I wouldn't worry too much about electrical resonances - if I read the sites correctly, the effect being sought is a chemical or molecular resonance. The applied frequency/ies actually are supposed to jiggle the water molecules such that they sort of fall apart with just the gentlest hint of electrical energy. If you recall the D9 document, a cell at resonance has the gas bubbles appear in the space between the electrode plates, something impossible with ordinary electrolysis.

Remember that most of these sites are written in bafflegab, so it's deliberately as hard as possible to know exactly what they are saying. Helps prove how wrong you were when trying to duplicate the electrolyzer.

Anyhow, that's how significant quantities of Brown's gas are supposed to be produced for a couple of watts input. The likelihood of this actually happening and all protons in the universe decaying in the next ten minutes are about equal.

 

I don't think he is worried about reality guys, he thinks there are 1000s of water-powered cars traveling around the earth. I know that I was a bit mean, but what is meaner? Allowing him to waste his time, money, and hope in something that will not work (extremely high probability anyways), or giving him a reality check?

Steve

 

Gentlemen, I thank you kindly. It's amazing what you can learn in a day, especially with the internet and kindred spirits like yourselves. In fact, I feel a bond with you fellas now, even the ever-pessimistic beenthere. The advice on the PLC and the variometer is stupendous.

As far as the conspiracies, I admit that I go overboard with it sometimes. For example, I'm convinced that 9-11 was an inside job. But that is hardly relevant, only in pointing out my abundance of conspiracism. I would like to interject though that I have devoted 6 months of intense research to this subject, and have come across some astounding evidence of validity. For example, has anyone ever heard of the Japanese car company Genepax? Or how about the Joe Cell? Or Daniel Dingle? Still in my opinion though, Stanley Meiyers is the one and ultimate. I have checked references, verified tv anchors' and reporters' identities, interviewed university professors who examined his work, and carefully analyzed his court case, death certificate, and patents. In the case of being guilty of 'egregious fraud' he was ordered to add electrolyte to his cell before demonstrating it to the court, causing it to malfunction, and was eventually ordered to pay $1 back to the forsaken investor. It is still fact that his device was patented under code 101 of the U.S. patent office.

On another note, I am no newb to circuitry. I was disassembling and rebuilding my first computers at 13. In the last few months, I've built 4 protoboards, (2) LM324 pulse generators, (1) 555 pulse generator, and (1) LM324 PWM. Still though, my knowledge is pale in comparison to some, and I hope to always learn more, which is why I'm here!

Sgtwookie: Awesome advice with the variometer thank you. A variable inductor coil IS crucial to the resonance, and YES extremely fine resolution is absolutely essential to the technique as well. That is why I prefer an analog, manually adjustable pot control method.

I think beenthere is mistaken when he says that the "jiggling" of the molecule is what causes it to split. Granted, the jiggling (called cavitation, search for the Peter Davey heater) does seem to aid the process, especially when the submerged electrodes (preferably concentric, acoustically tuned, stainless tubes) are hit with the right frequency. I think though that they key is the high voltage obtained at resonance of an LC circuit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a pulsed DC square wave at the proper frequency, with variable inductor, could put an LC into resonance, spiking voltage and dropping amperage, right?

Injecting photons into the circuit also enhances dissociation (i.e. a laser.)

It is my theory based on the video
PacketPulser1.mpg (video/mpeg Object)
that the pulse frequency is essential to ringing the tubes, while the duty cycle frequency (packet frequency) is key to the resonance of the LC circuit. Thoughts?

Read more >> Options >>
​

​

 

I don't think he is worried about reality guys, he thinks there are 1000s of water-powered cars traveling around the earth.

Being one to give the benefit of the doubt, I believe he meant to say that there are thousands of "HH0 enhanced" vehicles traveling around the earth. There are a great many tinkerers and "shadetree mechanics" here in the States, and I'm sure that many of them have dabbled with this idea.

