Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Water Fuel - HHO Gas
rratch.com — We don't need oil or gas. Water fuel is a reality. 100 miles with 8 ounces!
Pixellore- 2116 diggs
- digg it
- discoloda, on 10/12/2007, -79/+16neet, if it was true
- wmarcello, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28I would like to know more of the science behind this. How exactly is water broken down into HHO by electrolysis? Is this completely stable? If this is old news, why hasn't it caught on? There must be some drawbacks...?
Amazing story, and new to me. - SakisRakis, on 10/12/2007, -16/+19It is true, but the process to turn the water into HHO takes large amounts of energy. It is somewhat similar to the corn based fuels: it is doable but it takes lots of power (usually derived from fossil fuels in the first place) to get it to a use-able state. The only way to make this really doable would be to utilize nuclear power on a massive scale...which I for one would be reluctant to support.
- swax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34not me, bring those 4th gen reactors online asap, i like cheap energy and a glowing smile.
- tylerl, on 11/12/2007, -1/+102Let's make sure we understand what this technology is for...
Water is not the fuel--it's not the source of energy. Electricity from your local power plant is your source of power. Electrolysing water and then burning the result gets you around the simple problem that electricity itself doesn't burn. You can burn hydrocarbons, like butane or gasoline, but then you have to store the fuel (which can be dangerous).
Instead, you store water, a very stable substance. You use electricity to turn that water into fuel, then immediately burn the result, turning it back into water. You can even take that waste water and run it back through the system. You always get less power out of the system than you put into it (laws of thermodynamics in effect here); but you've effectively found a way to burn hydrogen without having to store the hydrogen and oxygen, which can be very dangerous to store.
A water-powered car isn't really powered by water. It's battery-powered. However, puting water into the system allows you to still use a combustion engine, rather than electric motors. It's not nearly as efficient, which is why this route isn't being pursued by auto makers. But there can be advantages, depending on your needs. - mebob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think the problem is the energy used to produce the gas. No surprises, but with this application the positives when compared to the alternatives seem to out was the extra 'cheap' energy required.
It's going to take some time to get this working as an alternative fuel. But I think when it comes to locomotion, not welding/heating/cutting, better battery tech would prevail as a transport over a gas like this until it can be made with less energy. - supert0ad, on 10/12/2007, -35/+2...
- deepsub, on 11/12/2007, -5/+55"apparently it produces more energy that it consumes, though"
This is not possible. - LordVoldemort, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6That should be: "if it were true."
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9For the above posters, you do know that HHO Is another way of writing H2O, right?
Oh, another thing, Fox News for the win. - ZapWizard, on 11/12/2007, -2/+11HHO referes to two hydogen atoms and one oxygen atom in gas form.
It seems like a great alternative to other welding gas's, just add electricity.
For those who say that electricity comes from fossil fuels anyways: While that is true, powerplants are much more effecient and can contain and process greenhouse gas's much better then your average car. - triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8add a solar panel on the roof of the car to charge the battery, and one or two on your roof at home and there should be little to no fossil fuel involved.
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7""apparently it produces more energy that it consumes, though"
This is not possible."
explain fission and fusion then please. - Stoutlimb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Fission & Fusion are nuclear reactions. There is still entropy in their reactions, they are just way more energetic. You can't make a nuclear reaction go backwards without putting at least enough work into it than you got. There is no such thing as getting more energy out of something than you put in, unless it's coming from another source, and then the same principle applies. Thermodynamics is basic high school science, did you fail that?
- triplehelix, on 11/12/2007, -2/+19releasing stored energy and creating it are two different things.
no laws of thermodynamics are broken by any of our current energy production systems, yet we get more energy out of say petrol production then we put into it. that's not to say we created that energy, we just used less energy to get at the stored energy then we will get out of the fuel source.
you can absolutely get more energy out of fusion and fission then you put into it. you don't create the energy, you release it.
"Fission only produces more energy than it consumes in large nuclei (common examples are Uranium & Plutonium, which have around 240 nucleons (nucleon = proton or neutron)). Fusion only produces more energy than it consumes in small nuclei (in stars, Hydrogen & its isotopes fusing into Helium). The energy released when 4 Hydrogen nuclei (= protons) fuse (there are some decays involved as well) into a Helium nucleus is around 27 Million Electron Volts (MeV), or about 7 MeV per nucleon."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae534.cfm
and i love the way you peppered your rebuttal with big words to make it seem like you had a clue. - LuxFX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I would like to know more of the science behind this"
Here is the guy's patent:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Klein.INNM.&s2=electrolysis&OS=IN/Klein+AND+electrolysis&RS=IN/Klein+AND+electrolysis
And here is his website for more information:
http://hytechapps.com/ - tingle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is just a common duct electrolytic oxy-hydrogen. The mixture consists of diatomic hydrogen, diatomic oxygen and water vapor. The flame is a unique method for transmitting electrical energy directly into the atomic structure of materials, producing effects often unobtainable by any other means. The special struture of the chemical means it's still cool to the touch yet can "burn" through metal.
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/events/conferences/2004/teslatech_SLC/LarryOja/BrownsGas.htm
- wmarcello, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28I would like to know more of the science behind this. How exactly is water broken down into HHO by electrolysis? Is this completely stable? If this is old news, why hasn't it caught on? There must be some drawbacks...?
- Jowitz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Seems true enough, sure it might now be (as many of these things seem to be), but it could. The web-page for the company can be seen here: http://hytechapps.com/ and the patent seems to be here: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2004074781&F=0
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -31/+17This is ridiculous, everyone is getting up in arms about some guy showing off an engine that runs on water for fox news? Its obvious that water is inert, its obvious that the power comes from a battery, its obvious that HHO is H2O, its just scientific shorthand, and its obvious that whats burning is hydrogen and oxygen. The only new idea being used here seem to be to recycle the water rather than running it out of the tailpipe and doing the electrolysis on board rather than fueling with hydrogen. Electrolysis is an inefficient and not particularly quick process and is unsuitable for use in a moving vehicle. Recycling the reacted water is an obvious thing to do. This man brings nothing new. For god's sake didn't anyone take chemistry in high school?
- hammerattack, on 11/12/2007, -3/+92Not only did I take chemistry, I passed it. Apparently, you missed the chapter on isomer forms of water.
HHO and H2O aren't the same thing. In an H20 (water) molecule, the hydrogen atoms are attached to the central oxygen atom, and both are at about a 104°ree; angle. The isomer form HHO has two hydrogens bonded in series with an oxygen atom capped to one hydrogen all in a line. This molecular configuration is actually very unstable under high pressure or temperature. When compressed or heated, the molecule shatters, then chemically recombines to the more stable H20 isomer.
