JUN 17

Hank,
I object to your headline. Bull Shit has been a well known source of generating power for centuries. It is well known that burning the cowpies will produce heat that will help keep one warm in winter, even if it is at the expense of ones nostrils. Then there is the well known fertilizing properties of Bull Shit.

It's sometimes difficult to convince people who have fallen for this that they're wrong, as most people who don't see the flaws, probably wont understand when you explain the science.

What I've found to work is telling these people, that the guy who invented the water fuel cell (Stanley Meyer) was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the people who invested in his water fueled car $25,000 (and that was back in 1996, people should have stopped falling for the same trick by now)

Hank
I too object to the lack of research or the application of the scientific method. Had you done a little honest research or done an experiment you would have come to very different conclusions. You are correct to point out that it requires more energy to produce the HHO gas than you get out just burning it. But, that's not the whole story. Adding a very small amount of HHO gas to the combustions chamber causes the primary fuel to burn faster and more completely. If you had done a fair evaluation of the evidence you would have found that hydrocarbon emissions are significantly reduced and exhaust gas temps are lower when HHO is injected. Lower emissions and lower exhaust temps are indications of a more efficient combustion process. More power being produced by the same amount of fuel with less loss through the exhaust pipe yeilds the better gas mileage.

Rick Forbes,

Then how does the mechanism work? Your claims are bogus. Explain to me how putting gaseous water into fuel is supposed to cause the fuel to burn more efficiently. That makes no sense from a chemistry standpoint.

This is a good article for all the stupids who just want a solution soon; but are unwilling to go for any practical solutions than gasoline. Everyone wants to find a comfortable solution way too easily

Although I agree that this particular device may not work as well as it suggests, "Never" is a closed minded word. Throught history people were saying "Never" about things we take for granted now. Today we have oil or coal people telling us how wind and solar power will "Never" work efficiently. If Ecogeek seeks solutions then it should encourage all kinds of research. Investing in some forms of questionable "solutions" is a different matter all together. Keeping an open mind to all possibilities is the surest way to find the best solutions.

(Throughout)

The activation energy required to make H-H bonds from H-O-H is very large on a per molecule basis and is a property of water that can't be changed. Simply doing the calorimetry of the combustion ([energy in] - [energy out]) tells you that it will NEVER work.

Several options:

#1>
putting watter H2O or HHO etc... into a gasoline engine can extract some of the wasted heat energy that would have been pumped to the radiator out the exhaust ... when heated watter expands... that expansion is what used to drive steam engines... there are of course problems with trying to use watter to make more use of the thermal energy wasted in a gasoline engine... and they are not small issues or easily resolved issues... it is not as easy as just pumping watter into the engine with the air and gas... but it is doable and does nto violate any laws of physics... it also does not power the car by watter... but uses watter to increase the operating efficiency of the engine.

#2>
MIT & DOE back in 1977 showed that adding Hydrogen gas to a gasoline engine does improve the efficiency... it does this by taking advantage of hydrogen's faster flame speed in order to allow the engine to be run in a more lean fuel to air ratio than it could have without the hydrogen... Lean Burn operation of a gasoline engine does drastically improve MPG and Fuel Economy as anyone with a Honda Insight will tell you or show you... but the real world catch with Lean burn operation ... is that while the engine does operate more efficiently and it does improve MPG and such... the power output of the engine per engine revolution goes down... so your MPG may go up but your HP / power goes down... the total net is a increase in engine efficiency but ... the loss of power makes it more difficult to keep your speed.. so you have a balance to find between the lean burn and the loss of power caused by the lean burn... Honda did one better in the insight by getting the same lean burn operation without the need for the extra energy loss steps by converting watter to hydrogen.

#3>
Technically there are several chemcial reactions that use watter that could be used to power a car... Sodium Watter for instance... but all of those options have serious down falls and problems... it is not the magic / easy bullet.

#4>
Technically there is a sweet point in electrolysis where the splitting of watter becomes a mildly endothermic process... so at just the right point of pressure & Voltage at 77F the minimum energy needed to electrolysis 1 mole of watter is 65.3Wh... but it stores 79.3Wh or an extra 14Wh of thermal energy from the environment... the problem comes in from trying to use the extra energy stored... you would need a Engine / fuel cell that is ~83% efficient just to break even... add in some frictional losses... and you need well over 90% engine / fuel cell efficiency ... which you can get.

sorry meant to say... you can't get 90% efficient... forgot the 't...

tried to correct but had to wait the 2 minutes.

Rick Forbes and IamIan, you guys are off-topic,
the Reuters story clearly specifies that the car consumes nothing but water.

I commented on an ecogeek article recently about a 40mpg supercar. Apparently it uses HHO gas which is generated on board. I know it's BS, but several people replied claiming that this stuff really works. I threw together a spreadsheet which combined a variety of possible efficiency figures for various parts of an ICE, including the carnot cycle in the equation. Based on that, I think this stuff has a chance of helping out if your engine is already below 6% efficiency. And in that case you really should think of investing in new transport.

THINK about it. Who stands to lose so much from this new source of energy? oil and governments as they will lose financial control. If energy was free then there would technically be no reason to go to have to work. Commerce would collapse and Oil corp & government would be in the shit with no revenue and no tax and ultimately, no control over the people and no wars to justify trillions of tax dollars to chase a bogus man in a cave. Make no mistake this technology has been around for AGES (and yes it has managed to break 18th century newtonian laws of physics) and inventors have been threatened and or killed developing this technology. Now, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND PEACE ON EARTH, search on the internet for. "free energy", "overunity", "HHO" dedicated sites and you will see that there are vast swathes of people doing this today and have been doing it for years)
Here are a few such people:


William Nicholson (1799)
experimented with electrolysis

Isaac de Rivas (1805)
He made the first water car!

Rev. William Cecil (1820)

Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir (1860)
2nd car that ran on water as fuel.

Info. on Rivaz, Lenoir & Delamare-Debouteville

Luther Wattles (1897)

Rudolf A. Erren (1930)

Henry"Dad" Garrett (1932)
from Texas, I believe he was bought out
and his water fuel carb , forgotten about.

Michael A. Peavey (1956)
Wrote the "Water as Fuel" book

William A Rhodes (1967)

Yull Brown (1970-199

Daniel Dingle (1970 - 2012)

Francisco Pacheco (1972)

Rodger Billings (1976)

Archie Blue (197

Robert Zweig (197

Dr. Ruggero Santilli (197

Sam Leslie Leach (197

Steven Horvath (197
Use of radiolysis to a hydrogen cell.

Carl Cella (197
Heavymetal Rocker/ Water powered Cadilillac

Dr. Ruggero Santilli (1978 - 2007)

Stan Meyer (1980-9

Herman P. Anderson (1983)
hermananderson.org

Andrija Puharich (1983)

Joe Cell (Joe X) (1990- TILL THE COWS COME HOME)

Paulo Mateiro (2000)

Bob Boyce (2000)

Peter Lowrie (2004)

Edward Estevel

Dr. Cliff Ricketts (1996)

Steve Ryan (motorcycle 2005)

In short, you have been fed a lie by illuminati conspirators to keep you in virtual slavery while they are free to create hell on Earth.

Water as fuel for vehicles is a terrible idea to begin with. Water is fuel for PEOPLE, which matter more than anyone's transportation needs.

Durr.

I did wonder whether this was a Japanese version of an April fools joke!

Only because Reuters reported this did I even dig a little deeper.

When I dug deeper into this story the claims were not so great anyway. I assumed that Reuters simply missed a critical piece of information. They claimed a 300w version of their cell was powering the car, and they hope to scale to 1000w. A car like the Volt needs a generator of about 8KW to 10KW to maintain it at highway speeds. Maybe 1KW is ok for neighborhood vehicle.

So they only claimed to have created something capable of powering 3% of a real car. 300w seems far too little to power even the little two seater at any descent speed.

They also claimed that they were only able to get to 300w because they could not get enough of some of the critical materials evidently either very expensive or very rare, for example krytonite which is well known for its super powers.

They did not say that there was no other sacrificial material that would be reacted in the process.

They did not produce any evidence either. A box in the back of a car is not evidence.

They didn't claim to burn the H2, they claimed to generate electricity, generating H2 in the process. So then we can burn the H2 as a bonus too! More free energy.

This was also picked up by some TV news broadcasts.

Next week it will be obsolete anyway, replaced by a cold fusion engine, or a perpetual motion machine.

Peoples thinking all same thing in parlel mode. What has that gotten with hyrodgen? Nothing! That is what! Hyrodgen atoms can be put in the spinning model, with axis to the left and wobble in center. In this mode and injection of hydrodgen into the capsule with piston the power is modified. We see lower burn waster, and higher burn temprats, and good wear of cilindas.

It is simple for man at home to make hyrodgen spinning machine for injection to the cilinda. Why more people not do? T

I say never here the same way I say I will never be instantly released from the earth's gravity and smack against my ceiling. It's that kind of Never.

to Space,
The piece by Hank Green says:
"People who say that adding gasoline-generated hydrogen to gasoline increases your gas mileage by 30% are full of it"

That is the idea I was talking about... there are ways to use watter to improve MPG... but they all have side effects and secondary issues... if you ever sit in a Honda Insight when it hits lean burn you will see 30% increase in MPG.

And the idea of the generator that gives you back more electricity than you put in is what I was talking about with the endothermic cycle of electrolysis... but as I said you would need some way of converting 90% of the Chemical energy stored in the hydrogen to electricity to have any hope of making that work... and you just can't get efficiencies that high... that and it isn't over unity energy it is just endothermic.

I still think that particular water powered car featured in Reuters is being mis-represented... I suspect it has a material that is consumed which gives off the hydrogen with watter... kind of like the way sodium gives off hydrogen by reacting with watter... eventually you have to replace the reacting material... which is the vehicles actual fuel.

Every device I have ever seen reporting over unity energy has been mis-representing what is going on.

I think the Japs in this story have it very wrong but that there is something in the water fuel stuff in spite of the blunders.
Hank get a helmet on.
If their corroding metals in the cell and making free hydrogen then they create more hydrogen than electrolysis. The illusion is created that they have exceeded the limits of normal electrolysis. This is what I believe Meyer, Brown, Joe etc have been doing. The cell corrodes and eventually clogs , they complain about dirt in the water and sloppy engineering subcontractors but they never test the sludge for metal oxides!
6H2O Cr => 6H2 & Cr 6(OH) the challenge is getting the chromium metal into solution and I know how their dong that.{Where's a patent office and a wad of money when you need one.}
It will also work with aluminium or magnesium.
3H2O 3al => 3H2 al2O3 with a sodium hydroxide catalyst. No electrolysis required and it gets very hot!
In a few months time these Japs will discover that their cells only lasts a few months; as Meyer did and they will complain about contaminants or get sued.
I realy realy need a lab!

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore like you say, if you simply think you break up the hydrogen and oxygen for water and then burn it to produce water and heat energy then yes it does appear impossible.

However you are ignoring the fact you need to put energy in to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. In theory this is where the heat energy from burning the hydrogen with oxygen would come from.

The big problem is that currently the amount of energy it takes to split the hydrogen from the oxygen is way more then would be produced from the burning of the produced fuel.

Therefore the process WOULD NOT fuel its self! You would need another power source to separate the atoms. And the energy required to do so would be more then the useful you get out of it!

In this blog, we obey the laws of thermodynamics! ...

It is actually pretty easy. Wait for lots of rain, collect it, and let it hit a turbine on its way out of the car, the turbine creates power the car runs. Easy as that.

Right...that is the only way to do it except you would need an obserd amount of water to make it run, offsetting the weight of the water and the lack of much head.

The claim that you can run a car on water (as one of the reactants) is no less deceptive than saying you can run a car on "air" (if compressed), and only slightly less so than saying you are going to run a car on hydrogen.

Some energy source has to be used to compress the air in an "air" powered car, or generate a metal like sodium or aluminum to power a "water" car, or to generate and store the hydrogen for a H2 powered car.

What matters in the end are the relative overall efficiencies of any such scheme, as well as the practical scalability of any such scheme.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/06/
fire-from-water.html#links

Here's that link better:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/06/fire-from-water.html#links


@Ken:

Then how does the mechanism work? Your claims are bogus. Explain to me how putting gaseous water into fuel is supposed to cause the fuel to burn more efficiently. That makes no sense from a chemistry standpoint.

Water, (in a thin coating over beads of oil) has been used in ship boilers for decades. As noted above, it captures some of the waste heat from the burning into a useful form when it expands into a gas. This heat would otherwise go out of the exhaust. So it does make sense, clearly.

Alright you guys are much smarter than I, so please tell how does this car work? Hidden gas tank?
And if you can't get more energy out of something than you put in then how does the atom bomb work. Little energy in and whole lot out. I don't know maybe I'm just too simple minded, but i think people should open there minds and maybe we can come up with some solutions instead of more brain washing. Oh yea don't forget the world is flat, not round!

The car probably works by exposing alkali metals (like magnesium, sodium, potassium) or aluminum powder to water. The resulting reaction creates a metal-oxide and releases hydrohen, which can then be used to power a fuel cell or you can just burn it in an ICE the same way you burn gasoline or natural gas.

This problem is that this process is inefficient because to alkali metals typically have to be generated from the metal-oxide in the first place (the metals themselves are so reactive that theu do not exist in that form in nature... they oxidize rapidly). So you can't mine alkali metals like you can oil.

This is not really that different from using a Zinc-Air type of battery, though that process may actually be practical for some applications.

So, to close the loop, you have to have some energy source to inject substantial energy to regenerate the metal-oxide back into a metal, ready to use again.

In your example of the nuclear reaction, you are looking only at one end of the reaction loop.

Yes, you put in a little energy to get a lot out. But if you want to reverse the reaction, (eg to regenerate the original reactants) you have to put in a LOT more energy than you got out in the first place. This is not a problem because you don't need to regenerate uranium... you can just mine more of it (yes, we would eventually run out, but it will be a while. Then you can switch to thorium, or fission etc).

This is like burning oil. You put in a little energy, and get a lot out. But if you want to turn the resulting CO2 and H2O back onto oil (to complete the loop), you have to put in more energy than you got out in the first place (due to losses from heat). This is what the laws of thermodynamics are all about. So far there have been no exceptions. Again, this is not a problem because we can drill for more oil... that is, until we start to run out...

