Beware of Browns Gas/HHO and Dennis Klein hoaxes
May 28th, 2007With gas prices apparently preparing to skyrocket the US into summer, many are looking for ways to cut their gas bill.Some are buying more energy-efficient vehicles, while some are opting to take advantage of public transportation. Still others are trying to mitigate their oil-habit by walking or biking to local venues. Those with substantial financial resources have begun purchasing hybrid vehicles, and investing in solar (with the help of government subsidies) or wind technology for day to day household energy demands. Others with fewer but significant resources are investing in gas to electric (Leftcoastconversions.com) or biodiesel kits. Electric conversions start at $17K, and biodiesel range from $1,500 and as much as $3,000. That leaves plenty of us without those kind of resources vulnerable to the newest “snake-oil” artists of this energy-dependent culture.
Recently I received an email from a friend with a video touting “water energy” as an alternative to gas for fuel. I looked at the video from Fox News, which should have been my first warning sign, I was intrigued. In my limited understanding of chemistry, I thought well, water is made of H2O, and those 2 molecules of hydrogen could be a power source.
I did a not-so-quick search on what else I could find out about this “new technolgy.” The first thing I discovered was, it is not that new, and in fact a version of it was pioneered by Dr. William Rhodes in the 1960’s and further developed by Yull Brown and George Weissman. The video didn’t mention any of these men, and when referring to Dennis Klein as an inventor, implied the Water Power he was touting was his own creation. Strike one.
Dennis Klein, the featured inventor on the FOXNEWS video, has his own site. Admittedly it’s pretty slick, and looks very authentic. As much as it touts applications for cars, the site discourages phone calls abou those, claiming they will not be available until 2008. However, they will sell gas generators for welding, for lease or purchase ($7K).
A prior version of the Browns Gas technology promoted during the 1990’s by another Dennis (Dennis Lee) was revealed to be a sham. Mr. Lee admitted in 1996 the HHO gas did not weld.
At several of the sites I checked, there were several comments by chemical engineers or people with knowledge of the technology who viewed the process with a skewed eye. However, there was one site that was whose eloquence made my right-brained approach able to grasp some pretty complex theories. Many felt the concept ludricrous to begin with. For others as short on understanding thermodynamics as myself, a basic explanation is this: For energy to occur, when two materials combine to create energy, there is always a by-product. Anti-rant offered the simplest explanation of how burning gasoline creates energy in our cars with internal combustible engines:
“You start with gasoline, a long hydrocarbon, and end with H2O and CO2. [That assumes complete combustion]. Because you started with gasoline and ended with simpler molecules, you released energy that was stored in the hydrocarbon bonds of the gasoline. In that combustion reaction, the rapid expansion of gases in the combustion chamber push the piston and, thus, powers the engine.” In this case you do not start with gasoline, and end up with gasoline. The mere fact that in the Browns Gas process, water comes in and water comes out, is proof in and of itself nothing has transpired to create energy in any form.
As much as I wanted to believe in this affordable alternative high gas prices, I have to admit not all alternatives are equal, and just because a cure is offered does not make it legitimate — no matter how slick a website is. Until we have a legitimate, affordable alternative to the gas engine, we should consider changing our own habits of consumption and waste, and reconsider using the shoe-leather express or pedal to get us where we want to go. If that is not possible, car-pools, buses and light rail are some other options we can do now in order to save later.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:43 am
I have always subscribed to the old adage “If it looks to good to be true it probably is”. Still I believe the military is looking at this “technology”; so, let’s not be too hasty to pass judgement.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I think sometimes the military investigates some potential yet most likely unbelievable technologies “just in case.” I would think if they are looking into this, since it has been around since the 60’s, they must have reached some findings by now.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
You people should not be so quick to condem this process. #1, It does work AS A FUEL SUPPLEMENT, which reduces the amount of gasoline you use in your vehicle. #2, It helps your engine produce more power. #3, It helps your engine burn CLEANER as well as COOLER thereby reducing GREENHOUSE GASSES. #4, Someone will find a way to extract the hydrogen faster at which time it WILL REPLACE GASOLINE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 24th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
That assumes the process real and not a fraud. From what I have read, it looks like a pipe dream.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:11 am
I am puting one of these systems on my 4×4 truck to see if it does get me better mileage. I’ll let you know how it turns out.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Great! I look forward to hearing from you.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“The mere fact that in the Browns Gas process, water comes in and water comes out, is proof in and of itself nothing has transpired to create energy in any form.”
i guess u have a point. energy isn’t produced by using brown’s gas in engines. but from my limited understanding, browns gas serves not to produce energy but acts as a carrier of energy. here’s how it goes.
electrical energy form battery causes the water to form brown’s gas (i’m still not sure how)
the brown’s gas, which contains the energy of the batteries, is then sent to the engines where it combusts to form water, and provides the energy to drive the vehicle. so essentially, the energy used to drive the vehicle is actually coming from the car battery, not brown’s gas.
So, u are actually driving ur car on the power of ur batteries, almost like an electric car. of course, the downside is that u would probably have to charge ur battery more often.
Disclaimer:
i don’t claim to be an expert on this topic (just started looking into it), so don’t start slamming me if there is any inaccurate info.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Not at all. Thank you for posting your thoughts. I’m not an expert either — just a skeptic.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I don’t know…..I’ve seen quite a few short stories that in essence were the same types or very similar types of technology. Especially hydrogen cells (or batteries) The Hydrogen is able to produce energy with a bi-product being water, and something like this is probably going to compete as an alternative to nuclear energy and will likely, initially, be utilized by municipalities and large Corps. Any way I hope it works out this time around. (Beware politics)
February 14th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I’m pretty sure that if hydrogen does burn (at over 900 degrees I think) and that if gasolene, with it’s huge amount of hydrogen per molecule suspended in a carbon matrix does not completely burn in the combustion process; i.e. hydrogen left over = h2o, then it stands to reason that ALL of the hydrogen will not burn during combustion and than again you will have water form fro m the left over hydrogen molecules and atmospheric oxygen similar to gasolene. I just looked up octane-heptane and guess what? Nope… no oxygen molecules there going in…but wait a minute someone said “Water in Water out..” blah blah blah but I looked at this browns gas too and found out that the “H2O” has been cracked…that must mean that water DOES NOT go in. Simply having random hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the same place does not mean you have water… uh what was I talking about again?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Your description shows all the earmarks of a shell game. It has been my experience that a con is when someone tries to make something that does not make sense, make sense by speaking quickly and throwing in a bunch of facts that while individually may be true, collectively, do not connect — oh my God!! It’s contagious!!!
Thanks for the comment.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
What’s apparent here is a misunderstanding of “burning”…elements (hydrogen for example) do not get consumed when burned.
A better word is oxidation, which means adding oxygen to create a compound (water, for example)PLUS a release of energy. So it is indeed “water in, water out”, but the part in the middle is the creation of the Brown’s gas from water, and its subsequent oxidation, back to water. In the gasoline example above there are also intermediate products- hydrocarbons do not oxidize- they are broken down to CO (carbon monoxide)THAT is what oxidizes (becomes CO2)and releases energy that moves our cars. Being ineffiecient, a lot of the CO is NOT oxidized and is released into the atmosphere along with CO2- an incredible amount of greenhouse gases and incredibly inefficient as well. Petroleum based hydrocarbon fuels are totally unsustainable. So why do we use them? Because oil companies OWN them and PROFIT mightily from them. As a skit on Saturday Night live long ago went:
Q: When will solar energy be available?
A: When Exxon owns the sun.
The “mystery” about where the energy comes from is pretty simple- the electrical energy required to produce the Brown’s gas should be equivalent to the energy released in oxidation. Makes sense right? Not true though. If it were, we should find as much Brown’s gas around in nature as water- the atoms of H and O in water are at a much lower energy state than H2 and O2 gases. It is “easier” for H and o to be water than to be pure gases.
The electrical power needed for electrolysis to create Brown’s gas is therefore much greater than the energy released in oxidation back to water; the other problem is the efficiency of the electrolizer equipment itself, which is the bigger problem with current technology.
Simply, the power needed to create Brown’s gas is far greater than the energy it produces when oxidized. As such it is a very inefficient, though very clean-burning fuel.This inefficiency makes it an expensive fuel. As (if) electrolysis technology becomes more efficient, it becomes more and more sustainable as a fuel.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Well said. Thanks for posting such an informed comment.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Logically Brown Gas is really something. Yes it is very inefficient ONLY IF you totally rely on Brown Gas.
Come to think of it, using your battery in the expense of less gasoline; while your battery is replenish by the engine all the time. The in efficiency goes to “the need to still have gasoline”.
You only using brown gas when it is available anyway, and so your gasoline is on standby when brown gas is available. But I’m still looking into this and hesitant due to maintenance thing. Merely convinced though. I’m looking at the negative feedback this time. And so just post some here.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
The problem with the Brown’s Gas business is that it likely mixes effects from two components, the combustive effects of the hydrogen and oxygen when burned along with the gasoline (possible increased efficiency similar to alcohol injection) as well as the well known cooling effects of water injection, long used in conjunction with turbocharged engines, which allows an engine to run leaner and burn a little less fuel. The only real novelty that I see here is the on-demand nature of the electrolizer, which is also the achilles heel isn’t it, as all the measurements I have seen are generally taken at idle, when an engine’s fuel and power demand is lowest. Naturally there are ways to get an electrolizer to work faster but they all entail risks and trade offs (and more energy input to begin with).
I was happy when I came across your blog as I knew someone would post a sobering critique of the many ludricrous claims being made on behalf of the “magical” properties of Brown’s gas, but unfortunately your page shows up on the third page of my google search, not early enough to stop people from reading the nuttier pages claming Brown’s gas as an alternate form of matter etc.. which it is not.
There are some good websites created by clear-headed engineering/tinkering types that have nice plans and schematics free for download (so please don’t pay anyone anything for plans) and the best of these carefully warn of the dangers of allowing any “Brown’s Gas” to build up in a sealed container (which of course becomes a good old fashioned bomb).
I think electrolysis makes the basis for good non-biological storage of solar energy. It’s use in cars is likely to be linked stongly to the development of new manufacturing processes for carbon fiber which will allow very light but strong car bodies to be built and therefore propelled with current Hydrogen or Methanolic fuel cell technology (see Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute for more info) as well as good old fashioned batteries.
There is no panacea to the voracious energy consumption of our heavy steel based cars, the best engineered “Brown’s Gas”,”HHO”, water injection systems are likley only to boost mileage by 15-20% and can’t work in the absense of increasingly expensive gasoline burning for the reasons discussed by the earlier “alex” in comment 12 and of course the fact that any excess HHO gas would have to be stored to be used later, which means you must separately store the “HH” from the “O” else your car goes BOOM. There are research groups working on higher efficiency electrolizer plates such as one group in Australia looking at Aluminum/Gallium alloys in conjunction with seawater (salt + water) and sunlight.
In general it seems to me that one must design a car from the ground up to make the best use of alternate energy sources, you just cannot back-engineer newer, less dense energy sources onto old car bodies designed originally to take advantage of a formerly plentiful low cost and dense energy source like gasoline. Brown’s Gas offers no salvation for the Hummer.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
WOW! I must have some of the most informed posters on the internet.Thank you for your input and suggestions.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Jim Says:
October 26th, 2007 at 1:11 am
I am puting one of these systems on my 4×4 truck to see if it does get me better mileage. I’ll let you know how it turns out.
Wonder what happended to Jim
All this reminds me of the old man watching Robert Fulton’s preperations for his first run of the steam boat. He told anyone who would listen “He will never get it to go” Finally on that historic day as the boat chugged out into the river the old man said “he’ll never get it to stop!” Ya gotta love skeptics.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I just contacted Jim, and he said he has been forced to delay putting in the system for awhile. He’ll let us know if he is able to get it up and running.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Does anybody know anyone who has actually taken the brows gas plans that you can by or download all over the internet to fruition???
I want to believe that it will work, but why hasnt anyone at all (except for the few that have claimed to crack the code)come foward to show that they have done it. I have been reading about this “browns gas ” thing for a few years now, If it really worked there would be mechanics stuffing there pockets with money charged for doing the conversion. think about it, if i saw a car driving down the road with a sign that read “converted to run on browns gas” I would stop them and ask where i can convert my car also.I worked as a mechanic years ago and if I or any of the thousands of auto mechanics, had the technology to do what is claimed
then you would be seeing mass advertisment selling the conversion at EVERY repair shop in the world. Every guy that could twist a wrench would be driving converted cars.The oil companies couldn’t stop every little home town mechanic from doing that( they cant murder everyone, can they Stan meyer). I challenge anyone to find 1 auto mechanic in the whole damn world that can make this happen. He probably wouldnt be a mechanic anymore because he would have more money than bill gates, from doing hundreds of thousands conversions( and the eventual or constant repairs and adjustments). I would pay a mechanic top doller for this freedom …………. would’nt you??????????????? EXACTLY, YOU WOULD OR YOU WOULDNT EVEN BE READING THIS.
I want it to work, but if it did back in 1960, then it would be every where now and it would be the norm.
PLEASE POST THE # OF THAT MECHANIC SO I CAN CALL HIM(OR HER) AND HAVE MY CAR DONE.
Thats the bottom line of the whole thing ,in 48 years since “browns gas ” was realized not one mechanic has ever advertised the service at there shop. If I were that mechanic I wouldnt even have to do the conversions , I would just charge other mechanics to learn how to do it. In 48 years everyone would have been doin it by now. It would be as common as changing a flat.
Doesn’t that make some kind of sense????????? Word of mouth between mechanics would have spread by now , dont ya think?
GOOD LUCK JIM,…IF you complete your 4/4 lets see some video footage and i will bow down to you.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
PLEASE, SOMBODY PROVE MY DUMB UNEJUMECATED ASS WRONG
March 5th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Well said. Any takers out there???
March 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
thank you Tapia
myspace.com,barefootgeno
March 9th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Hi All, have done my share of studying on Brown’S Gas and have concluded that it would take several hundred amps (maybe 7-800) of 12 volt current to generate enough gas to have much effect on the combustion process——–a normal alternator on a vehicle produces about 75-125 amps—if you are using power to generate the amperage, that is power that is not available to propel the vehicle-bottom line-THERE IS NO FREE RIDE HERE, EVEN IF YOU COULD GENERATE THE CURRENT REQUIRED–Remember in WWII, they used 6% hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer in aircraft to produce more HP–that worked, I , personally would be more interested in tapping into that technology, using a common water injection system, but subsituting 6% peroxide—-houses hold peroxide is only 3 %——-
March 12th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
So you want to know his secret. It’s not a big one. Several other companies are already doing it commercially for fleet vehicles and are working towards models geared for the general public.
They put water in an electrolysis unit powered from the eletrical system of the vehicle. You get H2 and O2 in minute quantities at low pressure. The H2 hose is routed to the intake hose on vehicle. Remember it’s a minute amount… the engine is still pulling gas or diesel by the gallon. The H2 gas in a minute quantity improves the fuel burn. ie the efficiency of combustion is upped. That’s the gain. You ain’t getting no free energy.
To quote from Hydrive site:
It has been known since 1974 that the addition of small amounts of hydrogen to an air-fuel mixture can improve the thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine.
Check out their site, and the mystery is revealed. www.hy-drive.com
March 12th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Thank you for the information. Here’s what I found in the mystery revealed, under “Legal::
This website may contain certain forward-looking statements and information relating to the business of Hy-Drive Technologies Ltd. that is based on the beliefs of the management of Hy-Drive Technologies Ltd., as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to the management. When used in this website, the words “estimate”, “project”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “proposed”, “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward looking statements. Such statements reflect the current views of Hy-Drive Technologies Ltd. and its management, with respect to future events and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to vary materially from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements.”
In my book,”forward looking statements” are the same as wishful thinking, and in this case enticements for investment. As I said before, I am looking for hard evidence for the effectiveness of Browns Gas/HHO. The technology Hy-drive is promoting is HGS, and not HHO. You wouldn’t happen to be a sales rep, would you?
March 15th, 2008 at 6:07 am
I am a chemist and in fact Brown’s law does work, however, Brown’s law always ended in a negative efficiency. Thus if 10 kj were put in, it would yield 6kj of energy (in Hydrogen gas.) Thus it always ended in an energy deficit. It was also plagued by heat issues due to the excess energy being converted to heat.
This technology which has been around since 1884 by Stevens a NZ scientist (or at least most feel he is the true inventor,) is taken to a different level by originally an American named Stan Meyer. He had worked closely with NASA and other government organizations, however, he mysteriously died of poisoning. Some radicals say that it was due to the big oil companies, I do not know and that is a completely diffeerent story.
Stan actually submitted a US Patent (U.S. Patent 5149407) which h had to demonstrate that his system could produce more “energy in the form of combustable Hydrogen than applied” which he did in the US Patent Office in DC in front of a Patent Officer and Physicist.
Stan’s terminology as a laymen is quite intereting as he states in the patent that he uses high frequency pulsed electricity to “Shake” the Hydrogen molecules off of the Oxygen molecule. If you know anything about Resonics this process of finding specific harmonics to break things or boil things is apparent in a numberof real world devices. An opera Singers voice, a low power vibratory hot plate and devices that create frequency to run off pests.
I would be less skepticle, as there are about 100 different sites by laymen claiming to have built Stan Meyer’s Patent successfully and run their automobiles. They all state that the system creates eratic (much more powerful response) than gasoline. This would be indicative of running your car on Hydrogen as it would release 100 - 200 times more energy per volume than petrolium.
Technically a gasoline engine can be run on a number of different fuels such as LP gas and Alcohol with minor changes (mostly the plastic tubes need to be changed to pure neoprene.)
Anyone intereted should just google tan Meyer, John Stevens or Dennis Klein.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Thank you for sharing your informed and insightful opinion. As to the websites claiming to have done this procedure, I wonder has anyone else seen a vehicle so adapted?
March 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Brown’s Gas (better called Oxyhydrogen or HHO), is a very appealing research project for amateur physicists because it is so simple to create it.
While Oxyhydrogen has been known to improve fuel efficiency of conventional petroleum engines for a while now, it’s use a primary fuel source is impractical for the following reasons:
1. 2nd law of Thermodynamics, as alluded to above. If you seek to generate the gas on demand in a closed-loop power system (e.g. a car with a battery), then you will never get more energy out of the water than you put into it. You will inevitably drain your battery with the hydrolysis device, regardless of refinements from harmonics. Why? Indeed, you’d get better efficiency letting that same battery power an electric motor.
2. Danger of storage. Assuming you do accept the fundamental inefficiencies of generating the gas on-demand, then you must produce the gas in quantity beforehand and store it in bottles or tanks. This is an explosive gas, and it will naturally get hot if you choose to store it at above atmospheric pressure w/o any means of cooling. The cooling means every more energy must go into the gas generation process, exacerbating its inefficiency.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Once again, thank you for a very thoughtful & well-informed plain-English explanation.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
i believe what we are seeing here is not the invention of some new energy form, but the use of hydrogen as a fuel additive which burns at a much higher temperature than gas, allowing for a nearly complete burn-off of the fuel put in… increasing efficiency. any mechanic (yes i am a mechanic) will tell you that gasoline engine do waste/ exhaust gasoline, through tuning this can be minimized but residual gas will still be exhausted… this is not making new energy but allowing for more efficient use of the gasoline in the engine and as such seems to be a viable step towards energy efficiency… but i am a mechanic, not a physicist. btw will someone please email me this site so i can remember to come back and post the findings of my own experiment? (surrealstarvingartist@yahoo.com) thanks
March 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
It’s all a pipe dream/scam/sham.
You can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Gasoline is the best for you.
When the time comes THEY will give you something else.
Stay stupid.