I know that I was a bit mean, but what is meaner? Allowing him to waste his time, money, and hope in something that will not work (extremely high probability anyways), or giving him a reality check?

First, explain to them why it will not work, and attempt to suggest an alternative.
Then help them with what they are trying to do.
Then again explain why it will not work, and reinforce the more viable path(s).

Don't denigrate; educate.

Meanwhile, I found the 1996 lawsuit against Meiyers interesting.
The two experts who witnessed the operation of his "cell" claimed that it was nothing more than electrolysis. I'm quite curious how they determined that it was electrolysis - did they completely drain his cell of the fluid it contained, replacing it with known absolutely pure distilled water, and then test it? Did they test the fluid in his cell and detect an electrolyte solution rather than pure distilled water? I don't know.

How could you determine that such a device was forming gas via electrolysis or by some "fracturing" method simply by visual inspection? Without being privy to the full un-edited transcript of that court proceeding (if there were even a court reporter present) one might wonder just how fairly that call was.

I am highly skeptical of Meiyers' claims - particularly since nobody has been able to replicate his apparent results, largely in part to the technobabble contained in what documentation remaining. You might as well write in "And then a miracle happens!..."

Just when you think you have the laws of physics and thermodynamics beat, they come along and bushwhack ya...

 

I'm convinced that 9-11 was an inside job.

Me too.. sorry for being a jerk, i'm actually under a lot of stress in school and am catching myself being mean without justification..

Steve

 

First, explain to them why it will not work,

I did that.

and attempt to suggest an alternative

If I could do that, then I certainly wouldn't tell anyone because I would be the world's next billionaire.

Don't denigrate; educate.

The education led to a jab at me, and when I get insulted when I am trying to help, I get angry easily. Product of my youth and I apologize.

Steve

 

You refer to the conventional method of electrolysis, using high amperage to inject electrons into water, which liberate the hydrogen atoms from the HH0 molecule. This alternative system uses pulsed step up transformers to generate high voltage (~20KV) to pull the molecule apart with an electrical field.

20KV is not something for a beginner to be screwing around with. I'm locking this thread pending moderator review.

 

We're re-opening this thread, but not without a few words of caution...

This alternative system uses pulsed step up transformers to generate high voltage (~20KV)

As far as 20kv is concerned, I'm surprised that you would consider that dangerous... static electric shocks typically occur around 40 to 60kV...

These comments, especially the second one, show the O.P. must do some additional learning before they can safely undertake a project of this nature. Potenitals of this magnatude are quite dangerous. Many common insulators break down well before this. Conductor insulation of ordinary transformers is rated at only 600V. Coroona effect must be accounted for. Depending on frequency, radiant energy becomes a concern. There are MANY hazards.

Static electric shocks contain only a tiny ammount of energy. The project under consideration will carry more than enough energy to burn, maim, or kill.

We advise anyone with less than about a thousand hours of experience to work only with potentials below fifty volts. We advise anyone planning to work with high voltage to begin by first researching the many dangers and the various accepted safety precautions required to deal with those dangers.

One good place to learn aobut high-voltage safety is 4hv.org. Be advised: they are no where near as tolerant as we where "free energy" experiemnts are concernd. I suggest anyone going there stick to asking about safety and/or about proven science.

Here in this thread, I ask that we limit our discussion to methods of signal generation and/or the nature of water. If we determine the O.P. or any other "newbie" to high-voltage is moving to fast toward dangerous activity, we will invoke Forum Rules, Code of Conduct and Terms and Conditions of Usage Section 2 Paragraph 2, and close this thread permanently.

If there are questions or comments about the decision itself, please take them to the Feedback forum.

Thank you.

 

Stanley Meiyers was sued for fraud about his over-unity impossible dream and he lost in court. He never showed it working.

A university added HHO to gasoline and it improved fuel economy only at idle (because then the mixture was too lean). Others did it and burnt the valves and pistons instead of burning gasoline. NOX pollution skyrockets and the car will not pass the pollution test.