There's no magic solution. Rejecting the laws of thermodynamics is not being open minded.

How silly. The on-board on-demand Hydrogen Generation systems are not a something-for-nothing "perpetual motion machine" application of hydrogen power, like the government financed research projects obviously are. It is unfair to pretend they are in any way the same thing. The concept of the on-board on-demand generator is based on the known fact that only 13% of the potential energy stored in gasoline is ever used. These hybrid systems are attempting to recover some of the 87% that is normally wasted. It is not "something for nothing", and doesn't try to be. It is based on the same idea as a turbocharger.
A turbocharger uses the engines power to compress air and force it into the intake faster than it would normally be drawn in otherwise. The result is increased power, less pollution, and better fuel economy. On the surface, this looks like "something for nothing", but what it is converting waste into energy.
Another "free energy" source in this category is the nuclear "breeder reactor". This design burns the waste product of a normal nuclear reactor and extracts more energy. It works, and leaves behind only a tiny fraction of the radioactive waste that a coal fired electric facility produces, but there is an unfounded fear that these reactors could be used to produce weapons and so they are not permitted to be built. Again, it is not something-for-noting, it is turning waste into energy. If you think that can't work with a hydrogen/gasoline hybrid system, say so and say why - but don't pretend this is about attempts at perpetual motion type foolishness. It is not that at all.

I notice that you link to Treehugger under your word undeterred. I might explain that we woke up to find this had been posted by our new Japanese contributor, and already had lots of comments. We immediately put up another post explaining it.

How silly. The on-board on-demand Hydrogen Generation systems are not a something-for-nothing "perpetual motion machine" application of hydrogen power, like the government financed research projects obviously are. It is unfair to pretend they are in any way the same thing. The concept of the on-board on-demand generator is based on the known fact that only 13% of the potential energy stored in gasoline is ever used. These hybrid systems are attempting to recover some of the 87% that is normally wasted. It is not "something for nothing", and doesn't try to be. It is based on the same idea as a turbocharger.

Except that this is not an article about an onboard H2 generator to supplement a gasoline engine. BTW, those improve fuel economy (and they do work) by improving the burn characteristics of the gasoline-air mixture to burn more efficiently, not by recovering waste heat.

But you have to look at the efficiency of the whole process... does the improvement in the fuel efficiency of the car offset the energy required to generate the hydrogen? That is possible only because standard ICE's are so inefficient to start with, but I suspect it still probably would require more total energy overall.

Yeah, it kind of breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which is too bad.

I installed a home-built HHO unit on my car 2 months ago and immediately noticed an increase in power. My unit draws 10 to12 amps and produces about 1.4 liters/min HHO gas. I have mileage data from when I first purchased this car 2 years ago. Mileage with the unit installed has been 30 to 50% better, depending on how hard I drive it. Had you told me that something this simple would give me such an impressive increase just a few months ago, I too would have been very skeptical. So I understand your reactions. But notice one thing, everyone that has actually tried it notices a dramatic improvement. Those that are calling it a scam and/or impossible have not or will not experiment with it. I see a pattern here. Do you?

I installed a home-built HHO unit on my car 2 months ago and immediately noticed an increase in power. My unit draws 10 to12 amps and produces about 1.4 liters/min HHO gas. I have mileage data from when I first purchased this car 2 years ago. Mileage with the unit installed has been 30 to 50% better, depending on how hard I drive it. Had you told me that something this simple would give me such an impressive increase just a few months ago, I too would have been very skeptical. So I understand your reactions. But notice one thing, everyone that has actually tried it notices a dramatic improvement. Those that are calling it a scam and/or impossible have not or will not experiment with it. I see a pattern here. Do you?


AGAIN, this article is not about using H2 to augment combustion in an ICE. That technology is plausible for the reasons outlined above.

The article claims that the car runs on water alone. That is false. That is like saying a ICE runs on oxygen alone. Yes, an ICE runs on oxygen, but also it runs on a fuel like gasoline. Something is added to the water to extract the hydrogen, like an alkali metal. That is the real fuel, just as gasoline/diesel is the real fuel in an ICE.

I suspect somewhat of a placebo effect is at work with the water vapor in ICE experiments.

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

I dont think the idea to make a car is to create a perpetual motion machine. So to make a car to run on water is not only possible is only constrained by how much power it takes to separate the water and the amount of fuel you can run the vehicle on. From my understanding the reason they say water powered vehicles are not feasible is it takes a lot of power to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. With a major advancement in battery or capacitor technology not only would it be feasible it would be ideal for grey water recycling.

@ Rick Forbes:
So 1.4L/min of hydrogen is 0.0583 moles of H per min. Your average car running at 55mph, gas mileage of 25mpg, burns 2.2 gallons or 8.4 liters of gasoline (octane) over the course of a hour, which is 140mls per minute - this is roughly 1 mole of octane. So, molar ratio of hydrogen you're putting in, relative to the octane you're already burning, is less than 5%. I refuse to believe that adding 5% H brings your gas mileage up by 50%. Like everything else you claim, it is physically impossible (not to mention of course that the energy yield per mole of gas is more than of H, because octane has 8 carbons and 18 hydrogens, versus H's single atom).

BTW, to get 0.0583 moles of H from a sodium/aluminum/decomposition cell, you'd need to utilize the same # of moles of metal. For sodium this would be 1.35 grams of sodium per minute - i.e. the cell would be all but gone within a couple of hours!

Either way you cut it, physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, the numbers don't add up.

Just because it's a well organised scam doesn't mean it's not a scam. There's thousands of people paying 100 dollars each to have a few crappy html pages emailed to them. The people running this scam have invaded forums all over the internet, including this one. They claim to have the plans, and have done the conversions and have seen up to 50% improvements in mpg. And instead of sharing any details, they recommend that you pay $100 for the plans too. Modifying engines is not for amateurs. I know because I've done it. A job I thought would take 2-3 days took about 8 days. New conduits have to be fitted to the vehicle. Hoses and wires have to be routed around hot areas near the engine. You need to leave room so that regular engine maintenance can still be done. Piping a combination of hydrogen and oxygen through an engine is a recipe for disaster, and it won't improve your mpg. The people behind these claims should make their real identities known so they can be prosecuted when idiots are killed after following their "instructions". So to all you HHO proponents on this forum, lets have your real IDs and contact details. Or else shut the hell up.

wake up idiots

Then how does the mechanism work? Your claims are bogus. Explain to me how putting gaseous water into fuel is supposed to cause the fuel to burn more efficiently. That makes no sense from a chemistry standpoint.

Anyone who ha had an engine seize from a blown head gasket can easily confirm this. The water that leaks into the cylinder is vaporized by the heat of the engine. Water vapour is much more dense than fuel / air mixture. Takes much more energy to compress. The upstroke of the piston does not have enough power to compensate, and bam! the engine seizes.

I agree that the comments are based off of very little self study or experimentation. This whole argument is no different than saying we could never have a computer that fits in your hand and yet we have it. If you say there is no such thing as a water car. Prove IT... Whose to say some have not built a prototype. Water once gone through electrolysis will implode once it reaches a certain point. Plus we have had hho welders for years in the market and some subs have been running off of this technology for years. I personally am very skeptical!!!! Just like anyone else. But man has always been able to invent anything he can think of it just takes time and talent..... Never say it can not be done!!!! HHO works I personally use it.

To call them 'water-powered' cars is completely nonsense. However the HHO cars can and DO work and there are plenty of 'open-source' designs and people sharing their results out there.

http://mantucket.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net

There is no claim that these violate the 1st law, merely that recycling extra current from the alternator helps improve combustion efficiency.

I'm amazed that this idiot of an article writer doesn't understand that adding hydrogen and oxygen to a fuel mixture increases the burn efficiency when it's written on basically every goddamn gas pump in the world. 87, 89, 91... Ya know those little numbers that tell you how much OXYGEN is in the gas... Yeah, the more OXYGEN, the better it burns. Same way with Hydrogen, which also burns - DUMB ASS.

Chemical reactions don't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Also... If you blow out a candle... and hold a match in the smoke stream... the flame jumps from the match to the candle... how does that happen? Wasted fuel in the air gets burned as the flame burns down the smoke trail from the match to the candle.

How does HHO improve burn efficiency..? It's REALLY simple.... Hydrogen, and Oxygen, burn HOTTER than gasoline and nitrogen (which is what most of the atmosphere is) This additive means that less fuel is wasted in the form of EXHAUST.

In an average car you are blowing tons of fuel out of your exhaust pipe. Don't believe me..? Hold a lighter up to your exhaust while having a friend rev the engine... Try not to get killed by the 15 foot flame thrower.

Once, I ate a peanut and farted for over 20 seconds... EXPLAIN THAT!

Yet another angry, insulting and off-topic post by someone who didn't get this:
the Reuters story clearly specifies that the car consumes nothing but water.
Sigh.

ok lets get more to brass tacks so to speak. this may be convoluted; sorry if we had a white board I would be in bliss typing physics is awful hard :|
but lets begin
A car needs 402,336 kJ of energy to move 1 mile at a velocity of 40 mph.
Now for the water you must have this process going on:
electrolysis: 2 H2O → 2 H2 O2
combustion: 2 H2 O2 → 2 H2O
lets not get into the fact that this reaction takes more energy to actually create this HHO gas we will assume for our discussion that we have a magical electrolysis machine that does not require energy
so we had 55 moles of gas from my previous post
each mole used during combustion produces
When ignited, the gas mixture converts to water vapor and releases energy, which sustains the reaction: 241.8 kJ of energy for every mole of H2 burned.
so we have 241.8 Kj of energy per mole and 55 moles giving us a total theoretical energy output from one quart of water equal to
13 310 KJ
that will move your car 174.671916 feet at 40MPH

hope that made sense :|

The HHO booster movement has been open-source for several years now and you can find tons of designs, experiences, and people to contact on the forums.
These people share who share their experience have nothing to sell, nothing to gain from doing so.

Search youtube.
Check this page
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water4Gas#Available_Elsewhere_for_Free
Read this doc it gives several complete plans:

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf

Nobody is claiming you can power your car on water
nor are they claiming to generate more energy than is produced.

The ebooks that people charge for are spreading via affiliate links. The idea is that if there's a profit motive in spreading the info, the info will spread lots faster.

I.e., do your homework before mouthing off.

Ya know, I think all those people spouting & regurgitating the conservation of energy are full of shit. Water is something and we know the power of the universe lies within the hydrogen atom. Tell me mr law of conservation of energy, do we really put as much energy into splitting the atom as the outcome? No? I didn't think so. If you think about water on a universal scale or even just our solar system you know its a fairly rare element. Who's to say there isn't a planet with a race of beings refining god knows what to create water in order to power their lives? We may just be blind to truth. Even Einstein admitted to what he called zero point energy; without it his theory of relativity doesn't work. He called it the ether. But could not explain it. While he was noble enough to call his works theories, I'd love to know who came up with calling the theory of conservation of energy a law. Most likely a Saudi or some oil man no? When the textbooks are written by corporate interests do you really feel you've been educated? How about sold?

This article clears things up, and yet seems to have muddied the waters.

I have often wondered about the storage of energy for the following reasons:

Living in Canada, we need most of our energy in the winter time, when the sun is at it's lowest, when the temperatures outside plummet to -20 degrees C and there is simply no energy around to keep warm with.

Solar energy, a viable, though expensive technology won't produce enough to run a house, especially when it's dark outside -- making us dependent on the gas company / or burning wood products.

We only turn on the lights when it's dark, so we can't use solar then, and wind generation does not work all the time as the wind is weather and quite inconsistent.

So the answer to Wind power and Solar power is to store the energy.

Batteries, quite plain and simply stated, suck.

The old Lead batteries that we are still using to start our cars, pollute the environment to an extreme degree. (Remember when they took the lead out of fuel in the 70's?)

Newer batteries are still developing to catch up to the current demands.

My philosophy on alternative fuels is to Store the Energy created by Solar and Wind in Browns gas (or whatever it is you wish to call it)

By doing this, you will not be polluting further with lead / the energy will be there when the sun is gone from the sky and the wind quiet.

This poses it's own set of problems, but I think that there is enough technology available to overcome the obstacles.

Honda is making a Hydrogen Fuel Cel car for production -- this in it's self means nothing. Currently Hydrogen is being extracted by traditional methods from fossil fuels, however, would it be so crazy to fuel a Honda solely on Browns gas made at home?

Even using Browns fuel as an augmenter, what sort of fuel savings / pollution savings does this represent?

I am too jaded to believe that the planet can get it together to eliminate pollution, but I believe I can save myself a ton of money and stop myself from being so dependent on the system.

This particular article, has caused a great deal of debate and fueled many people to question, debate and speculate on this topic. We may not all agree, but at the end of the day, more people will be willing to attempt to try something different.

Well Done.

Craig

I still say that with the high cost of fuel, the cost of producing H or O2 by breaking the bonds in water via radio waves, electricity, or whatever, is probably still a better value than petrol. For example, if gas costs me $4/gal, but it costs me $2 to create the equivalent BTU of hydrogen vi electrolysis. Then I've saved money. Sure, it took more electricity to create the H than the amount of energy I could get out of it, but the bottom line is that I am saving 50% on transportation costs.

87, 89, 91... Ya know those little numbers that tell you how much OXYGEN is in the gas... Yeah, the more OXYGEN, the better it burns.
If you're gonna try to pretend to be an expert in chemistry, you should try to get some basics right first. There is NO oxygen in gas/petroleum/diesel. Those numbers are the octane or cetane numbers. Stop spreading ignorance.
The exhaust of my van emits a mixture of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, NOx, sulphur dioxide and water vapour. It doesn't ignite, in fact it would be a good gas for putting out fires. You are talking rubbish in the hope that you can get someone to buy your HHO instructions. Get a real job.

We should just use my flux capacitor and than we could run our cars on banana, and/or elmers glue.

tacos are good for the flux cap as well. I am selling a new model "The Fluxenator 20 Bagilllion" (yes 3 L's.) for 24.95 3,231 easy monthly payments of $2308.94.
Works on all cars. All but ford. And mozda.. And GM's.

If its impossible, why does BMW have a whole area in their BMW Facility here in Munich? Detailed exhibits about their research into this very thing and the BMW "Clean Energy" 7 Seriers?
http://www.bmwzentrum.com/exhi...n_car.asp

Thanks mfn, you have proved my point about scammers invading forums. You link redirects to the water4gas site which sells these bogus instructions. I assume you get a few cents for everytime someone uses that link because your id is sent along with it. Get a real job. People like you are parasites.

