In search of HHO power to anything always. Out of the claws, into.... something new.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

If you can measure how many liters per hour it consumes, you can build an tank large enough to keep it running for hours and hours. Its a static electric discharge generator. At the end of the day, you hand pump it back.

Or you make it a part of the circulatory system of your home or company.

Did you forget that water used is under pressure? If you release the pressure you just have a house full of water. Again, I don't see where this can be feasible.

If you think this set-up can pump water up and create enough energy to keep pumping it up, that by definition, is a perpetual motion machine, it will not work. Many have tried....

reply to post by nh_ee

I believe in the fundamental concept of HHO due to the fact that my Grandfather in post WWII Germany, when they had no food or gasoline.

They were able to run a car from burning wood utilizing a Holtz Vergasser or Wood Carburetor, which extracted the combustible hydrogen gas from the burning wood and feeding it into the carburetor.

What is neat about this is, that they had no gasoline whatsoever, and were still able to run their automobiles on hydrogen gas extracted from wood only !

The process you are talking about creates little hydrogen, and is mainly powered by Methane. You are misrepresenting it.

Also, there are many drawbacks related to it.

Wood gas was used at other things, internal combustion engines of motor vehicles to drive . The generators were constructed outside the body or carried as a pendant. The technical equipment to the wood gas was mixed with wood filled and worked as a fixed bed gasifier. Escaped from the wood by heating the combustible mixture of gases ( wood gas ), whose constituents mainly from the non-flammable nitrogen of the air, carbon dioxide , combustible carbon monoxide (together 85%) and methane and small amounts of ethylene and hydrogen passed. in the early 1950s were up in Germany with special permits some light trucks in use, the only approved and authorized book logs could be used. In this case, was about 1 liter of gasoline will be replaced by the of 3 kg of wood-based gas.

Very similar in principles to those utilized by the HHO generators in use today which are based upon Stanley Meyer's principles and resulting patents.

Stanley Myer was a fraud and he was charged accordingly.1

"I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time," William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.

Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer's technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.

Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Two years later, a Fayette County judge found "gross and egregious fraud" in Meyer's contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.

But hang on, isn't this guy a PhD? Shouldn't he know what he's talking about?

Well as is so often the case in the world of BS, this guy's credentials are highly questionable.

His "PhD" was apparently bestowed on him by a friend and is in the area of natural medicine.

Another Natural Medicine PhD, where have we seen these before....?

Meyer claimed that by using a pulsating DC voltage instead of a constant one, he was able to resonate the water molecules in such a way that they split with only a small amount of energy being input. This could be likened to the way an opera singer can shatter a wine-glass by hitting the right note. Resonance means that each successive pulse of energy adds to the previous pulses until "breaking point" is achieved.

Now to anyone with only a modicum of understanding of science (and physics in particular) this sounds pretty plausible. Gosh, if it works on a wine-glass, why wouldn't it work for a water molecule?

Well the problem is that Meyer was using frequencies in the tens of kilohertz range - but water molecules have a resonant frequency of around 22GHz, and only when in vapor form (when in liquid state, the molecules are in such close proximity that very little resonance is observed at any frequency). Obviously Meyer's claims of establishing some kinds of resonance at a frequency that is some six orders of magnitude too low in frequency are a joke.

What Meyer has done is what many scam-artists do with bad-science.

They come up with an idea that has a basis in good science (electrolysis) and then claim to have developed some major breakthrough that extends it into the realm of miracle. To try and make themselves credible, they steal little snippets of science from other areas (such as resonance) and patch it in to what seems (in the eyes of those with a grade-school understanding of science), a credible explanation.

More about Meyer

As a scientist and always seeking the truth, namely in how things operate. I have always been intrigued by this concept of HHO generation from a scientific perspective.

You are a scientist but you confused hydrogen and methane.... Why is that?

Thomas Edison attempted to invent the light bulb some 900+ times. He is quoted as saying, those attempts were not failures, but only lessons in how NOT to create a light bulb !

Did Edison try to sell the lightbulb before he had a working model? I'm curious....

reply to post by boncho


Well sir, thank you for knowing everything about anything. You are truly an encyclopedia of enlightened knowledge.

Thank you again for proving that HHO could not possibly have given my car an extra 13MPG on the highway (with the windows down and an extra 400 lbs. in the trunk) on a trip.