Now, I believe you were belittling others about their ignorance of chemistry? - triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8i wish i could dig that chemistry lesson twice.
- justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -22/+7SO you're saying that a hydrogen atom can stably bond to another hydrogen atom and oxygen - Like this H-H-O? Hmmm, sounds like some interesting chemistry - While I can't say that this is obviously *****, I have never heard of such a thing, and I can't imagine how such a structure could ever arise or remain stable at any temperate or pressure. I think HHO is just a really ***** way of referring to the mixture of ionized H2 and O2 that forms from electrolysis.
- hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I see. Because you've never heard of it, it doesn't exist. Get over yourself moron.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2No, because a little searching for HHO chemistry yields only crackpot sites.
H2O is very stable. The likelihood of finding an isomer of it so you can burn it is near zero.
This is all tomfoolery. Sounds it was made up to explain incongruous results, when the thing that probably should have been done is to recheck the measurements and figure out where you went wrong.
TANSTAAFL. - justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2***** Digg if I'm going to be modded into the negative for suggesting that water can't exist as an H-H-O isomer.
- Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What this guy is making and using isn't h-h-o. For one creating an isomer of that nature would be a bit difficult, and unlikely to be stable. Electrolysing water in a bubble as he's doing, creates Browns gas. Basically it's h2 and o2 in the exact amounts needed to make water. Combustion does NOT create an explosion as it would in open air. It creates an implosion, a fairly hefty electric charge, and a vacuum.
It's an interesting gas to play with, and probably has a bunch of uses in welding (cuts tungsten like a hot knife through butter) But it's not that impressive as a power source without added gasses to soak up the heat/charge and cause explosive expansion. The other downside of course is that it's expensive to make energy wise. Conversion back to water only releases approx 80% of the energy to make the gas. Good luck getting more than 50% of that energy back into electricity. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Hammerattack, I withdraw my above comment and bow before your incredible knowledge. So what you're saying essentially is that through electrolysis and compression you can 'shatter' H2O into hydrogen and oxygen which then burns? Seems like electrolysis 2.0 rather than any earthshattering new discovery. I especially resent the misleading title. However, given that I just got served, I would defer to anyone else with more knowledge.
- hhogreenfuel, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0hhogreenfuel.com and hhogreenfuel.net for anyone interested in more sites with this technology.
- chiapet, on 10/12/2007, -32/+8omfg I'm speechless this is amazing
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24Yah, except for the fact that it smells just like a scam. Especially the way they kept displaying HHO as if it wasn't water.
- LordVoldemort, on 10/12/2007, -23/+5You mean: "as if it weren't water."
- SakisRakis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10HHO is not the same as H2O, refer to the very detailed post above.
- addakorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@logicnazi This is not a scam. You can build this at home using only a small solar panel to produce enough fuel to run a small car a few hundred miles a week. The fuel is not very stable and is not safe to store however.
- vatechtigger, on 10/12/2007, -30/+8just last night the guys on mythbusters did this myth. They built a hydrogen generator (electrolysis) just like this one and tried it out. There is just no way that it will put out enough hydrogen fast enough to power a vehicle.
- thebanmagi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Actually, no. They took the Hydrogen gas emitted by electrolysis and ran the car on that. This is a different gas, HHO, not just H. The explosion was funny on that episode though...
- psyon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+55Because we all know mythbusters tests everything perfectly.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18You do know that HHO is just water don't you?
Also if you watch the episodes it is clear they do know their science but they know that if they start calculating things or using 'science' terms then no one will watch. This is what has happened to every other program with a similar aim. People insisted on showing off calculations or big words and they lost audience interest. - Ryetronics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Does anyone else miss Mr. Wizard right about now?
- 12340987, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I read that steam is easier to electrolyze than cold water, just because it has more energy, though he claims to have created a state of matter that I don't think we went over in class.
But yeah, the mythbusters could really have benefit from a physics class. - podwich, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@ thebanmagi: I don't think you get it. Water is H2O (HHO, HOH, whatever). Hydrogen gas is H2 (or HH, if you prefer). You need oxygen gas (O2) to burn the hydrogen. 1 mole of the newly created hydrogen gas reacts with 1/2 mole of the newly created oxygen gas, releasing heat and making water.
What they did on mythbusters is the same thing-they took H2 and burned it in an engine. Hydrogen doesn't care where it came from-electrolysis or whatever. It's just hydrogen. If it comes from a hydrogen compressed gas tank, it'll have to react with atmospheric oxygen instead of oxygen produced from electrolysis, but it's still the same thing. - Ollin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Atleast that chick from the show is hot the one with the red hair ;)
- addakorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@thebanmagi same gas, different production methods
- stan205, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6It does seems to good to be true. But at the same time it could be the oil companies which have lead to believe that technology such as this is to good to be true. It is strange that this hasn't hit more news stations so far.
- lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4"too" as in "too good to be true".
There were TWO kinda of TOO in that sentence, one being TO.
Please finish 4th grade before using tha intranetz.
- lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4"too" as in "too good to be true".
- JohnP, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15WHAT? Im sorry, but this is one of those things that just plain upsets me. If it were true it would be all over the news, wouldnt it?
Why do people make such lame and cruel claims? ( please prove me wrong on this one, because if true it will make the world a better place)- gert2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Central Indiana's news station just found out about Blu-ray and HD-DVD about 2 weeks ago. This clip was on the news. Maybe you should watch it?
- diggmaddy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6The world would definitely be a better place with such tech implemented wisely. But, it's the corporate world which dosen't want the world to be a better place. What do you think? if this was true, would BIG OIL companies want this tech to get popular? NO. They are trying their best to keep such news from spreading.
There are many wonderful technologies which got burried in history just because of corporate tactics. Such money minded attitude of the corporate world saddens me a lot!- GHCguy, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0A few concepts people need to wrap their heads around to get this idea in their heads properly:
1) Hydrogen is flammable - The sun is mainly comprised of Hydrogen and Helium both of which are extremely flam able gasses. Now what is water made of? hmmm that's right Hydrogen & Oxygen! One is a highly flammable gas and the other is a Catalyst for fire.
2) The concept of stored energy. GAS our lovely modern fuel source is a stored form of energy. When you apply fire or a spark to gasoline it releases that stored energy in the form of fire & continues to release that energy until either the fuel is completely used up, it runs out of oxygen to support that chemical release of energy, or it is put in some other manner.