Go back to sleep.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
About a week ago, I visited the website of “Water4gas”; a slick marketing hype designed to excite one into purchasing their kit. At the very bottom, they provided a link to “Contact Us”. So I asked them through this link whether this gizmo would work in areas of the country where the temperature drops below the freezing point of water. I’m still waiting for a reply. This in itself indicates to me that there is virtually no merit to their claims. Also, it looks to me as though the only thing happening in the video is simple vaporization and not electrolysis at all, and even if electrolysis is occuring, won’t the hydrogen and oxygen simply recombine into water vapor before they have a chance to be injected into the combustion chamber of an engine? If electrolysis is actually occuring, the H and O would need to be separated via a diffusion filter that is absent from the drawing, and recombined only in the combustion chamber where the reaction can take place, and the energy captured as mechanical energy. If I’m wrong about this, will SOMEONE PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:02 am
G’day,
Oh I just LOVE these assertions!
Jeff, one does not need to separate the two gasses. They will not explode unless ignighted. Then they burn and give back a bit less energy than what was used in the electrolysis to split the molecules in the first place!
These claims are all the same - if you fit them all, your fuel tank would soon be overflowing!
Enjoy the entertainment.
Cheers,
DG
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 am
I SAY WE WAIT AND SEE WHO CAN PROVE HOW THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WILL USE MUCH LESS PETROL ( AS PER ALL THE CLAIMS )AND ALLOW THIS TO BE VERIFIED WITH THE CORRECT ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS.BEFORE WE ALL GET EXCITED & BUY ALL THE ( KITS ) NOW AVAIBLE ON THE NET,OR WILL SOMEONE DEMO THIS ON HIS ATV QUAD BIKE MAY BE,?
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Sounds good to me!
March 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Hmmm. Interesting comments. I too have been looking into this for a few years. My background is in mechanics rather than chemistry, but building one of the simple designs shouldn’t be a problem. Actually, I have a neighbor a few streets away that does conversions in Hummers. (www.intergalactichydrogen.com) I’ve been meaning to knock on his door and have a chat, so maybe it’s time to do so and I’ll report back my findings.
Tom
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
You can take my word for what it is worth, some jiberish out in cyberspace. I am a licenced and acredited chemist. I graduated Summa Cum Laude from Case Western Reserve University while studying quantum chemistry. I install HHO systems on cars for a living, offering full moneyback if the customer is not satisfied. I have never had a return. I typically see 20 - 30% fuel economy increase. Believe what you want but this works.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Are you talking about Brown’s/HHO which is supposed to make it possible to run an engine using water instead of petrol, by isolating and utilizing the hydrogen in H20?
Your mention of 20-30% fuel economy increase makes me think you are talking about hydrogen injection into a gasoline-powered internal combustible engine. Am I correct?
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Alex, do you happen to live where it is sunny and warm all year? I still haven’t had an answer to my FIRST question; does it work where the temperature falls below freezing? I have visions of this jar of water with electrodes running through it that transforms itself into a cracked jar full of ice after it sits in a parking garage in Minneapolis for a day.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Wonder what delayed Jim? The book is $50, the kit itself is only $150.
A friend is ordering 4 kits, we will use 3 of them to install, and document the whole process on video, including testing on a closed course, with and without the aid of the unit.
By the way, hydrogen is NOT a practical fuel like gasoline; it’s too difficult and heavy to store on the vehicle itself. Also, when you generate the hydrogen on-vehicle from the battery through electrolysis (producing HHO, or Brown’s Gas, or (2)H2+O2, they are all the same thing), you will not get back as much energy in the conbustion chamber so it is a net loss. However, if you look up ‘alcohol injection’ or ‘water injection’ (and probably ‘hydrogen injection’), you will discover that the efficiency of the gasoline fuel can be increased through the addition of such supplements. Whether the increase is sufficient to not only overcome the electrical energy used to GENERATE the oxyhydrogen mixture and more, is the issue. That is what we will be testing and, if it works, you bet we’ll be putting bumper stickers on all the vehicles, as well as looking to do fleet conversions! Stay tuned, email me if you want to know the results (in less than a month) millenia.jp@xpvp.com
April 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Thanks! Can’t wait to see the results.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Hi… I`m just an old run of the mill mechanic (and I mean old)
For years I have generated the socalled “browns gas” simply by using waste metals such as aluminium and zinc in a bicarb electrolyte, then feed the resulting gases into the inlet manifold via the method that the “mist master” of old injected water; with a water trap inline.
Not being a chemist or other clever type, I can only say that a petrol engine will run better giving just minute amounts of the gases sucked in.Bicarb is cheap, so are aluminium and zinc scraps, no electricity is used. cant say if mileage improved, but you can notice a negative difference if you turn it off going uphill? Food for thought…try it?
But dont slam me I`ve been around a long time.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Thank you so much for sharing something that sounds like legitimate, on-the-ground knowledge. I’m curious, does burning aluminum and zinc create any toxic or global warming gases?
April 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Will Bicarb keep it from freezing?
April 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hi, Had a unit fitted to my car sometime ago my Daihatsu Applause used to get 550klm to a tank of petrol and now it gets 950 klm and have had no side effects, I have no idea how the unit works but it has cut my petrol bills so I don’t care.
This system still uses petrol but makes it go a lot further without loss of power. As for the chemists forget your books try thinking outside the square your may find not all things are what you were taught, most inventions are outside what is considered the norm.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I think I am confused — I thought the Brown’s HHO was intended to use water (H20) as the fuel. What you are talking about sounds like something supplemental to using gas.
What is the name of your unit, and who makes it?
April 7th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Hi the unit is a hydrostar unit made in Melbourne and yes it does supplement the petrol. It is conected tto the air intake of the car.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Thank you! The techonology we are debating here has to do with using water instead of gas/petrol.
However, it is nice to know about a technology that makes use of petrol more efficient.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Hey! Remember ME? The guy shivering in the corner? I think I have a legitimate point: What the heck good is a technology that HALF of the people in EITHER Hemisphere(north and south) CAN’T even USE for OVER HALF OF THE YEAR!!!!!!If the whole idea is to use less petroleum AS A PLANET then we can NOT be limited by geographical location in the effectiveness of the solutions we are pursuing. If Brown’s gas can be generated from a salt-brine solution or with the addition of an anti-freeze without damaging the apparatus or releasing an even more noxious pollutant, those of us who live in the cold would like to know! If it can’t, then we should drop this pointless debate and focus on something that could benefit everyone.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“Jeff of the North”
What’s so bad about saving gas 50% of the time??? Better than saving 0% all the time.
More people live/drive in the “SunBelt” areas of the world than up north. If they are all saving gas all the time the price of gas will go down for you too.
Alcohol is used in “Water Injector systems. The Baking soda is like salt?
Don’t know if it affects electrolysis?
April 8th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Jeff of the North, is it possible technology initially that works best in the Sun Belt could eventually be adapted to help our Norther Brethren? After all, a lot of space technology of the 60’s and 70’s was never intended for everyday use, but we use most of it in our daily lives.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Jeff of the North - by your logic, solar power is not worth pursuing because it’s not nearly as effective in the polar latitudes. Waste veggie oil diesel isn’t worth pursuing because it gels in the cold. Those are ludicrous statements.
I am an engineer, and as such I immediately reject the premise of totally replacing gas/diesel with this technology - it simply wouldn’t work based on the balance of energy in versus energy out. I must admit, however, that the possible positive effects on combustion efficiency due to very small amounts of hydrogen being added to intake air are intriguing. There are credible efforts in this direction. Important caveat: to get good fuel efficiency, such hydrogen enrichment relies on adjusting the fuel control system to run lean! This means reprogramming fuel control maps on a fuel injected vehicle or re-jetting a carbed vehicle! That being the case, you’d better never run out of HHO, or you really will run lean and perhaps damage your engine.
Hell, I’m half convinced to gin something up myself and try it just because I like to tinker and the costs are not relatively high. I’d essentially build a 12VDC water torch, tweak it, then apply it to a vehicle.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Gotta love the ingenuity, creativity and openmindedness here. Tou all are THE BOMB!
April 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
By the way, in my earlier post I forgot to mention…the gas that is being called HHO is simply a mixture of H2 and O2. Monatomic H and O atoms are unstable, and thus would *very* quickly combine into diatomic gases (or water again).
April 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
This works, are all of you here from major oil companies? Simple, let me explain; hydrogen and oxygen are separated by electrolysis. The gas in its stoichiometric ratio at 442.4kcal simly two hydrogren atoms for each oxygen atom. both very flammable. What is so har to understand? What is the pipe dream? Do a little reasearch look at WEGY stocks, get in on the ground floor of a major corp. The GOP is just not going to be able to squash this one. look on U-TUBE. Look at boost.com. You people are idiots.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Considering the informed debate/discussion that has been going on here for several months from egitimate engineers, students and open-minded skeptics, your accusation we are all idiots does not appear to be based on quantified or qualified evidence. I went to boost.com — you recommended a site for ENERGY DRINKS as a counter-argument?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Well, I’ve discovered what it takes to get a response: simply post something really ignorant. Guess what? It’s April 11th and we’re having a snowstorm here! (Sometimes I wish I DID live in the sunbelt)
Well of COURSE I wasn’t being serious in post #49, I just have trouble believing that NOBODY has tried this where it’s freezing cold, and I was trying to get a rise out of someone(it worked too, didn’t it?)
I really haven’t been looking into this for very long, but I think it has got a lot of possibilities, and not just for automobiles(I might be the first one to try it on a car in the frozen north). As I understand it, Brown’s gas really isn’t efficient as a primary fuel, but works very well as a suppliment, to increase the fuel economy of the engine it’s hooked up to.
You all know what my first thought was. I still think it probably wouldn’t work if it were allowed to freeze, but the next thing I thought of was, ” Well, at least I can use it on the lawn tractor.” I really hate putting increasingly scarce and valuable gasoline into a lawnmower.
Then, I thought about hooking one up to a gas or diesel back-up electricity generator to stretch the fuel economy of one of those units, which lead naturally to: “If it works on small units, why not on large ones?”
Like a diesel locomotive?
How about a Brown’s gas augmented Bio-diesel locomotive?
Wow! But, I digress.
I also thought that maybe one could be adapted to augment the LP gas I use to heat the house, and to heat water in the water heater (if it’s in the house, it won’t freeze).
Does anyone else think this would be possible?
Could one of you chemists or engineers out there let us know?
At the very least, maybe a modular unit can be built that allows one to remove the canister and take it into the office to keep it from freezing, like we do with our coffee mugs.
I’m sure that, sooner or later, someone will try some of these suggestions.
I wish you the best of luck.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I like the way you think. You might want to consider what it would take to get a hydrogen fuel cell for heating your home. There are some articles at the mother ship of this blog on them from a few years ago, mmmfiles.com. I’m hoping they are more accessible and affordable than they were then. Ballard Fuel Cels is one that comes to mind.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I favor the 20:1 Propane leak into the typical 14/7:1 gasoline engine. Really though, favor the 30:1 or 50:1 or 150:1 Hydrogen leak into gasoline engine as it uses less FUEL for the same oxidizer.
Define “Less”. Lbs, $$$. How about “On-Demand”. Yea, “On-Demand” fuel. I cannot generate Gasoline or Propane on-demand, YET I CAN GENERATE HYDROGEN gas on-demand. No storage bottle needed. Just a clean chemistry set for reliability.
My opinion is hydrogen energy is best stored in a liquid acid: Hydrogen peroxide H205(~100%) is rather dense, with the lesser (more technically correct form H202 being equal. H2S04 being stinky. I’d would like to hear discussions on Hydrogen Peroxide generation/formation. momno-methyl Hydrazine being a bit lesser and far more difficult to store (see we’re back to a gas). I conclude: Hydrogen Peroxide ought be the fuel. I can catalytically combust thaat. Any thoughts? HIS
April 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Interesting premise. Chemists and engineers: What say ye?
April 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I am in the process of installing two HHO generator units in my car, and they are based on the design from water4gas.com. The one thing that I don’t understand is that in the beginning of this thread everyone seems to assume that these units are for substituting HHO (browns gas) for gasoline. I know that is what the discussion is all about, but most if not all the people who actually install these units in their cars are only looking to stretch their Miles (or Km) Per Gallon (or Litre). The guy I bought these units from currently uses them in his 2008 Dodge Dakota and increased his MPG by 50%. He showed me this on a ScanGauge2 which plugs into your ECU. He also showed me the increase in MPG he got in his mobile home which went from 8 miles per gallon with the HHO unit off, up to 16.5 MPG with the unit ON.
I wouldn’t have believed it if I didn’t see it on the ScanGauge2 with my own eyes. I have also seen a 1997 Saturn get an increase of 26 MPG up to an increase of 41 MPG. That’s nothing to shake a stick at. As for running your vehicle on HHO gas that’s made on demand… no, I can’t see that working. THAT would be really friggin sweet, though! I don’t blame anyone here for being skeptical. I was at first and for a very long time. Since seeing proof with my own eyes, I had to change my opinion. Anyways, I’m not here to argue with anyone, just throwing in what I have learned in my own experience.
This next bit is for Jeff of the North:
I live in Northern Illinois (West of Chicago) and it gets damn cold here too. The way the guys here get around that is to add windshield washing fluid to the HHO Generators. The water/baking soda mix still gets a wee bit slushy, but at least it doesn’t form an ice brick. So yes, it does work in the cold. That’s when I actually saw the demo, and had a chance to see the units with the slushy ice mix inside them. It eventually melted down and started forming HHO gas.
I know it’s my word against everyone else’s. And I know it’s hard to believe me without any video proof. I’m also not a chemist, physicist, or auto mechanic. With that said, you don’t need to be a veterinarian to know what a horse’s ass is for!
April 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
to correct myself on the bit about the 97 Saturn….
The original MPG was 26. The INCREASE was 15 MPG for a total of 41. Sorry about that!
Next time I’ll make sure to proof read my comments.
By the way, please don’t bash me here. I’m only reporting what I have seen with my own eyes and I don’t want to argue with anyone. I have limited knowledge, but I’m studying the way these units work to better understand the science behind it all.
Oh, and the last bit I wrote in my previous comment about not being a chemist or physicist was not a bash on either profession. I was just saying that just because many of us are neither one of these doesn’t mean that we can’t understand and/or learn it, that’s all. If I offended anyone, I apologize. That wasn’t my intent at all!
April 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Charlie, you are too kind. Thank you for sharing and “bearing witness.” The whole point of this thread is to get to the truth, not bash anyone. In fact, whenever a comment has been uncalled for or non-productive, I have deleted it as soon as I read it.
Thank you again. You are the person we were looking for.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
This is a question for any chemist that might be hanging out here.I had someone put sugar in my gas tank,I have used the injector products as well as seafoam ,but I still have some cloged injectors.I will also guess that there is still some sugar clumps in the gas tank ,and mess in the line,and fuel rail.Is there anything I can use to flush or run through the sytem,that wont harm the motor and can be added to the mix ,I already have,sugar and gas,and seafoam,thanks Rusty
April 15th, 2008 at 12:30 am
I found this link about “sugar in the gas tank”
http://www.snopes.com/autos/grace/sugar.asp
It says that according to studies done in labs that hardly any sugar is dissolved in a tank of gas, BUT sugar could still clog the fuel filter. Best to change your fuel filter and check out getting your tank removed and emptied/cleaned out.
They are also looking at using sugar as a way to extract Hydrogen for fuel. Funny, isn’t it? So, I guess this does fit into this category!
Hope that link helps, Rusty.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Another fuel saving process is the vaporazation of gasoline, I think if this were to be comined with the electroylsis part even more fuel economy would be realized. I am new to the Browns gas idea, but have used electroylsis for many years to clean up dug coins etc, it works very well except for on copper coins. I also wonder if gasoline itself could be put through the electroylsis process or if that would be to dangerous, it definetly would not freeze. There are and were many patents for vaporizing gasoline. The bottom line is that the oil companies have bought many of the fuel saving techniques patents’ and has shelved the ideas to further line their pockets, we could probably get at least 100 mpg of gasoline right now if the oil companies were not so greedy. So vaporization of gasoline should also be part of this discussion. Dale.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I agree.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Here’s a link for a fuel vaporizer. This is the manufacturer’s website.
http://www.wyominginstruments.com/gas_home.htm
I don’t know if it works, but there are a few resellers out there for this. There are other models on the market that I have seen, but this is the first one I came across.
hope this helps
Charlie
April 16th, 2008 at 2:01 am
I have a serious question for all the engineers, chemists, physicists, biologist…blah blah blah…I admit that I have never used this product, though it seems to be becoming more and more promoted on more and more websites…here is my question for all of you…before you discarded all the various products, some of which would of course work better than other, how many of you have done more than just rely on equations and knowledge of others? Before discounting the “human factor” in research, the things we often miss in our calculations, shouldn’t we test out the theories? Many of you that do not believe in the products have not shown any of your own results from testing. Wouldn’t this be appropriate to support your positions of disagreement or agreement? You are researchers and scientists and according to many websites, it doesn’t seem to expensive to get the plans and to test them out in real life use, such as a “beater” vehicle that would make a good start for a test vehicle moving to other vehicles with more electronics, utilizing facts gather supposedley by others in various websites. Some sites offer HHO units while other seem to offer supplements to these units, guages, monitors, tanks, efi electronic components, o2 sensor components, and other misc parts. Let me know what you think? I work in engineering for an electrical utility company and know that there are many factors that manage various cirucuit designs and protection…I have found that more often than not, the tech installing all this equipment are very well suited to providing the appropriate input for design and unit installation…”it takes an engineer to screw things up and a tech to make their designs work”…sorry if i offended anyone out there, but there are many instances of engineers looking at the bigger picture and missing all the important minor details, architectual engineers have missed things such as water-electrical-sewage and so on in their designs. In the end, all I really need to know is if all of you who do not believe, have you actually installed and used the product prior to discouraging them? The “proof is in the pudding.”
thank you
April 16th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Your points are well made and well taken. I think the skepticism has to do with time and money. How much of both are needed to test this out, and how much is available for skeptics to try this out? I have a hybrid so am not in need of improving my own gas mileage, but someone with a V8 “working” (as in farm etc) may feel like doing something and quick.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
i would agree with you. though being researchers or having done research is also time consuming which to me is money…most of these kits claim to be made cheaply from parts from a hardware store. i find this interesting…most of the more expensive kits are similar and take things even farterh by adding more aggressive reactants to the mix, though when it comes down to it, they are almost the same…just prettier packaging, better/improved materials and methods and equipment. as well, they all claim that the process is reversable and that they do not void the warranty. let’s take your nice hybrid for example…expensive, yes, but you could possibly eliminate most carbs and increase mileage at best…maybe even get more than 25% increase in mileage…that would be worth it. it’s more difficult for me…as i drive a motorcycle and my wife drives an ‘08 5 series bmw…she won’t let me even look at her car under the hood, which is fine with me but i just want to know, like many others, if hho works…i have heard from more people that used it that it does work than those who say it didn’t after trying it. the worst i have heard is that they get a minimal increase in mileage. But even a 1-2 mile increase is still an increase with little investment. i would like to hear from skeptics that have tried it and find that it didn’t work or that it did work. but, i need to know that they are honest in their representation of their findings. this would help a lot of people who come here researching for information. i believe that this would help the lower class and middle class the most since they would be and are being hit the hardest by the fuel increases here in the US. this could help to fight the inflation that is going on in this country right now. heck, i would love to find one for my bike…but a bike, though a similar process, has different designs for their components that would make it difficult as well as extremely limited space. let me know what anyone finds. thank you. mike.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
CHECKOUT MY COMMENT ON HYDROGEN PEROXIDE IN POST NUBER 23——-I’M SURE THAT WORKS AS THE GERMANS USED IT IN WW II AS AN OXIDIZER IN AIRCRAFT GASOLINE ENGINES, HECK MAYBE THE COMBINATION OF H2O2 AND HO2 MIGHT BE THE ANSWER TO BETTER COMBUSTION EFFECIENCY——–LET’S EXPERIMENT !! I DO HAVE IN MY FILES A PLAN FOR 100 MPG FOR AN EARLY 80′S CADILAC——–MOSTLY VAPORIZED BY EXHAUST TEMP —–I BUILT A CARB FOR MY 74 SUBURBAN ONCE AND WENT FROM 11 MPG TO 21 MGP ON THE FIRST TRY-STILL HAVE THE CARB, THE EX WIFE GOT THE SUBURBAN—–THINGS CAN BE DONE !! INTERESING TO ME IS THAT THE FUEL MILAGE SPECS FOR ALL OF THE CARS THAT ARE THE SAME SIZE ALL HAVE THE SAME MILAGE RATINGS !! SURELY ONE OF THEM WOULD BE BETTER THAN ANOTHER IF THEY WERN’T ALL IN BED WITH EACH OTHER !!
