there's has been a lot of hearsay in the web where 'people' convert water (H2O) to Hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2) as fuel supplement that manage to increase fuel (gasoline / petrol) efficiency up to 30% or more!

is it just another hype or scam? let's discuss 'bout the truth or scam behind this ideology.....

 

i'm a very sceptical person when i learnt 'bout this theory of converting water to H2 and O2 as fuel (although i knew its used as rocket fuel)......

till now i'm still not a believer...

but i'm going to develop my own HHO generator to test this theory (or myth) whether it is cost efficient or not....

i hav seen a few of my countrymen (malaysian) making their own HHO Generator. here's an example of it.....

but be warn that

H2 is explosive in large quantity....

 

please take extreme precaution when dealing with this gaseous... always wear protective eye wear and other safety measure must take into account...

dun not do this experiment near any flame source.... pls conduct your experiment in outdoor.

 

Pretty simple actually, what is the MPH before and after? I have yet to hear numbers, but I have heard a lot of hype.

I would be even happier with a Brainiac approach (which Myth Busters later used also), and that would be a calibrated beaker instead of the gas tank, to measure real distance on a precision amount of gas.

Flooding us with sites proves nothing, numbers are what is important, that and the ability to duplicate them independently. It's called science.

***********

I posted this in the PWM schematic thread, but decided it belonged here more. Since I'm not a mod I moved it the hard way....

Maybe it's long winded, but given that there isn't any such thing as HHO (and I regularly see it posted as if it were a real molecule) I think I would loose it. It is causing more harm than good. H2 O2 is one more letter, I hesitate to call that long winded. My first contact was with Aqualine, and reading the articles and communicating with the "inventor" left me no doubt he/they were trying to say they had something new and unique, a new molecule, which just ain't so.

Then there is the issue of mislabeling a dangerous chemical mix. H2 O2 is EXPLOSIVE, and is plain not safe to be around in any quantity. I have no problem with generating it as needed, but one of the first lessons of Material Safety Data is proper labeling.

In short, the whole term HHO is misleading, and I believe it was meant to be so. Declaring it is not a chemical doesn't work, if you insist on using standard chemical convention to describe it.

This is just the latest stanza in a very old song, Brown's Gas was the first verse as far as I can tell. Believe it or not they put this mix in high pressure gas cylinders, the same kind you get welding Argon and other high pressure gases. This practice was discontinued after a few explosions.

This material does have industrial uses, a little research will show that. But to claim special powers for it requires evidence, which has been notably nonspecific.

 

Pretty simple actually, what is the MPH before and after? I have yet to hear numbers, but I have heard a lot of hype.

I would be even happier with a Brainiac approach (which Myth Busters later used also), and that would be a calibrated beaker instead of the gas tank, to measure real distance on a precision amount of gas.

Flooding us with sites proves nothing, numbers are what is important, that and the ability to duplicate them independently. It's called science.

since u r so skeptical 'bout it, why not built one and test it? i'm in the midst of building one.....

btw, the Myth Busters were busted.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ydEkV-E0mP8

 

I'm not into mechanics, electronics, computers, and robots take up most of my time, right after my family. But I would be very interested in how it turns out. If you really want to collect some good data keep what I said about the beaker in mind. I've said it before, but it bears repeating, negative data is still good, and yes, I would be happy if it worked, just don't think it will. As far as I know, you'd be the first to post real numbers if you went this far.

I regularly disagree with Myth Buster results, I was talking methodology on measuring fuel mileage.

 

I drive an old beat up 1990 Ford Ranger. I get %20 better MPG from it than my wife does.

I'll need to see either calibrated tests on a stationary engine, or double-blind tests from the road. Simply vomiting numbers means nothing.

Simply re-tuning a carburetor or fuel injection system can improve mileage, please don't be so quick to give credit to the shiny new thing next to the carburetor.

 

I'm not into mechanics, electronics, computers, and robots take up most of my time, right after my family. But I would be very interested in how it turns out. If you really want to collect some good data keep what I said about the beaker in mind. I've said it before, but it bears repeating, negative data is still good, and yes, I would be happy if it worked, just don't think it will. As far as I know, you'd be the first to post real numbers if you went this far.

I regularly disagree with Myth Buster results, I was talking methodology on measuring fuel mileage.

definitely will conduct a beaker test to measure the total of H2 and O2 being generated thru the instrument.... hopefully it won't be less than 1 liter per minute (1 lpm) using pwm controller.... if not i'm going to be very piss off...

hahaha!

 

I drive an old beat up 1990 Ford Ranger. I get %20 better MPG from it than my wife does.

I'll need to see either calibrated tests on a stationary engine, or double-blind tests from the road. Simply vomiting numbers means nothing.

Simply re-tuning a carburetor or fuel injection system can improve mileage, please don't be so quick to give credit to the shiny new thing next to the carburetor.

also pls don't be so quick to discredit it yet....

hopefully my test will provide some results soon....

just cross ur fingers 4 me.... TQ!

 

this is advance stage of his HHO Generator.....

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZeroFossilFuel

 

also pls don't be so quick to discredit it yet....

hopefully my test will provide some results soon....

just cross ur fingers 4 me.... TQ!

I have yet to discredit anything. I simply asked for a valid test instead of a meaningless one.

 

I have yet to discredit anything. I simply asked for a valid test instead of a meaningless one.

definitely will provide one, very soon i hope....

since there's a lot of expert here regarding electrical circuit... can someone pls assist me to evaluate the viability of this circuit design for PWM Controller...

just downloaded SwitcherCAD program from http://www.linear.com/

it will take me sometimes to learn how to use the program... duh...

do appreciate if someone can built & test it.... it will take me weeks to make it...