3) Waste energy - Car engines throw away a lot of the energy produced by the combustion within. Mainly in the form of heat but there is also a lot of kinetic energy waste. Most cars take advantage of this heat in some form. a) when you turn the heat on that hot air is coming from the heat off your engine b) Your battery is constantly being recharged by your alternator while the car is running. Your alternator is basically a glorified dyno which is powered by kinetic energy from the firing pistons of your motor. And in newer hybrid electric cars there are little dynos on each wheel so when you hit your breaks it engages the dynos on each wheel to recharge the car slightly.
So to grasp this whole water car concept we have to first stop viewing water as something to put out fires with but instead an extremely stable fuel (more accurately a combination of fuel and oxidizer) Basically because water is majority hydrogen it has a lot of stored energy within it.
Now if this fellow was able to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen using a very efficient electrolysis process, then you now have a very explosive fuel (hydrogen) and a very good catalyst (oxygen). After that all you need to do is inject that hydrogen and oxygen into your engine in a stable way to improve your energy output. Basically the same way you'd inject NOS into your engine to make it go faster. The difference is your goal is not speed but more mileage.
as for the electricity needed for this separation method you would use the waste energy from the engine combustion to provide it... probably just take it right off the car battery as it's being charged from the alternator anyway. It probably would take about the same amount of energy as turning on your air conditioner.... Maybe a little more.
The idea is that the stored energy payoff is more than the electric energy used to harness it.
There is no perpetual motion engine here. No magic... No miracle, just really efficient fuel usage from a very stable source.
If all I have to do is buy a bigger battery and a few extra parts to double my gas mileage... I'd do that in a heartbeat.
And AS for why it hasn't been in the news. The government has already signed a deal with this guy to work on hybrid hummers as well as GM and a few other U.S. car makers. In those deals they probably told this guy to hush up about the technology so that They could introduce it slowly to the market themselves so that people would still buy enough gas to support our floundering economy.
Lets face it. If all our cars could run on water... how many people would be unemployed by that? Millions. Petroleum is used in far more facets of our economy than most people realize. Nearly all plastics & Artificial flavors for instance are either directly or indirectly made from petroleum or natural gas hydrocarbons. So just tossing gas out the window overnight will never happen. It's going to be a slow transition process folks.
- GHCguy, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0A few concepts people need to wrap their heads around to get this idea in their heads properly:
- 2br2br2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0See" HHo ecogreen" if you are a non-believer. Stop wasting your money on the oil gods ! 2br2br2
- brentskee, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1John, the world is not run by Philanthropists who love you. Snap out of it. The World is run by a Global Elite hell bent on destruction of the entire planet. Just watch the films ZeitGeist, TerrorStorm, 911: The Road to Tyranny just to name a few. Wake up. Our government (corporate) has nuclear powered "jet" engines (NERVA). You should read this article by Bill Joy (he is super smart and mega rich) It's called "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html - jas2871, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1No, this would not be all over the news because the oil companies don't want it to be. My dad remembers seeing stuff like this years ago and it would be in the news for a week then it would stop. The oil companies probably own several patents for motors that run on water alone. And if the inventors wouldn't sell, their families and lives were probably threatened. I think it is seriously plausible. I mean think about it, George W. Bush is pres. and he is also an oil tycoon. The cost of gas is on the rise, which is good for him, do you think he wants this to hit the airwaves? Not hardly, where would he get his money then???
- chiapet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I don't get it you guys are saying its not true? you know you can buy the thing right now go to his web sight !!
people are weird- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Yes, and we know that everything sold on the web is totally legit and there is no chance it is a scam.
I was dubious but willing to believe that he had found some way to energize water or use electricity to put it into some reactive state (perhaps make H2O2 and do something clever with that) to make his blowtorch work. However, the bit about super fuels is really dubious and the fact that they kept putting up HHO as if it wasn't just water convinced me it was a fake.
Also if you go read his webpage it reads just like the quack pages read.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Yes, and we know that everything sold on the web is totally legit and there is no chance it is a scam.
- chiapet, on 10/12/2007, -31/+2...
- Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Here's another, promotional video: http://hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/FinalHTA05.mov
- Orangutan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5when they say this gas is evolutionary, doesnt it seem like they should be saying revolutionary?
- 2br2br2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0See"HHo Ecogreen" Stop whinning...do something?
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3no because it an evolution (the next thing)
- emperortomato, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Is this a hoax or are they just stupid? About 2 mins into the vid they show what is presumably supposed to be a molecule of water, but they show it as HO2. If you went to elementary school you probably know that's not right.
- CeruleanCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5just as an observation, when you see an old clip of a scientist using an eye dropper, the editor blurred out the CO2 on the beaker in every frame except one. you can check each frame in quicktime to see for yourself. quite odd.
- loki1983, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HO2 3H = 2H2O soooo... unless he's making some peroxide...and Hydrogen...? careful: concentrated peroxide will dissolve you. lol and there are probable problems with having too much water in the cylinders of a combustion engine....
- Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While there are issues with water in interna combusion engines (otto and diesel engines) I wonder if the answer is something like a stirling engine, with external combustion and theoretically higher efficiency.
- Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you electrolyse water and don't add any other gases to the mix it actually creates an implosion with a hefty electrical charge. The best efficiency would probably be something using the water being pulled back into the reaction chamber and harvesting as much of the charge as possible for the next cycle. Your still going to need a serious external electric source to get any kind of speed out of it though.
Pretty much Browns gas is only going to be useful in welding and similar reactions. It'd cut and cauterize flesh real quick too so maybe a medical use, lasers are far more wieldy for that use though. In the end because of the external power needed, you'd be better off using the power for an electric vehicle, maybe with a hydrogen combustion engine for acceleration. The only difference with the hydrogen engine is adding outside gases to collect the heat and cause expansion rather than implosion.
- Orangutan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5when they say this gas is evolutionary, doesnt it seem like they should be saying revolutionary?
- Evervision, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14This is a proven invention. It's also refered to as Brown's gas. It was first discovered by Yull Brown. See the wikipedia entry for details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Proven? ? "claims that Brown's gas could be used as fuel for cars and other everyday energy needs are also met with skepticism, because it has not been demonstrated that it can be compressed to fit into a reasonable space without becoming dangerously explosive."
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hey did you notice the part that skeptics think it might just be normal electrolysis producing normal Hydrogen and Oxygen?
- waltwalt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's the thing about a brown gas generator, you don't need to store massive quantities, you generate it as you need it.