 

Gentlemen, I thank you kindly.

You forgot to acknowledge the ladies.

It's amazing what you can learn in a day, especially with the internet and kindred spirits like yourselves.

This Board is about knowledge. Be aware that "unproven" technology is not terribly well recieved in these parts. However, if proven technology can be interjected, all the better.

In fact, I feel a bond with you fellas now, even the ever-pessimistic beenthere.

Beenthere and I have similar backgrounds. BOTH of us are pessimistic, and for good reason. I'm probably somewhat more open-minded than Beenthere ... but don't push it.

The advice on the PLC and the variometer is stupendous.

I don't know how you could maintain resonance in an LC circuit, when the C is known to vary widely. If you have no means to vary the L, you will not be able to maintain resonance.

As far as the conspiracies, I admit that I go overboard with it sometimes.

Try to avoid that. It makes you appear to be either maniacal or a fanatic. Neither is becoming, or has a snowballs' chance towards making a realistic contribution to anything.

For example, I'm convinced that 9-11 was an inside job.

Oh, snap

(snip) Stanley Meiyers (snip) In the case of being guilty of 'egregious fraud' he was ordered to add electrolyte to his cell before demonstrating it to the court, causing it to malfunction, and was eventually ordered to pay $1 back to the forsaken investor. It is still fact that his device was patented under code 101 of the U.S. patent office.

No, he had to pay back $25,000 to two investors, and where did you hear that he was forced to add electrolyte to his cell before demonstrating it in the court?

If you are spreading misinformation, I will request that this thread again be locked. I didn't want nor ask for it to be locked in the first place. However, misinformation/disinformation does not sit well at all with me.

On another note, I am no newb to circuitry. I was disassembling and rebuilding my first computers at 13. In the last few months, I've built 4 protoboards, (2) LM324 pulse generators, (1) 555 pulse generator, and (1) LM324 PWM. Still though, my knowledge is pale in comparison to some, and I hope to always learn more, which is why I'm here!

Don't think you can take an LM324 above a few kHz with decent results. They fall flat above around 5kHz-7kHz. OTOH, you can take the "lowly" 555 timer above 500kHz and it'll still be functioning. Not the LM324.

Don't think that you can drive a MOSFET gate at those speeds - I'm just saying that the 555 can get up there. If you've tried to build the schematic on alt-nrg.org - then you might have experience with a "not very good" circuit. It will work, barely - but the MOSFET will overheat, and ... I explained it all in another thread. Overall, it's not a good design.

Sgtwookie: Awesome advice with the variometer thank you. A variable inductor coil IS crucial to the resonance, and YES extremely fine resolution is absolutely essential to the technique as well. That is why I prefer an analog, manually adjustable pot control method.

That's why I suggested it. Variometers are rather arcane, but for this application I believe they're quite appropriate.

I think beenthere is mistaken when he says that the "jiggling" of the molecule is what causes it to split. Granted, the jiggling (called cavitation, search for the Peter Davey heater) does seem to aid the process, especially when the submerged electrodes (preferably concentric, acoustically tuned, stainless tubes) are hit with the right frequency. I think though that they key is the high voltage obtained at resonance of an LC circuit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a pulsed DC square wave at the proper frequency, with variable inductor, could put an LC into resonance, spiking voltage and dropping amperage, right?

My angle on it is resonance - pure resonance. If you can't get some kind of "dissassociation" without resonance, then you have absolutely no hope of ever approaching even unity.

I'm very pessimistic about the likelyhood of achieving "dissasociation" near some "magic" frequency - but without a LC resonant tank, there is no way you can approach it. The problem is, once you achieve resonance, and if you do somehow manage to dissasociate hydrogen and oxygen molecules, the dielectric constant of the water will change; thus the resonant frequency of the cell will change.

The dielectric constant of water varies from around 80 at room temperature to down near 55 at boiling.

The dielectric constant of air, oxygen and hydrogen are all about 1 - give or take 10%.