Last I checked those funny numbers at the gas pump measured Octane not Oxygen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane

Nice how the conversation was so quickly deflected from using water as a fuel to improving the combustion of hydrocarbons...

No one is claiming perpetual motion. If the byproduct is H2O, it doesn't mean they're getting the same about in as out. You just made that up. Any kid will tell you both H and O are jolly good for burning, getting them from water is certainly possible, using them as fuel is ancient. The issues is doing it safely in a small enough device for a vehicle.

BECAUSE THEY WANT YOUR MONEY! BY MY DELORIAN!

well, how about this:
you drop water from a mountain into a valley, where
the water turns a turbine-generator for electricity.
you use the electricity to electrolyze the water in the valley into hydrogen and oxygen.
next you pipe the hydrogen into a pipe. this pipe
leads to the top of the mountain. (obviously
hydrogen is lighter then air, remember the
hindenburg?)
now the hydrogen at the top of the mountain
is combined with athmospherical oxygen in
a fuel-cell (electricity). the exhaust from
the fuel-cell is water AT THE TOP OF THE
MOUNTAIN.

goto 10 (that is start at the top again).

good luck! this is prior art. forget about
patenting it

You might use HHO gas but not in your vehicle. I know about HHO welders, they are great but they consume electricity to make the gas which is burnt in the welder. You can't drive a car around if it's plugged into a socket.

I believe you are another member of the scam gang which is spreading these lies. Fortunately for you guys, there are a lot of idiots out there who are getting fooled by this scam. I wonder how many millions of dollars have been spent on this already.

Just because no one has done it and this particular method doesn't work doesn't mean it isn't possible. Remember, at one time, the world was flat. Why is it that anyone who tries something different and out of the ordinary is a crack pot or a scam ... that is until it works then they are the "hero". Someone might someday find a way to make it work.

A MASER is a Microwave LASER. A "new" discovery (this year) have proved that with a correctly set up MASER, it is possible to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water.
This discovery has already been made almost half a century ago but none want to see it. In fact, to run the Maser, you will need batteries. This is where the power comes from. So this is possible.
Cya

The reason this is a scam is because it doesn't work and the people selling the instructions know it doesn't work. They are profiting off of peoples fears about the increase in oil prices. They are selling a few crappy html pages which they email out at $100 each. That is what a scam is.

I don't think I'm close-minded. I'm always experimenting with new stuff and trying out new designs. That has helped me to better understand how things really work.

For example, these people are claiming that only 13% of the fuel in an engine gets burnt. That is a lie. All the fuel gets burnt unless the fuel/air mix is totally messed up. The inefficiencies that are in ICEs are because of a principle called the carnot cycle. There is also friction between moving parts, gearboxes, belt-driven alternators etc, and these reduce the total power that gets to the wheels. Using Hydrogen fuel will not do anything to change these facts.

I hardly recognise this site anymore. Where did all the idiots come from all of a sudden? If you think water is an element I really don't know what to tell you. Maybe go back to elementary science class and learn about the periodic table for starters.

old news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg

stanley meyer already did it. til he died suddenly.
it won't happen, cuz big oil won't let it happen.

well, how about this:
you drop water from a mountain into a valley, where
the water turns a turbine-generator for electricity.
you use the electricity to electrolyze the water in the valley into hydrogen and oxygen.
next you pipe the hydrogen into a pipe. this pipe
leads to the top of the mountain. (obviously
hydrogen is lighter then air, remember the
hindenburg?)
now the hydrogen at the top of the mountain
is combined with athmospherical oxygen in
a fuel-cell (electricity). the exhaust from
the fuel-cell is water AT THE TOP OF THE
MOUNTAIN.

goto 10 (that is start at the top again).

Simple, the electricity that you generate from the turbine will be insufficient to electrolize all of the water that ran down the mountain. Thus the hydrogen you burn at the top of the hill will produce significantly less water to run the second cycle of turbine electricity.

Each cycle will generate less and less hydrogen gas and electricity. Plus heck, you aren't doing any work with this power anyway, you're using all of it for electrolysis.

Thats' a nice idea but it won't work either. If you drop a liter of water 10km (10,000m) onto a 100% efficient turbine, it'll generate 1X9.81X10000 J (98.1 KJ) of energy. That's about 0.03kWh. It takes about 10kWh of electricity to split a liter of water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. So you'd need to make about 330 times more electricity than can from potential energy alone.

I will never read ecogeek again.

Create an engine with a crank start with a long lever...it WILL need to be long. Put water in the cylinder (this cylinder will need to be stronger than normal car cylinders). Crank the engine. With enough force the atoms making the water will be crushed and presto! Most power full car EVER! Running only on water!

To at least start on topic its likely that these news report just don't represent the facts correctly, but if you were a journalist what would you think was a more interesting headline? “Car that runs on Hydrogen and oxygen gas utilizing electrolysis for refinement developed!!!” or “Car that runs on water, WOW!!” we know that there is a requirement for refinement or molecule extraction but that certainly is not very interesting (well to some it is). I haven't read through the article but I expect that it is either electric powered by a hydrogen cell or combustion powered by a hydrogen engine.

I have been thinking about the comparison people have been making between HHO energy in and output -vs- standard fuel. To compare apples to apples wouldn't it be wise to include all refining methods? For example to produce HHO from a home built system it requires n amps (Dependant on electro light, heat etc) to produce so much hydrogen and so much oxygen. Now what is the energy input required to refine crude oil to the equivalent amount of gasoline? With those numbers in hand then I think energy output could be measured to show a real comparison between the two sources of fuel.

I built an HHO engine from about $30 in parts and didn't pay anything for plans (I found everything I needed to know on you tube) adding a catalyst (like baking soda) to distilled water produced a great reaction. In my old pickup I got a 15% increase in mpg and a slight increase in power. Not significant but helped a little as prices go up about eight cents a week. My next project is to convert a 74 VW bug to straight HHO using a propane carburetor and an on demand engine. I am convinced it will work however this solution is not for the masses. I think the real challenge for car makers is that they have to develop a system that people can use, not just garage scientists (witch it is really cool to see so many people working on so many different variations and sharing the information). If you sold a car with a system that requires as much maintenance as a hydrogen generator, people would become crippled and thus the system would be thrown out the window as impractical. Honda's new hydrogen car http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/ uses compressed hydrogen to produce electricity that is stored on board then powers electric motors. Not a bad approach considering that once infrastructure is developed all the people have to do is fill up at a hydrogen station. But what is your motivation? Are you trying to make things exactly the same (quick fill up at the gas station and off you go) or are you attempting to rid yourself of the need to be tied to these things that we depend on so much now. I think that the work is worth the liberation myself.

I do think however that reacting to any idea by saying it breaks what ever law is a bit short sided. The laws of physics are evolving on a daily bases. Scientist have been determining what these laws are for centuries then modifying those laws as new discoveries are made. A scientific law is based on experiment and consensus of knowledge at the time, these can not be absolute as humans aren't capable of being all knowing. We the people are capable of critical thinking and should experiment with principles to determine for ourselves if its a viable solution. Just don't blow yourself up

I can't believe this inappropriate use of science and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

1) a water car is different from a HHO assisted gasoline car. The HHO assist car works, not because of chemistry and conservation of energy, but because of COMBUSTION DYNAMICS.
2) 'Gaseous water' is not HHO, gaseous water is steam, and steam cannot combust. Electrolyze water to create H2 and O, that will combust easily.
3) HHO does take a bit of energy to make, and put enough electrolyzers in a car, it will make enough hydrogen to move the car, but it will probably run out of battery power and will need to be recharged. So it's not free energy because it will need to be plugged in and the energy will then be basically coming from burning coal unless you get your electricity from wind/solar/nuclear.
4) It's pretty obvious a water car is just using electrical energy, but it's a cool concept and that's all it is to make people think. If you have to recharge your car, you might as well use the batteries to drive the wheels directly.

For all you that think HHO assist is a scam, why do truckers use a propane tank to bleed into the diesel engine intake? Cause it makes the combustion more efficient, dammit

We should just use my flux capacitor and than we could run our cars on banana, and/or elmers glue.

Uh, the flux capacitor doesn't create energy...

At first, he used plutonium and then later switched to "Mr. Fusion" for his energy needs. Sheesh...

the actually working idea for hydrogen energy and water powered cars is not any of this perpetual motion bologna. it's the simple idea behind any solar hydrogen car (there are kits all over the internet). everyone could easily have a hydrolysis machine in their garage that converts water into hydrogen. as solar cells get better, add them into the system to cut down the grid electricity needed to make the hydrogen gas.

you're not getting more energy than you put in -- you're just getting ridiculously cheaper energy.

Your writing style is remarkably similar to Johnson who I replied to earlier. It's strange that he disappeared and you have appeared to take up his argument for him.

I have read your line of reasoning several times before and it's still rubbish. Combustion efficiency is already over 90% in all well-designed modern cars. In Europe we have to get our vehicles tested every 2 years and if they fall below strict standards they aren't allowed on the roads.

The overall efficiency of a car is usually below 50% for reasons that have nothing to do with combustion. First of all there is the Carnot Cycle. Look it up, it's important. You can't do anything about it.

Then there are the myriad other moving parts that transfer power in various forms to various parts of the car. Each of these has inbuilt inefficiencies. A general rule of thumb is, the less extra parts you have that waste energy the better your overall efficiency is. This HHO gas rubbish is just an extra part that adds to the inefficiencies in the system.

No definitely not part of the scam gang. Just a person looking to get better gas mileage. But keep in mind that new inventions happen everyday. My knowledge is based of facts that i have tried. I like dOd logic. Just shows how antiquated yours is.

Hank, you should have done some research before you posted this.

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2008-06/Genepax-unveils-water-energy-fuel-cell

As they are utilizing a similar process to the metal hydride reaction, the issue is whether the fuel cell will actually last for very long...

They aren't using electrolysis to split the water.

But in any case Big Oil would never let this happen even if the numbers did work out.

Hank
I suggest that you do more research yourself rather than quoting other people who, you don't know if they did any research themselves other than being sure that it won't work. In this case you may be surprized that it does work althought I will admit that some people touting the HHO are talking from there ass. The people who have built the converters correctly seem to be laughing all the way to the bank.

Why does KFC keep their spices a secret?

Why should the Japanese company disclose any information about how their cell works?

Because you are curious?

Sorry, but why should they give up their secret and unfathomable amounts of money. I don't know if their technology is patented yet and until it is all everyone can do is wait, and hope its not a scam.

No definitely not part of the scam gang. Just a person looking to get better gas mileage. But keep in mind that new inventions happen everyday. My knowledge is based of facts that i have tried. I like dOd logic. Just shows how antiquated yours is.

Ok, maybe you're not benefiting financially from this scam, but you're helping the people that are by encouraging others to try it. Can I ask you what ways you've tried using HHO gas? I'm assuming you haven't tried it in a car yet since you are still looking to improve your car.

And I liked d0d's idea too but I already explained to him why it won't work. But he is thinking outside the box.

Just one last comment,

Have you ever noticed how much better your car runs on a cool damp night? This is because of the cooler denser air being sucked into the intake. There is more O2 available for combustion which increases the efficiency of the combustion enough to make a noticeable difference. HHO injection does that same thing only much better. It not only is adding more O2 to the mix it is also adding a very reactive H2. The H2 burns much faster than the vaporized fuel which causes the fuel to ignite faster with the additional O2. How do I know this? Because the before and after smog tests clearly show reduced levels of hydrocarbons with HHO injection. Since the combustion is faster the piston has more time to extract work on each power stroke. How do I know this? Because pyrometer measurements on the exhaust manifold adverage 65 degrees less when HHO is injected. Less heat being lost through the exhaust means more energy being absorbed by the piston.

As for those of you that say I am off topic, you need to reread the Hank's article again. More specifically the next to last paragraph.

hydrogen isn't meant to solve the green energy problem it is just a better and more ecologically friendly way of storing energy then conventional batteries that use toxic chemicals and metals to store charge. The hydrogen can be electolyzed from water using green power (hydroelectric, wind etc) and then stored for later use in a vehicle. The hydrogen car would be far superior to electric because of quick fill ups, range, and power (all the benefits of a gas car).

Most "eco-geeks" are quick to discredit any technologies that pose a serious solution to maintaining our comfortable lives without forgoing the comfort of the environment.

Mark your quick to rebuke but slow to offer a solution, you sir are fucking clown shoes

You are wrong and hydrogen cars that essentially convert water into hydrogen fuel are already running and will replace gasoline and diesel soon. So shut up and go home, ya big dummy. Ass hole piss brain dickhead.

Yes i have installed it in my 1998 for taurus. I have gone from 16 mpg to 25 just on the installation of the electrolysis unit. There are other alterations to the engines like the demse unit which alters the rich or lean to mixture. I have not installed that yet and it will hopefully save me more. I do know is that my car does not run on water. But gas with an HHO boost. But if HHO burns in a welder to weld with don't you think they can sooner or later fit it to run in an engine??? I try to always keep positive and try to think out of the box. I am not saying i am a physicist but I do know it is working on my car.. And I don't believe that I think in a box but would like to say I think out side of one. Always looking for new alternatives.

What science are you presenting, you are making vague statements. There is no math here, no chemistry, this is not science which you present but conjecture.

...have I seen such a collection of misinformed ignorant clusterf*cks propagating pure bullsh*t and trying to pass it off as science. Water cars. HHO. Gaseous water. Burning nitrogen. Jebus farking christ you guys are morons.

...have I seen such a collection of misinformed ignorant clusterf*cks propagating pure bullsh*t and trying to pass it off as science. Water cars. HHO. Gaseous water. Burning nitrogen. Jebus farking christ you guys are morons. Guess there really is one born every minute.