I must have been mistaken when I read the mileage off the odometer.

reply to post by nh_ee


I covered a master thesis in another thread on HHO. If anyone wants to break down the numbers and explain what is so great about it, go ahead. Instead of everyone posting youtube videos... You are a "scientist" maybe you can take a whack at it.
Link to Master's Theses

My original reply to the document:

"I did this all on my own too, so correct me if I am wrong. Because I know I don't know anything about anything.

First thing that bothers me is that he claims HHO (but not another compound because he is using catalysts) is formed . However he makes this claim without showing his work (ie.2 NaCl + 2 H2O → Cl2 + H2 + 2 NaOH) So if you can point out to where I missed that it would be greatly appreciated.

What this person claims in his thesis, is that he can burn less fuel in his engine using 'HHO' gas, produce better efficiency in the gas combustion and also reduce carbon and other emissions.

Great! I could have told you that before reading it. Burning hydrogen creates less emissions than gas and diesel.

What you should note (and this is the most important part) is that he never claims that he is producing more energy overall, just better efficiency of the gas burning process.

What does this mean? Well, he claims a 17% gain in efficiency. What does that equal to? I imagine 17% less fuel being burned. However, forcing oxygen and hydrogen into a motor will clearly lower the amount of fuel needed to run the engine. That is not ground breaking science. However, the engine was running too lean and he experienced knocking, something that is not good for engines and something that I would not run in my car.

What is the best part about this thesis? The fact that he does not mention horsepower production. (Unless you can find it for me, I didn't see it)

Why is that important?

Because he claims:

His electrolysis used 12V and 14.1A during conversion of water to hydrogen. What does that mean? Anyone that knows thermodynamics knows exactly where I am headed with this.

Max = 12v - 14.1A

W=VxA (If I remember correctly)

Which translates into: 169.2W He gives us this number but in a rather overcomplicated expression.

Moving on, he doesn't give us horsepower gain. And if we had horsepower gain we could compare it to energy being used to create the hydrolysis reaction.

My point? He does not claim to produce excess energy, actually, he doesn't make any claim besides running a leaner burning engine. Kids were doing that by modifying ECU's in Honda's 15 years ago.

So there are no outlandish claims in this thesis. It's just completely irrelevant. It does not purport to create free energy, it does not even imply that you get better overall efficiency out of your energy use, only that the engine will burn its gas with better efficiency. "Source

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by boncho

 

Well sir, thank you for knowing everything about anything. You are truly an encyclopedia of enlightened knowledge.

Thank you again for proving that HHO could not possibly have given my car an extra 13MPG on the highway (with the windows down and an extra 400 lbs. in the trunk) on a trip.

I must have been mistaken when I read the mileage off the odometer.

Tweaking your ECU can change your gas mileage. Are you saying someone that puts a new chip in their car has found some kind of "free energy"?

1+1 does not equal 9000.

reply to post by boncho


I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on television. However I have experimented with a HHO cell I built and hooked up to my car. On a trip from Dallas to San Antonio with HHO I averaged 45 MPG from fill up to fill up. On a return trip without HHO I only averaged 32 MPG. The only mod done to the sensors or ECU was an oxygen sensor extender.

The cell was on a 20 Amp auto reset circuit breaker.

The way I do my math, that's 13 extra MPG. In my book HHO works.

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by boncho

 

I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on television. However I have experimented with a HHO cell I built and hooked up to my car. On a trip from Dallas to San Antonio with HHO I averaged 45 MPG from fill up to fill up. On a return trip without HHO I only averaged 32 MPG. The only mod done to the sensors or ECU was an oxygen sensor extender.

The cell was on a 20 Amp auto reset circuit breaker.

The way I do my math, that's 13 extra MPG. In my book HHO works.

...

The only mod done to the sensors or ECU was an oxygen sensor extender.

-facepalm-

All of those who are *actually* seeing a small improvement in fuel efficiency after fitting one of these kits have one thing in common.. they've messed around with the O2 sensor in their engine. The rationale here is that the extra oxygen from the electrolysis is causing the O2 sensor to return a reading that will cause the engine computer to increase the amount of gasoline injected -- so the O2 sensor should be disabled or adjusted to compensate.

This is utter rubbish. The O2 coming from the electrolysis cell will be totally consumed when it oxidizes the hydrogen during combustion.

What happens when you fool with the O2 sensor is that you trick your engine computer into forcing your engine to run lean -- far leaner than it's designed to run -- and that's bad.

Yes, you *may* save a few dollars per tank in fuel costs but you'll pay dearly for it a little further down the track in the form of burnt valves and damaged piston-crowns.