April 16th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
RAN OUT OF SPACE ON THE LAST POST, BUT ANYONE REMEMBER THE SUPERCHARGED DIESEL MUSTANG THAT HALLMAN AND MOODY PERFECTED IN THE LATE 70′S AND DROVE IT TO WASH, TO SHOW THE CONGRESS HOW WELL IT WORKED-NO ONE EVER HEARD ANY MORE ABOUT IT—-HALLMAN -MOODY WERE FAMOUS NASCAR AND RACE CAR ENGINE BUILDERS OF THE 60′S—-ONE CAN’T SUPERECHARGE A DIESEL, AS IT MELTS THE PISTONS DOWN, BUT THEY HAD A WAY TO DO IT—–ALSO KNOW ABOUT AN ELECTROMATIC ENGINE BUILT HERE IN SC, SIMPLY TOOK OFF THE HEADS OFF, INSTALLED PEERMANENT MAGNETS ON THE TOP OF THE PISTONS AND BUILT LARGE ELECTROMAGNETS OVER EACH PISTON, THEY WOULD CHARGE THE ELECTRO MAGNETS AND IT WOULD EITHER PUSH THE PISTON DOWN OR PULL IT TOWARDS THE ELCETROMAGNET, DEPENDING ON WHICH WAY THE CURRNET FLOWED, IT WAS MADE TO REVERSE POLARITY ON EACH STROKE SO IT HAD POWER ON THE UP STROKE AND THE DOWN STROKE—THAT WHOLE INVENTION DISAPPEARED ALSO–BECAUSE THE MAGNETS WERE PERMANENT TYPES ON THE PISTONS, THE ONLY ENERGY USED WAS TO CHARGE THE ELECTROMAGNETS-NOW WE HAVE NEODIMINUMN MAGNETS THAT ARE A LOT STRONGER-WOULD WORK EVEN BETTER-ANY TAKERS ??
April 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
OH, BTW, THE MUSTANG WAS PURPORTED TO GET 70 MPG !!
April 16th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
good point, but by your own words, it seems like you have not tried to put into practice the hho project…”my share of studying on Brown’S Gas and have concluded…” as well, you also admit that you could draw out energy, though you say it takes more energy to generate a small amount…so could you put into practice and actually and honesty test it out in real life on your car? what could you lose? at most you would gain if it worked and if it didn’t work at all, then you would have proof and you would be able to reverse the process. though i realize that there are many types out there and that it would take a bit of tests to present a valid project. what do you think? what if there is something that “we” are missing, that we are not taking into account for brown’s gas, not as a substitute but as an amplifier/ supplement … what do you think?
April 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
the various plans out ther can be purchased and one says you could build a basic one for under $100…so you invest 150 dollars what do we get out of it? the truth…but you have to make sure that you take all options and that it is setup correctly by qualified mechanics (i don’t really know of any qualified ones for hho, but there are tons that know engines)…this would put a lot of questions to rest…as well, any increase in mileage should be noted and stated. even it it’s just 1 mpg…that is still an increase over what you have in your own driving habits. right?
April 17th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Hey All:
To paraphrase the immortal Hamlet: “There is more to heaven an earth then is written
about in your philosophies Horatio.”
I am somewhat of a physics buff and am well acquainted with the various laws of the
various branches of physics, thermal-dynamics being only one of them. Oxy-hydrogen
was used as a combined “tube gas” by Physicist Dr. William Rhodes in a successful
attempt to provide a high-temperature means of welding. With a flame temp of 2800C, it
works very well in this application and units have been commercially available for many
years specifically for this app. It was actually the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that was first
to visit the use of hydrogen as a fuel ENHANCEMENT, not REPLACEMENT. Yes it
does actually work very well in this regard.
Back to Dr. Rhodes: He discovered that this combined tube gas (Oxygen and Hydrogen)
exhibited characteristics which had not previously been seen in work done on either of
those two gasses individually. I have been unable to find any scientific data which has
explained this discrepancy. However, this lack of data in no way invalidates the findings
of Dr Rhodes who, to the best of my current knowledge, never found an answer.
I personally posses sufficient knowledge, ability and resources to make one of these
systems myself. I will be undertaking construction of one shortly which will be loosely
based on the patents issued to Dr. Rhodes.
If I don’t blow myself up, I’ll post my findings on this forum.
Best Regards…
Sean Holt.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I am SO looking forward to hearing from you!
April 17th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I will also post any of my findings after I install my 2 HHO generators onto my 2001 Ford Focus. If I can possibly get hold of a video camera, I will post this on youtube and leave a link for you guys.
I understand this is a discussion on whether these things work or not, and I have personally witnessed the outcome on more than one vehicle. (see posts # 61 and 62). I would love to back this up with some video evidence, but for now I can only give my word. It’s all I got for now!
April 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am
this is an ebay response i recieved when questioning the product and it addressed my concern with the o2 sensor.
Hi m_thomas1971
Thanks for your interest in the H2X2 Parts Kit.
Yes this system will work on any ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) but with any car with Fuel Injection I do recommend an EFIE as a complement to my H2X2. I have tested the EFIE and it does help on extra MPG when used with a Hydrogen Booster.
If you would like more information please check this URL:
http://www.fuelsaver-mpg.com/affiliates/jrox.php?id=123
I hope this helps.
Thanks…Jim
April 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
oops..i meant the fuel injection system which is also tied to the o2 sensor.
April 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Any of you guys (especially Charlie, Sean, and Jim) had any success installing these guys. I have an 120 mile round trip daily commute back and forth to work, and would like to try one of these systems out. I drive an 07 Altima 2.5SL, but would like to try one of these systems out in an older vehicle, maybe something that one of my friends has… or maybe the one that my father in law has. I too, am watching and waiting on results…
April 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Well I wonder what you would think if you saw this on Dan Rather’s network CBS? Just because you saw it on FOX you say “strike one”? CBS, NBC, and ABC are ENTERTAINMENT networks as well.
I have heard of academics being prejudicial about the varacity of Fox News things like “You can’t belive what you see/hear on Fox because it’s an Entertainment Network” Ummm Public TV and Radio has entertainment too; even pure news radio has it; So what the provide entertainment that’s how they make their money; they have news and weather to support the communities they serve in accordance with the law…..
April 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
it’s not a matter of credibility i think. it’s more of the matter of no stats given or tests with shown results, just someone saying “hey, here is our solution and it works”…even the websites are kind of sketchy in their results, though they say hey it works and here’s a video…but don’t say or show a difference. that is what we are here to decide and discuss i believe (from what i have read and how i feel). no one has really knocked hho, it just that we are people who need to see to believe as best as possible…
April 20th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Since this thread is getting so long, might I suggest continuing the discussion at the updated post “Browns Gas/HHO Part Two?”
April 21st, 2008 at 7:31 am
Can you post a link to the forums?
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:57 am
Thanks for the suggestion, Perry. See Comment #85.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:06 am
“Downhill” chemical reactions (breaking chemicals down) release energy, and “uphill” chemical reactions (building larger chemicals from smaller ones) consume energy.
The electricity used in the electrolysis part of the equation is the activation energy required to break the covalent bond of the water. This breaking of chemical bonds releases more energy than is originally consumed by the electrolysis but the energy is dispersed in the form of heat before the hydrogen ever reaches combustion. So this idea creates a net loss of the energy stored in water.
Introducing water directly into the process, before hydrolysis would be a better idea to develop. If we could use hydrolysis (not electrolysis) to break down the gasoline molecules instead of combustion it could be way more efficient than combusting them.
Hydrolysis is what nature uses. What’s more efficient than that?
April 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
On of my favorite quotes: “Those who say it cannot be done should shut up and quit slowing down those who are doing it.”
I have one of these systems installed in my vehicle and performance improved immediately - smoother and quieter and more responsive; my gas mileage improved 40% in the city and 100% on freeway (SERIOUS I couldn’t believe it myself if I hadn’t seen it with my OWN eyes); and to top it off a smog test on Monday showed nearly ZERO emissions. The mechanic almost couldn’t believe it!
I know several people with the same or similar system and every single one of them are ecstatic with their results.
Don’t believe or discount ANYTHING until you have truly tried and proved it to yourself. Its just too easy for someone to say ‘it won’t work….’ and its also just as easy to say ‘where can I buy one’. Prove it to yourself folks - its the ONLY way you are going to get a straight answer!
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Let’s just say, “Maybe if enough of us BELIEVE, then it will be SO”
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. There are a few people posting here, who are willing to invest some time and money, and see if and how this works. You may have missed the link at Post #85, to where this discussion is continuing, here it is again. According to Susan, her faith is based on her experience, not a wish. I haven’t found anything yet that would cause me to question her integrity.
The LAST thing I would say about anyone making a comment here is they are Pollyanna’s.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
You gotta wonder why Detroit doesn’t put a few hundred dollars worth of parts into their cars in order to take advantage of this purported technology. It would be a cheap way for them to comply with increased fuel efficiency requirement laws, and then they can run million dollar ads that their vehicles get 30+ MPG. In order words, what’s the catch?
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Most likely, besides Detroit’s decision makers being, historically, seriously out of touch, doing what you recommend might violate their “unholy alliance” with Big Oil. They produce a vehicle that requires Big Oil’s products.
However, if their cars were more efficient, sales would increase and petroleum products would be needed for tires, hoses etc. Not to mention, more people might be working to feed this need. Maybe they are just as short-sighted as stubborn and out of touch.
I think they have just barely begun paying attention to Toyota as a model. Who else had a waiting list for cars last year?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Let me add to this part of the discussion real quick…
Its real simple…
Big Auto needs tax dollars to build big plants…
Federal government needs cars to suck up has, because there are Billions, no trillions of gallons being sold on a daily basis, and at 14-40 cents a gallon, that averages out to billions of dollars a day. They say it is for road projects, but why aren’t our roads sturdier and more efficient? Hence the money goes back to the government.
Big Oil needs the Foreign countries to bring in oil, so that they can charge millions, billions of dollars to change a barrel of oil into 2-4 barrells of GAS or Diesel.
Foreign companies need Big Oil to buy THEIR OIL, to fund their POSH lifestyles, or monarchies and terrorist activities against the Israeli state.
So Feds pay Auto Companies to make Big cars that slurp up gas (its the year 2008, we have computers the size of quarters, we should have cars that either use little or no gas at all). Big Oil gets the money from the gas, and turns around and pays a fraction of it to the Saudi’s, Iragi’s, Bolivia, etc…
Feds pay Big Auto, Big Auto builds, Consumers pay, and Big Oil and the Foreign countires reap the profits and in turn, pay the Feds.
Countries like CHina and India, are killing the economy, because their economy is BOOMING off the CHAIN, so they are now all buying cars and big trucks and construction equipment…. thus as their economies BOOM, ours is getting killed… and this drives the oil up even furthur…because the demand and supply is off kilter.
Here is ISSUE #1…
US will never get off of gas. There are too many mouths to feed…
Feds need to come up with something that will
a) Put money in their pockets
b) Please the consumer
c) Please the foreign oil subsidiaries
d) Please Big Oil who will die in the end
e) Please the Auto industry…
It just won’t happen. You can’t tax Air… and it is hard to tax or charge extra for water, even though those are the 2 most abundant chemicals around… Imagine if we lived in society where we used water and steam.
Until then, the guys who keep taking it on the nose, are
a) We the consumer
b) Those poor US and other national citizens on foreign soil trying to produce the oil.
c) The enviroment itself.. as we slowly kill it…
You might not ever see another widely distributed fuel commodity, because the US government wants “to get theirs” no matter what…they need to have something to tax…
We don’t need oil, we don’t need to be in Iraq, or any other country…. we need to be here, within our own borders.. but we have been convinced that we do…
May 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Did you say “real quick?” I appreciate your sentiments and agree with most of them. However what you left out regarding those who keep taking on the nose, is it incumbent upon those of us who do not believe we need oil to support, campaign and vote for representatives who will represent our interests, and those of the nation — not corporations.
It is not just matter of voting for a Democrat, but GOOD Democrats and then hold them accountable. The Neocons are losing their grip in more ways than one, and it is time to push, push, push for change.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
To anyone who is a non-affiliated individual (i.e. doesn’t work for a company selling an HHO device) and has bought/installed one of these “water convertors” for vehicles, please contact me.
Because of the potential “danger” of this gas possibly either exploding or overheating the engine and destroying it, I wish to try it out on a “scrap” lawnmower or other engine I’m not worried about destroying.
I will pour in a small quantity of gas and measure how long the engine idles, before dying. I will then pour the same amount of gas in and attach the HHO device and then run the engine. Regardless of whether the engine is idling or running full throttle (or anywhere in-between), there should be a noticeable difference in how much longer the engine runs, correct? This can be expressed as a fuel efficiency increase percentage, no?
Logically, fuel efficiency = longer running engine between fillings.
Please Email me your replies. I may or may not be back to this site.
Thank you.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Oops, forgot to say… my email address in in the page link to my name here. In the first paragraph on the site. Enjoy the music, too… let me know what you think.
Latre!
Luposian
May 5th, 2008 at 9:22 am
What a wonderfully simple and safe way to test out the device. Thank you for sharing.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Most of you are missing the point of this thing. A lawnmower engine will not work, because it is missing a very important element. Namely a generator. The way it is claimed to work is that it using energy from you battery/generator to split the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Then the Hydrogen and Oxygen is sent to the engine as well.
So this only works to the extent that the generator on your vehicle is able to convert surplus power from you engine to electricity that is then used to split the water molecules.
There is not added energy from the water. It is merely a way to convert some excess engine power to electricity and then back to a fuel.
Hybrid (Gas/Electric) vehicles do this very thing, however much more efficiently! There is no need to split the water and create a fuel with an electric engine.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Thanks! I stand corrected. Don’t forget, for a follow up discussion, you can go to www.mmmfiles.com/mmm. Some people are installing units, and reporting back. Others are promising a video for documentation. There’s a link at comment #85.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
How about using solar cells to power the electrolysis?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I never heard of Brown’s Gas until researching ways to make my own bleach. It’s done thru the same method by using salt water and it too gives off hygrogen and oxygen gas along with clorine gas. On these BG generators for welding the HO is bubbled thru a water trap to prevent the torch flame from reaching the mix as a safety precuation. Clorine gas is trapped by bubbling it thru water, too! I just wonder if both BG and bleach can be made at the same time? On one BG forum they stated that sodium hydroxide worked better as an electrolyte, which is what’s made out of the brine during the process. I use alot of that too as a cleaning agent! It’d be nice to save on fuel plus cleaning agents using one device!
Needless to say I just started looking into this today so dunno if feasible.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Hello all, I’ve enjoyed this discussion on Brown’s Gas / HHO. I strongly believe that this subject must be studied more by our Universities, which strangely have not done so despite strong evidence for over 20 years that it could be an important new source of clean and cheap energy….
But I would like to mention to the above who believe that HHO cannot be created cheaply with anything like 1:1 energy efficiency:
This is not correct. When the submerged electrodes are pulsed using gated, pulse-width tuned square waves (ala Stan Meyer and several others who have duplicated it since his death), the power efficiency of creating the gas is many times greater. This is because the electrodes act as capacitors; and the water as a “dielectric”. When the pulses are properly tuned to match the electrode plates, The “capacitance” of the water is exceeded, and the water is violently disassociated into HHO/ Brown’s gas with much less current than the “brute force” high-amperage methods that are still being taught today in university textbooks, and which most mileage booster kits still use.
Electronic engineers and technicians, such as myself, have seen this phenomena when over-voltaged “caps” in a circuit explode much like firecrackers. This is why significant amounts of HHO can be created using tuned pulses…. Perhaps 100 times more efficiently than using DC direct from a car’s alternator. It is nothing like “free” or “zero-point” energy, just plain old capacitance electrical theory.
Using a pulsed system, it should be possible to create an HHO eletrolyzer powerful enough to run the entire vehicle (…perhaps an average of 2.5 liters/per minute of HHO gas for a 4 cyl. car), using 2 amps or less of power. Because when a properly tuned pulse system is used (amplified by a step-up transformer to over 100V peak and rectified to positive-going only); voltage is the key not current.
I have myself built a small pulsed flat-plate electroyzer system and my energy efficiency, on a good day, is about 4 times unity. However, I have not installed it in a vehicle but used it for static test only. What I have found is that the gas can be burned, and the HHO will violently and very loudly explode when a balloon of it is ignited… It is NOT water vapor. And it is not a toy
A water bubbler bottle should always be used in-line with the output for safety; and the work area should always be well ventillated because of the resultant other gasses that can come from using tap, well, or sea water.
Below is an article I recently wrote for a political blog to spread the word on HHO and the importance of the Open Source Energy movement (the best way, imo, for us to defeat the suppression of these new and important technologies). There are also many links there for those more interested.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_jibbguy_080415_brown_s_gas__28_22hho_22_29_.htm
May 7th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Thank you.You are so right. This could be a viable resource/strategy, but it is NOT A TOY and should be given the respect it deserves.
I continue to be impressed by the knowledge and wisdom of everyone commenting here.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hey All:
Well, I didn’t blow myself up but I did blow the bottle out of my gas measuring
apparatus. Luckily, it’s plastic and quite flexible so no injury or damage occurred.
Big bang though!
Anyway, I thought it prudent to do some basic science first so I built a Hoffman
apparatus such that I could make both pure hydrogen and pure oxygen. This I did. However, the volumes of gas produced by this method are insufficient to be used in
the automotive application. I suspect oxy-hydrogen is far simpler to make in large
volumes because one can easily fabricate a multiple plate electrode cell with tight
spacing between electrodes as no separation of the two gasses is needed.
However, if one doesn’t want to invest in the technology required to fool one’s engine control computer, one needs to produce large (1ltr/min) volumes of pure hydrogen only.
Here is the reason: If the engines O2 sensor detects more O2 then it should, the ECU will richen the air/fuel mixture to compensate. This is the likely result if using oxy-hydrogen as a fuel enhancement negating any gains from the enhancement.
If the O2 sensor detects less O2 then it should, the ECU will lean the mixture to compensate. I’m hoping this will be the result if I use pure hydrogen only. The problem
of course will be to construct an electrolytic cell that will produce this pure gas in large
enough volumes.
Another problem I’m experiencing is producing an aqueous electrolytic solution with
low enough resistance to allow sufficient current flow. I’ve already turned my workbench
white with caustic solutions of sodium hydroxide and distilled water all to no avail. I also
converted my Hoffman apparatus to a “U” tube arrangement such that I could substantially reduce the distance between electrodes. I have also tried sodium chloride
and magnesium sulfide electrolytes as well, all this to no avail. So far I have only produced 1.5 liters of H2 gas. Unfortunately, it took an hour to make! (Cool looking flame though!)
Additionally, many of these electrolytes do not react during electrolysis. This means that
as the reaction proceeds, the solution(s) become more concentrated. Thusly, I need to
construct a cell which contains a specific volume of electrolyte at a specific concentration with a refillable reservoir of just pure water that will automatically replenish the cell. None of this of course will be useable come winter.
Challenges abound indeed!