This is yet another reason I'm skeptical of Meiyers' claims; I've seen no mention of methods to maintain resonance once gas starts being generated.

Here is a fact for you:
Once gas (HH0, hydroxy, hydrogen/oxygen, whatever you want to call it) begins generation in a cell, the dielectric constant in that cell will change, which will, without other outside influences, change the capacitance of that cell.

That is, of course, if the cell contains pure water.

MOST experimenter "cells" nowadays run with "electrolyte;" some mixture that results in a conductive and indeed resistive formula. Basically, it's electrolysis, however you wish to look at it.

There is absolutely no way that you can approach unity gas production via electrolysis. The very best you can hope for was defined by Faraday in the 1820's; nearly $0.70 on the dollar.

Now there are some "hybrid" cells around, supposedly based on "Bob Boyce" designs. All I've seen of Bob Boyce designs are electrolysis.

Electrolysis won't get anyone where they need to be. Sure, it may be an "assist" for traditional fuels, but nobody's going to EVER be able to power a vehicle by electrolysis. It's just not going to happen.

You won't have sufficient resolution if you attempt to utilize digital solutions to resonate a cell.
You won't be able to keep up with a manual solution if you do ever achieve gas production in a non-electrolyte cell.

I don't wish to discourage you from experimenting. However, you must realize that the probability of failure is very, very high.

Additionally, if you attempt to experiment with high voltage without proper safety precautions ... your life will most certainly be cut short.

If you really want to try this stuff, send it to me, and I'll test it for you.

At least I have the knowledge and training to survive these kinds of tests.

 

If you really want to try this stuff, send it to me, and I'll test it for you.

A very generous offer, maybe I'll take you up on that.

Don't think you can take an LM324 above a few kHz with decent results. They fall flat above around 5kHz-7kHz. OTOH, you can take the "lowly" 555 timer above 500kHz and it'll still be functioning. Not the LM324.

Thanks for the info, I was wondering why my chip seemed to malfunction at low timing cap values. It also has a terrible slew rate... Do you know of a circuit utilizing the 555 that doesn't need decade switching to reach frequencies between say, 1khz and 500khz?

Don't think that you can drive a MOSFET gate at those speeds - I'm just saying that the 555 can get up there.

How do we overcome the problem of ultra fast fet switching? I've heard of using buffers or drivers to enhance switch rate, like here

I would like to say in my own defense that I am open minded too, meaning I am willing to change to my beliefs if I fail after exhausting all possibilities. I am designing this cell to be used in the conventional electrolysis method as well, meaning I could build an HHO cutting torch, or convert my natural gas stove or water heater to an electrically powered water stove or water water heater. Solar could be the power source...

One final question... could an audio synthesizer be amplified to high enough volts/current to switch a fet?

 

There are rational underpinnings to my scepticism about the usefulness of or ability of a water electrolyzer in increasing gas mileage - this is a different issue from the so called 'over unity' people who further claim to be able to electrolyze water with less energy that physics states is necesary. No table top demo makes it a scam.

The number of sites touting 'water power' for you car is enormous. Many do no more than sell really overproced literature at 'discounts'. Pure scam, big rip-off. Look to Amway for how that works.

The ones that sell electrolyzers are sometimes better for price. Then I look for sites like this one - http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1769/ - that are devoted to exposing the scam.

I am going to cut and paste some of the postings from the very long thread on that site:

written by Virgil , June 19, 2008 @ Rick Forbes:
So 1.4L/min of hydrogen is 0.0583 moles of H per min. Your average car running at 55mph, gas mileage of 25mpg, burns 2.2 gallons or 8.4 liters of gasoline (octane) over the course of a hour, which is 140mls per minute - this is roughly 1 mole of octane. So, molar ratio of hydrogen you're putting in, relative to the octane you're already burning, is less than 5%. I refuse to believe that adding 5% H brings your gas mileage up by 50%. Like everything else you claim, it is physically impossible (not to mention of course that the energy yield per mole of gas is more than of H, because octane has 8 carbons and 18 hydrogens, versus H's single atom).