First off, in the future water will be the fuel we power everything with. You are extremely short sighted in your evaluation of the current technology. Just this summer, scientists out on the east coast used salt water and radio waves to combust water. Seperation of water into its constituents is only difficult because of the very strong H-O bonds. If one determines how to pull these atoms effectively by some sort of catalyst, and one uses the metal organic frameworks of Omar Yaghi of UCLA, or some derivative or the sort, hydrogen will be practical and water will be the source. Incorporation of solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and solar thermal to utilize the most abundant molecule on the planet, water, will be the future. Negativity and close-mindedness you have demonstrated in this article only shuts the door on others curiosity and dreamers innovation. I suggest on a site that touts its own eco-friendly agenda that you remember who you reads your blogs. And by the way...your statements on not being able to extract as much energy as you put in, is simply false. I suggest you learn thermodynamics.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I never realized how many half educated (yet unaccountably confident in their views and "knowledge") until I had seen this post's comments.

Hank, have you tried the system yourself?? And how many of you others have actually tried it?

Open your minds, Guys, and put your money where your mouths are.

Yes i have installed it in my 1998 for taurus. I have gone from 16 mpg to 25 just on the installation of the electrolysis unit.

Sigh, get back to me when you wake up and you're ready to live in the real world with the rest of us.

So many ignorant people. I will never trust comments on this website again. Chemistry doesn't change to suit your wishful thinking.

My dad installed a HHO kit in my Volvo 340. It made no difference to the mpg for the next 200 miles. Then the engine seized up! Now I'm looking for a new car and my dad is looking for the guy who sold him the kit!

Don't try this!

Thought this was interesting and relevant

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/invention_failure_never_work_disaster

Great debate. A couple of comments.

First, I 100% agree that it is impossible to run a car on 100% water without using some other reactive catalyst to create the hydrogen, so the story is bullshit.

Second, water (which is really a poor term because nobody is actually burning water) can be very useful to augment the efficiency of a combustion engine when broken down to hydrogen and oxygen (HHO gas). Remember, only about 6% of an internal combustion engine's energy is transferred to the wheels, so there's a lot of room for improvement.

HHO gas works because:

1). It can be produced easily at a rate of about 2-3 liters per minute with about 10-20 amps of power. If you don't believe this, go over to YouTube and do a search and you will find the experiment replicated hundreds of times by many different people who have no agenda other than they like to experiment. They are not out to sell anything.

2) It improves efficiency because HHO gas is about 2.5 to 3.0 times as combustible as gasoline vapor. (They weld with it). HHO also takes up volume in the engine, so at least theoretically less gasoline needs to be injected.

3) A lot of people who experiment with HHO cells get poor mileage results because they don't know how to properly adjust their engines (oxygen sensors) which have a tendency to inject more gasoline in the presence of HHO gas thus flattening or even decreasing efficiency. This is why these cells can destroy an engine if not installed properly and tend to work much better with the older/simpler engines.

Lastly, as a side note, I've spoken at length with an engineer who has spent the last two years of his life perfecting a large scale multi-million dollar gasification plant designed to convert municipal garden waste into electricity. The first thing he will tell you is the wetter the fuel, the better the burn. This is because at 1,700 degrees, the water in the waste is instantly converted to hydrogen/oxygen which creates a far more combustible gas/burn than using dry feed stock alone. There is however a certain threshold where too much water will start cooling the combustion chamber and retarding the burn process, but this threshold is lot higher than most conventional wisdom might lead you to believe. Nevertheless, they will tell you that they never could gasify pure water, so again, anyone who claims they have figured out a way to use water as power source alone is bullshitting you.

I would not be so quick to discount the possible benefits from adding Hydrogen to the fuel intake of a gasoline or diesel vehicle. While gasoline has more energy contianed in it than diesel, diesel gets better milage because the stratified charge compression ignission burns more of the fuel that is injected, where a gasoline engine has to wait for the flame created by the spark to propogate throughout the volume of the cylinder, (not an easy thing at 10,000 rpm) the compression ignission from a diesel engine spontaneously ignites from many different points and spreads much faster throughout the volume of the cylinder. Many companies are working on Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition GASOLINE engines, which will probably get 20 - 30% more mileage than even diesel will, but require much larger compression ratios (and then much higher octane ratings to prevent pre-ignition) Anyway, it's clear that there is a lot of energy and fuel in gasoline not being used properly, adding a small amount of hydrogen *might* help propogate a faster more thorough combustion throughout the cylinder volume. That extra power *might* be more than the power required to actually electroylze water to generate the H2, but it's only because it's helping to get a more effecient burn from the gasoline combustion. I would be highly highly skeptical of "30 - 50%" claims of effeciency increase, but a 5 - 10% does not seem completely unreasonable. If there is a small benefit but it does not exceed the power required by the engine and car electrical system to electrolyze the water, a solar powered trunk based electrolyzer unit might be worthwhile, but you still run into the problem of storing hydrogen in any signifant density.

The benefit of adding hydrogen to gasoline or diesel engines to increase effeciency is plausible enough to me to warrant some investigation / experimentation. Has there been any PUBLISHED studies or REAL TECH based on this? I've read F1 racers experimented with "dual fuel" systems which did just this, but the F1 boards changed the rules requiring only 1 fuel.

Ok I may be only 16 but i got a geo metro running of hydrogen produced from a battery that can almost be recharged completely by the alternator. its not however perpetual motion because its not efficient enough to do it so every 400 miles or so the battery has to be charged, thats it other than that I add water and it runs. copied the electrolysis design from Stan Meyer

Simon,

You’re the first person that has tried it that seems to have had a bad experience. I have had my unit installed for almost 1800 miles with no negative effects. I noticed an immediate improvement in performance but it did not make up for existing mechanical problems. I am in the process of repairing a leaky spark plug oil seal and a bad fuel injector both of which were a problem before installing the HHO unit.

If installed correctly there is no reason for adding a HHO generator to cause an engine to seize. It sounds like you had a serious mechanical problem before installation. I wish they would magically fix mechanical problems but they don’t. I hate working on cars even though I’m ASE certified.

First off, in the future water will be the fuel we power everything with. You are extremely short sighted in your evaluation of the current technology. Just this summer, scientists out on the east coast used salt water and radio waves to combust water.

See, the problem is that I DO know thermodynamics. Quite well.

Yes, you can get flame from water by application of radio waves. This is similar to creating heat in food with a microwave. The point is, though that you have to put in more energy in the form of radio waves than you get from the resulting flame produced from hydrogen coming out of the salt water. Otherwise, you could create a perpetual motion machine by injecting energy in the form of radio waves, and then using the flame generated to run a generator to create more microwaves.



Seperation of water into its constituents is only difficult because of the very strong H-O bonds. If one determines how to pull these atoms effectively by some sort of catalyst, and one uses the metal organic frameworks of Omar Yaghi of UCLA, or some derivative or the sort, hydrogen will be practical and water will be the source.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Catalysts do not alter the delta H of a reaction. They do decrease the initiation energy needed to start a reaction.

Water can not be the only source of hydrogen. To create hydrogen, it has to be exposed to some reactive species like an alkali metal. This reactive species is the real fuel, because it takes energy to create it.

Incorporation of solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and solar thermal to utilize the most abundant molecule on the planet, water, will be the future. Negativity and close-mindedness you have demonstrated in this article only shuts the door on others curiosity and dreamers innovation. I suggest on a site that touts its own eco-friendly agenda that you remember who you reads your blogs. And by the way...your statements on not being able to extract as much energy as you put in, is simply false. I suggest you learn thermodynamics.

Like I said above, ignoring the laws of thermodynamics is not being open minded. You clearly have some knowledge, but also some fundamental misunderstandings which are more damaging to dreamers than any negativity might be.

hey, thanks for your reply!

i will try to counter argue. i think you understand.

assume we have a massive reservoir of water in
the valley (ocean?).

also (theoretically) we have zero loss converting
from one energy form to another. (i call this
the "X factor", which we can argue about AFTER
i tell my little story)

so i drop 1 liter of water from the mountain.
this yields X watt of power in the valley.
(turbine-generator)

i use X watt of power to electrolyze the water
at the bottom into hydrogen and oxygen.

this X watt of power are now in the hydrogen.
the hydrogen rises to the top of the mountain
by itself (where we started).

at the top of the mountain, i/we extract the
X watt of power from hydrogen, by combining
it with atmospherically oxygen in a fuel cell.
the exhaust is Y amount of water.

i/we now use the X watt of power we got from
the fuel cell, to PUMP UP ONE LITER of WATER
from the valley:

so now, we have 1 liter Y liters of water at
the top of the mountain. more then before ...
-
now the nasty part "x-factor"... obviously
energy conversion from one form into another is
never 100 % efficient.

BUT "Y" doesn't become negative ... only quiet
small

"i guess it should work to transport
all the ocean(tm)."

oh, oops i forgot to mention ...
assume we have a small ballonfactory in the
valley ... we could fill the hydrogen into
'lil ballons with a small basket underneath.

so you can either put in a whiskey bottle
ito the basket and send it up the mountain -or-
a lil water ... have the hydrogen help lift
some water (catch the ballon)

The oil industry knows that fuel cells will NEVER be cheap, Hydrogen will NEVER be cheap, and there are too many barriers to fuel cell cars such as range, storage, costs, temperature sensitivity and so on.

They push the technology because that takes funding away from practical vechicles like battery powered electrics, because they know battery cars essentially hand their business over to the coal, nuclear and wind/solar companies.

Yes, that’s right, you are wrong. You seem to be assuming that the water is split & bunt/ rejoined, with 0 lose. This is where you are wrong; water holds a very large amount of energy just in a very stable form. So stable, in fact, that it takes a good bit of energy to split the molecules in to there base parts. This is why you don’t see the whole world running on water. When the water is split, not all of the H2 is made back into water. A lot of it stays in it base forms of H2 and O2, they then pass out of the exhaust and in to the air. That is why you have to keep filling up your water tank. Sure you can reclaim some of the water and put it back in to the tank and indeed you should, but, the fact is that a lot of the water will be destroyed (used very loosely) in the reaction. This is where you get the energy for the explosion that runs the engine, thus energy from water. So in closing, yes you can run a car on water but it would be so inefficient as to be laughable to try.
But yes you can use it to boost your mpg but it takes far too much work to make it worth doing; also the trade off is most of your power

Drink plenty of water and ride a bike...

canttouchthis:
Did you have to retard the timing on the Metro? I've read that it should be 10 deg AFTER TDC, otherwise the mix ignites before the piston is where it needs to be. Is the breakdown of the design in those mountains of pages from Meyer's site?

*WHAT IF* you hooked up a second alternator somehow to only run the cell or maintain battery charge? Possibly a dedicated battery? I'm thinking my Metro needs to be de-mothballed and used as the testbed. HHO boost first, then play with a complete changeover.

Rick Forbes:
Did you do the basic one or the one with the 18 little black boxes?

Where did you source the O2 Sensor "modifier" and what did it cost? Oh yeah - How difficult was the installation?

You mentioned that other don't take the time to research... I think that applies to YOU. I have a 1984 TransAm with a 350 under the hood. (BTW: I've modified the car to be KITT from Knight Rider) This car does NOT run on GASOLINE. It runs on WATER. There are no storage tanks (yet). It generates hydrogen as it drives. We have a condenser that collects water from the atmosphere and a storage bin that collects the water dripping from the AC. A condenser that collects as much water as possible from the steam. All that gets recycled and put back into the electrolysis portion of the system. Once every 20 days, we have to add about 2 liters of water. The longest I have drove this car is from FL to TN and back. The whole trip ran me $0.00 in gas. It took just under 1 liter of water. That's over 1300 mile trip. Oh, the parts used... Bought from Walmart and Home Depot. $88 bux. So believe what you want to. it does work regardless of what you say or do. We were going to market this product until we ran into a company in Germany that makes the identical thing. Only theirs is better.
I've be a huge fan of this site until I read this article. I now wonder how much actual research has gone into much of what you say and claim now.
And no, we don't have huge batteries in the car. We did however add a second alternator for extra power. We basically replaced the smog pump since it is no longer needed (no emissions).

Iv'e seen a lot about this recently and at first my reaction is"Its a con". The energy required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen is more than you get back by burning it. Yes that's understood a fact as old as teh universe. there is no such thing as perpetual motion and all that.

BUT after quite a bit of searching about I think there may be something in it because of teh EFFICIENCY gains you get, nothing to do with creating energy, but you certainly can change efficiency.

If the efficiency of the engine is increased several 10's of percent then maybe the power output of the engine will be increased-not due to the creation of energy from somewhere but from the increase on engine efficiency due to the hydrogen.

Most of the water for fuel websites do seem very dodgy, many of these sites have text which reads like its written by someone with a poor command of the English language and they probably are trying to cash in by selling a poorly researched ebook for $50

BUT there are several companies listed on world stock markets which seem very much more credible eg
Hydrogen Hybrid Technolgies,
http://www.hydrogenht.com/
Hydrorunner
http://www.hydrorunner.com/

HHT is mentioned in the wall Street Journal and school buses have been switched over in British Columbia, the US Military is trialling it.

Based on these companies which have serious investors and have there claims backed up by third parties perhaps there is something in this.

Yes energy can't be created but efficiency CAN be increased so you do more with the energy you have than you did in the first place.

Wes,
Tonight is my first attempt at gathering info on an alternative fuel for the family cars. Needless to say I am not sure what is true and what is not. After reading your comments, I wanted to see if you would allow me to contact you to find out how you converted your car from gas to water. I really do need some help with this and would love to talk to you more about it. I am in the Central Florida area.
Thanks,
Robert

This is VERY close to what I done.
http://waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html

And it looks they are cheaper than the Germans too.

Guys, i bought the e-book and make it available free on my site www.cxclessons.com so you can try it out for yourselves! No need to thank me.. It's open source material so they should not be selling it anyway

Randy,

I built my own unit from 4X5 inch stainless plates salvaged from dead computer harddrives. Seven plates configured with the anode in the center and two cathodes on the outside, separated by two neutral plates on each side. I have had to rebuild my unit twice to adjust spacing and fix leakage problems.

I have not installed any EFIE devices yet but I found a schematic for a O2 sensor controler using a 555 timer chip that I will be trying after my repairs are done.

Rick,

Thanks for the tip! Just starting out with this stuff; seems like it's little more than a battery running backward...

Some things I've read were that the O2 sensor will prevent any benefit based on the "extra" O2 in the exhaust. Kind of a pain to build an EFIE; I'm mechanically inclined, though not so much electronically.

Take some physics courses before commenting on this technology! There will never be a perpetual motion machine - no advance in science will ever allow it! There is no such thing as a frictionless machine. Even an object floating through space is affected by occasional collisions with particles and even light, and its speed / direction (vector) will be affected.