Far better I think to just build an efficient engine employing all the advantages of the scotch yoke mechanical movement! (a what??) You energy efficiency buffs out there
may want to look into that. Oh while you’re at it, checkout The Integral Fast Reactor.
(Sorry, did I mention I’ve been researching energy production, consumption and conservation in all forms for almost twenty years?)
If I get the above mentioned contraption working, I’ll post it here.
Best regards…
Sean Holt.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Sean,
I was so excited when I received the clip. After reading your article, seems as you spent enough time to research, yes? Now I am confused. Hope to see more evidence.
JB
May 10th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Hi have been reading your comments here.
I also am a sceptic but yesterday I helped a friend install one of these units in his 4×4 within 30 secounds of starting up the engine you could here it idle down and smoothen out.
Like I told him if it gets 5 miles per gallon better fuel economy it is a win win proposition.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:06 am
I believe in the technology so I invested a modest sum of money for the books and help. Wow, just using the gas saving tips brought my 05 Honda Civic from 36 highway at freeway speeds to an amazing 40.3 MPG, just under the Honda Hybrid. I am waiting for the Electrolyzer to arrive. These prople can not produce them to meet the demand right now. In the meantime a very good mechanic friend with long time experience and who knew about the Browns gas use in cars, got ahold of my information and is building some devices for myself and friends. There is no doubt that it works, however, one has to do it, not just bad talk the idea. I will no doubt have the last laugh when my 05 Honda Civic surpasses the expensive Hybrids in MPG. I will road test the HHO gas in my Honda this week on a 600 mile trip for the first time. It has been great fun to experience the fuel savings already. I expect to be able to drive 600 miles on a 13 galoon tank..I am only 80 miles short of that now. I’ll post again in a couple of weeks with a report.
My info and guidance comes from Water4gas.com. I admire the author for his skill and diligence in promoting this great technology. The reason every shop in the nation is not pushing this is that “big oil, Big government, and big EPA” threaten the entrance of this technology and they have influenced people like in California to restrict any inovations to only those built by Big Auto Mfg. The Lobby against fuel saving is alive and well. I am about to prove the sceptics wrong also. Men saids men will never fly…believers proved them wrong.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:45 am
In West Palm Beach, FL. the TV station did a test of one unit on their compant station wagon. The reported a significant increase in mileage! The report is on the wptv.com website.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
The HHO generators do work. People that are using them are seeing average 10-40% savings on their fuel costs. It is HHO on demand which means that the gas is being made while driving down the road. It is not stored in a tank. Your car can run on pure hydrogen from a tank. This was proved on the television series mythbusters. It will not however run on HHO without gasoline as a helper. HHO is not purified hydrogen and is too volitile to compress and store in tanks. Please, do not try this! HHO on demand is like having a campfire and helping it a little by pouring a little accellerant on it. Also, it could be compared to using a higher octane gasoline in your tank without the added expense. Perhaps getting off the subject somewhat, ask yourselves, why not in times of crisis like we are experiencing at the pump, do the refineries still produce and offer the 3 selections of octane at the pump? Why do they not just produce 1 medium octane of fuel and not have the added expense and head aches of keeping it seperated on their production lines? Also, why is the same gasoline that came from the same refinery, transported on the same truck, perhaps 10 cents different in price 3 blocks down the road? I say corporate greed. Not supply and demand. Also, I live in Oklahoma and have worked in and around the oil field. The United States uses about 10% of the oil for gasoline production. Some of the oil goes for making other products, some goes for heating homes, etc. There is enough oil in reserve to last us another 10 years! There is enough natural gas to last 100s of years I have been told by some oil experts. The gasoline crisis is man-made hoopela crapola made up by extremists/greedy corporate opportunists just like the war in Iraq. Most people back east and on the west coast have no idea about things pertaining to oil and environment because they think with blinders on. No disrespect intended folks, it is just that some of you super liberals and super conservatives live in plastic little worlds all based on fear shoved down our throats by the news media in this country. Michael Moore, who I do not agree with on some issues, demonstrates it best in his documentaries, Bowling for Columbine and Farenhiet 911 ie, news headlines; killer bees moving into US, tainted beef products may kill millions, terrorist threat level yellow (should be red anyway) especially after pearl harbor they just give us enough fear to keep us on edge. Anyway people, just experiment with HHO, vote independent and happy motoring.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Very well said. Thanks!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I have an hho generator on my 2003 Ford Ranger. Have been running it for over a month. It has 316 stainless plates, and water/baking soda electrolyte. It draws between 2.5 and 4 amps,(it changes as the electrolyte gets old). My milage per gallon went up 11%. Am in the process of making one with 4 times the gas output. By the way, there is absolutely NO carbon in my tailpipe anymore. The theory I read is when hho burns, water is formed, cooling the combustion chamber. The effect makes the computer think it is running rich. So the computer leans out the fuel/air ratio, saving gas.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
And, by the way my tailpipe has absolutely NO carbon in it. The theory I read is that when hho burns it forms water, which cools the combustion chamber, which allows a leaner fuel/air mixture. The computer thinks the ratio is too rich and leans it out.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
[…] during the 1990&8217s by another Dennis … 48 Responses to &8220Beware of browns Gas/HHO …http://www.mmmfiles.com/mmm/index.php/2007-05-28/70/RE: Any one running their car on browns gas? - Yahoo! Answers It’s a SCAM. I have read many posts on […]
May 25th, 2008 at 8:44 am
1) What we’re writing about here isn’t using water as fuel, it’s using hydrogen derived from water. You have to get the energy to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen from somewhere else. This is fine, as long as you’re not using a gas generator to get that energy. Since electrolysis isn’t 100% efficient, you lose energy making your fuel. You’d be better off getting it directly from the source. On the other hand, if you’re careful, hydrogen is a decent fuel. All you’ve got to do is store it without blowing yourself to kingdom come.
2) Sorry, Ridelong. When you burn hydrogen and oxygen to get water, that water doesn’t cool anything. The simple fact about water is that it takes a WHOLE LOT of energy to make it change its temperature. The heat required to make a cubic foot of water go up one degree in temperature would do the same to more than three cubic feet of copper. When it’s ALREADY COLD, that makes it great at cooling other stuff…but, when it’s HOT (and freshly-burned water USUALLY is…), well, let’s just say that steam burns are some of the nastiest things that a doctor will ever have to treat.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I don’t know about you, but I had to convince myself it was producing HHO so I put a match to the end of the 1/4″ hose coming off the jar, let me tell you “don’t do it”! It blow the Mason top off including the threaded part. To bad I wasn’t video tapping it. Be curious but careful.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
cmac, whose product did you install or if you built it, what web site did you buy the plans? I have to try this on my 04 tahoe. This philosophy sounds very believable.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I am currently looking at buying one of these “fuel saving” systems, I am no mad scientist but about fourteen years ago I saw a program on english tv, channel 4, it was called “they run on water” and it showed two inventions that could turn the world upside down if what they claimed was in fact true.
The first was the “hydrogen” propelled car/ buggy, the inventor was a ex NASA guy who claimed he had been targeted by assailants unknown after making public his invention, and that he and his family were under CIA protection.
The second invention was a “water frictioniser”, and had been invented by a ex plumber who was at that time working as a fireman somewhere in florida. His invention was some sort of cylinder that spun round and scooped tiny amounts of water up and forced it against a outer cylinder to frictionise it, creating a rise in temperature, eventually being able to create steam out the other end. This invention was shown working and had been installed in the firestation where he worked and provided all the hot water for washing etc and the central heating. This guy claimed it was about 95% efficient if the steam it was capable of producing was used via turbines to generate power for the electric motor that spun the machine around.
I am as I said earlier no scientist, but a couple of weeks after this program was shown on channel 4 TV I was telling a lecturer at my college about it, he said he had watched the program too but had forgotten to video tape it. Here is the wierd thing….we rang the TV station to enquire when or if they would show the program again,….no one had heard of the program??.
Big business will always protect its interests and does not want this kind of thing getting out into the public domain, but think about it for a moment, if these two inventions do actually work they could single handedly save the planet and millions of lives, in India and other parts of the world the local people de-forrest the slopes to get enough wood to heat water causing mudslides etc, in Africa children die at an alarming rate through drinking filthy water laced with all manner of parasites. the water frictioniser could boil the water making it safe to drink and be used to keep them warm / cook food. If the two were put together the water/hydrogen driven engine could power the frictioniser.
Am I crazy for thinking along these lines? did anyone out there see these two inventions or the program or was it all a sweet dream.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
RichG
I built it by looking at the pictures from water4gas web I also visited Ebay there is alot of free info. to be had, just by looking and reading what is for sell. The first one I just used 14gage copper wire that i wound around a small bottle, (it turns the water green) I used a male/female spade connector, placed it through the lid with a rubber gromit, and sealed it with glue. The second one I used stainless skewers. These are just test only, I will be taking a safer approach and build one to water4gas specs. I still haven’t found a free wiring diagram for the enhancer. The o2 sensor extender is called a spark plug non- fouler at a parts house, drill it out with a 1/2″ bit. Check out Smacks boosters.com too.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
you state “water in and water out” does not produce energy. maybe i don’t understan ur meaning of energy. doesn’t a water wheel or steam engine produce energy?
on water injected jet engines we “burn water”. we know that this just a term. the water is injected into the engine along with the fuel and turned into steam producing extra hp. simply expansion of gases.
the water is only used during take-off and used up rapidly. it cannot be used for an entire flight because of the weight and space it would require.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am
See Comment #114.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
[…] … What I have found is that the gas can be burned, and the hho will violently and very loudly …http://www.mmmfiles.com/mmm/index.php/2007-05-28/70/http://www.connectcorp.net/%7Etrufax/online/11/energy2.htmlImproving Fuel Efficiency Edward La Force […]
May 30th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Simple question does this system work i am at present paying ovver £6 per gallon in scotland the savings would be huge so if you guys that have this sys fitted is it the real deal
May 30th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Referring to cmac #115…DO NOT TRY TO IGNITE. Had two similar experiences. Was deaf in one ear for half an hour. I’ve used it as a torch as well. It does work well when used in the car in conjunction with gasoline. I went from 22mpg to 27mpg simply by using the HHO gas.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Interesting. I think many people have forgotten the original purpose of this system was for use in welding. No need to test for flammability. Please, I like the exchange going on here, and don’t want to lose anyone.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I have read all of the posts on this thread from start to finish…Looks like the Sheiks are loosing this one. I have one on my truck. They are more of a hassle to build, connect and maintain than advertised but they certainly work.
Lead, Follow or get the heck out of the way or Big Oil will be here to stay.
PS. I still have my eyebrows
May 30th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Yeah, Yankee ingenuity.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
[…] during the ….. browns gas??? I would stop them and ask where i can convert my car also …http://www.mmmfiles.com/mmm/index.php/2007-05-28/70/Hydroxy Browns Gas CarTACE.comPosts Tagged hydroxy browns gas’ Run Your car On Water. Wednesday, […]
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 am
Thanks guys will give it a go
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 am
It seems this could work, but the main hiccup is the vehicle management system. You need a bit of electronics to control the generator. There is a website www.gethydrogenpower.com which seems very interesting. They power big rigs and have a computer to control the system. Also they claim that by running the generator in a vacuum state, they get dramatic increase in production. They seem to have an inline compressor which pumps the hydrogen to the engine?? My question would be, what happens to the excess HHO when the rig is idling?
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I would like to try out a unit that has been tested by the other commentary’s What units are recommended to try out? and at what cost.
Thanks for any help.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:15 pm
gerard, I have recently purchased a unit off of ebay and I also went from 22mpg to 27mpg in the city. I feel I could get more out of my unit if I could just come up with a reasonable way to trick my O2 sensor. The O2 sensor see’s that my exhaust is too clean, there for it tells the engine to pump in more gas. I will have to a little more research. I have added the link to the generator I bought off of Ebay. The seller is trustworthy and the unit has worked out great so far. http://cgi.ebay.com/Hydrogen-generator-fuel-cell-HHO-Watch-this-video-new_W0QQitemZ260246542428QQihZ016QQcategoryZ3240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I came across this doc. while searching for ways to help out my gas mileage. I have decided to do more searching than to give up my car and start ridding my horse, but I guess that could work to because all he needs is hay and water. Back to the point, you sound like a party of the Left side and I don’t really like that. Don’t be so harsh. Have you tried it? Do you know from personal experience?
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
This is a non-political site. Most commentors are interested in getting better gas mileage and less dependant on big oil companies. People expressing frustration at price-fixing and economic mercenaries does not mean they are Left or Right — just that they are tired of feeling like they are being taken advantage of, and held hostage.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:09 am
[…] hho gas did not weld. … 105 Responses to &8220Beware of Browns Gas/HHO and Dennis Klein hoaxes …http://www.mmmfiles.com/mmm/index.php/2007-05-28/70/black jack tree frams tnhdpe weight chart Dave wilson in lexington, ky. jay arn crick wilson 1407 […]
June 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
[…] injection … As I understand it, Brown??s gas really isn??t efficient as a primary fuel, but …http://www.mmmfiles.com/mmm/index.php/2007-05-28/70/ Fuel Economy: Shrink Fuel Cost Now - The Equation - Better Fuel …It is often called HHO, […]
June 7th, 2008 at 5:27 am
[…] during the 1990&8217s by another Dennis … 48 Responses to &8220Beware of browns Gas/HHO …http://www.mmmfiles.com/mmm/index.php/2007-05-28/70/Evolve or die: Can we shed our moral primitivism before it??s too late? - Atlantic Free PressFor the […]
June 7th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Boy, sounds intersting/ I am wanting to hear more from the people who have the HHo generators etc installed.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Don’t forget, there are another string of comments at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm with feedback on hands on experiences with HHO.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Count me among those who is absolutely intent upon implementing a version of one of these units just as soon as I can get a handle on which one I should. Living in California, I have always paid WAY too damn much for gas, but this latest run up in prices has to be the last straw. I understand the skepticism from some corners but I have a sneaky suspicion that some of these naysayers are nothing more than Big Oil plants sent forth to suppress this technology at every turn. Not all mind you.. but some of them. The most important thing for those who really are serious about making this happen is that we band together, help one another as much as we can and share information freely. There will plenty of opportunity for folks to get rich once this goes mainstream if that’s your thing.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:59 am
For every one who believes or doesn’t, first I have a unit in every one of my vehicles and the best results is 85% increase in mpg. Second for all the skeptics and experts that say no way go to www.ronnmotors.com they are in Texas USA now I am only saying to look at there water onboard and using power from car to boost mpg. I am doing the same thing with my vehicles only I’m a Maine Redneck so I’m sure it isn’t as pretty but the money I save for the very few dollars invested sure is pretty. I am willing to share for free my little knowledge ecirme@yahoo.com or you may want to buy one of those $150,000.00 cars that our genius major auto makers say they can’t do along with the wizards of the world who say no way. Well you can make Hydrogen on demand and it will burn and works fantastic. If you drive any distance either make one or buy one, there are business now that will install on your vehicle with a money back guarrentee.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Thanks so much for sharing. I think many people who come to this site are looking for proof from people who have tried the system, and you are one of them.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:46 am
I am a old water injection user plus a diesel mechanic
and have run all types of fuel saving systems on diesel engines at the mines i worked at. plus using water injection on my cars and trucks.
water injection
water -alcohol injection
propane -water injection
propane-water -alcohol injection
I have built my own HHO unit for my car and have been testing it. (sorry i can not give you the true MPG at this time as i have been running without a speedo and using my tach.
bad thing about old cars when they quit making parts.)
one of the builds i did was added a bubblier between my HHO unit and the engine (extra safety device). in testing it during the winter i add ethanol alcohol to keep it from freezing.
just adding the alcohol (10-90% mix)raised my MPG.
what alcohol does is reduce the surface tension of water along with being burnable it causes the water to vaporize better giving you smaller water mist going into the engine.
What i am working on now is a spray type water-alcohol injector unit to run in parallel with the HHO unit. and see how that works. and what is the optimum water alcohol mix with the HHO unit.
One thing i found with the HHO unit i built was that my old car had to small of alternator with the unit turned on at night and the radio, heater fan, and lights it would run the battery dead after about 3 hours of driving.
So if any one is going to install a HHO unit check the electrical system is still charging with the HHO unit running and a max electrical load.
it gets dark out there at 2 in the morning on a back roads of nevada.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Cool. Thanks for the heads up!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:53 am
we are getting 95 mpg in a 94 camery 2.2 4 clynder engine. Having issues staying ahead of the the computer and o2 sensor in the car fighting it an lowering milage to about 45 mpg.
insta;ed a homade system on my 25 hp lawn tractor and 6.6 hp hand mower, getting great results!!! Motorcyle and jeep are next.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Yeah, baby! I wonder when MSM will start picking up on this phenomenon — oh yeah. they still think inflating tires is your best bet. Sorry. I forgot who signs their checks.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:34 am
I have just ordered a HHO system to fit to my Kawasaki GTR 1000 which currently returns 44mp(uk)g at over 80mph (which of course I never do!), and 49mpg at a more sedate 70mph (motorway).
Once the HHO device is fitted and working I will record and publish the results with you.
As a courier covering 1000 miles plus a week, I am reaching for this straw. Hope I don’t find I have grasped a nettle!
June 11th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Regarding operating HHO below freezing, this is from the actual plans purchsed on www.runyourcarwithwater.com.
“Cold Weather Operation
If outside temperatures are below freezing, isopropyl alcohol should be mixed with the water to prevent freezing. Since alcohol changes the dielectric properties of water, the water‐hybrid system operating frequency must be changed by adjusting the “Frequency Adjust” trim pot for peak performance (refer to Figure 5). Work is well underway to develop nichrome wire electric heating devices for cold weather operation. You will be notified when the devices, or plans for their construction, become available”
June 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I am installing…there are tech problems but the system does work. As far as negative energy results, yes, it does take more energy than it gives BG. However, the energy devoted out of your gtenerator produces enough gas to energize your fossil fuel to give positive results. Go to Eagle Researchm.com. They proved the value of Browns gas decades ago and still do research and sell product. It does work. If you want to go to the trouble of buying one of his books on the results of his research, get the one on HY Zor Technology, that is his automotive work. 100,000 people can,t be wrong. One just has to ignore sceptics, few of them ever tried the technology, it is against their grain.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
For those of you that built your own HHO unit:
1. How many hours did it take to build the unit?
2. How difficult was it to integrate into your car? (please specify if fuel injected or carb)
3. Where did you mount it? (please specify model of car/SUV/truck)
Thanks in advance!
June 11th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I guess now would be a good time to make sure you all know mmmfiles.com does not endorse all products that are linked here. I have not edited out or deleted any in hopes that whoever purchases/uses them will report any problems or shortcomings. Thus the legitmate ones will rise and boondoggles sink of their own accord.
The proof will be in the performance.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:08 am
[…] when referring to Dennis klein as an inventor, implied the Water Power he was touting was his …http://www.mmmfiles.com/mmm/index.php/2007-05-28/70/Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam? - Page 5 - JREF ForumPage 5-Denny klein - Fuel from […]
June 12th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I was mining the instructions last night and came across a “warning” everyone should be aware of. It’s like a hidden cost of installing an HHO system to supplement your gas usage. In short, they recommend changing your vavles and exhaust system to use stainless steel components to prevent rust.
“The only combustion product that your Water‐hybrid powered engine contributes to the overall exhaust composition is water vapor. And we all know what water, especially hot water, does to steel. Unless your engine has already been equipped with stainless steel valves, you should look into having them installed as soon as possible to prevent valve corrosion problems (which could eventually lead to other more serious problems). Stainless steel valves are relatively inexpensive, and almost any high performance shop can install them. Your exhaust system is also vulnerable to rust. But you have more options there. If the system is old, you may choose to let it eventually rust out and replace it with a stainless steel system. Or, if the system is new, any one of the new and readily available ceramic coating processes will prevent rusting. The most practical answer to the rust problem involves developing a water compatible additive that inhibits corrosion. Apparently such an additive is very close to being marketed; a liquid with a ratio of 3 parts additive to 100 parts water.”