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

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

**** End of the above post ***

ok here is some phsyics
written by steve_s_physics , June 19, 2008
ok lets get more to brass tacks so to speak. this may be convoluted; sorry if we had a white board I would be in bliss typing physics is awful hard :|
but lets begin

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

hope that made sense :|

*** end of the above post ***

This is the opening statement from the site:

EcoGeek went live more than two years ago with no fanfare and no traffic. We had a readership of about five people. Three days later, I received the first notice of a breakthrough water-powered car that would solve our energy problems. Those emails have not stopped since. We wrote a while back about why getting power from water is entirely impossible. But we didn't apply it directly to cars...so here we go again.
The advertisements you almost certainly are seeing from google on the sidebar are scams, we've tried to block them, but they just come back with different URLs. This story at Reuters, which claims that hydrogen is "extracted" from water to power a car is a big steaming pile. I don't know how these things slip through the cracks. I guess we'd all love for there to be a simple solution. Solutions exist, but this isn't one of them.
Generally these things are picked up on local news stations who have poor fact checking and (obviously) no knowledge of the laws of physics. But the fact that Reuters did a whole story on one of these bogus machines, and then it traveled undeterred around the blogosphere, is simply inexcusable.
"Water Powered Cars" generally work like this: Energy stored in a battery or generated by an on-board gasoline powered generator, splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. The two are then recombined, either in an internal combustion engine or in a fuel cell. Energy from the fuel cell or the engine then drives the car.
So, simplifying this, they're breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning hydrogen and oxygen to create water. This is, of course, possible, but you can't get more energy out of the system than you put in. Otherwise, it's simply a perpetual motion machine.
If it worked, it could sit on the driveway and make energy all day every day and power the entire world without you ever needing to put anything in it. In short, if it worked, it would break the laws of physics, and we would never need to burn another piece of coal again. This would be an extraordinarily easy thing to prove. Too bad none of these people who make these wonderful devices are too busy talking to the local news to actually build one.
There are a lot of variations on the water powered car, but they're all bogus. People who say that adding gasoline-generated hydrogen to gasoline increases your gas mileage by 30% are full of it. It doesn't matter if they call it HHO or H20 or Brown's gas. It doesn't matter if they're creating it with a battery or a flywheel. It doesn't matter if they've postulated a sixth dimension from which flows seemingly endless amounts of energy.
Until someone puts a box on their driveway and it generates more power than goes into it...everyone who says you can power a car with water is either a fool or trying to take someone else's money.

*** end ***

If you read through the thread, you see that there is a lot of magical thinking present - "I really want this to work, so it must"

The one thing that any sceptical person wants to see is the experiment that demonstrates the effet. Testimonial statement and videos are simply not adequate to prove any claim of this nature.

By the way, in the light of the stuff above, think about the site that sells a kit for hydrolysis. The basic kit put out 700 ml/min. The deluxe kit poduces 1.5 liter/min. That level of HHO addition to an engine just is not enough to make a difference.

If physics tells you it can't work, it's generally because nobody has been able to produce a working device. Even a patent - which does not require a working device demonstrated, by the way (I'm in a patenting process, so I know this is true) - does not prevent some investigator from building a device from the patent information and evaluating it. That is perfectly legal. He only has to arrange a lisencing arrangement before using the device to make the device for sale.

The basic thing to keep in mind is that extraordinary claimes require extraordinary proof. Ardent belief, testimonials, and angry accusations do not constitute proof.

 

they're breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning hydrogen and oxygen to create water

I pointed this out very early on through a wikipedia link, he said something along the lines of "if you want to believe wikipedia..."

Good posting though, I didn't know the actual energy, even if you used a magical electrolysis, was so poor for water.