You cannot make this work on a car, you cannot make this work on a plane. Not in a truck, not in a train. Water from gas will never work you see, I'm an engineer, take it from me!

As has been pointed out, any possible ICE efficiency gains realized from the introduction of hydrogen, would be instantly negated by the energy required to separate this hydrogen from oxygen. It's not going to increase efficiency "in the overall picture" no matter which way you slice and dice it.

BS,

I don't think too many people are expecting an Over-Unity device; just trying to crank up the MPG in our rides.

Use the energy that powers those 6,000-Watt rolling boomboxes to crack some molecules. The energy is already in the system.

My understanding - though limited - is that the intended eventual outcome, conversion to "all-water" would work much like a propane or compressed natural gas system, without carrying those products onboard.

Will it actually work? I honestly dunno, but I'm willing to try it; my job requires driving, so if I can go from 24 to the 32 that my window sticker said I should get around town, I'll be a happy boy.

Put water cars enthusiastics together with global warming deniers, flat Earthers, Chem Trail conspiracy theorists, creationists and a number of other dicey propositions adopted by both the left and the right in this country, and it adds up to a demonstration of the massive scientific illiteracy that we suffer from.

All I got to say is www.doodoomotors.com
This is the answer!

Hi Hank Green,

You're completely correct, the energy required to break those hydrogen-oxygen bonds is roughly exactly the amount of energy that will be returned when those atoms get back together again. It is in practice, a net loss.

But there *is* promise for hydrogen power because the good folk at Penn State are using microbes to produce hydrogen with an electrical useage return of 288%

http://live.psu.edu/story/27233

Even with the questions I have about the rest of the process, it sounds promising!

Chow! (...not the salutation.)
Chas. E. Erath

The truth here is that you're making the assumption this car is using an ICE but neither the article nor the manufacturers website explain exactly how it works http://www.genepax.co.jp/en/index.html
Before you start calling this bullshit lets see if they can actually bring something to the market. Heck if they really figured out how to make electricity from water I got my check book ready, but I'm not ready to dismiss the product yet.

The car shown in the above sure looks like a Reva electric.
http://www.revaindia.com/gallery.htm

I have recently discovered a new source of power. Back in the old wild west

Dennis,

I agree that using onboard hydrogen production could only add to the range of a fuel cell powered vehicle and would not be able to be the only source of fuel. Toyota is in development of an onboard system that will use electrolysis to produce hydrogen to do just that for their hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. An internal combustion engine is too inefficient to be powered 100% by onboard electrolysis, but it can improve its efficiency. I too have a background in physics (and chemistry and electronics) so let’s do science. We have an observed process, adding gases generated from electrolysis directly into an ICE increases mileage for the primary fuel source. Take baseline measurements on test ICE. Add hydrogen injection and take new measurements, replicating baseline test exactly. Compare data and make conclusions. Science is not done the other way around, you can’t start with a conclusion and go backwards.

I've discovered an super-efficient way to split hydrogen and oxygen. My great-grandfather used to travel from town to town selling a home-made elixer in the late 19th century. I recently found his recipe hidden in a trunk in my grandmothers attic. It took me a while to make it because the main ingredient is rattlesnakes.

After I had made a batch of snake oil as he used to call it, I added a few drops to the electrolysis generator in my car. I discovered that not only can this stuff cure blindness, but it improves the efficiency of electrolysis by 5000%.

This make the generator efficient enough to live up to the claims of the water4gas people. I never believed this stuff before but now I know it's possible. I've decided to sell this stuff on the internet so that everyone can benefit from my wonderful discovery.

Please send $50 via paypal to \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and I will send you a 50ml bottle of the oil. This is enough to power your car for 10 years. And if you don't trust me enough to send me the money, have a good hard think about sending it to someone else who is also claiming the impossible.

I've sent you $100 for 2 bottles. They should work great with the 2 HHO kits I'm getting fitted to my car and my wifes car. I had to leave both cars in a car park a few days ago with the keys in them so that the mechanic could pick them up. It was a really good deal, the guy has a PhD in HHO gas and he's fitting the kits for free! He should be emailing me again soon to tell me where I can collect them so please get the snake oil to me asap.

Hey Wes,

What did you do mod-wise to make your "Kitt Car" run on Hydrogen?

I'd imagine a Generator-From-Hell to run a 350.

It's a big claim, dude; gotta see something here... If you have a You Tube video, that would help to back the claim, though I'll admit short of doing it for themselves, some people simply won't be convinced.

I disagree that it *CAN'T* be done; it seems it's a matter of the amount of material needed, and how to produce that amount. A 200-plate generator with capacitors to fir it up? I dunno. Just thinkin'...

OK here is my 2c..

I don't think anyone is seriously talking about breaking the laws of thermal dynamics nor creating the magical perpetual motion machine..

Surely the aim here is to simply create a more efficient system. Current ICE vehicle are massively inefficient in terms of the huge amounts of energy that are wasted.

There is the heat energy from the exhaust, exhaust pressure (as used in turbos) plus huge amounts of Kinetic energy lost in braking systems. This energy could be used to produce electricity to split water and create hydrogen or it could be used to compress air like in a split cycle engine, and then perhaps that stored energy could be used to generated Hydrogen as required.

I dunno anything about thermal dynamics but my Trans Am runs on water and nothing else. I'm installing a big battery bank in my garage now and when I'm at home I'm going to charge the batteries by hooking them up to the car. I might need to put a third alternator in the car but that's not a big deal. I should be able to run all my household appliances from the batteries and that should save me another $300 a month on electricity costs. I wish I'd thought of it sooner. The car needs to be topped up with water 3 times a week and that's it.

It's not perpetual motion because you have to add water.

Would it be accepted as "on topic" to attempt to provide tools for those not familiar with chemistry to distinguish the informative posts from the ones not worth reading? For those of us who recognize the demonstrated value of science to our society, it will not be necessary to read posts that claim chemistry is a conspiracy.
Therefore, we will try to sort out those who claim to know chemistry from those who really know, but that still leaves a problem. Understanding why "splitting the atom" (nuclear reaction) is not something-for-nothing is not a topic that can be fully explained to novices in the space permitted. You can either take it on faith that it does not violate the known laws of nature, ask a science teacher willing to spend an hour with you for guidance, or spend a couple of hours online familiarizing yourself with basic chemistry, though most people will require a full semester to really understand it. I heartily encourage anyone interested to spend the time -- you are almost certain to find it awe-inspiring to discover this intellectually-satisfying and productive way of playing, yes playing, and thinking about this marvelous material world.
Two problems with human communication are: ego, the desire to feel superior; and jumping to conclusions about what the other is trying to say. An imaginary example: Person J talks about changing "free" energy they get from wind or the sun into electrolysis-produced hydrogen, and using that for fuel. Person K assumes J is talking about something for nothing (as many uninformed or starry-eyed posts try to claim) and rebuts a non-existent argument. Alot of "heat" but no "light" is produced, speaking figuratively.
Since we have genuinely interested folks here, let's try to steer them toward valid paths of inquiry, without slamming the door on their creativity and/or future inventiveness.
For example, there is a difference between axiomatic principles (like Thermodynamics "laws") and failure to consider future possibilities. No accredited scientist would ever have doubted the POSSIBILITY of a handheld computer -- they may have doubted whether we would ever get there, the PROBABILITY, but there is no physical law that precludes that technology. That is utterly different from the nearly obvious, and experimentally-proven-ad-nauseum-for-centuries law that you can't get more out of a reaction than you put in. The fact that some people never thought computers would even exist does not challenge laws of thermodynamics. It is not a matter of creative thinking.
Readers interested in sorting out the truth here can easily search the web for accredited institutions with credible histories, lots of accredited universities you will recognize -- any state college for example; frankly even wikipedia is >99.9% correct on basic scientific matters. Folks can seek the truth about basic questions such as whether nuclear fission gives free energy. They don't have to rely on the zany speculation of folks who can't spell "water" or "hydrogen."
In closing, I urge the people posting scientific information (some of which was very informative) to do two things: 1. don't flame or call people names. None of us know everything, and the guy you flamed, who is confused about chemistry, may be a playwright or musician. If we are respectful, we will stand out. 2. Consider devoting part of your posts to communication issues -- not everybody has to do this -- it is just a suggestion -- but let's try to understand what the other person is actually commenting on, even if they didn't specify it precisely, instead of jumping to conclusions. And let's be welcoming, patient, and considerate of those who may be beginners or a little confused by this overwhelming subject. The environment has been severely harmed and people are justifiably scared. Other scientists may roll their eyes, but a little compassion and even love goes a long way when dealing with confused or angry humans. Even those barking up the wrong tree almost always have good intentions: let's honor their wish to help and help them too as if our very lives depended on it. Because it does.
Love, t

Hey Wes,

Sounds like you have Solar Panels or something to keep the batteries charged. BTW, do you have a web page to show off the cool stuff?

Check this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw

Kinda long, but definitely cool.
If the link doesn't work, then youtube and search for: Solar hydrogen home Michael Strizki

As I recall, he's still on the grid, but lookie what he's doing with solar water.

It's not free energy in the scientific sense, and I'm sure he's paying a loan to do this, but he's not beholden to ANY fuel company. NICE! (This is where our technology was supposed to be before 2000 - remember?)

He has my vote for Sectretary of Energy!

Solar panels are expensive and hard to install. I leave my Trams Am running when I park at home. The HHO gas runs the engine and the engine charges the batteries.
All the details are here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NTTyk2A_OaY

Actually, all these "run a car on water" technologies doesn't claim that the H2 gas is burned and magically creates energy. What they claim is that the HHO product from the distilled water and calcium bicarbonate catylyst encourages the gasoline to burn more efficiently by forming smaller droplets, along with a few other factors. They also state it works better with more efficient engines.

Well, yeah, it makes sense that a 20% increase on a 30mpg car is going to be bigger than on an 18mpg car.

I think the goal of using just water, with no outside catalysts, as the fuel (or the energy carrier), is a final goal. Ya gotta figure that more current could be what's needed, though that would require some upgrading of the electrics.

I'd say it's just an engineering question, like jet engines, solar cells, or LED lighting.

Wes,

Please give me a little more information about your setup. My system seems to be maxed out at 30% improvement in gas mileage. When I add more cells to increase HHO gas to the system the mileage actually goes down. I believe this is caused by the engine control computer reading (to lean) because of increased O2 in the exhaust which would inturn enrich the fuel mixture.
How did you overcome this problem? How are you generating HHO gas? Do you know you volume output?
Gas contains lubricants for the valve train. If you are not using gas at all, how are you lubricating the upper engine? Or is your car multi-point fuel injected?

adding hydrogen ( or the hydrogen oxygen mix that some fools insist on calling HHO)to the inlet charge in an internal combustion engine does work, especially in diesel engines, though the holy grail is adding the extra water injection cycle to recover the energy usually lost as heat, which can pehaps double (or better) the fuel economy of an ICE by replacing fuel in situations where the engine is hotter than optimum

The secret is to prevent the engine from cooling too quickly. I have removed the water pump and radiator, saving weight is an added bonus. The sides of the engine block are padded with glass fibre insulation and the underside of the hood is lined with it as well. This is how I gain the extra power to run the 3 alternators. They make the electricity to run 9 HHO generators, with 9 plates in each generator. I don't know how much gas that is but it's a lot.

An alternator is under full load at all times. There is no mechanical devices that throttle the load (i.e. clutch system). It is always converting energy. This energy is stored, regulated and/or limited by voltage regulators, circuits, or the alternators physical properties. Alternators are manufactured and sized by a vehicles horse power rating and by the vehicles electrical requirements with added accessories in mind. The engine does not use more or less energy to run a alternator. As amperage is drawn, you will notice voltage drops which may appear to be straining the engine but it is not.

The A/C compressor unit, for example uses a mechanical clutch to engage the system. You will see a noticeable drop in engine power when it is turned on but it will soon smooth out as the engine adjusts to this new load.

Using any excess power the alternator produces is not going to decrease your engines efficiency. A alternator does not create energy. It uses energy the engine produces and converts it into electrical energy. This does not break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. How you use that excess energy is up to you. You can use it to put massive speakers system in you car, charge your cell phone, put flashing lights and sirens on your vehicle, or use it to power a HHO generator if that flips your skirt. There are limits to this energy which is based on a alternators physical and mechanical properties along with your electrical system (it has already been sized or engineered for the engines horse power). As long as you don't exceed those properties with your devices your electrical system will work.

Lets say for the sake of argument that injecting HHO works in combustion engines. It will improve your MPG. From what I have read it takes 2 to 3 liters of gas production per minute to have any noticeable change. If you can produce this amount of gas within the electrical parameters or converted power from the alternator it should work. If you can't produce this amount of gas within the parameters of the alternator it will fail. No laws of physics or thermodynamics are broken. This is not free energy.

In my scenario we assume all the hype that HHO works. Honestly, I have no clue it does or does not work. The question should be does it work? and if so, can the excess power converted from the alternator produce enough energy to make these HHO boost devices produce the gas needed?

You guys have it all wrong.. Well not all of you.

Have you not heard of Herman Anderson and his hydrogen fueled car that made the hydrogen from using ionized deuterium?

Using ionized deuterium( ionized salt water) and pulsed x-rays to produce hydrogen gas is very effective and produces mass amounts of hydrogen at double the density.

If you want to know why a water-powered engine will ALWAYS be impossible and how much of a moron you'd have to be to think that this will ever be possible, please read this:

http://danielwreeves.googlepages.com/thewaterpoweredmyth

I use basic high school science. It is easy to follow and it should dispel every myth encompassing this scam. Thanks for your time.

Daniel,
Starting with a conclusion to prove a fact is not the way to do real science. Science starts with an observation and then an experiment is designed to make replicatable data so that a resonable explaination of the processes can be modeled. I learned this in high school too.

Even in elementry school we made an experiment using a AA battery, two metal strips and rubberbands to make a noticable amount of hydrogen and oxygen gas from water. It is not as difficult as you have made it seem.

Terry, a car alternator is *not* always under full load. As electrical load increases, the output is adjusted by the voltage regulator to increase the output, to maintain the voltage. Your engine burns gasoline to generate the electrical power, and that all happens at something far below 100% efficiency. The higher the load on the alternator, the more hp is required to operate it.

An alternator is under full load at all times. There is no mechanical devices that throttle the load (i.e. clutch system). It is always converting energy.