June 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
So has anyone who invested in this kit had success? Im more interested to see if the Browns gas as a supplement works as the idea of running my full size truck on it alone sounds inpractical at the present time.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
You might find something at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm
June 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Thank you.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am
http://www.hyfusion.com/
Anybody tried this yet? They seem to nay say all the ones doing the electrolysis method.
Thanks
June 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am
As I started reading these posts, I found myself becoming more and more angry. (Not good for a Native American Holy Man.) (lol) Self proclaimed experts!!
Then, cooler heads began prevailing and I started cooling off.
I have built and installed the Water4Gas units in friends vehicles for the past 2 months. So far we have realized an improvement in mpg in all three vehicles. 1 1995 Saturn has gone from 29mpg to 52.5mpg and has held consistant for 6 weeks of driving over 500 miles per week. NO PROBLEMS!!
Also, a 1989 Chevy PU W/350cid engine, auto transmission, and camper shell. has improved in mpg, over 200%.
Now let these so called “experts” try to convince my friend and me that this “HHO CRAP” doesn’t work.
I’m in California, (Bakersfield), and anybody who would like to find out more about this is welcome to email me or come by for an in depth explaination of how IT DOES WORK.
Yes, I do sell the units, but I would like to see this technology become an every day occurance. If you don’t want to pay for a ready to install unit, I’ll be more than happy to show you how to build your own and explain to you how to install them yourselfs. How can you beat free knowledge? You can’t!!
June 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Thank you for offering your expertise. It would be great if anyone who takes you up on this, let’s us know how it worked for them.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I’ll bookmark this to try and follow it.
I stopped reading at like comment 35 because I am tired at the moment.
Here’s my main thoughts though…
1. Clearly, this “water car” is a hoax… first of all, he admits in his video that he uses a catalyst. what catalyst? how is it regenerated during the process? is he spending thousands on regenerating catalyst every time he “fills his water”?
2} second of all, if he is using gas, this isnt the “fix all” that people are making it out to be, nor is it something amazing. Coming out of it is CO2 and H2O (and heat). your car “now” also has another “fuel” that no1 ever remembers… air… you have an air intake to your engine. breaking down water, and providing the reaction with a greater % of the needed gases (compared to the massive amount of unneeded nitrogen in air”) will increase the fuel efficiency. big woop, everyone has been knowing that. the reason it isnt done, is that… it already is, haha. its just an expensive and dangerous (higher O2% greatly increase risk of massive explosion).
3. his “cold fire” torch has nothing to do with his so-called “miracle car fuel”. that torch dosnt use gas, and electricity (more than the energy put out) is required for it to run. such torches are readily available to people who want them. its simply converting (through long process) electricity and water into fire. it is “cold” because of a barrier of hydrogen created around the actual flame that dosnt let the actual flame touch. he’s just showing examples of it in such a strict way, that viewers actually believe that it will somehow burn all materials except for human skin (yeah right).
4. only real interesting thing (which the “water car” guy didnt do) is mentioned in comment #26, which shows that it may very well be possible to run on water and electricity and have more energy output (free energy), but not in any sense that the famous video is doing. molecules do, indeed, have frequencies in which they shatter, and, theoretically, you could shatter water particles into Hydrogen and Oxygen by emitting small amounts of electricity at water’s frequency. this electric wave could be as low power usage as possible for massive amounts of water. since the water is being broken apart by resonance, and not by cnstant “pressure” of energy, you would have a much smaller amount of energy to break water apart, than you would get by burning the resulting oxygen and hydrogen to form water.
basically, the key here is, other than the person mentioned in comment 26, molecular resonance,for practical use, hasnt been researched much, but it is highly probable, and may be the future of mankind.
So… in summary…
I do believe that it is possible and very probable that we may have real “water cars” one day, but the guy we have all seen videos of? he’s amazingly full of BS
June 14th, 2008 at 12:23 am
This thread has moved, for the most part, away from water-as-fuel to Brown’s Gas as an additive (see www.mmmfiles.com/mmm for more testimonials). I agree the video is mostly smoke and mirrors, but from the comments by sincere people willing to try something new, I have to say there may very well be something going on here worthy of our attention.
While I do not endorse most links that lead to a kits-for-sale site, there is too much evidence this might work for me to completely dismiss it.
What I am most impressed with is the tenacity of the leading edge “jumpers” here, and their patience and willingness to adapt — Yankee ingenuity in the 21st century. Instead of rejecting wholesale the viability of this theory, they are making their trial and error adventure be the proof this works (or not), which I think demonstrates the full potential of the internet being a place for full and open discussion.
Anyone willing to try it deserves credit, and anyone willing to share successes and shortcomings deserves our respect and appreciation.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Oh, I’m sure it does work. There was also a piece on the news about the “kits”, saying that, yes, they “could” work, since we have known for decades that water or gas injections increase efficiency, but that “kits” claiming to do it for pennies (relatively) are mainly just ripoffs and could greatly damage your engine, and that the “correct” and useable and safe way to use water to increase efficiency would cost hundreds to thousands of dollars to put onto a car.
The guy in the news piece that is famous, is full of it, though. He not only makes it appear that he has found perpetual energy (which he hasnt), but also tries to pass off simple hydrogen and oxygen as some “amazing new molecule” he has discovered. Does what he says increase efficiency? Yup. However, he in no way “invented” nor “discovered” it, and it is in no way some “magical” cure, and is in fact very dangerous. I work in the Chemical industry, and i can tell you, Oxygen is DANGEROUS. Normal atmospheric air is 20.8% oxygen, but his “HHO” is 33.33% oxygen. Having oxygen in high heat settings suchs as this, in “oxygen enriched” environments, poses a serious fire and explosion hazards.
WARNING -
If you buy a “kit”, PLEASE realise that buying a “cheapo” one without legitimate safety features, could put you at a serious risk to your safety and health.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I cannot believe all the negative and skeptic comments posted here on this subject.
Can we advance with a little positiveness and get the the crux of the matter. We all know about scamming; they are fairly easy to spot, but the Real McCoys are lost in this dust-up!
I would like someone who has a BG device on the vehicle to post some relevant facts?
June 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Sagas, when you are talking about the guy in the video, you are preaching to the choir - no one on this blog has expressed any support for him.
HOWEVER, several others have on their own initiative begun exploring this theory, with a special kind of skeptical optimism. I admire them for being willing to go where I am not (even though I am thinking about getting a $200 transportation car to try it out on). They are the ones that make this blog a great resource for anyone wit the same willingness to give a try.
There are more detailed comments, testimonials and caveats at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm .
June 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
This sounds like the the OIl companies have a lot of investors or brainwashed dupes.
It reminds me of Nikola Tesla who in 1931 discovered Radiant Energy, pulling electricity right out of the Earth’s Electro-Magnetic Field, Wireless Transmission of Direct Current.
Although J.P. Morgan , his sponsor , did use his talent to build the Niagra Falls project and everything else wireles has been accepted, from MRI’s to Radio , Telephones , remote controlls, Microwave systems,, J. P. Morgan’s objection was ,” where will we put the meter to charge people for this wireless electricity?” Due to his GREED, he bankrupted Tesla, Blackballed him and is solely responsible for all the smog we have in the world today. He was heavily investred in Oil too. Little has changed hasn’t it. When Tesla died in 1943, the Military ransacked his apartment and use as much of his 800 or so inventions and keep the rest away from the ignorant public. People who practice greed and pride will do many evil things to protect their wicked ways and they will destroy even themselves in their conquest. That’s capitalism!
June 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Not that I’m arguing your basic point but do you have a source on the military robbing Tesla story? A link would be great, a text even better.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Could anyone tell me where I could get one of these HHO kits in Alberta Canada? I am willing to add methanol in the winter (or similar anti-freeze (not the green stuff (duh));-) to ensure no freezing. I also run 2 highway tractors with 2005 C-15 Cat engines…totally open to some PROVEN technology improving large engine fuel economy…my trucks pull heavy (140,000 lbs) loads and return about 5.74 US MPG on average.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Hi. I am a mechanic with about 10years of experience but more importantly I am a dreamer. I would love to see our country slowly get of this dependency of gasoline. After doing a lot of reading and with my understanding of thermodynamics I do agree that normaly you cannot get ore energy out than you put in, there are alternative methods that can be used to step up the voltage applied to the electrolysis process. I am going to try and build a simple version of this and then start experimenting with it. Now for all of you skeptics out there I am not trying to run a vehicle on straight hho but to me a 50% increase in fuel mileage means I can cut my monthly gas bill from $400.00 to $200.00. Over a years time that is $2400.00 in savings and in 10 years 24,000.00 not to mention if I can get it working and easily reproduce it the amount of money could make installing this on cars. That is mkotivation enough for me. I’ll let you know how it goes.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am
By the way, for you people up north. If you have a block heater for your vehicle I would be willing to be that a similar device could be installed in this device to keep the water from freezing overnight.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Another thought. As far as using hho for a replacement for gas most of these comments have discussed the dangers of storing the gas for start up. If the process could be sped up, all you would have to do is connect it to the run/start circuit so as soon as you start cranking the engine it would begin producing the HHO gas. You do not need to separate the gas since it will be mixed with large amounts of oxygen in the intake manifold anyway. My concern is power generaition which we might solve using magnetic induction and possibly installing a second alternator and battery dedicated to this device. Cross your fingers.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:01 am
I have an Idea, why don’t you go on eBay and buy one of the HHO/Browns gas units yourself to disprove or prove all your skepticism, instead of doing all this searching on the internet for “proof”
the only answer it’s going to get you is more skepticism. I mean the forum here has enough people leaning one way and more leaning another. It’s almost like politics.
My favorite term from a friend of mine he uses all the time is, “Why Speculate!”
In other words why sit and banter back and forth about something instead of actually doing something it to quell your speculations.
Just a basic search on eBay brings up several units ranging in price 65.00-600.00
Be sure to buy from someone reputable that has experience with these. I’m sure you could get one middle of the road pricing and try it out. From everything I’ve read, most of them come with instructions.
Best part about these systems is, you can disconnected it, and remove it all together you choose not to use them!
If you bought one, hooked it up and tested it out, that would settle once and for all your skepticism whether it works or not.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Considering enough risk has been addressed on and off this site about damage to an engine, I see nothing wrong with a person being cautiously skeptical before taking the plunge.
There may be plenty of comments on both sides of the fence, but for those who are new to this idea, there is too much information to make an educated decision right away. I don’t recommend rushing anyone to start playing with their own vehicle until they are comfortable with taking the risk.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Here I am reading all of these comments wondering to myself of how much of this is true. Sure, I can believe or not believe going by all the comments presented before me; or I can go out into the world and educate myself. For the longest time I just wanted to learn about history, because without knowledge of the past how can we shape our futures? Then it occured to me that one day I will be dead and gone, and will one day be history. Then a thought occured…why not try and make history, by learning about science and technology and finding a way to make all of this talk I have been reading a reality.
I know some this may have come off as hokey, but nonetheless it is where my thoughts have gone. If this is still here by the time I have finnished my schooling and have produced something. I will write again.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Great! Best of luck with your education. We look forward to hearing from you.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I have been playing with Browns for about two months now. It is a lot of fun and frusteration. The gas interaction does work…but the computers on these modern cars and the redundant sensors are enough to make you pull your hair out. I am convinced somebody out there, who has a say in the programing of these cars wants to be sure they run on specific fosil fuels only. Perhaps it is a concern of an eroding tax base, or perhaps more sinester.\
If you have an understanding of electicity, programing and the process of an internal combustion engine you will have a ball with HHO. If you don’t, don’t play until you pay. Read as much as you can invest some time up front or you are destined to be a frusterated failure like some who have posted to the negitive earlier.
Walt
June 21st, 2008 at 7:19 am
That was a local FoxNews channel that the story appeared on, not the national channel, and perhaps that’s why it was even more suspicious…
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I would like to post a couple of links to information that I have found helpful in researching this subject. The first is a link for a company in Canada That makes these converters for big rigs to increase mpgs. http://www.hydrogenht.com/
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/ This site gives a very good explanation as well as designs to build a unit.
Good luck Chris with your big rigs.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I built a dual mason jar generator. With less than 15 amps going in, my crazy buddy lit a cigarette lighter at the end of a 4′ output hose and blew the lid off of one of the jars. So, we did make something that burns. I need more info on how to build an efficient generator.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Have you checked the follow up thread at mmmfiles.com/mmm? Several ‘Pioneers’ have posted their experiences with tips and caveats.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:29 am
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/
See chapter 10 and learn all you can about what Bob Boyce has been doing. Also check out the Stan Meyer patents. He was definitely on to something big. Lots to learn yet on my part.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I’m pissed that someone like Richard Branson isn’t at least doing some research on this. Instead of spending money on useless toys like high altitude baloons, water cars, and space planes he could be helping out to offset his own pretty massive carbon footprint.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Good point. Imagine how much money he could save and benefit (himself and us consumers) if he did the research and applied it to his aircraft.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Water-fuelled car
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A water-fuelled car is a motor car that uses water as its fuel or produces fuel from water onboard, with no other energy input. Water-fuelled cars have been mentioned in history books, newspaper and popular science magazines, and urban legends since the 1800s; these claims have been found in court to be fraudulent hoaxes
June 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Okay, So what about the water car unveiled in Japan — new center for innovation:
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561
June 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I find the confusion about boosters quite strange. This is simple bog-standard Engineering, no magic, no breaking of “laws”. A booster takes ordinary water and by passing an electric current through it, converts some of the water to a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. This “hydroxy” gas mix is then used as an igniter for a vehicle’s normal fuel, to improve the quality of the burn.
The result is an improvement in the pathetic efficiency of the internal combustion engine, cleans up the exhaust entirely, lowers the temperature inside the engine, gives more pulling power and smoother running.
The extra power does not come from the hydroxy gas. The improvement is caused by you extracting more of your normal fuel’s energy through improved combustion.
Very little gas is needed to do this effectively. The slight snag is that the cleaner exhaust causes the ECU to think that the fuel/air mix is too lean, and so it pumps unnessary extra fuel into the engine.
If you choose to correct the oxygen sensor signal going to the ECU by using a very simple circuit, then an improvement in mpg can be had. The lowest gain I have heard of was 8%, the typical gain is in the 25% to 35% bracket. A 50% gain is not unusual and some people have reached 60% to 100% gains. A reasonable expectation would be 33%, BUT only if the oxygen sensor signal is corrected for the more efficient fuel mix.
However, DO NOT adjust the sensor signal without having the improved fuel mix as that may cause engine overheating and valve damage.
If you want specific design details, performance figures and construction plans for low-cost home-build units, then download the free document “Chapter10.pdf” on the www.free-energy-info.com web site.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
OK, here is my experience so far…
I contacted and spoke with Joseph of www.tnhybrid.com. He is a distributer and installer of the Aquatune Plus (+) system. I went ahead and plunked down my cash, $550.00 + $25.00 (for installation) for one of their units. I drove my car 3 hours (200+) miles to have it installed. If you look, their unit is much much smaller because they use smaller but more condensed\packed coils\sheets of metal.
My vehicle is a 2007 Nissan Altima 2.5L. It is beyond the factory warranty, because, as I have mentioned before, I drive 120 miles round trip, everyday, between Lexington Ky and Louisville Ky, for my job. I bought my car, November 6th, 2006, and now have 48,000 miles on it.
Initially (they guarantee a 25% increase in fuel economy) when I arrived in Nashville (Hermitage) Tennessee, Joseph took my car for a 25 mile test circuit spin which included some miles on the highway as well as around “busy” town of Nashville\Hermitage. He used a device that attached to the port inside of my car, that measured the actual gas mileage usage of my car. When he ended his circuit, it showed my car was getting 28mpg combined. At one point, the EPA suggest my car’s was 30mpg combined, (I can only assume, at 65mph on the high way) and an estimate of 27mpg in real world applications (you know, jack rabbit start and stop on a dime and 75mph on the highway).
Anywho, after he installed the aquatune +, he measured the Gas Mileage usage at 36 mpg combined and still climbing after his initial circuit run. Now mind you, I filled the car up in Bowling Green Ky which was about 140 miles away form his location. He then put 50 more miles on the car, and then I drove the car back home, the 213 miles to my house. So after driving 400 miles of city and high way driving, the car read 100 miles left, which is better than my normal reading…. but still not that great. I drove the car to church the next day, and I think I must have moved the switch that allows for the usage of more water, when I got to church and was showing some friends, because after leaving my car on the church parking lot, all day, and then driving home… my car started acting extremely weird. The “Service Engine SOON” light came on, and then the car’s engine started to literally CHOKE. I also noticed the water was going EXTREMELY fast… I filled up my tank with Super\Premium gas, but that did not fix the problem either. I got really scared, made about a half a dozen calls to Joseph… I took my car to autozone and had them to an eletronic reading of my error codes. One of the cylinders was miss firing (my car is a 4 cylinder)…it was because of the ECU making bad adjustments and then the influx of too much water and Hydroxy. So I reset the car’s computer (unplug battery and cross wires). VOILA and EUREKA, all error codes gone… I moved the switch lever all the way to the right for maximum oxygen use, and no water. Car moved fine, but Fuel Economy was at about 29mpg combined…even 28 sometimes… So I fnaggled with the aquatune’s switch some more, and then filled the gas tank up on Wednesday, June 26th on my way back from work. Drove 57 miles home… gas needle barely moved, but barely. Drove back the next morning, total of 117 miles. Re-Filled the car back up, on the way home that thursday,the next day… 2.7 Gallons of gas, for 117 miles… That means my gas mileage for the 2 highway trips was a combined 43mpg.
My commute consists of
-2 Stop signs in my neighborhood at 1-25mph
-1 stop light on a 55mph (I do 55-65) 10 mile road to I-64
-59 miles on I-64 headed West to Louisville at 73-74mph.
-1.5 miles on the ramp, and through the parking lot of Krogers for Linn Station Rd…to my office at 1-25mph.
It gets harrier leaving Louisville to come home, because there is more traffic and waiting at stop lights.
So here are the only issues I am having with the system.
-There is a weird, but isolated small “Knock” that comes sometimes when I press the gas or when I break. Joseph says that that could be from the Torque adjuster for my car.
-I can hear my engine starting up sort of hard… at the end of its turnover.
-I am almost certain that I will need to make some adjustments to the O2 Sensor. Joseph thinks that the adjustments will be done automatically, after driving for a while. I certainly hope so. If not, I will probably have to do it myself.
I definitely need to do some more testing… I have driven the car back home, and drove it yesterday evening to get my kids some food….
Next Saturday, I am driving the car down to Nashville, or at least Bowling Green, to get some more work done on it, from Joseph. He is going to re-install the injection point. You see, when he first removed the intake manifold he had noticer that there was some additional metal and grating there, where there was normally none there on an 05 3.5L 6 cylineder Nissan that he had previously installed one on. SO he ended up installing a Elbow unit to another part of the intake system which did not require the drilling and sealing of a hole in the intake manifold area.. I think this is the reason for the hard starts of my engine. He is planning on placing the injection point in the proper location, just will drill down a little lower. He will also install a different water bottle. There is very little space in the Nissan’s engine compartment, so he had to go with a smaller bottle that was not as secure (leaked a lot).