- corerunner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I had to search for Brown's Gas on this page, but I'm glad SOMEONE picked up on this. Earlier this year my EE lab supposedly had a project researching Brown's Gas, but the generator we ordered from Eagle Research never ever showed up (after it was paid for), which goes to show how much of vapor-ware this technology really is.
Please note that welding with Brown's Gas is entirely different from burning hydrogen, especially in that it burns with a "cold" flame but it will meet the melting point of any material that it contacts. Personally I don't understand this at all, and I think the majority of people who claim they can are full of it--probably trying to turn a profit. Let's not tarnish the reputation of science with this nonsense and just show some results from a legitimate laboratory.
- TVarmy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I'm digging this just because I feel it deserves more attention. I think it's false, but most people on the internet seem to think it's real without questioning it. Seeing as to how this is a technology site with a ton of skeptics, I think the members here can help to expose it as a fraud.
- ripthis, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7ahh, duhh, of course its real, electrolysis process changes the water molecule into usable hho gas, (simple physics just like making plastics, medication and vitamins) it has always been a reality but not marketable cause our politicians can not make any money from it. as long as exon and the other company's donate to the politicians "election fund", then not enough money will go to launch hho energy.
- doles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"ahh, duhh, of course its real, electrolysis process changes the water molecule into usable hho gas"
Yes... But one tiny problem with that. It takes more energy to do that than you get from the gas. So yeah, you *can* do it, but it requires another power source. - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Uhh no because H2O and HHO are just different ways to say the same thing. So no it doesn't take any energy to do this conversion...of course he is probably just converting it into H2 and O2 with standard electrolysis and just burning hydrogen.
- diggmaddy, on 11/12/2007, -2/+19It's surprising me how many people claim that HHO and H2O are the same thing. HELL NO. H2O is a compound, a water molecule with 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom with a specific structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule). All three atoms are bound with one another in a stable arrangement like that. Even oxygen gas (O2) and two separate atoms of oxygen are not the same thing (although, two separate oxygen atoms won't remain independent for a long time and will readily join into an oxygen molecule, which is stable)
BUT, HHO is a gas with hydrogen and oxygen atoms separated. If left by themselves, they will form water again, because it is stable. It does take a lot of energy to break those stable bonds in H2O and separate the atoms from one another. And that's what electrolysis does. So, it does take a lot of energy to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. Once hydrogen is separated from oxygen, this process uses the explosive nature of hydrogen to easily ignite it in presence of oxygen, which acts as a catalyst for combustion.
Kindly stop claiming that electrolysis takes no energy and H2O and HHO are the same thing! If you want, please refer to your chemistry books again.- syncromon, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0I have recently built an HHO system for my vehicle. Its currently using 72 watts of electricity (6 cells, 3 pairs wired in series, 6Volts each pair) drawing 4 amps. I can hook up a PWM to draw even less power. It does not take alot of energy to do this!, armchair critics seem to be spreading that myth, and have never tried it themselves. When you turn on your stereo or headlights, how much does it reduce your milage? This uses roughly the same amount of power, and boost your milage 25% OR MORE!
- justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Stop acting like "HHO" is something real!!!!! If it is just a mixture of monatomic hydrogen and oxygen then call it H and O, or 2H O, or something else. The name HHO implies it's a single molecule, and some retards on here are claiming that its an isomer of water.
- Skyscope, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0One thing that I think that everyone is ignoring is that they don't really know what Denny Klein has done with his process. I might give you something to consider, in chemistry there is sometimes reactions that happen by means of a Catalyst. Catalysts work by changing the activation energy for a reaction, i.e., the minimum energy needed for the reaction to occur. This is accomplished by providing a new mechanism or reaction path through which the reaction can proceed. When the new reaction path has a lower activation energy, the reaction rate is increased and the reaction is said to be catalyzed.
Denny Klein may have found a Catalyst and a reaction path or even they are using multiple Catalysts in several reactions that allow for a more energy efficient path for the electrical breakdown of water into its base components, or to eventually to get HHO. One example is where finely divided metals are often used as catalysts; they adsorb the reactants onto their surfaces where the reaction can occur more readily. For example, hydrogen and oxygen gases can be mixed without reacting to form water, but if a small amount of powdered platinum is added to the gas mixture, the gases react rapidly. Hydrogenation reactions, e.g., the formation of hard cooking fats from vegetable oils, are catalyzed by finely divided metals or metal oxides. The commercial preparation of sulfuric acid and nitric acid also depends on such surface catalysis. Other commonly used surface catalysts, in addition to platinum, are copper, iron, nickel, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, silica gel (silicon dioxide), and vanadium oxide.
I have a theory on what he may have done, is that he was able find a method to create a hydroxyl (OH) ion, through some catalyst process with electricity or other energy from electricity e.g. UV light, electromagnetic, etc… and then was able then merge that remaining hydrogen to the hydroxyl through a hydrogen bond. Hydrogen bonding differs from other uses of the word "bond" since it is a force of attraction between a hydrogen atom in one molecule and a small atom of high electronegativity (like a hydroxyl ion)in another molecule this being HOH, and his HHO is just a rearrangement of the letters. That is, it is an intermolecular force, not an intramolecular force as in the common use of the word bond.
When hydrogen atoms are joined in a polar covalent bondwith a small atom of high electronegativity such as O, F, N, or OH, the partial positive charge on the hydrogen is highly concentrated because of its small size. If the hydrogen is close to another oxygen, fluorine or nitrogen in another molecule, then there is a force of attraction termed a dipole-dipole interaction. This attraction or "hydrogen bond" can have about 5% to 10% of the strength of a covalent bond. Hydrogen bonding has a very important effect on the properties of water and ice.
His new molecule may be very unstable due to a use of a hydrogen bond, that is why he has to make it and use it right at the source right after it has been generated, and his use with cars has be as an additive or supplement to an existing gasoline engine that still uses gasoline as a bifuel reaction. He has not described much use for the gas in a stored format in tanks or other method. He has always used almost immediately after creation.
So something to consider, he may have a legitimate thing here. He is not saying that you get free energy, or a greater amount of energy, but that you get this gas that has some useful properties. He has only shown uses right at generation by itself that for welding and industrial uses that is stationary and coupled to the electric grid. He has only shown limited uses for mobile use in vehicles because of the need for electrical input for generation.