This is partly wrong too. While there're no clutch to disengage the alternator the force with which the alternator resists the drive depends on the electrical power being drawn from it.

You can experience this yourself on a bicycle with a good generator. if you disconnect the power leads from te generator it will be quite easy to pedal. If you hook them up to something which draws a lot of power it will suddenly become noticeably more difficult to pedal.

Of course it would be much easier to pedal if you remove the generator, as a clutch would, but only because bicycle generators are notoriously inefficient. I assume a car alternator is more finely engineered.

I have been researching this process along with my team. We all agree that we need to act on this information soon, in some way or the other since the price of gas is just unacceptable.
Some of them are definitely scams and simply crazy. These guys (http://homemadehydrogenfuelcar.com) don't sell you the kit - only the e-books that tell you how to build one from scratch. They were also listed on a consumer's advocate source for having great tech support. This has traditionally been a weak area for companies dealing with these types of products.

Automotive altenators do apply drag to the engine even when no electrical loads are applied. As electrical load is applied more power is required to turn the altenator, but if plotted on a HP/Load(amps)graph it would ba a curve, only gradually increasing with normal loads (under 40a) and then more sharply after. It is not linear one to one relationship. So, if no other loads are on the 10-12 amps required to operate the HHO generator would require approx .22-.25 hp but if other loads are present over 40 amps the same additional load may require several times more power. Depending on how close you are getting to the maximum rating for the altenator.

While a car may not be able to run fueled by water... but what about the hydrogen cars that are on the market?? Honda has developed cars which actually emit water after while the fuel is being "burned" or used. I will actually be writing a blog about this vehicle line on my website www.motorcarscleveland.com You should go check it out. There will be video footage and all kinds of neat media proving how safe and efficient this car is.

I wrote an extended piece on the futility of this "run your car on water" scheme before I found your piece and I found that it's become a scam of monumental proportions.

There are now armies of scammers out there making all sorts of bogus claims "double your mileage" etc, who don't even have these systems fitted to their own cars. They simply lie through their teeth to con others into buying ebooks or kits, for which they're paid up to 75% commission.

Check out the YouTube video I did http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=LSnSxAMjXq8 and my webpages: http://aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml

And spread the word. We need to educate all those people who may otherwise become victims of this horrible fraud.

Bruce,

Where is your proof to back up your claims? I am a real person who has actually tried this and found that it does work as advertised. Do you understand how science is done? Saying something violates a scientific law and therefore must all be a scam is no more a valid statement than some of the wild claims you are citing as your evidence. It's bad logic and bad science. Had you really spent the time to investigate, you would have found a consensus with those that have seriously studied hydrogen injection. It's not just the stored power(wattage)of the hydrogen gas(and O2)that creates the increase in efficiency in combustion. Since hydrogen ignites easier and burns much faster than any other fuel, it causes the primary fuel to ignite faster and burn more completely. The piston then has more time to extract more energy from the combustion which is the source of the increase in efficiency. This model does not violate any scientific laws and can be confirmed with replicatable data. A smog test shows a drop in hydro-carbon emmissions to near zero to prove a more complete burn. A pyrometer attached to the exhaust manifolds show a decrease in exhaust temperatures which shows less energy being lost through the tailpipe. If you are getting more power out of the same amount of primary fuel you will get better mileage.

to all you numb nut closed minded peoples up there.... i built one my self off info that was free on the internet.. it is on my car and it saves me 15 mpg........ prove me wrong...

my normal aspirated diesel truck 9600#GVW..gets 13mpg@$5/gal.......most of the time I'm using maybe 30% capacity. So if i can load my bed with an electrolyzer, my HD alternator can pump 200 amps, I could produce enough HHO to dramatically increase my mileage.....and since I'm retired, I have the time to play......it's the physics....as the skeptics like to say.

Rick,
1 simple question for you. Why are you still spamming this site with messages claiming that your magic bottle stuff works? What's in it for you? If you want to convince the world that this really works and save the environment, why don't you start with your family, friends, next-door neighbours, work colleagues etc.

If it does work I predict that you'll soon know thousands of grateful people, and you may even become a local hero. If it doesn't work you'll be left with no friends and you'll have to move to a new town to avoid the angry locals.

Oh wait... I think I might have answered that question for you... Never mind, let's hear your reasons anyway. And maybe you could turn off the salesman switch on the back of your head while you're replying.

For people are making accusations and fool for themselves and to other people. And I'm not in the side of sceptics, and people buying their water fuel or whatsoever water energy thing.
You just need to work the work and do the math.
Talking crap and nonsense is more irritating than reading all this comments.
P.S I will never go to this forum and I will do my own research

A guy I know in college installed one of these kits in his nissan primera. He's studying mech eng and he's pretty good at working with machines. He said his mpg went down about 10% and he had to replace some damaged parts after driving a few 1000 miles. He's not too bothered because he only did it for an experiment and he is planning on changing his car during the summer anyway.

John,
I don't understand why you felt that attacking me personally would add any value to the discussion. I am just someone that actually made one of these devices and installed it on two of my vehicles. I noticed immeadiately that the cars started easier, ran smoother, with more power and got better mileage. Since I have a background in science I looked for reasonable explinations to why it worked and how it worked. I searched for information and independent studies and to my suprise found very little information either confirming or debunking my observations. So I started to experiment for myself. I found that injecting hydrogen improves the combustion of the primary fuel. I also found alot of mis-information be spread on the forums and in the news on both sides of the issue. I was just adding my real world experiences to what I see as a very important issue.

I want to know why you haven't already convinced all the people you meet in real life to use HHO in their vehicles, and why you are so adamant about pushing it in this forum. FWIW, I checked you out and this is the only topic you have ever commented about on ecogeek. So it's fair to say that you might have a hidden agenda. I asked you to avoid another dissertation on your own experiences using HHO, because we've all read about that in several of your posts, but you couldn't do that either. So is your reply going to have anything credible in it or just another pro-HHO comment?

And since you say you have found very little information and independent studies on the subject, might I direct you to the links contained in Bruce Simpsons last post which contain a lot of information produced by governments and environmental groups from all over the world. They all conclude that the HHO business is a scam to steal money from the people who are already being hurt by high fuel prices. Bruce is a real person btw, he's not afraid to hide his identity. He's even an internet celebrity of sorts. Nobody knows who you are.

If you get around to answering my previous question, I have another one to add to it.
I am just someone that actually made one of these devices and installed it on two of my vehicles.
Could you explain how you installed one device into two vehicles? This technology could be even more ground-breaking than HHO gas. If you could install it in two engines, why not 4, or 8 or every engine in the world. Imagine the possibilities, one simple little device could simultaneously improve the fuel efficiency of every machine in the world.

Waiting...

I believe my intentions are pure (are yours?), I have built 3 different units learning from my mistakes on each. I am building a forth unit now. I have two units installed, one on an older vehicle without an engine control computer and another on an early 90's vehicle with ODBI controls. Yes, my friends and neighbors are all aware of my experiments. My real name is Rick Forbes and I live near San Diego if you wish to look me up (I hope you leave your attitude at home if you do). I have only corrected mis-information and offered my own observations from direct experimentation. I have no agenda other than saving myself a few bucks on gas. I'm not a dealer or MLM marketer or do I have any entention of patenting anything. I don't really care if you believe me or not.

If you don't think personal attacks are acceptable perhaps you should take your own advice. You have filled this forum with posts degrading the opinions of others and questioning their understanding of the scientific method. I am a qualified scientist working in the field of alternative energy and I don't need to take a course at the University of Forbes.

Several people have posted here describing their negative experiences with HHO kits and you keep coming back with your nonsense hoping to hide their posts from casual readers. It's a well known sales tactic, reducing the signal to noise ratio. I can understand why the people behind HHO would try to do that.

I don't believe you because I have read everything you wrote here and there's too many inconsistencies in the details. You probably work from home, making your living from commision on selling this stuff. I have seen posts here from others with pay-per-click links to sites selling the instructions with an id attached.

I personally know people who have been scammed by con-artists and I have seen the damage that can be done. If you were in the UK I think I'd be justified in alerting the police to what you are doing. I have no time for scammers or spammers. They are parasites that prey on the weak in society. Get a real job!

If you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger. I have a job, a good one.

Nice degredation above, eh?

ANYway -
Tom Danheiser, a producer for Coast To Coast AM, is supposed to have one installed - maybe already did this past weekend. His baseline MPG is 18, so I guess all of us night people will know shortly if it works. (BTW, for you day people, C2C is THE overnight talk-radio program.)

Later!

Yeah, that sounds interesting. I'm also looking forward to the other shows they have scheduled for the next week such as the end of the Mayan Calendar in 2012, an interview with someone who speaks to the dead, an expert on UFOs and the paranormal, and a discussion on magic and witchcraft.

Oddly, tonight, it's about the "Oil and Economy Roundtable."

Okay, I won't mention C2C again - we're getting a bit off-topic.

Later!

One of the previous posts said that the normal fuels provide lubrication to the cylinders, though I'm guessing absolutely minimal. Anyway, if this is true, then how do Propane or Compressed Natural Gas engines work?

Also, I was rereading a couple of the posts about the metal breaking down to form the sludge that would eventually clog the system. Are the metal oxide particles magnetically attractive? Just thinking that a magnetic "collar" could be a part of the design, so THAT would collect the goo, and the clean-out would be a maintenance issue, much like a fuel filter on regular cars.

Later!

Your article doesn't sound like it was written by an EcoGeek. I sound like it was written by a full-time professional critic.

There are a lot of people here posting that they're actually7 seeing the kind of fuel-savings that these HHO systems promise.

Well good news, now you could put your skill and knowledge to good use and win a million bucks.

It's time for those who make these extraordinary claims to front up with their extraordinary evidence.

Details of the challenge are at: http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml

Will *any* of those making bold claims be willing to have them put to the test and possibly take home a million dollars for their efforts?

I guess this will determine the veracity of those claims once and for all.

It's time to put-up or shut-up.

Rick Forbes:

Starting with a conclusion to prove a fact is not the way to do real science. Science starts with an observation and then an experiment is designed to make replicatable data so that a resonable explaination of the processes can be modeled. I learned this in high school too.

Even in elementry school we made an experiment using a AA battery, two metal strips and rubberbands to make a noticable amount of hydrogen and oxygen gas from water. It is not as difficult as you have made it seem.

Forbes is under the impression that I have used circular logic to prove a point. He is mistaken. I worked backward from a wrong and misleading conclusion, deconstructing it point by point with well established facts about chemistry and thermodynamics. I then resorted to signaling, probability, and common sense to show how the chances of an unknown guy with no background in anything almost certainly did not discover a "new compound" he dubs "HHO."

But instead of trying to correct my valid methodology, perhaps Forbes should have refuted my arguments. Perhaps he finds that impossible!

Since I have observed an increase in power and fuel economy on my vehicles tested, I know that your model can not be valid. I agree that the the HHO gas does not have enough stored energy alone to account for the increase. I argued the the increase was the result of a faster and more complete combustion of the primary fuel, which you have not reputed. My model does not violate any scientific laws and holds up under scientific experimentation. By the way, HHO is just a shorthand expression to differenciate gassous H2 and O2 from liquid water H2O by those of us that are actually experimenting and sharing our experiences on the net. I'm not claiming any magic, over-unity new discoveries.

It has been suggested that I am spamming this site so that I can profit from the sales of scammers. This is an obvious ploy to discredit my observations. I did not purchase a pre-built unit, I made it myself from free information I found on the net. I did not post any links or even suggest that anyone should buy one. In fact, on other forums I have suggested to people with newer vehicles and little mechanical experience should not try this. Maybe those that are attacking me have a vested interest in keeping us from experimenting. Big oil has much to loose if hydrogen injection is perfected.

So far they're all ignoring you Bruce. And so far nobody has successfully tried to refute the information contained on your website. What does that tell you about their "evidence"? Since he claims to have multiple working vehicles, I'm really hoping that Rick will step up to the plate here, but I suspect he won't.

I'm going slightly off-topic here, but I'm an atheist. I'm seeing a lot of parallels here with the religious types who get smug because I can't prove the non-existence of their gods. They tend to take this fact as further support for their beliefs.

I can't prove that HHO doesn't work via this forum. I also can't prove to a blind person that the sky is blue. That doesn't mean the sky isn't blue though.

I read the Aardvark site, including the million dollar challenge. I still do not find any facts that prove that HHO is all a scam. Do I agree there are scammers selling misinformation and poorly designed (even dangerous) devices as THE WAY to save the earth and your money at the pump? Yes, I do. But to accuse anyone that has had a positive experience as an agent of these scammers is rediculous. His million dollar challenge is just his rather transparent attempt to scam the scammers.

He has set the requirements so that anyone that anyone that has actually installed a unit could not qualify. My two vehicles are a '73 Chevy with a 5.7 liter V8 and a '93 Lexus ES300 with a 3.0 liter V6. Both are not what the "challenge" would call late model vehicles. He does not specify where the cars are to be verified as in proper tune by the university, but I would guess it would be in New Zealand. So to except the challenge I would need to buy a newer car and send it to them so they can verify that it's in good tune and run their baseline tests. Then I would need to install one of my homebuilt units on this new car without a chance to experiment with different configurations or adjust the cars electrical sensors to maximize the units operation. Now, I do understand where he is coming from. He is going after the sites that are selling pre-built units that claim that anyone can install one of their units on any vehicle and get a immeadiate 30 to 70% increase in fuel economy. But, I know that's not true too. But if you read the information more carefully on most of these sites (or do a little research for yourself like I did), they go on to state that any vehicle with fuel injection will require an EFIE device to obtain these results. Of course they will be glad to sell you one. So he stacks the deck so nobody could possibly win with a newer gasoline vehicle. A diesel car could have a chance except for the fact that the compression combustion of diesel fuel is already much more efficient than a gas engine. So fuel savings for a diesel engine using HHO is normally 10 to 15%. Enough to make hydrogen injection attractive to long haul trucking fleets but not enough to win the challenge. Of course he is just trying to prove a point and really does't want anyone to take the challenge anyway. If he did he would have allowed modifications and experimental engine designs or older carborated vehicles that do not require any modification like my '73 Chevy 5.7 liter. He would have allowed any valid and verifiable third party lab and real world testing if he really was after advancing research and giving out his grant.