SO far, I am pleased, after an initial scary moment. Before I head to work on Monday (maybe Sunday evening) I will fill the tank up again, to see how much my combined mileage is in the city and the highway, for a weekend…
Patrick Kelly, I would appreciate it if you would contact me at phenderson@anime-emporiumREMOVEME.dyndns.org to discuss the modifications to the O2 sensor for the ECU.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Just for those who whould like to see this technology in actual mass production go to either:
www.globaltech.ca
www.hydrogenht.com
June 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
This is a must read. Hope you can open if not let me know. Notice who General Motors sold technology to and also notice why they like selling parts.
club.ino.com/trading/2008/06/what-is -good-for-general- motors–is-good-for-america.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Try this
http://club.ino.com/trading/2008/06/what-is -good-for-general- motors–is-good-for-america. If you have to copy or type there is no WWW
June 29th, 2008 at 1:26 am
I am not a Scientist, but I am mechanically inclined. I am neutral
at this point on HHO Generators.
I have done considerable Internet Reading
on HHO Generators, including this site.
It is my understanding that HHO/Browns
Gas is an energy “supplement” to a vehicles’ primary fuel source. As a “supplement” there appears to be evidence it does increase Miles
Per Gallon.
The biggest obstacle appears to be
“tricking” the Vehicles’ Sensors and
Electronics to use the new fuel mix,
including the HHO/Browns Gas Supplement.
The end result therefore is “Your
Milage may Vary….” I haven’t found any information that a competent user did permanent damage to their “vehicle” while trying it.
Here’s my view on the reasons they are not installed by car companies:
First, Each Automobile Manufacturer wants to sell and finance a new car with proprietary (exclusive) parts. They want consumers to keep buying exclusively
from them. (Would you buy a new $30000 car if your beater got 35% more milage?)
Second, The Global “push” right now, is to reduce Oil Consumption.Therefore, any device that continues to rely on Gasoline
(Oil) should not really be developed…
Third, HHO supplement systems do not
appear to be “idiot proof” yet. They require some unusual adjustments and maintenance from the user. For example, a Fuel mix controller, adding Water/Baking Soda. No Car Company (Government?) would want Guarantee or be Liable under these circumstances.
Obviously with these forces working against them HHO systems haven’t been
aggresively explored in the past. Thankfully some Pioneers and The Internet is making us aware they may have possibilities.
I have a riding LawnMower which uses a
lot of Gas. Since it has an Electric start and a battery, I assume it has
a generator/alternator. Has anyone
sucessfully added a Generator to
one?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
If you want plans that most pay for. If you already have a bittorrent client Goto isohunt.com and search “hydrostar” These are the plans I hope to use to build a HHO generator myself. Best of all it is free!!
June 30th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
-One more update…
I have to keep fiddling with the little valve switch on the unit.
-Filled up the tank yesterday, on the way home from Church. Drove a few miles home, and then 57 miles to work. When I got off of work, I checked the water. No water was being used, was still at 1800 ml. So I adjusted th valve switch on the unit, towards more water (apparently it was using all air which gave me 114 miles in 2.7 gallons of water, and then 88 miles in 3.1 gallons of water.).
-When I got home, the gas needle read a quarter of a tank had been used.
-I went to the gas station, Shell, and tried to fill it up. Gas nozzle clicked full at 1.9 gallons (wow 121 miles for 1.9 gallons, too good to be true). SO I topped it off to about 2.5 gallons. I then jumped into my car and started the engine, and the Gas needle read between the the quarter of a tank mark and the full mark. I got back out, and tried to pump some more gas I kept trying to fill it up, not knowing if I was “topping off” my gas tank, or if the nozzle was just reading to much fumes, and was faulty. So I filled it up an additional 2.75 gallons, which brings my total to 5.25 gallons for 121 miles which is a Horrible 24mpg (even though my DTE read 388 miles and my AMPG digital readout read 30.1 mpg for the entire combined trip).
I checked under the hood, and sure enough, 1/3rd of the water had been used…so there was some electrolysis had been going on, for sure….
I will drive to Louisville and back, tommorrow. I will try to make some adjustments to the valve also…to keep it from using so much water…
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I went to hydrostar not free????? Smacks boosters is free
July 15th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
The only car I know of that is able to run on water alone is a prototype that was revealed in Japan earlier this year, by Honda. What we are addressing here is increasing mpg by using the HHO that can be separated from water, and injected into the fuel system.
From what I have seen results are mixed, and it is a technology that requires attention,patience and minor but important adjustments.
I suggest reading the second thread of this discussion at mmmfiles.com/mmm for testimonials for several diligent and dedicated “pioneers” of this technology for testimonials and caveats.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I am presently testing a HOD (hydrogen on demand) unit in my 1993 honda civic. I am building the Water 4 gas type electrolyzers with the mason jar container. I have installed 6 of these electrolyzers in my car as well as an EFIE but to no avail. I have seen no real increases in mileage or performance. I’m a pretty good craftsman and I am sure that I have built, tested, and installed all components correctly. I really want this to work and in premise, it should work. I believe the solution is how we generate the electrical current. If the electrical current that generates the HHO gas comes from the car’s battery-alternator -engine then don’t we lose engine effeciency = less fuel economy. What if I could generate the electrical current with a separate battery? A separate alternator attached to a fan? A solar panel attached to a separate battery? Could I then see mileage gains? Please flow fourth with your ideas…
July 15th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I have a hydrogen cell in my (BMW 6 Cylinder) for last 6 months.
What is does is it help the 80% of fuel that doesn’t burn , burn, saving fuel.
The cell is 5 plates of 2mm stainless steel 200 x 80mm wired Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg to the battery. The negitive plates give off hydrogen and the positive plates give off oxgyen. This is all housed in a 110mm x 300mm PVC pipe. It pumps out 1 litre of gas per minute. I tend to change the 2.8 litres of tap water once a week.
The hydrogen that it produces is 100 octane.
Fuel saving is approx 30%-35% fuel.
The extra power is excellent.
This is no small unit like you see on Youtube it uses jumper leads for cables and battery termanals on all conectors with heat sinks and runs at 30amps-50amps depending on how much baking powder i put into the cell, normally 1/2 a teaspoon. The cell is conected to a vapour trap and then conected to the air intake in the vechile.
The more baking powder used the more hydrogen it will produce but this also raises the amps.
The car battery never goes flat because the hydrogen cell works as a battery and produces 12 volts. This took me a while to work out. I would disconect it but it was still reading on the mulitmeter 12 volts and did for about 45 seconds.
I have been thinking about spacing the oxgyen censor to fool the computer to make the engine burn leaner, this I may need to look into further.
Yes, IT DOES WORK and it works bloody well, so if you need information or how to make one or photos of this unit then email me hlm@vodafone.co.nz and I’ll forward you the info you need.
Today for exsample I drove 30klms without the onboard computer range moving off 59klms.
This all started for me with two 4″ nails wired to an old mobile phone charger 12 volt. The nails I keep at 2 mm apart with wire, turned the charger on and then my daughter lite the bubbles that formed on the water Bang!! Just amazing.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
However I don’t see that hydrogen will ever replace petrol until we can compress it and run it like LPG in our cars.
Then we could use it in our homes for heating etc.
If buying water from a petrol station the you will find that water is $3.00 dollars a litre and petrol is $2.20 dollars. Food for though.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:31 am
hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed,only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it’s a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:21 am
There is a less controversial way of improving MPG, nothing to do with h20. I have authenticated it at a proving ground but it is not patentable because it is something anyone can do.
It’s more effective with bigger vehicles.
How to make a buck from it?
July 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am
You could try to do something indirectly, which would probably take more of your time. The least time consumptive would be to write a 200-word or so article on it, and sell it to a magazine. That would give you some credibility, which might hold some sway for getting invited to be on a cable talk-show. The latter won’t get you much money if any, but would gain you some notoriety which could give you leverage for some other ventures.
Most magazines have a reader-contribution policy which is sometimes noted in the table of contents.
Good luck!
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
this technology will probley be perfected in the next few years i think
i’ll just wait till then instead of screwing up the mustang
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hydrogen cars are sending water out as a by product but Hydrogen comes from water…. so is the Honda Hydrogen car a sham?
Plus this guy Dennis Klein says in another interview, and in his promotional video that he didn’t invent the technology, but that he has perfected the process of welding with it. His video gives credit to the pioneers.
Hydrogen is a fuel viable fuel source… So why would creating hydrogen and then burning it be a scam?
Next time you write an article putting down a technology, go and test it first!
I have decided to try and make one of those kits… they don’t cost much to make, and if it doesn’t work I will actually know that truth… not just some guys ranting about what he does not know.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Joshua,
You are a little late to this discussion. There is another thread that has been on for several months at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm where several people have built their own kits with mixed results. It looks to me the most succesful were those who had the time, energy and patience to continue to tweak their system until they got the right result.
I disagree that what was posted at this thread was a bunch of rants, rather it was a civil discussion (Yours is the first comment with an accusatory tone I have not edited out). As to testing this system first before criticizing it, I prefer to do research before I sacrifice my $25K hybrid that gets 40-50 mpg already.
Unfortunately, by the time you read my article, several of the links to testimonials by mechanics who had tried Dennis’ welding system and felt like they had been gypped, had been taken down. There was also a link to an engineer’s site who eloquently argued against the viability of Browns Gas/HHO, which subsequent comments challenged, if not disproved.
I hope you will think twice before blowing off steam on your keyboard again.
Good luck.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I put a simple 2 bottle setup on my car.I purchased the plans online for $10.The materials cost me about $60.
I improved my fuel economy by 5 miles per gallon.
I know this isn’t a huge amount but it does save me some on my fuel.I’m waiting for a 02 sensor adjuster.This should improve my results even further.At first my fuel savings weren’t as good as they are now but added more baking soda to my water mixture then the instructions said to.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
You’re doing better than a lot of people the first time out. Congratulations.
You might want to check out the follow-up thread to this at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm for some suggestions and caveats.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Hello all,
My husband and I were looking into doing something to help his 4×4 chevy get better gas. As it stands right now, we’re getting roughly 13.6 mpg city. Talk about a dent in the wallet. So, the hype around here in South Louisiana was indeed “Browns Gas.” But low and behold, just 10 minutes away from us, a company called Gas Miser opened up. We will be installing one of these into his truck. I will try to take a picture of it for you as to how it is installed onto the truck. The guy had a display model set up at his shop. Anyhow, from what I did understand, you’re not burning “less” fuel by any means. What you’re doing is causing more of the actual gasoline to be used instead of going thru the combustion process. He also said that you will see the greatest increase in city vs highway. You will still get an increase for highway, but you will see say our 13.6 jump up to 18mpg vs our highway of 19 (I think that’s what my husband said it is) jump up to 22. Email me back in 3 weeks and I’ll let you know how it worked out. We’re getting it put in this week and will be going on a family trip. Hope to post results for you once we get back!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Very cool, and good luck. You might want to check out the second thread at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm for suggestions of what to look out for/be aware of. I would especially suggest looking at what Ridelong and Larry have to say, to name a few.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Hydrogen burns. Hydrogen is liberated from water through electrolysis.. You get 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen. The benefit is mixing a highly flammable gas, pure oxygen, and a flammable liquid. So you feed the hydrogen oxygen mix into the combustion chamber and exploit the improved combustion.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Hi Tapia,
One last post.
Put 11 plate HHO gen on my friends 95 Honda. He wanted to try it on the intake manifold instead of upstream of the butterfly like mine. Same generator I was using and getting 37.5%.
Wow, the increase in gas was incredible on the intake from the vacuum.
He just filled up, 53% increase. Went from 19.4 mpg to 29.7 mpg.
Bye.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Amazing!!! Thanks for the post.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:49 am
My concern is freezing!! Everyone keeps talking about the great MPG, but what about the cold dead of winter?? After all this is water in a jar. So where is the fix for that? Even the vacume line will freeze in the winter. So is this something to consider? Maybe it is just for cars and trucks in southern Florida??
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 am
An experiment on every car. No wonder it has not taken off as everyone would expect.
Perry, post no.94, you forgot the Banking system. Oil draws cash from every soul from every corner of the world into the financial system where it can create 9 times more credit. Remember in the 70’s all that extra loot indebted most of the 3rd. world. This time around its putting the American people into financial slavery. Try 10 trillion debt, through war and the mortgage crisis which is a big scam. All that oil money has allowed creation of huge amount of credit, so give it people who can’t pay it back so the tax payer will pick up the tab.
GM is $60 billion in the hole and Ford is lining up. Who loans them the money, the Banks, and who is going to pay it off, you!!
Anyay, my kit arrives this week, so wish me luck.
August 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
For those who really want to see where this is going on a world wide market scale and beyond MPG boosters, check out this site you can change language to english. There are other companys but not doing this type of product. I have requested a catalog showing their products and prices.
www.oxy-hydrogen.com
August 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
The energy debate has devolved down to one of “patriotism”. The USA only has 3 % of world reserves, and you got to rush off and dig for it.This is only food for the ignorant, whilst Democrats and Republicans watch Rome burn.
The oil industry has enjoyed subsidies of $1.8T.Congress has just pulled subsidies for alternative energy.I suppose this is to clip T. Boone Pickens wings or any like minded investors.
Legislation in California produced the electric car back in 1996. Repeal of that legislation killed the electric car.
Legislation could send nearly every vehicle back for recall to get better ignition timing.Barrack Obama’s suggested $1K subsidy per family to cover higher fuel costs would be better spent on this sustainable solution.
Take it a step further, all new vehicles sold must be calibrated for maximum efficiency. By 12 months, all new vehicles must use gas vapor injection technology as mandatory. All old vehicles to be retrofitted with the new technology, starting with models that are the most inefficient. Failing this, these vehicles get taxed off the roads.
Off course “the people” could “sue”, like against big tabacco, but the problem is that “the big three” are broke, precisely for being “stupid”, and might I add, “white men”, as Mr. Moore would have put it.
For those of you who might have missed earlier posts, gas mileage can be increased with better timing of the engine. A big three engineer witnessed one of those 8 cylinder gas guzzlers get 200+mpg through injecting gas vapor rather then injecting fuel.
Diesel went up today, now paying USD6.30 a US gallon.
Vi-va-la Alternative fuels.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:35 am
I agree with ian on some things. Yes vapor carbs are much more efficient and can get 200 mpg. HHO is around partly due to the fact that they put anticatalyst in the fuel to render the vapor carb useless with todays fuel. As a master auto technition simple timing adjustments wont make much difference. Take a 2008 honda for example. timing advance at cruise is upwards of 60 deg btc. They do this to lean up the mixture and advanced timing means more cylinder pressure wich yeilds more torque thus better fuel efficiency. So a very aggressive timing recurve will help older cars but not many people know how to do it without detonation. the more advanced obdII can do this and that is why so many folks cant get them to accept hho. The government or oil companys wont let the vapor carb back because of the trillions in lost revenue. The hydrogen electric car is there cover up. Why get hydrogen from natural gas? Because it makes them millions. If the big 3 or government put the money into water fuel they would be cutting there own heads off. Unfortunatly instead of helping us out they have become more and more greedy. This out of despair has made 1000’s of people get the water fuel figured out them selves. The horrible side effect is when it happens economics as we know it will collapse and there will be a energy revolutionary war if you will. I feel if the gov’t doesnt act fast to help us they will try to make a violent and hostile take over of the people who have figured out water fuel. We are not talking just a few stanly meyers but 10’s of thousands of them. I fell I am trapped. I personally am working on water supplementation and I also love this country. The gov’t however in my opinion is way out of control and I Want all these power and money hungry tyrants to give power back to the people. Sorry about the rant. HHO does work get off your computers and go build it.
PEACE
August 6th, 2008 at 2:36 am
TIPS FOR HHO NEWBIES
1 research research research. If you are not a mechanic it is very easy to damage engine. The hho wont damage it its when you start messin with 02s and map sensors. When you lean out fuel mixture without enough hho you can melt pistons.
2 Exhaust temperature guage (EGT)
get one off ebay for 75.00 and install it before you change the vehicle inanyway. Get some recordings before you start. Its ok to go 1-200 degrees more but dont push it. A properly leaned out engine with ample hho WILL LOWER EGT NOT RAISE THEM
August 6th, 2008 at 2:52 am
3 dont listen to naysayers. If the wright brothers listened we would have airliners.LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THERMODYNAMICS WERE WITTEN BY HUMAN BEINGS AND ARE FALLABLE. No one knows everything. Just build experiment and prove them wrong. They may call it a waste of time or call you a fool but at the end of the day they will look foolish. IT IS BETTER FOR ONE TO THINK YOU A FOOLS THAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT. Dont argue with them let you results tell the tale.
4 Not every one will succeed. Not everyone can wrap there mind around these mosifications. If you fail dont be discouraged. Find some one in your area who can prove positive results and ask for help. Better yet make a club and enjoy fellow experimenters. A collective mind is always better.
5 newer thecar the harder it becomes. Advances in vehicle computers is not always good. I strongly believe outomakes and gov,t are making more complex computers too keep us from messing with them. Digital computers have more safe guards thus making you pay big $$ to reprogram. I have proven time and again I can take a 2008 honda with a manual transmission Replace the digital obdII computer with a diy analog computer and get more mpg more hp and much lower emmisions than factory. My latest was a 350hp turbo 2.2 liter without a catalitic converter that got 44 mpg hwy and was 15% cleaner across the board on a 5 gas emmisions test. Tell me it cant be done. HHO is now being added. previous results were without hho.
6 just get off the computer go to the shed and build it. USE EGT GUAGE and be safe.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:14 am
It amazes me that people don’t research things to the end. Garret Moore in 1934 created the first electrolizer, it worked, but he couldnt find any monetary backers so it was lost for 30 some years. As far as working, and energy being created by suspending monoatomic atoms in a stociametric gas and burning it to get energy. It works, in fact I am driving a toyota FJ at this very time, we are starting to manufacture the unit so all can benefit. This technology has been suppressed by governments, the World Bank, and Big Oil for years. We live in a world that bases its economy on oil; gold was replaced. Wake up and see the writing on the wall! We are the pawns. As far as science, we are being fed a liberal agenda, most of this science has been suppressed, our school systems can’t even graduate 50% of our students from high school in 2008, most can’t even read. Explain that sad fact.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
While I agree with some of what you say, I’m not sure what you mean by a liberal agenda suppressing science. My understanding is that it has been the Bush Admnistration that has suppressed and manipulated science e.g. insisting Creation being taught side-by-side with the theory of evolution, and the EPA tinkering with scientific reports that support the theory of Global Climate Change.
Granted, our public schools have a lot of problems, but the graduation rate has less to do with science than literacy skills of reading with comprehension. If a student has trouble reading basic English, how can they be expected to grasp science textbooks, which tend to be written at higher level beginning in the ninth grade?
By the way, what is stociametric gas?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I have just discovered this forum and I don’t feel like going through months of old posts. But has there been any discussion about the catalytic effect that H2 has on the oxidation of CO? All hydrocarbon chains break into CO molecules during the combustion process. The oxidation of CO into CO2 is the slowest of the oxidation reactions, unless H2 is added. The additional H2 in Browns gas will speed the combustion of CO into CO2 and ***MAY*** improve engine performance.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
In post 217, Rob talks about messing with O2s,map sensors and fuel mixes that might result in piston meltdown. This is the first mention of melted pistons I have read so far.
More info on this would help.
With some of the incredible mileage claims made, one would think that this problem might have been encountered by some and mentioned more frequently.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Maybe it would be helpful if there was a clear check list of safe situations and not so safe, to out right no go areas for beginners.
I would hope that this technology is for the world. A vast amount of this world is 3rd. world, were a vehicle is a bigger investment then their home, in Western terms, this maybe a hovel or shack, but a home never the less. A vehicle allows many people to participate in the economy and provide for their families.
This movement should not expect these people who live on the fringes and margins of life to experiment.
It is imperative that the movement does not get damaged by rumor or misinformation, that will slow its progress.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Hey! Can anybody loan Paris Hilton a car with do your own HHO breeder installed.
Take her energy policy to the next step and really shake the tree.lol
August 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
You have not read about melting pistonsbecause these hod manufactures either dont install or they dont completely under standhow to effectivly trick obdII.