I am not sure there is any real fraud here as some here would quickly like to say, but the using his gas and method my only prove to have limited utility and application.- 2br2br2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Is there intelligence here ? Must be written by a oil god? HHo is old science. See" HHo ecogreen" if you want the truth? The oil companies have buried this for many years and I wonder why? HHo on demand is safe because you are not storing a large amount of the gas. And it is water. H2o=HHo=fuel=H2o, how simple is that? You folks are trying to disprove something you are obviously nooby about. In effect what you are really saying is that you are too lazy to get off your other end and do something about high oil prices. If you think you are really intelligent , stop whinning and do something! Or ...next time you open your wallet at the pump...give it a good lecture on why you know HHo won't work!
- GHCguy, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0I agree with Skyscope on this one. If he was able to create a more efficient electrolysis process I think this idea is feasible.
A few concepts people need to wrap their heads around to get this idea in their heads properly:
1) Hydrogen is flammable - The sun is mainly comprised of Hydrogen and Helium both of which are extremely flammable gasses. Now what is water made of? Hydrogen & Oxygen. One is a highly flammable gas and the other is a Catalyst for fire.
2) The concept of stored energy. GAS our lovely modern fuel source is a stored form of energy. When you apply fire or a spark to gasoline it releases that stored energy in the form of fire & continues to release that energy until either the fuel is completely used up, it runs out of oxygen to support that chemical release of energy, or it is put in some other manner.
3) Waste energy - Car engines throw away a lot of the energy produced by the combustion within. Mainly in the form of heat but there is also a lot of kinetic energy waste. Most cars take advantage of this heat in some form. a) when you turn the heat on that hot air is coming from the heat off your engine b) Your battery is constantly being recharged by your alternator while the car is running. Your alternator is basically a glorified dyno which is powered by kinetic energy from the firing pistons of your motor. And in newer hybrid electric cars there are little dynos on each wheel so when you hit your breaks it engages the dynos on each wheel to recharge the car slightly.
So to grasp this whole water car concept we have to first stop viewing water as something to put out fires with, but instead an extremely stable fuel (more accurately a combination of fuel and oxidizer) Basically because water is majority hydrogen it has a lot of stored energy within it.
Now if this fellow was able to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen using a very efficient electrolysis process, then you now have a very explosive fuel (hydrogen) and a very good catalyst (oxygen). After that all you need to do is inject that hydrogen and oxygen into your engine in a stable way to improve your energy output. Basically the same way you'd inject NOS into your engine to make it go faster. The difference is your goal is not speed but more mileage.
As for the electricity needed for this separation method you would use the waste energy from the engine combustion to provide it... probably just take it right off the car battery as it's being charged from the alternator anyway. Providing Klien's electrolysis process is more efficient, it might be the equivilent amount of energy load as turning on your air conditioner.... Maybe a little more. All you're doing is putting more load on the drive shaft essentially.
The idea is that the stored energy payoff is more than the electric energy used to harness it.
There is no perpetual motion engine here. No magic... No miracle, just really efficient fuel usage from a very stable source.
If all I have to do is buy a bigger battery and a few extra parts to double my gas mileage... I'd do that in a heartbeat.
Spposidly there are conversion kits online. Maybe the end all be all to this argument is one of us fronts up the money to do it and see if it works.
And AS for why it hasn't been in the news. The government has already signed a deal with this guy to work on hybrid hummers as well as GM and a few other U.S. car makers. In those deals they probably told this guy to hush up about the technology so that They could introduce it slowly to the market themselves so that people would still buy enough gas to support our floundering economy.
Lets face it. If all our cars could run on water... how many people would be unemployed by that? Millions. Petroleum is used in far more facets of our economy than most people realize. Nearly all plastics & Artificial flavors for instance are either directly or indirectly made from petroleum or natural gas hydrocarbons. So just tossing gas out the window overnight will never happen. It's going to be a slow transition process folks. - ErosThor, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Guys your comments here are among the most intelligent I have found so far :) kudos! I have been working with Brown's Gas or HHO gas myself for about 2 years and have made some exciting progress. One thing that people forget is that we use natural gas and propane every day without a second thought and what is the chemical makeup of Natural gas/Propane? Hydrogen and Carbon with oxygen brought into the mix via air intakes to assist with combustion. What I have found is this. when I first started working with HHO gas, I was able to produce a sustained flame as long as my production was extremely high. As soon as my production dropped even slightly, what resulted was an incredible explosion that has left holes in my ceiling, destroyed more than a dozen generators and made me piss my pants on more than one occasion! That being said, I have discovered that the flame produced by HHO gives off little heat and generates a great amount of water as a byproduct. SO, I reduced my output by 75%, and reintroduced common compressed air through a venturi tube for mixing purposes.... the result is a steady flame that actually puts out heat and uses only 1/4 of the electricity I was using before. I can use a common 12v car battery and alternator to keep the battery charged. I am no genius, but what seems to be happening as far as I can tell is that the pure hydrogen and oxygen molecules in their unstable monotomic state return too quickly to their diatomic state which prevents usage (transfer) of the energy created thus the hydrogen and oxygen return to their stable diatomic state as water.... any opinions?
- jetusa, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0Hi. I read your post... The truth is that this is a reality. I am building one of these hydro generator things and it works. Proof positive.....
I made it with stainless 316L plates in water with a little baking soda for a catalyst. Well guess what. It made gas that burns. I lit it off with a welders torch striker the first try after 10 seconds of power applied.
Blame is on the huge oil companies for robing us and surpressing this technology that has been available for a long time. over 70 years.
The only by-product to put back in the air is pure water. It also helps improve the octane of the gas or diesel that your engine is using by slowing down the burn and reducing the knock caused by preignition of fuel.. .- jetusa, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0To continue with the comment: I went back and re-read the comments above. I agree that this is no perpetual motion machine thing. It is, however a method of capturing lost energy from gasoline combustion by making hho gases from water and assisting the combustion process. in the engine. If this process can improve the combustion and fuel economy to ((double the milage)), then I am all for it. The bottom line is to save on fuel.
If we can change that 15 to 20 % efficency in the energy use from
gasoline or diesel, to double the efficency, then lets shut up and do it. Stop the argument about wether it is possible or not. Lets go ahead and prove it.
Compressed hydrogen is very dangerous like a bomb, but hho (on demand gasses) is not because there is never enough to cause a problem and it is confined in the system under extreemly low pressure.
The trick that many people do not understand is that the internal combustion engine is very inefficient without help.
Anything we can do to improve that process will
save us money in the long run. and maybe make the engines last longer as a bonus. and help the enviroment too.
I cannot believe that it is necessary to raise the prices like they are doing. I feel like we are being robed by the greedy oil companies making massive profits while destroying the world economy. It's the same old game they have been playing for years. It's not likely to stop any time soon.