When you allow your engine to run lean, the internal operating temperatures soar, as does the exhaust gas temperature. This has a huge effect on the life of the valves and valve-seats, as well as promoting pre-ignition and the damaging effects that can produce.

And if you are someone who's done this and claim extra mileage, try disconnecting your HHO system without further touching the O2 sensor. Guess what, your fuel efficiency will *increase* even further! The HHO system has *nothing* to do with the fuel-economy you're seeing, it's simply the over-lean setting you've fooled your engine's computer into delivering.

this technology is soooooooo suppresed on here i jus tryed to make a thread dealing with how ats censors most of the hho stuff!!!!!!!!!! and they woudent even post it up

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by boncho

 

I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on television. However I have experimented with a HHO cell I built and hooked up to my car. On a trip from Dallas to San Antonio with HHO I averaged 45 MPG from fill up to fill up. On a return trip without HHO I only averaged 32 MPG. The only mod done to the sensors or ECU was an oxygen sensor extender.

The cell was on a 20 Amp auto reset circuit breaker.

The way I do my math, that's 13 extra MPG. In my book HHO works.

...

The only mod done to the sensors or ECU was an oxygen sensor extender.

-facepalm-

And if you are someone who's done this and claim extra mileage, try disconnecting your HHO system without further touching the O2 sensor. Guess what, your fuel efficiency will *increase* even further! The HHO system has *nothing* to do with the fuel-economy you're seeing, it's simply the over-lean setting you've fooled your engine's computer into delivering.

edit on 7-5-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

OK, I'm gonna stop you right there. In my experimenting, the electrical connection on the cell melted through the PVC container. Long story short, I removed the cell but left the O2 sensor extender on.

The results....

My mileage dropped back to 25 city 30 highway.

Facepalm away.

reply to post by stargazer88


It's not that ATS censors this technology, it's just that there are so many people who automatically put it down because they are brainwashed into thinking that there can never be overunity devices. They cite laws of conservation and other such crap without ever doing any of their own research.

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by stargazer88

 

It's not that ATS censors this technology, it's just that there are so many people who automatically put it down because they are brainwashed into thinking that there can never be overunity devices. They cite laws of conservation and other such crap without ever doing any of their own research.

Scientific papers have been posted that showed there was no over unity.

Can you find one that shows there is?

This is the system I started with, only I made, and am still making, modifications to the unit, for better performance and operation. You cannot really see in the photo, but the jar originally had an acrylic tower in the shape of a cross, with stainless steel wires, twisted together to form a multi-threaded cable wrapped around the tower. This system performs well, but runs hot. Really hot. My tower quickly twisted itself into a nightmarish tangle of plastic and wires. So I modified it. Instead of using a tower and wires, I used two stainless steel bolts, wrapping the wires around the bolts for added surface properties. This system not only works well, but it runs cool. I have some other plans I will be trying in the near future, one is welding stainless plates to the bolts, and positioning these plates close to one another in the jar. Another is using little stainless pipes, gathered together and held fast, with alternating positive and negative pipes.

The system is not a turn key operation. It is not for the lazy person. It requires constant replenishing of the electrolyte mix, and a cleaning of the jar to remove the collected residue left by the process. You will need a mounting point away from hot manifolds, and have a solid mount to keep it cool, and from cracking under road vibrations. You will need a fused wire to power it, with a switch on the dash, and some kind of warning light so you don't leave it on as I did one day, destroying the plastic top and the electrode posts.

It is my belief that if 30% of the American public ignores the people who say it won't work and install an HHO generator on their own vehicle, it will break the oil companies. My system allows me to drive a 4300 pound V-8 powered Chevy Van everywhere I go, at a nice on the pocket 25-30 miles per gallon. Won't work? Yeah, right.

reply to post by boncho


I can't debate this much longer. It is more a distraction to the OP's discussion than anything.

I presume that that is the intent.

Yes I am a scientist, a Computer Scientist, an embedded Chip Designer....not a Chemical Engineer and Proud of It !

HooRah !

This being due to economics....there exist many more opportunities in the computer field....biomedical, telecommunications, automotive....

But where were we here ?

Are we talking Methane or Hydrogen ?

The burning wood generates Methane Gas which is a hydrocarbon. Hydro-Carbon...as in containing hydrogen.

In organic chemistry, a hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon.[1]

The hydrogen is what contains the stored energy and burns in any petroleum product for that matter.

I shouldn't even have to explain this elementary fact....of chemistry.

...the concept of plumbing in an alternative hydrogen based fuel into an internal combustion engine that normally ran on petroleum based fuel was the point here.