Aarvark (aka Bruce Simpson) has his own agenda, he's out to prove that hydrogen injection is a total scam and is willing to streach the truth and spin the facts to prove his point. He believes that nobody has really installed one of these units and has had a positive experience. Instead he insists that anyone that is posting anything positive must be a dealer or marketer for one of the HHO scam sites so they can receive compensation for driving customers to their sites. This is as ridiculous as it sounds. Anyone that has spent any time researching HHO knows there are many people like myself that are seriously experimenting with HHO and are freely sharing our findings on the many forums dedicated to this subject.

Johno, it makes perfect sense that you are an atheist. You just take the opposite view. You know what your not, not what you are. You see the world the same way. Everything is black and white to you. I'm not saying your wrong. I went through that stage about 38 years ago in college. I could not continue to identify myself as the opposite of something. So I did some reading and took some classes in world religions. I came across a wonderful autobiography by a contempary philosopher, Alan Watts called 'In My Own Way'. That's what began my conversion to Buddhism. In Buddhism the interconnectedness of all things and events is central to its cosmology. It was a perfect fit to my science studies, more specifically my eviromental chemistry course.

Rick,

I think you see me as an idiot that needs to be educated by you. Buddhism is a subset of my idea of atheist. And once again I think you are looking down on others from a self-built pedestal. But I accept I'm not going to change that.

I think I've had enough of ecogeek. I used to like this site but it's gone to shit recently. Nothing I see here is as valuable as the time I spend here.

bye.

I do admit that you did frustrate me with your unfounded personal attacts, but I tried very hard not to attack back. Instead, I tried to argue the points in a systematic and logical fashion. I admit that I may not have always succeeded. I'm sorry if my tone was in any way condesending. That was never my intention.

I not a scientist, or researcher. Just a layman.
I just happened to found this site during my google search.

Could it be for HHO to happen:
lectrolysis: 2 H2O excess_power_from_alternator → 2 H2 O2
combustion: 2 H2 O2 → 2 H2O heat

I think it is doable.

On the run-on-water things, it might be possible if:
lectrolysis: 2 H2O electric → 2 H2 O2
combustion: 2 H2 O2 → 2 H2O heat - a_little_bit_of_mass probably losing proton/electron or whatever....

Wow... fusion..

Somehow the "plus" sign was missing when I post the comment....

I retype:

Could it be for HHO to happen:
lectrolysis: 2 H2O plus excess_power_from_alternator → 2 H2 O2
combustion: 2 H2 O2 → 2 H2O plus heat

I think it is doable.

On the run-on-water things, it might be possible if:
lectrolysis: 2 H2O plus electric → 2 H2 O2
combustion: 2 H2 O2 → 2 H2O plus heat minus a_little_bit_of_mass probably losing proton/electron or whatever....

I just came across these 'water/fuel' based systems tonight and am pretty interested as to the actual results one would get or how the devices are made up. One of the reasons I read through this heap of comments/arguments is that on my car, a 1988 saab 900 turbo, I fitted a 'water injection system' which is installed similarly to a Nox system. The device injects a fine mist into the intake air stream which then creates lower combustion chamber temperatures, resulting in about a 15-20 bhp gain. I am writing because I did not notice a DROP in mileage after this system was installed, but could a similar device reconfigured instead trade the 'gained' power for a slightly lower fuel consumption amount? In forced induction engines I believe the key to producing more power is to lower the combustion chamber temperatures, usually achieved by injecting more gasoline into the chamber which from the resulting 'more rich' condition, lessens the chance for detonation or early combustion which would dramatically decrease power production, so if a system such as water injection could decrease combustion temperatures which would in turn allow the computer to use a slightly leaner air to gas mix, wouldn't that be considered mileage increase?

The Gearturbine, power by barr, with retrodynamic dextrogiro vs levogiro effect, at non parasitic looses system, and over-unit engine. Details:
www.geocities.com/gearturbine

www.geocities.com/gearturbine

Although I am still skeptical and not completely sold on the idea, your understanding of physics and chemistry is inaccurate and incorrect. You're not just letting it "sit on the driveway and make energy all day every day and power the entire world without you ever needing to put anything in it". You are putting regular hydrocarbon fuel into it and getting back a higher efficiency rating. A regular gasoline internal combustion engine gets about 22% efficiency, 78% is wasted. In order to produce energy you would have to have an efficiency rating of over 100%. No one is claiming this! From what I understand, they are claiming an improvement of 30-70% of your current 22% efficiency rating. So if you achieve 70%, then you would add 15% to the original 22% for a total of 37%. Whether this actually works, I do not know, but it has me thinking.

This is confirmed by smog test data that shows sharp reductions in hydro-carbon, CO2 and NO2 emmissions when tested with hydrogen injection operating.

Once upon a time, a time so very long ago, the earth was flat. It was also said to be the center of the universe. When someone tried to prove otherwise, he was put do death by people with power. Guess what braineack, he was right.
(The first electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English scientist. He experimented with electricity and invented an electric battery. When he connected wires to his battery and a piece of carbon, the carbon glowed, producing light. This is called an electric arc.
The inventor Thomas Alva Edison (in the USA) experimented with thousands of different filaments to find just the right materials to glow well and be long-lasting. In 1879, Edison discovered that a carbon filament in an oxygen-free bulb glowed but did not burn up for 40 hours. Edison eventually produced a bulb that could glow for over 1500 hours. (http://www.enchantedlearning.c...bulb.shtml))
Thomas Edison once said, I did not fail to invent the light bulb, 1000 times, I simply found 1000 ways how not to make a light bulb.
If you take your basic knowledge of a human body, and compare it up to a doctor of the 17th or 18th century doctor, you would be considered a genius doctor.
Just over 100 years ago, we escaped gravity by flight. Some 40 or 50 years later we escaped gravity to the point of leaving our atmosphere.
Electricity was once impossible, the computer, radio transmission which we humans can no longer live without, The automobile, internal combustion engine, Electric motors. Pretty much every single piece of technology you know today was impossible at some point.
The reason that a device that can produce more than 100% efficiency (fueled or perpetual) is so hard to accept is simply because the laws of physics would have to be rewritten. But you know what; the laws of physics have been written and rewritten over and over since the beginning of time. But somewhere along the line, we got stuck.
Our technology is so far advanced; I would have to say that a device that CANNOT produce over 100% efficiency has to be impossible. Take a look at our track record. In the last 10 years our technology has advanced far beyond where the previous 50 years has taken us.
The only thing known to man that cannot be altered is time. Beyond that, sky’s the limits. Inventers of our time, NEVER EVER let anyone tell you it’s impossible; especially with today’s modern technology.

From what I have seen and my somewhat limited understanding of the physics, chemistry, and mechanics involved, I can objectively say H2 and O2 gas increasing fuel economy could very well be possible. Where a system invlovling onboard electrolysis of water is involved, the limiting factors are the amount of power used to electrolyze the water (a potential net loss for the system) and the amount of fuel efficiency gained from the derived H2 and O2 (the deciding factor in whether or not the process increses net energy). What needs to be tested is under what circumstances added H2 and O2 increases efficiency of the combustion engine (amount of H2 O2 gas, oxygen sensors, tuning, etc.), and how much of an increase is gained. If the extra power from from increased fuel efficiency is greater than the amount of energy needed to electrolyze the water, then of course we have a net increase in energy. Not perpetual motion because you are using up/wasting water that needs to be replaced, and the HHO only catalyzes/aids the combustion of the gasoline. Any energy gained from the combustion of H2 and O2 is of course sucked back into the energy needed to create it in the first place, so that is a non factor in considering where energy can be gained through the system. Am I right?

And I live in San Diego, and would love to see a working model of such a system. I had hoped to find a plausible application for all this, but my extensive research has rasied quite a few doubts. If anyone around San Diego could show me a working model and share some ideas, I'd love to get something going working to install these locally (or just get it done for myself). Of course, the necessary kinks that need to be worked out are in producing accurate estimates of potential gains in fuel economy from involved factors such as the car's burn efficiency, mechanical efficiency, interference from combustion sensors, etc. Those factors need to be considered, on top of the question of if this system actually works and can increase economy for all cars.

Rick Forbes, I'd very much love to chat with you and perhaps see your working model. You may email me, rick_r_ross @ yahoo.com. Thanks.

First off I'd like to correct this statement I made in my last posting. (Our technology is so far advanced; I would have to say that a device that CANNOT produce over 100% efficiency has to be impossible.)
Even though most of you understood what I meant, this statement should read something like; (Our technology is so far advanced; I would have to say that a device that produces over 100% efficiency CANNOT be impossible.)
Now as for Nates questions and comments. Pretty much everything you said in your first paragraph is pretty much 100% correct. As for the O2 sensor and the tuning; that is assisted by a very simple circuit us HHO enthusiast like to call an EFIE (Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer). When I say a simple circuit I mean it only has a few parts; a timer chip, DC transformer, voltage regulator, and a couple other simple things. This EFIE will basically assist the vehicles computer to understand the new data being sent.
As for production of HHO, and its efficiency increase vs. the power needed to produce it, that is controlled by a device called a PWM (Pulse Width Modulation). The way this works is, if your cell (hho generator) is being fed 70 amps, the pwm would send 50% duty cycle to the cell, this means, it will pulse 70 amps at half the time for an RMF current value of 35 amps.
The other trick to making large amounts of HHO gas is High voltage/ low current. This allows for more watt output with less heat and energy consumption.
My system pulses 40,000 volts at .0625 amps, aka, 62.5 milliamps for a total of 2500 watts. (Sorry, How I pulled this off is my secret for the time being, I’m still working on trying to recreate Stan Meyers Water splitter using similar technology). In the main time, my Cell is capable of producing about 6.5 mL per minute/per watt; Meaning that I can produce about 16.5 Liters, per minute at 2500 watts. (Now these aren’t exact #’s these are only rounded for simplification of explaining. Now your next question is going to be, so how much actual energy am I drawing off the Alternator to make this happen? About the same amount of power it takes to charge an ignition coil. (although I’ve installed a second, separate, alternator and charging system for testing my designs for safety of my vehicle electrical system.) What kind of fuel mileage increase have I achieved? M y system isn’t installed yet. It will be installed in my 88 Chevy 1500 4x4 pickup. It gets about 15 mpg, I expect about double. I’m working on one for my Saturn as well. I expect that one to hit more than 70 mpg.
(ALL MY CURRENT CONSTRUCTIONS AND DESIGNS ARE BASED ON PREVIOUS DESIGNS CREATED BY ZEROFOSSILFUELS OF YOU-TUBE. Except the system I’m using to achieve high volts, low current. That one is mine.)

Well here ya go Bruce and Johno. \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , I can give you my address and phone number and you can come take a look for yourself. Just email me. I am getting ready to go for that 1Million link you put up Bruce, but I didn't get a reponse from the writer and no way to register. So what does that say about the site. I read the site and other things thsi person has written about. They obvously haven't tried it and just want to spout math. Let me ask you a question. In a lab class at highschool or even college did things work out correctly when you did it versus when you calculated it? Do you know how a ICE works exactly? Have you seen soemthing other than a computer model of one running? Haven you split one in half and made half of it plastic so you could see exactly how it works? If not then be quiet about things you haven't tried. I though it was a scam and tried it just to disprove it and amazingly it worked with the piece of dung I hooked up to my car. A professional job would work better but I went from 34mpg to 44mpg.

There is a forum for anyone that is experimenting with hydogen injection.
http://www.hhoforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12

About the above...all I can say is I use a HHO generator. I don't care HOW or WHY it works, much as I don't care HOW a TV works. I only care that it DOES work.

I built my own from plans I found at http://www.hh0-fuel.com

I have seen my diesel truck go from 14 M.P.G to 19 M.P.G
I must be doing something wrong, because that is not the P- ` claimed by others, but with Diesel fuel at $5 a gallon, I will take it. My total investment was under $150, counting the plans and the parts.

So stop fighting about the WHY it won't work, and try a little experiment.
I also joined the yahoo forum on "Hydroxy" and I am learning more from others who are experimenting with different designs. I may build another using some of the current tech and different materials, but I am certainly happy with the one I have. It was cheap and easy, and the savings are decent.

Before you slam me. Please remember the old Greek saying. Please dont kill the messenger. Thats all I am asking.

The van which is made from a totally different company also in Japan also runs on water. I do think its somewhat a better canidate for actually running on water.

I say this because Its a bigger vehicle. It would allow for more room to put alot of gear like a machine to make hydrogen gas thru the familiar by now electric process.
They have a much better video which includes an animation of how the engine burns Hydrogen gas. That was pretty neat.
Here is that video.

I have that link if you want it email me.


I saw in the video where they say that after the machine in the van makes the Hydrogen gas. They then compress it.

Ok I understand that. A car will run on Hydrogen gas without any real modifications. Here I have a video of that on where the Myth Busters even amaze themselves.

I have that link if you want it email me.

Ok so we know that if you have compressed Hydrogen you really dont need to modify the engine alot according to the Myth Busters video.

I would guess they have some good source of power like very strong batteries in this van. So some kind of power device that can run a machine that will make the Hydrogen gas.

It might be. Its a pretty big van. I do have a video of a guy actually making a lawn mower run with nothing other then Hydrogen gas. Its amazing. The machine he makes the Hydrogen gas with looks very big and dangerous. I am not sure if that was his intent. Its an awesome video.

I have that link if you want it email me.

So if you put all the parts together. It might be possible.
But for the skeptics that just cant buy into the Japanese van.

I do have this. Its awesome. But I have no idea why I cant buy one. It should work. It uses bottled Hydrogen gas.
I want to buy this yesterday. You buy a conversion kit for your car and you get this Hydrogen generator that runs off electricity. These hydrogen bottles can give you great range.

I have that link if you want it email me.

You have to check out that above link. This just works Iam fairly sure. People might worry about having tanks of Hydrogen gas in their car. However Liquid Hydrogen is dangerous too. So Hydrogen in the car either as gas or liquid is dangerous.

But I am sure it can be fixed as a problem. After all Gasoline is very explosive too. I hope you will check out these videos and not just slam what could be what we need to beat this energey problem.

Here is that Vans website that runs on water in Japan

I have that link if you want it email me.

I cant post any links. It will get classified as spam and I cant post this info.

Okay, so they had Tom Danheiser (Show's Producer) on, and he said it didn't do anything.