What we need is a way to put a control on and stop the gouging prices at the pumps. Our government is part of the problem, Our leaders are buried deep in the middle of the oil problem. They are not going to do anything about it. It might hurt their personal wealth and position....The time has come to do anything we can to slow down the consumpption of oil. and look for alternatives..
- jetusa, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0To continue with the comment: I went back and re-read the comments above. I agree that this is no perpetual motion machine thing. It is, however a method of capturing lost energy from gasoline combustion by making hho gases from water and assisting the combustion process. in the engine. If this process can improve the combustion and fuel economy to ((double the milage)), then I am all for it. The bottom line is to save on fuel.
- Morgantor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Neat parlor trick. When the energy you get out is more than the energy it takes to make it, you let me know.
- Juano11, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Thermodynamics isn't your strong suit is it?
- Morgantor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Thermodynamics is not the issue at hand, it's electrolysis. Where does the energy comes from that causes the reaction? From the water? Nope.
- Nick42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Yeah, it'd be more efficient to just charge a battery and use an electric motor than to do this.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5There's no thermodynamics issue here Juano. When you trace the process completely, it's energy confined, but specific parts can net you an overall energy gain. Take for example thermite. Energy I put in: Buying some powders, mixing them, lighting some magnesium ribbon. Energy I get out: A ***** more. Now if I try to turn my iron ore, aluminum oxide, and magnesium oxide, back into thermite, I'll not have netted any energy, but you're not assuming we do, we just find more rust and aluminum. Just like we refine gas and get more energy burning it, than we put in extracting and refining it, but we don't try to mash the CO2, H2O, and whatever else comes out, back into gas, we just get some more out of the ground.
- sklyrov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Sarcasm doesn't appear to be Juano11's strong suit.
- ErosThor, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I have been working with Brown's Gas or HHO gas myself for about 2 years and have made some exciting progress. One thing that people forget is that we use natural gas and propane every day without a second thought and what is the chemical makeup of Natural gas/Propane? Hydrogen and Carbon with oxygen brought into the mix via air intakes to assist with combustion. What I have found is this. when I first started working with HHO gas, I was able to produce a sustained flame as long as my production was extremely high. As soon as my production dropped even slightly, what resulted was an incredible explosion that has left holes in my ceiling, destroyed more than a dozen generators and made me piss my pants on more than one occasion! That being said, I have discovered that the flame produced by HHO gives off little heat and generates a great amount of water as a byproduct. SO, I reduced my output by 75%, and reintroduced common compressed air through a venturi tube for mixing purposes.... the result is a steady flame that actually puts out heat and uses only 1/4 of the electricity I was using before. I can use a common 12v car battery and alternator to keep the battery charged. I am no genius, but what seems to be happening as far as I can tell is that the pure hydrogen and oxygen molecules in their unstable monotomic state return too quickly to their diatomic state which prevents usage (transfer) of the energy created thus the hydrogen and oxygen return to their stable diatomic state as water.... any opinions?
- Massacre87, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Running a car on water is not new, it's just been suppressed.
http://www.befreetech.com/media/stan_meyers_bb.wmv
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7May I call BS?
This is just electrolysis. The energy is ALL coming from the battery.It's just a very inefficient hybrid car.
Moreover, unless your electrolysis rig is about the size of your car, it won't be fast enough. You'd need to run the process before hand, as your car would use it up faster than it could make it.
You'd be better off sticking a bunch of batteries in your trunk and plugging them in at night. - Persol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yes, they did lie. They didn't do anything that isn't done in an undergrad chem class.
Electrolysis is a very well known process. They are trying to claim that this process is somehow different, yet the process operates the same way, and has the same result (with the exclusion of the magical amount of energy gained out of thin air). - Massacre87, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Actually they didn't lie, initially you would have to run the battery to make the initial gas, but once you put that through that engine and burn it, it produces enough energy to run itself and recharge the battery, just like gasoline except H2 and O produce a lot more energy.
- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Massacre, please take a basic thermodynamics class. You said:
"initially you would have to run the battery to make the initial gas, but once you put that through that engine and burn it, it produces enough energy to run itself and recharge the battery, just like gasoline except H2 and O produce a lot more energy."
Ok, so they make the gas. Realistically, this is taking a little bit of energy from the engine and storing it in the gas (by making 2H2 and O2). When that goes into the energy and combines, it produces LESS energy than you took out of the engine to make it.
In other words:
Normal Engine: 85 hp out of engine, 10% mech loss -> 76.5 HP to wheels.
This *****: 85 HP out of engine, 10% mechanical loss, 3 HP loss to electolysis ->73.5 HP to wheels
When recombined you'll only get 2HP back... you are losing energy.
If this was able to run itself, it'd have a MUCH more important use. It'd be able to create fresh water for every person on the planet. (As the result of this chemcial eaction is energy+fresh water). The problem is that it takes a lot of energy to run this process... which is also the reason the reason why this doesn't work.
Find your nearest water-demineralisation plant... ask them how much energy they USE. Hell, goto a well funded high school chemistry lab and do the damn test yourself. Even better, build the damn rig at home.
- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7May I call BS?
- dstart, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4aaaand the server is getting raped.. 4.3kb/s
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Man 100miles on 4 ounces is extreme.... Imagine what it'll be like in 10 years when they get those cars opening up at 150+mph... I'd buy any of them though just so I don't keep paying $50 to fill up at the pump.
- thepirat3king, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm pretty sure the four ounces is making reference to the same water being used over and over, it can't have anything to do with the actual energy exchanges going on in the system. It is curious though that he didn't say how much gasoline was used in that trip (being that it is supposed to be a hybrid). I'm going to call *****. I'm only an undergrad, but from what I've been taught about chemistry and physics this story is way off. I don't need to bust out a calculator to know that.
There is no solution to the energy problem, there are sets of solutions.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
- thepirat3king, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm pretty sure the four ounces is making reference to the same water being used over and over, it can't have anything to do with the actual energy exchanges going on in the system. It is curious though that he didn't say how much gasoline was used in that trip (being that it is supposed to be a hybrid). I'm going to call *****. I'm only an undergrad, but from what I've been taught about chemistry and physics this story is way off. I don't need to bust out a calculator to know that.
- MuZiKMafia, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2(Assuming its legit.) Anyone know how or where to buy this technology?
- BruceCLin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1http://hytechapps.com/applications/order.htm
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So, is this guy just making Hydrogen gas and clueless about it? HHO doesn't make any sense, since HH is quantum stable. The water part isn't that impressive, if you burn burn any Hydrocarbon you get CO2 + Water, so....