1. fact. adding hho gas to an engine will incrase oxygen in exhaust. When an o2 sensor sees more oxygen the ecm raises fuel trim(injector duty cycle) to compensatefor a lean condition. If you put hho on a 96 or newer vehicle without any mods to computer it WILL GET WORSE MPG some makes will get an increaase initially but over time the fuel trims will relearn an mpg will suffer. Eventually code will set that shows system stuck lean.
2 so most manufactures say ” thats easy just ad an efie for the o2 sensor and ad resistance to map-maf”. Basically it ads voltage to o2 sensor out signal telling the ecm that the engine is running rich therfor reducing injector duty cycle.Adding resistance to map - maf tells the engine less air is going in than actual. This also reduces injector duty cycle.
3. why is this dangerous? If you do not have capability to watch live data stream and egt temps how can you effectivly trick the computer. YOU CANT. YOU CAN ONLY GUESS. IF YOU OVER LEAN THE SYSTEM YOU WILL CAUSE ENGINE DAMGE. WHY DO YOU THINK SO MANY MANUFACTURES STATE ” NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ENGINE DAMAGE” BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOMEONE WHO DOES IT. THAT IS ALSO WHY SO MANY DONT INSTALL. THEY UNDER STAND THE THEORY AND HOW TO MAKE HHO THEY JUST DONT TRULY UNDERSTAND OBDII.
4 What can you do? map and efies do work to a certain degree. In fact on older vehicles they work great. OBDII is a different animal. if you only trick the o2 and map you are asking for trouble. OBDII is very advanced and it compares every signal all the time. If it sees 1,2 or 3 sensors out of whack it will do all it can to compensate. every vehicle make is different no matter what you have been told. Yes obdII is standerdized to a degree but manufatures also have vehicle specific programs in the same ecu.
5. The best way is to totally reflash the ecm or take it to a mechanic who understands the technology and how to modify ecms. Unfortunatly 96 and newer cars dont respond as well as say my 1990 suburban. I am stoked to say i just acheived 31mpg in a 6000 lb rig. It has taken me months to dial it in but I also am a master auto tech and specialize in performance engins-efi. My next step is put my stand alone megasquirt ecm in so I can rewrite the fuel data table. NO MORE TRICKING MY FACTORY ECM. I also am tuning peoples existing systems so I can get a data log of what happened in differnt makes and models. I plan on building and selling and installing units. I JUST DONT WANT TO BE LIKE 99 % OF MANUFACTURERES AND LIE TO YOU AND SAY ITS EASY WHEN IN FACT IT IS NOT.
I HOPE THIS ANSWERED MORE QUESTIONS. LIKE I SAID BEFORE JUST BUILD IT
BE SMART AND RECORD EGT TEMPERATURES BEFORE AND MODS TO VEHICLE AND MAKE SURE YOU DONT GO ABOVE RECORDED NUMBERS AND YOU WILL DODGE THE BULLET.
I SAY ALL THIS INFO FROM EXPERIENCE NOT AS AN ARMCHAIR WARRIOR OR MECHANIC. I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE MELT DOWN ENGINES BECAUSE THEY OVER LEANED THE ENGINE.
GOOD LUCK
ROB
higherpoweredperformance@yahoo.com
http://higherpoweredperformance.spaces.live.com/
August 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Sorry for the long post, but I hope it will be informative to those who are really curious about this.
First/first, lets acknowledge that, just like every other pursuit, this hydrogen supplementation of automobiles has a lot of scammers trying to bilk people from their $$. That being said:
First, a close personal friend of mine has a very rudimentary electrolyzer setup in his 1 Ton Ford Diesel. He METICULOUSLY measures his mileage (including marking the exact proximity to pump, taking 10 mins of shaking out foam and trapped air in tank by bouncing on the bumper in-between attempts at topping off, refilling at same pump on same day at same temperature, to the exact same visible level in the neck of the tank, etc.). He has improved his mileage from 19MPG highway to 30MPG highway. He has been validating this for 5000 miles now. He is a professional mechanic for over 20++years. He also noted that when towing full size SUVs on his flatbed, instead of his turbo pushing 4-5 lbs of boost at 60MPH on freeway, it only pushes 1 lb. I am personally convinced of his thoroughness and authenticity.
Next, a basic electrolyzer of the correct configuration can produce about 1 litre a minute of HHO operating on 13.8V DC while drawing about 8 amps. I have proven this first hand. My friend’s unit in his truck is very simple and produces less than 1/2 Liter per minute. This is with “brute force” DC. There are many people using circuitry to run various configurations off of pulsed DC at various frequencies which, while consuming the same amount of power OR LESS produce several times more gas per minute.
Additionally: There is a huge law of thermodynamics difference between using the excess ability of an engine to generate electricity (can we admit that there is some amount of electricity that can be generated in a vehicle without adversely impacting mileage?), versus trying to run a vehicle (or generate power) by generating the gas and having energy left over. That would be called “over unity”. There are people pursuing this. It is elusive, maybe impossible, maybe not. But the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant to the idea of a simple electrolyzer system to supplement fuel for a couple of reasons. First, I don’t think there can be an argument made that drawing an extra 8 amps on your vehicle is going to reduce your fuel mileage to a measurable degree. Second, if the addition of the system increases gas mileage by 50% in my friend’s truck then obviously the electricity used to generate the gas has less of a negative impact on fuel consumption than the gas provides benefit. Whether the gas provides more energy or whether it facilitates more complete combustion of the gas/diesel, the end result is an increase in MPG with the mere addition of an electrolyzer containing distilled water with a catalyst (electrolyte).
Here are some facts that don’t speak to an over-unity issue, but just speak to the idea that maybe when people know some things there are still many other things they are unaware of.
Example: Given a hypothetical single cell electrolyzer with 12V DC running through it generates only a 1/2 Liter of gas in about 3-4 minutes. It is consuming 15 amps at 12V.
So a 1/2 hour test of this says that it requires application of 180 watts to generate about 1/8 liter per minute. Way more energy going in that getting out.
HERE IS WHERE PEOPLE MAKE THEIR MISTAKE. They think that this experiment gives them the info they need to determine the answer to their questions. BUT:
1) Did they know that over time it builds up heat which makes the electrolyte more conductive, which makes it pull more amps which generates more heat — a feedback loop that leads to a boiling point and the system fails. So in that context the experiment is irrelevant because it overheats and fails.
Hmm, maybe they didn’t have all the information.
2) Did you know that any voltage over 1.2 - 1.5 volts all goes to heat and does not generate gas? Its true. So most of the energy going into the experiment was wasted. What to do? Well, if you make 8 cells and wire them in SERIES then the voltage is divided between all the cells and in a 14V system you get 1.75V per cell. This means that if you create an electrolyte so conductive that in a single cell it would draw 64 Amps at 14V, with 8 cells in series it only draws 8 amps at 14V. But guess what? You get 8 times the gas. Each cell is operating at 1/8 the voltage of the initial experiment WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ALL THE VOLTAGE IT NEEDS TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF GAS FROM ONE CELL. And because of the voltage drop you can have a much higher conductive electrolyte, 8 times the number of cells, while pulling the same power and GENERATING 8 TIMES THE GAS.
Hmm, more new information.
3) This is just the “brute force” DC. Now introduce Pulsed DC. At frequencies in the mid KHz range, pulsed DC generates another order of magnitude of increased gas production. Some people with pulsed DC systems have used straight tap water without a catalyst, and are generating more even more gas with the same or less power.
Hmmm, guess I didn’t know how much I didn’t know…..
4) Here is one of two approaches being pursued by those chasing over-unity: Instead of using electrolysis (the electrolyzer is actually a capacitor), they are using very high voltage and very low amperage in a pulsed DC circuit to generate gas by, instead of electrolysis, by essentially bringing the “capacitor” to a point of catastrophic dielectric failure repeatedly many times per second. When a normal capacitor hits catastrophic dielectric failure, the dielectric is destroyed and the capacitor is destroyed. In the case of a water capacitor, the “destroyed” dielectric is instantly replaced by the “unfailed” water around it. So it is a repetetive process. In a thunderstorm, the earth and the air between it and the charged clouds is an air capacitor. Lightning is the catastrophic dielectric failure of that capacitor.
Wow, I guess my rudimentary knowledge of physics didn’t really explain the “impossibility” of it all, after all.
With regard to the law of thermodynamics: Here is my unscientific view that keeps my mind open to even the over-unity pursuit:
- If I expend energy to cut down a tree and prepare its firewood, I get more energy out of the firewood than I put into acquiring it. NATURE PUT ENERGY INTO THE WOOD. I could use a steam engine, powered by wood, to cut down more wood, and have wood left over.
- If I expend energy to extract oil from the earth, I can derive more energy from the oil than what was required to extract it. Theoretically, I could use the oil to power the equiment extracting it, and still have leftover oil. NATURE PUT ENERGY INTO THE OIL.
- Might I be able to discover a way to extract the hydrogen from water in a way that leaves me with leftover hydrogen? Maybe. NATURE PUT ENERGY INTO THE WATER. We have a long, long history of scientific “laws” being broken.
Try to explain nuclear fission to scientists from 1850. What about nuclear fusion? Once the reaction is started (assuming it could be contained), it keeps going with the simple addition of deuterium or whatever. Does that violate the law of thermodynamics?
I hope I’ve made my point. If you look at water as a FUEL, then there may be a way around the thermodynamic laws (which apply to conventional electrolysis). Although there are many reasons to be skeptical of attaining over-unity, I have noticed that the professional debunkers seem to have a knee-jerk religiosity about their disbelief and portray themselves to be experts on a subject while having just enough basic knowledge - scientific and anecdotal - to validate their “conclusions”.
Hope this helps stimulate people’s curiosity!
August 8th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Thanks Christian. Good food for thought.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4siCuq9gclE#
above is a poor soul who didnt use an egt guage and caused some engine damage. the video says it was just the spark plugs that were damaged but it also did some damage to pistons. anyone who has ever used nitrous and melted plugs can attest to this. hopefully he didnt take too much aluminum off the tops of his pistons.
So i can’t stress enough use the egt guage. Also if you are using a cell that gets much over 140 degrees, it creates a lot of steam. Steam is beneficial in small amounts, but if you get to much it will also cause an engine meltdown.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Rob,
Are there any situations where piston melt down or serious overheating can occur with diesels?
August 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Diesels and hho is something I havnt gotten to yet. I do do alot of performance siesel stuff though.
Most diesels have either iron piston crowns or are coated in a heavymetal. Diesel pistons can take alot more heat and abuse.
Even if you dont go hho I always install egt or pyrometer on turbo diesel applications.
I may have not explained this well enough. HHO is not what melts pistons. It is people over leaning the feul map with signal modifiers.
If f you have an older diesel you can add about as much hho as you want. These rigs have mechanical pumps, so unless you turn down the pump your not going to hurt it.
I have a custoner with a 95 ford turbo diesel (not a powerstroke) so I will let you know how it goes.
HHO is similar to propane injection. We are speeding up the flame speed and reducing particulates. This results in more power and increasedmpg.
Build a smack unit and try it. Just use an egt guage.
The smack units are great because they are easy to replicate and cheap to build. They are not the most efficient but work non the less.
I have read powerstrokes and any rig newer than 05 dont get much increase. I personally havnt verified that scenario.
HHO will decrease emmisions for anything. For that reason alone they are worth the effort.
Hope this helps
August 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Efficiency of energy conversion.
Catyltic conversion is only usefull if equipment can be afforded @ a reasonable cost coupled with ease of and low cost upon utilization of of simply sustainability of such conversion systems.
So few parts.
Based upon solar energy.
To what end?
Water to hydrogen, and back again.
Once passed through your sweet little nano enabled micro membraned hydrogen feul cell.
So these dudes in canada, have come up with solar parabolic catalytic arrays.
Basically a crap load of dishes @ the centre of which are small tubes of glass in which water goes up to the point in an inner tube and is hyper heated by the power of the sun and instantly split into hydrogen and oxygen.
Now if you wanted you can tank the hydrogen, transfer it to your fuel cell bus or train and nicely sustan.
As long as we don’t run out of water.
So Mr. Brown who dreams of water energy. It can be a vessel, a vessel for energy to be stored.
Just like every other single atom in the universe.
But seriously, how cheap would it be to hook up parabolic mirror arrays on yer roof even put them on auto rotating platers so they can maximize their conversion effeciency.
They just need some money $$$ so they can micro state their systems.
And automate mass production.
Think what 10 000 kits would cost to produce.
Not much less than 100 000 units.
Scales of production are funny like that I’ve been told….
You could power your home, get off the grid,and drive a hydrogen car for free…. What could it cost for a house? How much could it be done for if it was being done 50 000 000 times? Not 1000 or 10 000 times alone….. Each home I would guess could cost as little as 5K.
$500 worth of chips and silicone. $2500.00 worth of dishes and the last $2K in storage and what nots….
I think we have the technology and ability to store hydrogen in 2008, I hope we do.
For the cannucks I refer to see Shec Labs I think http://shec-labs.ca or just google shec labs….
August 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Efficiency of energy conversion.
Catalytic conversion is only useful if equipment can be afforded @ a reasonable cost coupled with ease of and low cost upon utilisation of simply sustain ability of such conversion systems.
So few parts.
Based upon solar energy.
To what end?
Water to hydrogen, and back again.
Once passed through your sweet little nano enabled micro membrane hydrogen fuel cell.
So these dudes in canada, have come up with solar parabolic catalytic arrays.
Basically a crap load of dishes @ the centre of which are small tubes of glass in which water goes up to the point in an inner tube and is hyper heated by the power of the sun and instantly split into hydrogen and oxygen.
Now if you wanted you can tank the hydrogen, transfer it to your fuel cell bus or train and nicely sustain.
As long as we don’t run out of water.
So Mr. Brown who dreams of water energy. It can be a vessel, a vessel for energy to be stored.
Just like every other single atom in the universe.
But seriously, how cheap would it be to hook up parabolic mirror arrays on yer roof even put them on auto rotating platers so they can maximise their conversion efficiency.
They just need some money $$$ so they can micro state their systems.
And automate mass production.
Think what 10 000 kits would cost to produce.
Not much less than 100 000 units.
Scales of production are funny like that I’ve been told….
You could power your home, get off the grid,and drive a hydrogen car for free…. What could it cost for a house? How much could it be done for if it was being done 50 000 000 times? Not 1000 or 10 000 times alone….. Each home I would guess could cost as little as 5K.
$500 worth of chips and silicone. $2500.00 worth of dishes and the last $2K in storage and what nots….
I think we have the technology and ability to store hydrogen in 2008, I hope we do.
For the cannucks I refer to see Shec Labs I think http://shec-labs.ca or just google shec labs….
August 16th, 2008 at 6:48 am
i am using a hho generator i built myself from watching youtube videos. my only problem is that my o2 sensor is sensing more oxygen in my exhaust, making the computer give more gas to the injectors(if generator is on when engine is at idle) when accelerating, i turn it on and do get relatively good mileage. just need to find out a cheap way to do away with my o2 sensor.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
For a mechanics review see:
www.auto-facts.org/water4gas-scam.html. I imagine from the “invention” of fire-electricity-the steamboat-the lightbul-the automobile-the airplane-etc., etc. etc., the number of skeptics and experts who all claimed it was a hoax, a scam and/or a fool’s dream would boogle the mind, even more than the inventions themselves. A simpler way to understand the result of naysayers is to consider where we would be today, if offshore drilling had begun back in the 1990’s. I am not saying that that is a solution, but only a stopgap. If everyone fails to give the alternatives an indepth look, we will never obtain the goal of an enviromentally safe and renewable source of energy.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I tried my link and it didn’t work, so I googled the address, as posted above, and it opened , right to the page.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
How about a new perspective?
fact 1. browns gas exists.
2. browns gas burns
3. browns gas as a fuel or fuel additive, subject to the test conditions, has an mpg or ‘added mpg’ type value volumetrically.
4. this implies a relative value to gasoline or diesel.
5.the process of producing browns gas takes electricity.
6. subject to each researcher’s gas production test conditions, browns gas has a ‘cost to produce’, volumetrically.
7.if the cost of moving one kilogram one kilometer using configuration A costs one dollar using gasoline, what is the cost of moving that same load the same distance under the same conditions using
browns gas 1) by itself or 2) as an additive?
the debate seems to be about the practicality and cost of the conversion.
please advise.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Tapia,
Just started checking into the possibilities of HHO as a supplement to gasoline. Found your neat message site.
Your initial entry comments were skeptical. As have been those of many others.
How do you feel about the possibilities now?
I learned about hydrogen generators from a friend who does machine design. He’s added a small generator to his pickup engine with beneficial results. Sez he has a cousin who’s added one to a motorcycle also with benefical results.
My first efforts will be to build the Tero Cell and see what I can see.
BTW, comments about the energy deficit to produce the HHO gas for a car may not be appropriate. If, because the alternator needs to generate a few more amps you use a little more gas, but your gas usage goes down, then it seems there is no energy deficit. In this instance anyway…8^)
Chuck
W5USJ
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I’m not as skeptical as I was originally, but cannot give a wholehearted endorsement of this technology as I have seen too many variations of success. However, I commend anyone with the skill, knowledge time and patience to make this work. There is a follow-up thread of these experiences at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm you might find helpful.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Does anyone know that one hundred years ago, scientist/inventor/philosopher John Ernst Worrell Keely built a device that used acoustics to resonate water and made Brown’s Gas many years before it was called Brown’s gas. When water is resonated at its specific frequency, the water molecule will split with no effort, forming hydrogen and oxygen gas. This will end the ned for oil. What is the resonant frequency, approximately 42.8 khz. Start Googling and check out what I have said here. Does any one know a man by the name of Tesla, he was resonating electricity that is another story he lived 100 years ago also.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Here is an interesting website about this man.
http://keelynet.com/keelyhistory.htm
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
I have no affiliation to this site. It is dedicated to the free exchange of information and ideas about the search for over-unity devices.
It is really an interesting site for those with an Inventors Spirit in them.
http://keelynet.com/
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
If we can get close to the resonant frequency, then very little current is needed to break the molecular bond. They are always saying that it is the current and not the voltage, that is what is needed to break the molecular bond.
Or better yet make a circuit that will self regulate to find the frequency that will require the least amount of current to break the molecular bond. As the whole cell acts as a capacitor any way. The gas bubbles created will keep changing the dialetric between the plates of the cell. Does anyone here know what I am takling about? Near free Brown’s gas.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Thank you for all your suggestions and input. Long live creators and inventors willing to pursue their dreams and ideas!
August 24th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
If anyone is building a HHO generator Please use a Flashback flame arrestor.
If yor car does back fire, it will blow-up your HHO generator if you do not have one of these arrestors in the line.
a bubbler will not stop the flame from going back to the HHO generator.
You can make your own, I bought 2 check valves on ebay and fine bronze wool at the hardware store. You will need 3″ or 4″ of 1/2″ pvc tubing. The bronze wool goes inside the tube and a check valve on either end. both valves must be allowing air to go one direction. A little water must be in the bronze wool to also quench any flame that may cause a back flash. The check valves will not stay in the pvc tube ends unless you cut a small piece of vacuume line to act as a bushing. you can also buy one of these on ebay. it was called a triple safe flame arrestor. Be carefull out there.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:51 am
One addition to the above instructions. I used 3″ or 4″ of clear PVC hose not solid tubing.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
All
I am a total neophyte, non-mechanic, non-chemist or physicits. I am however eager to increase the eficiency of a 2005 Ford Expedition. From what I can discern, the smart ones among us are looking for the non-petrol solution. The uninformed would welcome a near doubling of our fuel economy. Is anyone prepared to share that he has installed a system, increased his fuel use efficiency and is prepared to recommend a solution that solves this issue for me?
Thanks!
September 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
This is a fabulous forum, it has taken me a few days to peruse all the comments, but it has been extremely worth while!