You keep repeating this Energy IN vs Energy Out equation...and we've certainly got that by now.

Yes we we understand that, as well as the power formula for WATTS but why is there is no mention of the potential/stored joules of energy of the generated hydrogen in that equation ?

Why do you overlook that most fundamental aspect of this discussion ?

But that is your mission here....to make personal attacks....AND to derail the emphasis of this thread.

Adherence to the old tenets of the Mossad ....."Through Deception thou shalt do War".

Well...I am NOT Deceived by you....your intents are clearly obvious.

You contribute nothing of value to this thread and are officially ignored.

Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by autowrench


This is the system I started with, only I made, and am still making, modifications to the unit, for better performance and operation. You cannot really see in the photo, but the jar originally had an acrylic tower in the shape of a cross, with stainless steel wires, twisted together to form a multi-threaded cable wrapped around the tower. This system performs well, but runs hot. Really hot. My tower quickly twisted itself into a nightmarish tangle of plastic and wires. So I modified it. Instead of using a tower and wires, I used two stainless steel bolts, wrapping the wires around the bolts for added surface properties. This system not only works well, but it runs cool. I have some other plans I will be trying in the near future, one is welding stainless plates to the bolts, and positioning these plates close to one another in the jar. Another is using little stainless pipes, gathered together and held fast, with alternating positive and negative pipes.

The system is not a turn key operation. It is not for the lazy person. It requires constant replenishing of the electrolyte mix, and a cleaning of the jar to remove the collected residue left by the process. You will need a mounting point away from hot manifolds, and have a solid mount to keep it cool, and from cracking under road vibrations. You will need a fused wire to power it, with a switch on the dash, and some kind of warning light so you don't leave it on as I did one day, destroying the plastic top and the electrode posts.

It is my belief that if 30% of the American public ignores the people who say it won't work and install an HHO generator on their own vehicle, it will break the oil companies. My system allows me to drive a 4300 pound V-8 powered Chevy Van everywhere I go, at a nice on the pocket 25-30 miles per gallon. Won't work? Yeah, right.

Thank YOU Autowrench for your constructive contributions to this thread.

Dude you should call yourself

Mr. Goodwrench


I plan to be one of those testing this system out....and working towards enhancing it.

Yes, I could see why the threaded/braided wires would generate heat. For the same reason as to why we use thicker gauge wire for handling more current.
Remember that energy is never created or destroyed but converted/transferred to heat..or light. So if you have either, you have wasted energy.

Also as to why the bolts are working better. More ability to absorb the amount of current.

My understanding too is to have thin metal stainless plates mounted on the bolts to expose the surface area of the charge to the chemical ions suspended in the water only adds to the amount of HHO produced.

So essentially you are utilizing the internal volume of the inside of the generator to it's fullest potential by exposing more charge to the catalyst resulting in more Hydrogen production.

Yes, it isn't a turnkey operation yet.

But that is also is as to why I used the example of the evolution of computers earlier.

It took almost 50 years before the MAC and the PC were even remotely possible before the microprocessor was discovered....the first computer was used in 1944, the ENIAC.

It is my belief that if 30% of the American public ignores the people who say it won't work and install an HHO generator on their own vehicle, it will break the oil companies. My system allows me to drive a 4300 pound V-8 powered Chevy Van everywhere I go, at a nice on the pocket 25-30 miles per gallon. Won't work? Yeah, right.

I commend you on your positive mental attitude and your determination. As well as your ability to turn a wrench !

Keep up the good work !

Mr. Goodwrench !

Thank you, nh_ee, for the positive reply on this. Lots of people will just post a bunch of figures and tell you that it takes more electricity to make the HHO that it produces. And the reason here for my perseverance is the fact that my family lives on Social Security, and my family is large, 4 adults and two children, one of whom is a teenager. I am disabled with a back back, as is my wife, we simply cannot insert ourselves into the seat of some of these little bitty cars. Also, being one who grew up during the 1960s and 70s, Muscle Car Era for you youngsters, I just cannot see myself in a little foreign made monstrosity like I see every day on the road. In my van, I have a soft, comfortable Captain's bucket seat with armrests on both sides and a lean back feature, and I have V-8 power to get me out into traffic, and to pass those slow moving minivans that always seem to get in your way. My twin Thrush mufflers make an awesome sound that freaks out four cylinder engines, and the sheer size of the full size van intimidates drivers of lessor cars and trucks, they get out of my way, and do not pull out in front of me.