- ElJefeGrande, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Of course in your close-minded little world you make sense.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Of course you must have noticed his flame also burns the exact same color hydrogen gas does, and not just outright believed some kook, right???
Oops? - ElJefeGrande, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6I'm not going to get down into the nitty gritty science. I am not the sort of person to form opinions based on whimsical comments of people who just want to be heard (nor will I form any opinions based on videos I see on the Internet proposing some sort of revolutionary thing). You may take this post as me rooting for this guy and his HHO gas, but I am not. I am just saying - keep an open mind and don't be so quick to judge (or name call, at least). It is comments like yours that make me cringe when I read the comments of Digg-ed pages. Seriously, this is a technology oriented social bookmarking site, there is no reason to get personal.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11I don't have to keep an open mind when I KNOW the guy isn't making HHO, but H2, and his flame color even confirms that. If you ever took a QM class in your life the reasoning behind why this is impossible is quite clear, and this is why you won't get into the nitty gritty science, because you can't explain why it's possible or not. You're uninformed and gullible, and make another fluffy comment without supporting your stance and it's the block list for you.
- 2br2br2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0See"HHo Ecogreen"...stop whinning and do something ? This is old science.
- ElJefeGrande, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I couldn't care less what you think. Taking a QM course does not give you the right to ***** your way out of your lack of a brain. You mentioned something about burning Hydrocarbons? I do believe that neither HHO nor H2O have any carbon, so what Hydrocarbons is he burning. And, one more thing, he may have named his "gas" HHO, but I never heard him say exactly what elements compose his "gas" or even what state those elements are in. We all know it is H2 that he is burning, and the heart of his invention is a better form of electrolysis; it is NOT a new gas like the news claims it to be.
"it's the block list for you"
Oh, I feel so threatened. - ElJefeGrande, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I'm betting HHO is a name the inventor coined for his new electrolysis technique. I would posit that it is not the exact chemical makeup of the gas that is being emitted, but I'm sure he must know that.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A hydrocarbon is an molecule of the empirical form HxCy, and the cases where x or y are zero are degenerative cases. Burning methane makes CO2 and H2O, burning H by itself makes only H2O, ohohoh, so amazing.... And taking a QM class does bring into doubt his claims, since they've been brought up before, specifically a gas of the form HHO. If he calls it HHO gas, knowing it's just H2, then he's retarded, but less so than if he thinks it's HHO he's making. This is Digg, where kook science claims are open to close examination, and ridicule, DEAL WITH IT. We aren't here to coddle the obviously laughable, and his flame color and H2O residue mean he's discovered nothing. I'm sorry you have no argument in support of him, or disproving my debunking his claims, and that you're so open minded that it makes you retarded, but anyway, I won't have to waste any time scrolling past your comments from now on. :-)
- 2br2br2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0See"HHo Ecogreen" stop whinning and do something...anything but whine.
- dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13um, doesn't it take more energy to convert the water into a fuel than the fuel is able to produce, thus making this useless?
- IncognitoCraven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No, under ideal conditions you get what you put in. And that there's the rub, hydrogen is not an energy source, it's a fuel... a *storage mechanism*.
Just as, in the grander/est scheme of things, fossil fuels aren't an energy source either. Instead they are stored solar energy (however the timescales involved make it seem as though it's an energy source, if you ignore the side effects of their unmitigated use). HTH - Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Everything takes more energy to produce than it will release. But if we could make tons of hydrogen gas with clean or nuclear energy, and run every automobile in the nation on it...I think that would be much better than burning hydrocarbons that are running out and supplied by parts of the world which are unstable.
- crythias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sorry... how does mentos plus diet coke take more energy in than is released?
- IncognitoCraven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No, under ideal conditions you get what you put in. And that there's the rub, hydrogen is not an energy source, it's a fuel... a *storage mechanism*.
- dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5OK, they are using electricity to produce hydrogen, but they are definitely not getting 100 miles from 8 oz of hydrogen.
- chamel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Why do newscasters always make stupid personal comments at the end of stories????
"Now lets just hope we don't have a shortage on water"
How stupid of a comment is that...... Sometimes my head wants to explode....
Great Digg..... Great Story.......Lets hope our government is smart enough to use it and not pay the guy off to
keep it in check..- Flanker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, I hear ya on the newscaster comments. This is the Fox new affiliate station in Houston, by the way, if anyone wants to follow up/complain/whatever.
- VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15One of the prerequisites to become on-air talent in the (local) news business is that you must be completely and utterly incapable of understanding the words that come out of your mouth.
Think of a canary, only completely vapid. That's pretty close to the "best and brightest" in the studio.
Field reporters... marginally brighter. - lbermude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Its the houston fox channel... what else could you expect???
- Nutbright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What about now that they have learned that adding Borohydrate to the water, vastly increases the hydrogen in the same volume of water...think this might make a difference?
- webhead74, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Mythbusters tried this a long time ago. I'm sure you've all seen the episode, so I won't bore you with the details.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 11/12/2007, -2/+11Ya, there is something fishy about all of this. While I can see this being great for welding, how it could power a car by itself is a mystery.
Electrolysis is the simple process of passing electricity through water. This separates the water into hydrogen and oxygen. If you then use that hydrogen as a fuel by burning it, you turn it back into what it was originally (H2O), hence the water droplets when he used the flame on that surface in the video.
Alas, since nothing is 100% efficient, you end up losing some energy in the process of producing the hydrogen. Some goes to any mechanical stuff going on; some goes to current attenuation in the wires that feed the electricity from the power source into the hydrogen, some goes to any acoustic energy produced, etc.
How, exactly, a car could efficiently run on this is a mystery. You would need a power source to produce the electricity to do the electrolysis. This could come from batteries (horribly inefficiently and definitely not practical without a gas engine to go with it), or from the gas engine itself. In either case, the gas engine is more efficient by itself.
Of course, if the goal is to get off oil then hydrogen from electrolysis is one option, but it's definitely not the most efficient one. Hydrogen fuel cells can be far more efficient, as can alternative forms of hydrocarbon fuels like ethanol. Each has their problems, but all are better from an efficiency point of view.- jorgefeucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Quoting Homer Simpson:
"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
- jorgefeucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Quoting Homer Simpson:
- liquidcoooled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If you can run a car on just water that would be fantastic, but you have to use electricity to convert the water to the HHO gas first.
Look at the equation: Water + electricity = usable HHO gas.
Its just moving the energy conversion literally upstream.
