...
written by EV , June 17, 2008

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.

Wrong approach
written by Clinch , June 17, 2008

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)

Let's do science right
written by Rick Forbes , June 17, 2008

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.

...
written by Ken Roberts , June 17, 2008

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.

Good One
written by vinay , June 17, 2008

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

...
written by Dan Symes , June 17, 2008

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.

...
written by Dan Symes , June 17, 2008

(Throughout)

why do we have to keep going over this a
written by J- , June 17, 2008

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.

options
written by IamIan , June 17, 2008

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.

correction.
written by IamIan , June 17, 2008

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

tried to correct but had to wait the 2 minutes.

off-topic comments...
written by Space , June 17, 2008

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

Thank you for writing this
written by johno , June 17, 2008

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.

The illuminati oil barons are behind thi
written by Michael , June 17, 2008

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??
written by mike , June 17, 2008

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.

Jap version of April fools day?
written by Mark Bartosik , June 17, 2008

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.

Hyrodgen spinning
written by Inger Moss , June 17, 2008

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

Re: Never
written by Hank , June 17, 2008

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.

reply
written by IamIan , June 18, 2008

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.

hanks right, the Jap's wrong but there i
written by wesley bruce , June 18, 2008

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!

Can't get owt for nowt
written by Phil , June 18, 2008

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...
written by Homer , June 18, 2008

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

You CAN power a car from water
written by Leo , June 18, 2008

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.

This is what I was saying before...
written by BBM , June 18, 2008

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.

Instructive link to good energy blog
written by BBM , June 18, 2008

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

Sorry
written by BBM , June 18, 2008

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.

Human
written by G , June 18, 2008

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!

@G
written by BBM , June 18, 2008

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.

...
written by Gary , June 18, 2008

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.

...
written by Lloyd Alter , June 18, 2008

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.

@Gary
written by BBM , June 18, 2008

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.

Second law of Thermodynamics
written by Simmons , June 18, 2008

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

...
written by Rick Forbes , June 18, 2008

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?

...
written by BBM , June 18, 2008

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.

...
written by Ken Roberts , June 18, 2008

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

Can we really run car on water?
written by johnandrews52 , June 19, 2008

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

Rant, a bit much?
written by Manuel , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by Virgil , June 19, 2008

@ 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.

HHO = BS
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by bob , June 19, 2008

wake up idiots

Water Vapour
written by sonicfrog , June 19, 2008

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.

rethink your logic
written by gardennut , June 19, 2008

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.

HHO
written by mfn , June 19, 2008

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.

Wasted Exhaust - Idiot
written by Johnson , June 19, 2008

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.

Owner
written by Bruce , June 19, 2008

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

calm down and read
written by Space , June 19, 2008

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 here is some phsyics
written by steve_s_physics , June 19, 2008

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 :|

HHO != BS
written by mfn , June 19, 2008

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.

Conservation of energy
written by Bilzybub , June 19, 2008

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?

Agree - Augmentation is the answer
written by Craig , June 19, 2008

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

...
written by Jason , June 19, 2008

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.

@Johnson
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

Doc Says
written by Doc , June 19, 2008

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

...
written by Doc , June 19, 2008

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.

Umm, BMW
written by Joe Smith , June 19, 2008

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

@mfn
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

Octane
written by Agrid , June 19, 2008

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...

...
written by paul , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by Doc , June 19, 2008

BECAUSE THEY WANT YOUR MONEY! BY MY DELORIAN!

-
written by d0d , June 19, 2008

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

@gardennut
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

Close Minded
written by Jason , June 19, 2008

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.

New experiments on water prove we are ab
written by Victor , June 19, 2008

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

@Jason
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

@Bilzybub
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by Ed , June 19, 2008

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.

mountain/valley turbine electrolysis sub
written by thinking , June 19, 2008

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.

@d0d
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

Disinformation spreading rampantly
written by Dissapointed , June 19, 2008

I will never read ecogeek again.

You CAN power a car on water -- this is
written by meknow , June 19, 2008

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!

I'll add some hydrogen gas to the fire
written by Rocket , June 19, 2008

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

you naysayers are idiots
written by Jon , June 19, 2008

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

...
written by Doc , June 19, 2008

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...

...
written by maxkayden , June 19, 2008

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.

@Jon
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

@johno
written by gardennut , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by paolo , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by Charles Baish , June 19, 2008

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.

.
written by aaaa122 , June 19, 2008

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.

@gardennut
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by Rick Forbes , June 19, 2008

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.

a real solution
written by Raleigh , June 19, 2008

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

Bigboss
written by Emanic555 , June 19, 2008

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.

johno
written by gardennut , June 19, 2008

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.

Science?
written by You , June 19, 2008

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.

Never in my life...
written by Homer , June 19, 2008

...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.

Never in my life...
written by Homer , June 19, 2008

...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.

Do you guys actually know chemistry?
written by Devon , June 19, 2008

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.

It is too true...
written by BBM , June 19, 2008

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.

How Many of You have ACTUALLY TRIED it o
written by Emmanuel , June 19, 2008

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.

@gardennut
written by johno , June 19, 2008

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.

...
written by Ken Roberts , June 19, 2008

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

Don't try this!
written by Simon , June 20, 2008

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!

...
written by DFM3318 , June 20, 2008

Thought this was interesting and relevant

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

Some comments
written by Ryder , June 20, 2008

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.

Some fuel effeciency increase from addin
written by Matus1976 , June 20, 2008

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.

I didn't read all the comments but I got
written by canttouchthis , June 20, 2008

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

...
written by Rick Forbes , June 20, 2008

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.

@ Devon
written by BBM , June 20, 2008

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.

@johno
written by d0d , June 20, 2008

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)."

...
written by d0d , June 20, 2008

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)

Speaking of Frauds...How about Hydrogen
written by Rick Cain , June 21, 2008

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.

you sir are wrong
written by Joshua , June 21, 2008

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

The ideal water powered vehicle
written by what does it matter , June 21, 2008

Drink plenty of water and ride a bike...

Metro on HHO?
written by Randy , June 21, 2008

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's booster -
written by Randy , June 21, 2008

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?

Uh, sorry buddy, you're wrong on this on
written by Wes , June 21, 2008

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).

The Energy Balance is not the whole stor
written by manofkent , June 21, 2008

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.

...
written by Robert , June 21, 2008

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

...
written by Wes , June 22, 2008

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

And it looks they are cheaper than the Germans too.

Free e-guide
written by uptimistik , June 22, 2008

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

...
written by Rick Forbes , June 23, 2008

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.

...
written by Randy Morobitto , June 23, 2008

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 Comment
written by Dennis , June 24, 2008

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!

Consider this
written by BS , June 24, 2008

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.

...
written by Randy Morobitto , June 24, 2008

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.

Scientific Illiteracy
written by Larry Saltzman , June 24, 2008

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.

This is the alternative fuel source
written by Hal , June 24, 2008

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

Hydgrogen Farting Microbes to the Rescue
written by Chas. E. Erath , June 24, 2008

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

Are you so sure it won't work?
written by AlG , June 24, 2008

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.

...
written by Randy Morobitto , June 24, 2008

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

New Oil Source
written by MrSnakeOil , June 24, 2008

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

...
written by Rick Forbes , June 24, 2008

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.

Super-Efficient HHO Generator
written by MrSnakeOil , June 24, 2008

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 This email address is being protected from spam bots, 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.

Money Sent
written by Gullible Idiot , June 24, 2008

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