 

Hi guys, just noticed this forum. A couple of quick points if I may. HHO is intended to indicate that the atoms are separate, forming 'hydroxy' gas which has up to four times the energy content of a H2 / O2 mix, and it is highly charged electrically, so it needs to be generated on-demand.

The amount which is optimum as an additive is surprisingly low for most vehicles, being around 0.5 lpm, and if you add more than that, the improvement is not as great.

If your ECU does not readjust itself to the new mix given time, then you may need to correct the oxygen sensor signal for the new mix in order to get the best mpg results.

Most people report an on-the-road mpg improvement of 20% to 60% with 33% being typical, but each actual vehicle is different so a little tweaking and adjusting can improve matters even further.

A major gain is the reduction in harmful emissions (if NaOH or KOH is used as the electrolyte), improved torque, smoother and cooler running, but the emissions are so clean that the vehicle may fail its smog test as the computer thinks that the exhaust pipe must be broken.

Good luck if you decide to try it for yourself, but please be sure to use two bubblers for both safety and to wash every last trace of electrolyte fumes out of the gas before it reaches your engine. In recent tests covering more than 2,000 miles, Bob Boyce had an average of 60 mpg, and while most people won't reach that mpg, there are certainly major gains to be had if you care to put the effort in.

PJK

 

Gosh, everyone else has said HHO was just shorthand for hydrogen and oxygen mixture, including Brown in his original patents.

Do you have any experimental evidence to support what you say it is? At the very least, can you show the electron structure (distribution) of what you call hydroxy gas? Is it a single ionic or radical moiety or multiple, undefined moieties? Is it triplet or singlet in its ground state? Is it in its ground state?

John

 

To the Ineffable All,

Don't forget, water is an ash, not a fuel.

Ratch

 

Hi guys, just noticed this forum. A couple of quick points if I may. HHO is intended to indicate that the atoms are separate, forming 'hydroxy' gas which has up to four times the energy content of a H2 / O2 mix, and it is highly charged electrically, so it needs to be generated on-demand.

You can't have separate atoms of oxygen or hydrogen, nature doesn't work that way. Basic chemistry 101, but that went a long way to proving my point about why using HHO as a shorthand is a bad idea. People confuse easily, and then start stating facts that aren't.

An electrically charged atom is an ion, this is fact. Most ions are plasma, but there are exceptions. It this case it is ozone, O3. Again, basic chemistry.

At least there were numbers, but given the basic inaccuracies elsewhere they are suspect.

 

Hi guys, just noticed this forum. A couple of quick points if I may. HHO is intended to indicate that the atoms are separate, forming 'hydroxy' gas which has up to four times the energy content of a H2 / O2 mix, and it is highly charged electrically, so it needs to be generated on-demand.

u won't be getting HHO molecules by electrolysis... u get H2 and O2.... LOL

The amount which is optimum as an additive is surprisingly low for most vehicles, being around 0.5 lpm, and if you add more than that, the improvement is not as great.

If your ECU does not readjust itself to the new mix given time, then you may need to correct the oxygen sensor signal for the new mix in order to get the best mpg results.

Most people report an on-the-road mpg improvement of 20% to 60% with 33% being typical, but each actual vehicle is different so a little tweaking and adjusting can improve matters even further.

A major gain is the reduction in harmful emissions (if NaOH or KOH is used as the electrolyte), improved torque, smoother and cooler running, but the emissions are so clean that the vehicle may fail its smog test as the computer thinks that the exhaust pipe must be broken.

other than NaOH or KOH, u can used table salt or soda bicarbonate. It's not advisable to use table salt due to the content of chlorine...

Good luck if you decide to try it for yourself, but please be sure to use two bubblers for both safety and to wash every last trace of electrolyte fumes out of the gas before it reaches your engine. In recent tests covering more than 2,000 miles, Bob Boyce had an average of 60 mpg, and while most people won't reach that mpg, there are certainly major gains to be had if you care to put the effort in.

PJK

instead of bubbler, use a properly design flashback arrestor pls...

 

To the Ineffable All,

Don't forget, water is an ash, not a fuel.

Ratch

water is an ash?!

 

HHO is intended to indicate that the atoms are separate, forming 'hydroxy' gas which has up to four times the energy content of a H2 / O2 mix, and it is highly charged electrically, so it needs to be generated on-demand.

When I took chemistry, "hydroxyl" was HO, not HHO. The 4x energy content is quite an extraordinary claim. Please provide extraordinary proof.

Also, please describe how a gas can be "highly charged electrically." I've only been studying electronics for a little over three decades, and have not yet been educated about such phenomena.

Don't forget, water is an ash, not a fuel.

Indeed. Yes. Correct. True.

water is an ash?!

Indeed. Yes. Correct. True. That is why it takes so very much energy (realatively speaking) to pull it back apart into a fuel and oxygen.

 

When I took chemistry, "hydroxyl" was HO, not HHO. The 4x energy content is quite an extraordinary claim. Please provide extraordinary proof.

Also, please describe how a gas can be "highly charged electrically." I've only been studying electronics for a little over three decades, and have not yet been educated about such phenomena.

Indeed. Yes. Correct. True.

Indeed. Yes. Correct. True. That is why it takes so very much energy (realatively speaking) to pull it back apart into a fuel and oxygen.

err....... actually how much of energy is needed to convert water to H2 O2?