I’m not an expert in this field, so please don’t bash…
I intend to install a fuel supplementing system to a 3.2 V8 XJ Jaguar, probably using the so called HHO/Browns Gas/Electrolyser method.
(Note: The laws defining the subject of electrochemistry are credited to Michael Faraday and date back to 1832, so I agree that this is not new. As it’s said, “There is nothing new under the Sun”).
My understanding of Electrolysis is that it is the electro-chemical process whereby hydrogen and oxygen are disassociated from water. I also understand that there is no such gas as HHO!?? Or is there?
I’m quoting a chemist here… “The chemical formulation for the electrolysis process of water is H2O -> 2H2 + O2. The gases produced by the disassociation of H2O (water) are 2H2 (two diatomic hydrogen molecules) and O2 (one diatomic oxygen molecule). There exists no such gas as HHO or HOH. Elemental hydrogen and oxygen are diatomic due to the atomic force that cannot be overcome by electrical forces. Additionally both orthohydrogen and parahydrogen are diatomic and differ only by the spin direction of their protons.”
Clearly HHO is a marketing gimmick, you know “If it’s said often enough and loud enough… the masses will believe it to be true” (my own quote)
My point is… Rather than discuss it until all the opinions have been heard, why don’t we just do it until we get it right?
Anyway, after exhaustive research into the many aspects of finding and installing an efficient system to supplement the combustion engine, I’m going to go ahead and physically experiment with it myself.
Kind regards to all
N.B. If you don’t hear back from me, you might want to watch the news (in case I blow myself up) lol.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I would not install an HHO system on a car as nice as a Jaguar until I know 100% that the heat generated by the HHO, will not be excessive and burn out my valves or put a hole in a piston or cause hydrogen embrittlement of the rings. I would try it on a car that I would not worry about, In other words a cheap car. I have been trying to Google info on anyone that has had bad experiences and I have found some such as I have mentioned above. I believe they are out there but not coming forward for what ever reason. Skeptics say that retrofitting an existing engine is more trouble than it’s worth, and runs the risk of hydrogen embrittlement of some of the internal components. Also, because the water content of the exhaust is increased, there is an increased risk of rusting of post-combustion-path parts, unless they are replaced with stainless equivalents. The energy gained from burning the hydrogen is not the point. Hydrogen in the combustion chamber increases the flame temperature and therefore enables the engine to achieve much higher compression ratios than before, because of the HHO and a much leaner mixture. Fuel efficiency is increased, but with potential long term damage to the engine (e.g. burnt valves) due to the increased combustion temperatures. Let’s proceed with caution, no one has too much money, spend it wisely, or would you come back and tell us that you burned up your motor.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 am
Would any readers of this Blog, with a bad HHO engine experience PLEASE, share it with the rest of us?
So we might learn from it and not repeat it but actually figure out why and what went wrong, and find a solution to that problem.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 am
There is a secondary thread at www.mmmfiles.com/mmm which has some caveats.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
@ neo use an egt guage you will find hho will lower egts. they only go up when people use efies, extenders or maps to lean mixtures. hho increases flame speed drastically so the faster burn rate actually lowers egt due to less burn time. Dont take my word for it just do it. You will find i am correct. I have seen alot of people damage engines with high egts due to leaning devices listed above.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Start looking on youtube and be surprised.
Stan Meyer had many patents ont this subject and they a free to look in to. (You only get a patent if it works)
Stan Meyer and many other had many attention from big oil etc. You won’t be surpriced to hear he was killed and his lates working car (on HHO only, wich is H+H+O hydrogen hydrogen oxigen) Chinese rockets fly on hydrogen and oxigen, so why wont your car drive on it. It’s easy to make people look stupid who dear to walk another road. Free energy will set us free and many now in control don’t like that idea.
(excuse me for the bad english, not my native language)
September 11th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Many of us in South Africa are using “Browns Gas” reactors in a range of vehicles. All have reported increases in milage and increased torque. The more advanced motors with O2 sensors etc are beyond me. However reading the posts I cannot understand the skeptics out here, this is a great way to save fuel try it it works.
No I dont sell or install them I simply use the unit.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Thank you for your testimonial, and for calming these waters.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:04 am
I own a shuttle company and could use the savings since the recent increase in fuel costs. I am still a sceptic, but may give it a try. My main concern after reading all of these posts for the last several hours is that if it is so easy that you could build it yourself then why hasn’t anyone posted the plans for free. You may say because of the patent, however, many seemingly different companies are selling what seems to be the same product. Can they all have the same patent? I think not.
Thanks for all the comments. Excellent information, and fun reading, but still skeptical.
Can someone direct me to someone willing to share this information for free. Someone who is not trying to profit from energy…. maybe a person who truly wants to just make a difference…. unlike the sheiks.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
You who don’t belive that the hydrogen asist works might want to check out these web sites.www.HydrogenHT.com, www.setheden.com/SethEdenPer/Blog/?p=48.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Those who belive you can’t get more power out than what you put in would have a hard time convincing the people living in Japan about the year 1944 of that fact. If I rember correctly they used hydrogen then too.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
“Can someone direct me to someone willing to share this information for free. Someone who is not trying to profit from energy”
Double standard, uneven playing field, but OK.
Teaser video, 4 electrical wall switch plates as electrodes and look at it bubble:
http://www.blinkx.com/video/hydrogen-cell-hho-4-plate-lowes-home-depot-baking-soda/nh5o7qryowQ32Kpl2G8DiQ
http://www.google.com/search?q=hho+megasquirt
September 26th, 2008 at 11:05 am
As far as a flashback arrestor, no mechanical one is fast enough. Only a water bubbler will stop the burning, but then you can blow the water out of your bubbler. Bubbler is the place to begin flashback arresting, though.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Mechanical pressure reliefs are fast enough. If you try to stop the flame then yes they are too slow. You have to relieve the pressure not stop the flame. All you working with bronxe wool jobs they work about 80% of the time. I dont use them any more due to restriction of flow. Check out my 5.00 flash relief in action. Thus far its handled over 500 purposely made flashbacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV9vl4Q8h4s
September 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
oops bronze wool not bronxe wool
October 25th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I thought I was really clever and knew it all…..you know…..certain amount of electricity into the unit in amps…..energy……gets a certain amount of hydrogen and oxygen out of the unit and according to the laws of physics even with 100% efficiency….impossible….and no recombining of the gases back to water before being burnt in the cylinder…..impossible……the energy produced by burning 100% of the hydrogen could at best only equal the energy used to produce it…..all true…….but fails to take into account that the petrol being burnt is wasting shit loads of energy and that the injection of small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen…….have you seen how a piece of wood burns in an oxygen unriched environment…….practically explodes……so it is the hydrogen……extremly powerful fuel….and oxygen…..makes anything burn far more efficiently…..that makes the petrol burn at far greater efficiency that gives you your increased economy. Think if it like this……your spark plugs ignite fuel for it to burn in your cylinders……if your spark plugs are worn out old crappy ones…..your spark is small and weak…..your fuel economy drops and so does your power…..even though you are putting the same amount of petrol and air mixture into your cylinders when you step on the gas pedal……you are getting less output from it…..soley due to less efficiency……thats what the brown gas does……improves the force of each explosion in your cylinders….using the same amount of petrol…….harnessing more power from it and wasting less.
I built a unit and fitting it to my 1996 suzuki swift. I won’t go into the details here because it was a lot of stuffing around to get the right ratio of size of generator cell…..hosing sizes…..lengths…valves……etc etc……I eventually achieved on average a 25% reduction of fuel usage and no apparent side effects and if I plant my foot my car definately can accelerate more quickly.
What all the chemists fail it realise is that it is true that the browns gas produced actually contains less energy then the power used to create it…..what they are not taking into account is that it’s not total energy that has increased…..it is energy harnessed from the total available energy produced that has increased……energy going to drive your car instead of blown out your exhaust or wasted through inefficiency. Think if it like….you have a fire going heating your home….open fire place..you need to burn so many kilos an hour to maintain a temp of 25 cel in your house….and I say….I’m going show you how you can burn half as much wood while increasing the temp of your house at same time…….chemist answer……impossible…..thats energy for nothing…..then I put in a slow combution wood heater in place of your open fireplace….put insulation in your root and walls….and seal up the gaps all around your house…..put in double glazed glass……next thing your burning 5 kgs an hour and roasting to death in your shorts and singlet while it snows outside.
Did you make anymore energy…..no……you just used what was there more efficiently.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
You write very well.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Thank you!
October 28th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Well if there is somewhat of a possibility for the military to try to get it right before tha civ’s do, I think need I to get full experts in on it in, and guard all info on it… dont need the gov — they will block that because they are makng the economy broke already. Do this. It will not put us in another depression. Don’t let the military get it at all… think of what all of your futures will be like and kids, and their kids if the gov takes there control of it, don’t let them at all…
I am not smart like most but jeez, I dont want my kids suffering becuse this generation, and how it’s the false evidence that the gov makes apear real for us and that why we are controlled by them all the time…. sucks but these technoligies will lead us to a more efficient world and better..
October 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
You are smarter than a lot of people who refuse to admit anything is wrong. Thank you.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am
you welcome… but may I ask how soon would this type of technoligy start showing effects for the economy, and how much do you think it will cost to put in a honda civic lx 2005?
yes that is my car ..lol.. but I am interested in making my Honda faster and cheaper even though it has good miliage and good saftey ratings.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Haha, wow. I’d just like to add that my grandpa got a large electrolyzer custom-built and installed it in his truck and is (supposedly–come on, he’s my grandpa!) seeing a highway mileage increase of about 57%. I also have two electrolyzers under my hood (1994 Ford Escort) that have apparently done something, but not a whole lot–based on my unreliable gas gauge and the half tank I’ve used, I’m getting about a 20% MPG increase out of on-demand HHO using a basic Water4Gas system with a MAP sensor enhancer. (It was fun building something useful for once, by the way!)
October 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Oh, sorry! I meant to include these photos of the electrolyzers in my car.
http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/2923/hydrogenjarssansgrillzk4.jpg
(Mounted to the plastic frame of the car via some screws and wood.)
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3559/hydrogencellsbbu9.jpg
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7599/hydrogenjarbxl0.jpg
(Hose disconnected and jar removed from its mount.)
October 31st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
First, thermodynamics tells us simply that you can’t get something for nothing (conservation of energy) and to make matters worse, we’ll do it pretty inefficiently.
But we can cheat the system a little bit if we can capture back lost energy somehow.
When a car is running, the alternator is generating current, keeping the engine running (spark plugs), radio going, etc. Now, clearly we need to generate somewhat of an excess (or the radio doesn’t work) so if we use this to drive some electrolysis (this is very old science) we are capturing a small amount of energy back as HHO which we can then feed into the engine.
So, we do capture a bit of energy back, but no where near what the gains the web sites would lead us to believe.
First we’re not generating a huge amount of hydrogen.
Second, all energy systems lose energy (they’re not 100% efficient). So, whatever energy goes into our electrolysis cell, we capture back probably about 30% at most (automobile engines capture about 25% of the energy they consume).
So, my guess is that they do work, but not nearly to the extent the folks trying to finagle some money out of our pockets would like it to think.
If you’re driving an older vehicle, a set of headers, high through-put exhaust and a high efficiency air cleaner will probably do more for your vehicle’s efficiency than HHO (more power without tweaking the air-fuel ratio = better efficiency).
Greg Pronger
November 1st, 2008 at 9:12 am
The information you’re missing is that mixing hydrogen with gasoline causes the gasoline itself to burn better in the first place. The hydrogen itself is NOT a source of power; as per the laws of thermodynamics, it puts out as much energy (although lots of that energy isn’t in a usable form, and some is even lost in the cell) as was put into making it.
If you know how any given appliance or machine or material is made, you know that it’s a combination of parts that work together for a result different than the result of any part alone. This is how adding HHO is, too.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
I have read all of your posts and it is a wealth of information and there are a lot of different views which are much more educated in there presentation then I could ever hope to be. My only suggestion is how about sending a few E-mails to the US show myth busters and asking them to try this idea out for them selves any ideas on how well that would work. We might get some interesting results .
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
That’s a very good idea. Thanks!
March 20th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I’m a chemist. I imagine that the addition of the H2/O2 is catalytic in nature and promotes the combustion process with results that exceed the cost of imput. Imagine how well your car would run without spark? All the components that are installed in the car’s ignition to provide the spark at the right time do not add much energy to the combustion but it’s pretty important for the car to even run! Might be the same with the Browns gas.
April 12th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I bought one of these about 5 years ago. All it did was corrode and oxidize my paint under the hood. I did not notice any mileage benefit. Maybe the technology has changed?
May 17th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
after four years working with and refining it for all vehicles.All I have to say too people that slam this product is….pay for your fuel at current costs and all my clients will continue enjoying their 30 to 90% increase in fuel savings.Will will all laugh out loud.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I made my own and have considered many theories as to why it works so well for my car. One is the frequency at which the charge is appliedto the water, two is the increase in amps as you accelerate the engine, and three the most interesting, is the creation and increase of vaccum as you rev the engine. The only problem I have with the whole thing is I have to clean out the water tank and plates every day from all the crap you have to have suspended in the water to increase conductivity.
Frankly I dont have to be convinced it works but a word to the wise: If you do go buy one, be careful because before I made my own I bought one from some idiot’s slick website, and it did not work as well as mine, mainly because the cost of material in mine is more expensive and better quality. The website’s was $45.00 and it works for an hour or two and then everything is corroded. Mine cost 600 dollars to build out of better material and it doesnt get corroded, but it is still a pain in the rear to clean every day to keep efficiency up. The technology works, it really does. It’s just not as convenient as gas. Consider that the unit in my car requires a larger alternator and extra battery. Also, the timing to the car engine had to be adjusted to accomodate the pop of hydrogen as to the poof of gas. so we are looking at a total cost in time and maintenance of a few thousand dollars, seeing how most of us don’t know how to adjust the timing properly to see a difference.
Hell if you don’t do it right, I would say adding a hho machine to the car would actually get you worse gas mileage if you install it without a proper knowledge of mechanics and chemistry. It’s a good science project though. If you decide to do the research and apply the knowledge you may find yourself with a cleaner burning car, but you may just be trading one headache for another. What happens when we start to run out of water? I am thinking of switching over to solar. electric engines accelerate faster than internal combustion engines anyway.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:19 am
and no I am not selling any hho machines. Making mine was labor enough and I don’t want to get rid of it just yet. And no I won’t make you one. It is too much work for me to even consider doing it again, let alone installing one in anyone else’s car.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
dude this torch is real and you can build it you self just you tube hho gen or torch and you need is water and a e;ctrolite ie baking soda metal plates
you can also build it yourself………
electric … electrolisys been around for awhile i did build a hho torch with basketball pump nozzle fore the tip work right … touch to a rock turns white hot
you can use the electric that comes from your car to make hho then run that to your
air intake or gas intake or both then supplement your fuel hho explodes 3 times
harder than gas
September 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Thank you much for that good piece of text.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
I dont care what you say. I built and instaled one on 1997 chev 1 ton 4 wheel drive. Was getting between 10 to 11 mph raised it to 18 plus .
January 15th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Wake up fools. People are running their cars on JUST WATER. The oil companies have launched a massive anti-HHO campain. Trying to debunk this for all the SHEEP that want to believe it. Stanley Meyers was MURDERED for his knowledge. Wake up your mind until you prove it for yourself, take NO ONE’S answer.
February 25th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
How strange that society tends to congregate in hostile mob repugnance through sheer ignorance. Many of the intellectuals are right in their claim as well as those who claim that they are receiving benefits from the technique. I had long wanted to inject the hydrox mix into the input system. I had a reason which now I’m sure that reasoning has merit. Everyone looks only at the active substance in the combustion process. People are forgetting that there is barely 1 part in 5 of the atmosphere that helps the combustion process. We know that oxygen is needed but we forget that further dilution of air of oxygen can soon kill combustion completely. Why not add more oxygen? I can bet almost 100% of that Browns gas is going to be consumed when added to the intake. Have I tried this with my car? I sure have! Each time the water runs low, the car turns sluggish; but actually I guess it’s kinda running normal as opposed to running peppier with the Browns gas generator in full tilt.
Tkit
May 4th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I must have just crawled out of a cave! A friend of mine turned me onto this Brown’s gas idea today. I have to admit that the process appears promising. I’m going to the friend’s house tonight and will observe the process. I just wanted to post and thank all of the previous posters for an entertaining few hours of reading.
May 4th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Yeah, this is a pretty amazing thread.
May 18th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
If you run straight HHO gas you have to change the timing to top dead center. For it to run at all,running it with other fuels no change in timing is necessary it mixes perfectly with all fuels. It also has the ability of mimicking other gases and burning at the same rate,all you need to do is to add
a non combustible gas to the mixture. Take that Big oil….
May 26th, 2010 at 7:54 am
well I have a working water torch going. it a cool little device with a torch head made out of a un-used needle syringe, a bubbler and my main generator containing my reservoir which contains a mix of water and baking soda(for conductivity) and two stainless steel plates within. drilling two holes in the side to connect bolts to these plates in the water to the outside while keeping a seal. connecting a car battery or a car battery charger will get the system going. my torch runs two generator cells when warmed up the system takes 12v of power and makes a good enough flame to handwrite my name in sheet metal. takes rust of the side of a car like nothing(barely touches the good metal underneath if you got a decently steady hand. oh and i used two unused cigaret buts as my flashback arrestor(my device imploded without this) one really cool thing about this gas is under the right mix it implodes. but if that mix is off, if there is alot more oxygen than hydrogen it explodes and vis versa. as far as getting it to work in a car, my dad has it running through his old 68 chevy’s intake.(with minor adjustment to the carburetor, the truck went from getting 26 mpg to 38 mpg. thats a really good increase. if you want to run the gas through a fuel injected engine then you need to mess with the computer otherwise your engine will use alittle more gas than usual(computer will think its running lean) but will get a small power boost, carbon buildup in your engine should also burn away. i wouldn’t recommend putting the gas into a injected car unless you know lots about the computer and can change the fuel mix, otherwise it would cost too much to really be worth it.
May 26th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Thanks for your input!
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I have been a Petrochemist for sometimes before changing my career to Information Technology. From the aformentioned inputs I don’t think we are about the laws of thermodynamics here as we are not generating reasonable amount of energy from the HHO but we are burning the resulting fuel waste before exhausting and generating energy from that waste. Your engine while combusting has enough heat to melt the steel of the engine itself unless your cooling system is working fine. Taking this in consideration , the addition of HHO will incenerate the Carbon Dioxide / Mono Oxides CO2 and CO and produce Methan gas CH4 and excess Oxygen. for each Carbon Monoxide molecule there are 2 molecules of HHO and 4 atomic hydrogen added to produce one molecule of Methan gas which is additional fuel. There is excess oxygen that will help near complete burning condition to the hydrocarbon itself which is the gasoline this will also produce energy more effeciently. I believe it will give a cleaner exhaust emmision but there are many quantum factors to consider for the output of energy based on how much HHO your engine can get from this device. Theoritically it should improve performance and give better mileage. I myself was thinking to try it but I do not want to take risk in damaging my car computer. Perhaps automotive companies will come up with a car that has this type of converters. It is important to realize though that your kit has to use electrodes made from metals that are electrochemically less active than hydrogen like copper, silver , gold or platinum. If you use iron you will end up with corroded rusty can.
The idea of using the gas itself in welding makes me think to go back to my school labs and do intensive study on it.
Let’s wait and see what the future is bringing in such exciting field.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:40 am
This technology seems to work best on older cars. There are some people who have bought old gas hogs so if there is any harm to the engine, it would not be such a big loss. However, as I recall, most people posting here have had positive experiences and improved mileage substantially.
July 15th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
water cars are cooler than gasoline powered cars however you look at it. People that are close minded just because “they think it’s too good” live sad lives if they won’t even take a look.
Just like health care, there is always 2 stories… appearance and reality.
Reality is always different then appearance.