Dr. Roger Leir was on for the first segment and had mentioned that the Oxygen Sensor could be the "problem."

They're going to run it for another week or so, so there will be another update.

For any of you that have this and are claiming it works, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE COMPUTER? Obviously, any newer vehicle has at least one computer setting things based on the exhaust measurements, so what are you doing?

Yes, I *REALLY, REALLY, REALLY* want this to work!

Later!

Randy

Im totally not satisfied with HHO concept because we definitely need energy/power in any form to convert HHO to a fuel.......buying Advice

Well, yeah, it's going to take energy to do the conversion; everything we do requires energy. It takes energy to manufacture your car, your bike, or your breakfast cereal.

The point behind this is that the alternator is already spinning.

So let's say the extra drain on the alternator takes 1 mpg from the engine. If the HHO gives 20% increase on a 20 mpg car, then you're still gaining 3 mpg, at $4/gal.

Is energy being used, YES. It's energy that's already available. It to add to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

I get the impression that people are looking for, or thinking it'll create free energy, which it will not. We're not looking at collecting cosmic rays and splitting atoms here. You could engineer a nuclear power source and it would use energy with a less than 100% efficiency, and lose some energy.

The idea is to spend as little as possible on gas, diesel, whatever. If this works, then go for it. It's gonna take some tweaking, I'm sure.

Hey, off-topic, but has anyone tried converting to alcohol? I've read that you'll get less mpg, but it'll cost less and have fewer emissions, while being a renewable source and helping the U.S. (reduce foreign oil and help the farming industry). Maybe if the dead stuff in California were collected and converted, then MAYBE the annual conflagration would be lessened. I'd think the greenies would be all over that...

And, no, parking the car and taking a bike is NOT an option.

Later!

Let's get back to the original topic: Genepax water fueled car. It is impossible as stated. There is no chemical energy in water. Water is the completely oxidized state of hydrogen and oxygen. In this sense it is just like sand, which is the oxidized state of silicon and oxygen. I don't think any of you on this blog would consider running your car on sand! 8^)

The Genepax web site shows a diagram and it has water as the input and water as the output. This is perpetual motion for sure.

Note also that the Genepax web page says their cell puts out 300 watts of energy! This is less than 1/2 horsepower! This is not enough energy to even get a car rolling on level ground.

Also note that the car in the picture is a Reva. The Reva has a 7kilowatt electric motor as standard equipment. So they are hiding a lot of battery power that they don't tell you about.

Does anyone remember a evening news report back in the late 70's of a Ford Granada that had a modified engine block that produced 40 mpg. The explanation was that a 3rd channel was incorporated into the engine block (in addtion to the oil channels and water cooling channels). This 3rd channel circulated and heated the gas before combustion and by virtue of being fully vaporized, the gasoline was more fully combusted and yielded more power per gallon. In theory, this would generate more CO2 per gallon, but fewer gallons would be consumed for the same work.
I never heard anything more of this idea. Anyone believe this stands up to laws of physics?
Gordon

Look at the Genepax diagram:
http://genepax.co.jp/en/mechanism/system.html

It shows input of water as fuel and output of water as exhaust. So it consumes nothing, yet it produces energy. Classic perpetual motion machine.

This is a perfect example of irresponsible journalism; The blind leading the blind. This blog reminds me of Jim Jones. I sincerely hope your intent was to create interest in the subject. But based on your well written albeit, misleading point of view, I'm sure you lost a lot of creditability with your regular readers.

Seeing is believing: youtube "HHO" or "Hydrogen generator"

I've personally seen 20 different car owners sharing this technology with anyone who cares to know more about it (every weekend) in Woodland Hills, CA.

It's time we seek the truth for our selves and stop putting so much trust in those we tend to put on a pedestal.

The more I read upward on this blog the more I have to laugh at how mislead people are about technology that is so in your face. The world use to be flat...until some stop listening to the experts.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=burning salt water&search_type=

Aren't you tired of being oppressed and mislead?

In regards to your computer question.

The answer is called a "map sensor".

Here's a guy who has been running his car on 1 liter of water per hour run time for 30 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw&eurl=http://www.freewebs.com/gogreencargo/apps/videos/view/248434-a-loooooong-time-ago-



Sounds like FREE ENERGY to me.

My understanding is that the Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) sensor measures the amount of air coming in, and adjusts the amount of fuel being dumped in for combustion, but the Oxygen sensor measures the "stuff" in the exhaust to adjust for conditions, such as running lean or rich. If there's "not enough" pollution in the exhaust, then it tweaks up the amount of fuel and plays with the timing (on newer cars). Seems dumb to me; it SHOULD just be that if there's MORE THAN some amount, it does its thing to reduce the emissions.

Your gonna lead us back into that whole free energy discussion again, aren't you? :-)

I wouldn't call it "free" energy though, because it takes fuel to turn the engine, to turn the alternator, to keep the battery charged, which puts the DC charge into the water to carry out the electrolosys (sp?). It's just reducing the amount of gasoline used to run the engine for a given amount of time, by using and alternator which is spinning because the engine's running.

Later!

Yes, most folks are inaccurately reporting about various devices and cars running on water. It's just not true. Read my unbiased review of three such devices where I also explain what is actually happening: http://www.reviewcb.com/autos/gaswaterhybrid.html

Hey Hank,

I was wondering if you'd looked into Alcohol Fuels for internal combustion engines.

From what I've read and heard, it burns MUCH cleaner than gas,
and can cost significantly less, though the mileage seems to drop a bit, and there might need to be some fuel line upgrades on older vehicles.

(And just to tie it in to most of the above discussion, let's hook up an HHO booster!)

Bet ya didn't expect your article would start all this, huh?

Later!

Last year I finally found the truth about water fuels and what a revelation. Once I started to save so much on my car fuel, I realized I could heat my house with the same revolutionary concept!

I already have a big wood stove, so it was natural to start soaking my firewood overnight in water. Next morning, it is ready to use. First get a good fire going with dry wood, then just toss in your energized water soaked wood!
Don't put more than one in a time or the stove may overheat.
These water logs are so powerful that only one is needed for a full night's winter heat.

My brother-in-law has taken it to the next level by burning pure water in his woodstove. He converted an old milk jug to a constant flow water source that keeps the stove blazing for 10 hours per gallon.

Next winter I'm going to burn water in my fireplace. How do you do that? Well simple, use blocks of ice! Ice cubes will work also, but it is most convenient to put a large 60 lb block in so you don't have to tend the fireplace for a full week's heat. If you've got snow outside or an icy pond nearby, that is the best of all, since you just shovel it into a bucket and you've got all the fuel you'll ever need.

Don't let the government oppress you any longer with their
worn-out lectures about thermodynamics. They and the scientists are in the pocket of big oil and will do whatever they think necessary to maintain their grip on the poor man.

I want to add a word of caution: never burn a water fire near any other large sources of water, snow or ice. If the fire spreads, there is no real way to stop it, since you can't use water to put it out. Sand has been used to smother water fires, but it is dangerous, since the sand can also ignite (sand being an oxide just like water).

The extreme difficulty in extinguishing water is that the products of water combustion are oxygen and hydrogen...which are of themselves highly flamable.

Local fire departments are asking for additional funding and equipment to prepair for the projected increase in water fueled cars and industrial equipment. They must revamp their entire approach to firefighting in a world where water has finally been seen in its true role as power source for the planet.

A final note, most lakes and oceans will be sealed off to the public and access will be strictly monitored, since terrorist activities will obviously focus on the attempt to ignite these large bodies of explosive hydrogen and oxygen.

It has been estimated that a mere pound of the Genepax catalyst could detonate the entire pacific ocean in little more than 5 hours.

I am a 78 year old lawyer (as my website will show) with my office in Bunbury Western Australia. I emigrated to W.A. from Southampton England in 1958. Although I'm a lawyer (not known for their scientific knowledge), I was educated in a public school in Winchester & believe I had a much better rounded secondary education than most kids in Australia get now,and my interests were in the science & maths areas in all of which subjects I gained a credit in my school certificate and matriculation exams.
I need to tell people this so they understand I had a sound secondary education in chemistry & physics (and loved the subjects) so even at my advanced age I can still separate sound scientific explanations in those 2 subjects, (although I have probably forgotten most of what I learned) from bullshit. In both chemical terms & physical terms, you can't get out more than you put in (excluding of course fusion & fission - but I doubt that even these expounders of running a car on water are implying a nuclear reaction)

To talk about extracting the hydrogen from water using a car battery, presumably refers to the use of electrolysis, where hydrogen comes off one of the poles & oxygen off the other. To talk about then using that hydrogen as a fuel for running a petrol engine, and suggesting it would be an efficient process is nonsense. The car battery is charged by the petrol engine driving an alternator producing alternating current which then has to be rectified to convert it to direct current, and direct current is required to produce the oxygen off one pole & hydrogen off the other, as if you used AC instead of DC you would get both H and O2 off both poles.

The petrol engine is a very innefficent device for converting petrol to mechanical energy. The alternator is an innefficient device to converet the mechanical energy into electricity, and finally the rectifier is an innefficient device for rectifying AC to produce DC.
I have no idea just how inefficient each of the petrol engine, alternator & rectifier are, but I DO KNOW That they are less than 100% efficient, and when you add the inefficiency of the 3 devices together I believe that I can say with certainty, that the mechanical energy the petrol engine produced to turn the alternator could MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY HAVE BEEN USED for driving the wheels of the vehicle rather than going through the various other inneficcient energy conversions.

However, when I was in my 20's in England I had on old Alvis car which was a beautiful piece of machinery but drank fuel like it was going out of fashion. There was a device advertised in most motoring magazines which focussed on enthusiasts, called an H2O bomb, which was about the size of a grapefuit and the shape of a hot air balloon, which had a screw top, through which you could fill it with water, and on the bottom there was a small pipe with a threaded end. One was required to drill and tap a small hole in the upper surface of the inlet manifold of the engine, and screw the H2O bomb in. There was a valve in the pipe that went into the manifold which the operator could operate, or could be operated by a vacuum operated devise reading the the suction pressure in the manifold. The inventor/sales blurb stated that only a very small amount of water was injected. It was never suggested that the water was itself a fuel, but rather that when atomised & injected in very small quantities with the fuel it acted as a catalyst and improved the combustion of the fuel so there was a much cleaner & more complete combustion. and more power was generated.
I was very interested but didn't want to damage the engine, so I wrote to the manufacturers of the car and asked if they thought it would be safe. They replied that they had read a bit about it, and doubted it could do any harm, & asked me to keep them advised. I wondered why, if it was so good, why weren't manufacturers installing them.
In any event, shortly after that I emigrated to WA and never bought one.
I've never heard of them since I came to WA, so have no idea what became of the H2O bomb. I have no idea whether
from a chemical point of view there may be some efficiency gained by water injection, or even Hydrogen injection. But I feel quite sure that if injecting a small amount of hydrogen with the fuel somehow improves combustion it's not because of the extra fuel the hydrogen provides.

Are there some chemists out there who can comment?

Yours sincerely

Clive Young
Bunbury WA6230
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and also \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

I know that Water-for-gas? Let's have a look, shall we?

The standard reaction for the electrolysis of water is:
2H2O → 2H2(g) O2(g)
For this process, 4 moles of electrons take place, therefore the standard free energy change is:
ΔG = -nFε
ΔG = -4*96487*1.229
ΔG = -474330 J

I made a HHO Booster Cell after reading posts on how they don’t work. The math does tell me that it shouldn’t work but it does on my 2500HD, 25 MPG HW. I’m using and am building others for my other vehicles.

It could be possible that the laws of physics that we know of are wrong. for centuries things that had been considered fact turned out to be completely wrong. who's to say that the laws of thermodynamics etc are flawed as well. scientists should stay open minded in case they stumble on something revolutionary, even if it may seem to violate the laws of physics. the hydrogen electrolysis cell may or may not work, its impossible to know unless you try yourself because there are just as many people saying it doesnt work as there are saying it does. stan meyer appeared to be on to something, but maybe he was really scamming everyone,,,

Reading through the comments above only says one thing that the more education we get the less we are willing to listen to new ideas.
The HHO debate is really pointless. skeptics will always be skeptical the it cant be done people will always say it cant be done. but one thing we all can be assured of what the sun will shine tomorrow and people who think the impossible is only a matter of time will make it possible for the skeptics to use and live with, and the cant be done people to say i told you so.
Using hydrogen as fuel in a combustion engines of today would be difficult on a mass scale. yes BMW has already done this and number of others as well however all the solution s are only the transitional between technologies.

i think we all should be open minded, there always will be scams and opportunistic individuals in this world. We cannot stop progress, growth and way foreword.
didn't Albert Einstein say "Level of thinking that brought you where you are today will not necessarilly take you to where you want to be tomorrow."

It's simple. At least 1% of the human population is borderline crazy. And 1% of those people are rich. This is around 660,222 rich, delusional people wandering around. Now create a free energy device that attracts just that demographic, take their money, and pay your electric bill. Sound like free energy to me!

All the way back to when time for man began. There have always been those that thought outside the box, (the box of their time). Every one of them were persecuted, (or their ideas). Doubters and naysayers. Man's science did not exist at the begining. It began then. Very often by those who thought outside the box. Time and time again these thinkers, (who put their thoughts into action), managed in countless instances to fight the naysayers and those who thought that the science at the time was unchalengeable, to actually change science. Countless famous inventers, (hailed now for their visions), were ridiculed and called insane. A large portion of what we use today went through this process. But always someone to say it is impossible. Those with many degrees and letters behind their names included. An almost never ending list with their foot stuck in their mouth at a later time. Travel back in time on this machine in front of you to any time period documented and look forward with the knowledge of the time and the impossible things that we do in every day life here and now. Many, many times these people failed to achieve the goals they wanted. But in doing so and getting others to try they discovered other important things. I will not pretend to be one of these great minds, or naysayers. I don't like the taste of feet.

Do you Read This Blog:

http://carpoweredwater.blogspot.com/

I used the Gas4Free system and got outstanding results. At first I was pretty skeptical about it but when I used it I was suprised with the results I actually got. You can read about my experience with the product and how well it worked for me at:

www.thegas4free.blogspot.com

the people/person that worte his u suck his works

All "Big Oil" has to do is license whatever "technology" happens to work and they would be making more money than ever. If there was anything that worked for real you would see it for sale by "Big Oil". End of story.

So