Steve

 

People please, I know these "Booster" cells and fuel mileage gains are all a scam too. There is no need to clarify this further, and it is off topic.

For one thing, HHO burns a lot faster than gasoline, meaning that at default spark advance, you would be fighting the piston with hydrogen as it tried to come back up to TDC, actually reducing fuel mileage. Please, the device in question is shown here

It consumes 12V, .5 amps, and produces 15+L/min of HHO
which yes is quite above Faraday

The way this works is not intuitive, especially to the trained physicist because of the rigidly embedded thinking structure that accompanies learning 'Laws'. There are no such things as laws, only theories that have yet to be disproven. Just because I drop an apple and it falls, doesn't mean it will happen again, thus Gravity is a theory. What we don't fully understand is the interaction of matter with zero-point energy, or, the energy stored in the 'empty' space of an atom. We also do not understand the work that voltage can perform. When we stop trying to brute force electrolyze water, and aim for a more delicate balance of synchronized harmonics, we can achieve VERY high potential with little effort, and let the potential act on the molecular structure of the substrate. Outside the box, anyone?

 

Do you have one that can be set up on a tabletop anywhere and work? Got plans so anyone can put it together? Why isn't all the world's power being made by these devices? Videos prove absolutely nothing (sorry Godzilla).

Intuitition be hanged - does such a device actually work? Belief isn't evidence.

 

People please, I know these "Booster" cells and fuel mileage gains are all a scam too. There is no need to clarify this further, and it is off topic.

For one thing, HHO burns a lot faster than gasoline, meaning that at default spark advance, you would be fighting the piston with hydrogen as it tried to come back up to TDC, actually reducing fuel mileage. Please, the device in question is shown here

It consumes 12V, .5 amps, and produces 15+L/min of HHO
which yes is quite above Faraday

The way this works is not intuitive, especially to the trained physicist because of the rigidly embedded thinking structure that accompanies learning 'Laws'. There are no such things as laws, only theories that have yet to be disproven. Just because I drop an apple and it falls, doesn't mean it will happen again, thus Gravity is a theory. What we don't fully understand is the interaction of matter with zero-point energy, or, the energy stored in the 'empty' space of an atom. We also do not understand the work that voltage can perform. When we stop trying to brute force electrolyze water, and aim for a more delicate balance of synchronized harmonics, we can achieve VERY high potential with little effort, and let the potential act on the molecular structure of the substrate. Outside the box, anyone?

You've given a list of things that "we don't fully understand" and then made the statement "When we stop trying to brute force electrolyze water, and aim for a more delicate balance of synchronized harmonics, we can achieve VERY high potential with little effort, and let the potential act on the molecular structure of the substrate." What is this claim based on?

It's a very common (and incorrect) claim by "alternative scientists" that conventional physicists and scientists i.e. people who actually have an understanding of physics, are incapable of experimentation or "thinking outside the box" and that the answers can only come from untrained but intuitive amateurs, often with little or no appreciation of scientific methods, working alone in their garages. Unfortunately, as much as I would like it to be the case, I'm not aware of a great deal of "new physics" emerging from this particular sector.

 

What we don't fully understand is the interaction of matter with zero-point energy, or, the energy stored in the 'empty' space of an atom.

There is no energy stored in the empty space of an atom. "Zero point energy" is simply the energy of a ground state of a system. Playing such shell-games with scientific terms is the essence of fraud.

We also do not understand the work that voltage can perform.

Voltage does not perform work anymore than distance provides movement. I very strongly suggest you study the basics.

When we stop trying to brute force electrolyze water, and aim for a more delicate balance of synchronized harmonics, we can achieve VERY high potential with little effort, and let the potential act on the molecular structure of the substrate.

I know what harmonics are, and I know what synchronisation is. Please provide a definition of "synchonised harmonics." Please tell me what "potential" (we also call it "EMF" or "voltage") has to do with "effort." What is "the molecular structure of the substrate?" And how does EMF act upon it?

