a small price to pay for somthing that saves you so much in the long run.Stop over thinking it,it works,I know,I can prove it by showing you. I am a very sceptical person and I tried to disprove it but it works to good to be denied 50% is the lowest posible result.When I took the class we installed the kit on a 03 lincon mark 8 it went from 23 mpg to 47 mpg last time i checked the toyota prius got 50 mpg Personaly Iwould rather have the pimp ride than that tiny P.O.S.