As for being Mr. Goodwrench, I was that for many years. I worked as a service and repair mechanic for 38 years solid. Everything from engine building and rebuilding, to metal fabrication, suspension technology, fuel delivery tech and logic computer tech. Something I didn't say in the post was that I hacked into my ECM, or Electronic Control Module. On my dash are two variable rate pots, one for idle and low speed, like in town, the other is for highway speeds, when I can lean her out a little. Turning the little knobs I can lean out my fuel to the point of the engine dying.
You see, by default the ECM delivers the max amount of fuel all the time, whether you need it or not. I also have installed an MSD 45,000 Volt ignition coil and High Performance primary wires, along with an Accel cap and rotor, I like the brass electrodes, far superior to aluminum ones in the cheaper parts. We use Rhodes Vale Lifters, Rhodes works from oil pressure. At idle with pressure low, you are running a stock cam for all effects and purposes. Step on the engine a little, the lifters pump up, and you have a Street cam now. Mash the accelerator and oil pressure goes to max, now you have a Race cam. Rhodes are the only lifters that use this technology. I keep my tires pumped up to 40 psi, and keep my engine in perfect tune at all times. I started looking for a cheap way to run engines back in the gas lines of the 1980s, so this is old hat to me now. I also failed to mention that before I did all of this, my van was lucky to get 14 mpg.

reply to post by nh_ee

Yes we we understand that, as well as the power formula for WATTS but why is there is no mention of the potential/stored joules of energy of the generated hydrogen in that equation ?

Umm...But you are not dealing with straight hydrogen, you are getting it out from water which takes energy.... The highest efficiency that has ever been achieved (to my knowledge) was around 100%, but in optimal lab conditions and not realistic.

Most forms of hydrolysis achieve 25-50% efficiency, and good ones can be around 75%.

reply to post by autowrench

Lots of people will just post a bunch of figures and tell you that it takes more electricity to make the HHO that it produces.

Lots of people post heartfelt stories and claims that aren't backed by facts and figures too. Which ones should we believe?

My unit does not replace the gasoline, and sorry some of you may have thought that. what it does is make non efficient gasoline almost 100% effective. The HHO also cleans all of the Sulfur and Carbon deposits from my engine, making is clean burning. My tailpipes are clean as a whistle inside. My engine runs so quiet I can hardly hear it, if not for the loud mufflers I wouldn't hear it run at all. I would believe it's only 25% effective and just take it off, but the truth is it's saving me too much money. So I will just believe the lie that it is not effective and keep running it.

reply to post by survivalstation


this guy explains it all ats might censor it but here gos nothing

reply to post by autowrench


Yes, the energy density comes into play here.

For the same reason as to why Ethanol, with it's lower power density when added to Gasoline reduces your mileage.

Hydrogen, with it's higher energy density than that of Gasoline, when added to the fuel mixture would increases your mileage.


If you are experiencing an improvement in MPG, then simple math would indicate that the input power requirements of the HHO generator are being offset by the energy density benefits of the hydrogen added to the fuel mixture.

My questions are with the electrical side of things.

Have you ever measured the actual current/amperage draw of your HHO generator ?
And at various RPM ranges ?
Or is it constant and the engine vacuum controls the amount of HHO provided to the engine as needed ?

I do know that our automobiles ignition systems produce 1000's of volts to the spark plugs via inductance between the primary and secondary windings of the Ignition Coil.

In fact on my MSD ignition it's input is 450 volts and it's output is 45,000. volts !
Granted it's a high performance ignition system but there exists
More than ample voltage and currrent to power any HHO system.

What if anything exists between the HHO generator (+) and (-) connections and the car's electrical system ?
In other words is there a coil or is there some other circuitry involved ?

Or is it a straight DC connection to battery B(+) ?

Would you happen to have a schematic ?

I am seriously considering adding one of these to my Jeep which only gets 16 mpg on a good day.
Especially when I put my foot into it it...!!!



Thanks Autowrench !


MSD Ignition Specs:

OPERATING SPECIFICATIONS
Spark Energy: 105-115 mJ per spark
Primary Voltage: 450-480 Volts
Secondary Voltage: 45,000 Volts
Spark Series Duration: 20 degree Crankshaft Rotation
RPM Range: 15,000 RPM with 14.4 Volts
Voltage Required: 12-18 Volts, Negative Ground
Current Draw: 1 Amp per 1,000 RPM
Weight and Size 3 lbs.,8"L x 4"W x 2.25"H



www.msdignition.com...