Outside the box, anyone?

Quite frankly, I think you need to learn the meanings of the words you are quoting. You might then realize the sentanes are gibberish. Are you willing to step far enough outside your own box to see it for the dumpster it is?

 

Thanks for the info, I was wondering why my chip seemed to malfunction at low timing cap values. It also has a terrible slew rate...

It's not a bad opamp for low frequency applications - but it's just not appropriate for this one. Just the operating temperature range (0°C-70°C) is enough to rule it out.

Do you know of a circuit utilizing the 555 that doesn't need decade switching to reach frequencies between say, 1khz and 500khz?

It wouldn't be realistic. The frequency adjustment would be extremely coarse, even with a 10-turn pot. But if you had a 500-turn pot ...

But seriously, you could use a large value pot in series with a low value pot; the larger would provide coarse range, the small value for fine tuning.

How do we overcome the problem of ultra fast fet switching? I've heard of using buffers or drivers to enhance switch rate

Gate drivers, something like one of these:
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/FA/FAN3228C.pdf

Those can source/sink a fair amount of current all by themselves.

I would like to say in my own defense that I am open minded too, meaning I am willing to change to my beliefs if I fail after exhausting all possibilities.

Try to spend as little money as possible on this; your wallet will thank you later.

I am designing this cell to be used in the conventional electrolysis method as well, meaning I could build an HHO cutting torch, or convert my natural gas stove or water heater to an electrically powered water stove or water water heater. Solar could be the power source...

You would need quite a large solar array to generate a useful amount of gas. Some people have made gas welding torches with cells, but you really need to separate the hydrogen and oxygen to make it relatively safe.

It would not be safe at all to use a gas cell like that indoors. The gas is colorless, odorless, and explosive.

Besides, straight brute-force electrolysis is not 100% efficient; more like 65%. You might as well just use the electricity to power a heating element; it would be much more efficient and far safer.

One final question... could an audio synthesizer be amplified to high enough volts/current to switch a fet?

I'm not quite sure why you'd want to do that.

MOSFETs in this type of application are used as on/off switches. This is where they really shine. They can have very low Rds(ON) values, down to milliohms; some MOSFETs can carry hundreds of Amperes, others can handle hundreds of volts.

Generally, MOSFETs are fully ON when the gate-to-source voltage (Vgs) is 10 (-10 for P-channel) and fully OFF when Vgs=0. They have a "threshold voltage" which is where they begin to conduct; this varies, but it is between 0v and 10v (-10v for P-ch). One tries to drive the gate in such a manner that as little time as possible is spent with the gate in transition; as staying in that "linear" region will cause power dissipation as heat.

There are also "logic level" MOSFETs, like the IRLZ24 by International Rectifier. These are designed to operate with Vgs=0v or Vgs=5v. This makes it very easy to drive them using a microcontroller.

But if you wanted to drive a MOSFET's gate using an audio signal, I suppose you could overdrive the signal and clip it to turn it into a square wave; better yet use a comparator to pick up the 0v crossing point.
See the attached. Note that the LM339 is a pretty slow comparator; I just used it because it was handy.

 

Making H2 and O2 for household combustion can be as safe as natural gas if you build a cell that allows you to keep the O2 and H2 separate until they are at the burner. There is plenty of O2 around - you could just let it go and contain the H2.

"Illuminating gas" got stored in "gasometers", which were gas tight vessels that looked a lot like oil storage tanks. They were open at the bottom and sat in a pond of water. As gas was forced in, they rose in height, and kept the gas under pressure from the weight of the tank. Something like that might be possible for household use, but on a smaller scale. Might be a challenge in an apartment.

As long as you spend less for the electricity than the value of the gas, it could be attractive.

 

Quite frankly, I think you need to learn the meanings of the words you are quoting. You might then realize the sentences are gibberish. Are you willing to step far enough outside your own box to see it for the dumpster it is?

Brilliant words, you really know how to see things for what they are..

Steve