You cannot expect to simply pour a glass of water into your empty car and drive home just yet folks.- 2br2br2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0What a noob! See'HHo Ecogreen"...stop whinning and do something productive.
- kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Excellent video, but one correction on the description:
The car only takes up 4 ounces on a 100 mile trip, not 4 ounces. - asfd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If this thing works so well (IE better than plain H2+O2) how come he uses a hybrid to show off his technology? I mean if it was really a revolution and they wanted to prove us how well it works he wouldn't use gasoline in his car.
- nedrUoD, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2From their site, it looks like they were using it as an additive to the gas, rather than as a auxiliary engine. One good reason to demonstrate a hybrid is that you don't have to builddesign a whole car, which may have been beyond their budget.
I find it surprising how many people outright claim this is not true with zero proof of that. I'd admit that the supporting evidence is somewhat skimpy, so I can't blame a bit of skepticism, but why would you say it's a lie without anything to back that up?
The website has some information, and some of it makes sense, though I can't validate it one way or the other. - MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's been well known for years that adding a small amount of hydrogen to the gas mix improves the efficiency of the combustion. Hence the idea of the hybrid engine.
However producing more energy than you put in in the first place is in contradictions with the laws of thermodynamics, which have not be disproven to this day. Granted, this 150-year old theory may be false, but i'd like some more scientifical evidence than bold claims and pretending that HHO is different from H2O.
- nedrUoD, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2From their site, it looks like they were using it as an additive to the gas, rather than as a auxiliary engine. One good reason to demonstrate a hybrid is that you don't have to builddesign a whole car, which may have been beyond their budget.
- Slummock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Problem is, to make the electricity to break down water into Hydrogen and Oxygen needs to be made somehow.
This means that we must first make the electricity. The methods nowadays are by using fossil fuels. This creates other problems as well. If the power station creating the electricity is at best 60% efficient and when Hydrogen is burnt with Oxygen, efficiency being 80%. We would be better just using the fuels directly instead of losing out twice. - JK1150, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I think Hydrogen fuel is a good start, and can catch on easily if he gets the right people to pay him their attention. We wouldn't need new fueling stations as we do with ethanol, so people will likely be more comfortable with a water based car. I just wish things like this would come to the market, but the fact that the military is taking interest is promising. Running 100 miles on 8 ounces of water would significantly reduce war costs.
- ermau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Reduce war costs? You obviously don't know the first thing about military vehicles or this method.
Your average "normal" vehicle weighs around one to three tons, a M1A2 Abrams MBT weighs about 70 tons. You can't run a 70 ton tank on batteries and have an effective combat range. Not to mention the cost to refit tanks (and other vehicles) and the cost to power the electrolysis probably be more then what was saved, it would also take far too long to have any effect on the current war.
The military is taking interest in hydrogen fuel cells, not this nonsense.
- ermau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Reduce war costs? You obviously don't know the first thing about military vehicles or this method.
- alx1507, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4EDIT: nvm...
- timan72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yes, you can make Oxygen and Hydrogen from water ... but the dumb thing is... you need tons of electricity to devide it. It is NO energy source, just a way to transport energy.
- ElJefeGrande, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1His invention is just that, a way to separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen without the need for so much electricity. So that it actually becomes beneficial.
- 2br2br2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0See" HHo Ecogreen" and be informed.
- Massacre87, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2When you burn Brown's Gas, it like gasoline, produces more energy then the car requires which is why our car has an alternator, in truth HHO is far more volatile than gasoline and that's why it uses a lot less to go the same distance and still makes extra electricity, enough to power itself and then some. The only downside to it is the corrosion factor.
- Slummock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Oh, just so you know, It's not HHO(H2O) gas being used here which is just water as a vapour.
It is H2 O.
This story is widly inaccurate. - djflx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Here, let's just bag this BoingBoing commentary:
It seems like every 15 years or so some guy comes along and claims to have come up with a way to turn water into clean burning fuel. (Remember the "Bodine Gasoline" pill from the Beverly Hillbillies?) The thing is, any elementary school student can turn water into hydrogen and oxygen, which burns very nicely, turning back into water when it burns. But I have yet to hear of anyone who has come up with a way to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen without using more energy than you produce. If you had an electrolysis machine that produced more energy than it consumed, you could plug it into itself and have yourself a perpetual motion machine.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/12/water_powered_cars_j.html
sheesh.- Massacre87, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0No it wouldn't because you still need water to make it run which is why its not a perpetual motion machine but it does produce more energy then it takes to split which is why it works in a car.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The thing is this guy is claiming it's not hyrdrogen gas he's making and burning, but some weird ass reconfiguration of HOH, that he says is HHO. And Massacre, that actually is the definition of perpetual motion. You somehow split HOH to HH and OO using X Joules, and then burn them, getting Y Joules out of it, where Y > X, so you can capture back X joules, and redo the water splitting you just undid, and use (Y-X) joules to do whatever.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3But when you burn H and O you get back water so yes it would be a perpetua motion machine.
Also HHO is just another way to write H2O...same thing as water. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No nazi, it isn't. That's the important point. A molecule is defined by its structure as much as what totals of what types of atoms are in it. HOH isn't the same thing as HHO, but HHO is impossible to begin with so for some REAL examples just google 'isomers'.
- IceUck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes it would be perpetual motion, because the hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water again. You can close the whole process off and it would just keep cycling the water into H and O2 and back to H2O.
How about this analogy: A water molecule is like a boulder at the bottom of a hill. With some initial energy, you can roll the boulder up to the top of the hill (now it's H and O2). Now there's potential energy in the boulder, and with almost no effort, you can set it tumbling back down the hill (recombine H and O2 into H2O, releasing energy).
If you had some way to harness the energy of the boulder rolling back down hill, you could store it and do some work with it later ... but it will never be enough to push the boulder back up the hill again. If there were no friction, and everything was 100% efficient, you could simply supply the initial energy in getting the boulder to the top of the hill, and then the thing would cycle forever (a perpetual motion machine). The laws of thermodynamics tell us that this is never possible in reality. There is ALWAYS some loss (nothing is 100% efficient). You can minimize the loss, but you can't completely eliminate it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to pick myself up by the seat of my pants, and fly off.
- Blastcaps, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This can't be legit, if it was it would be all over the news and in every news paper.
- JKing206, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The power driving the car is coming entirely from the electrical input, not from the water.
- chrisc2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"apparently it produces more energy that it consumes, though"
Isn't that kinda sorta impossible?- Massacre87, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1It takes less power to break down water into H2 and O then it produces when you ignite them.
- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Massacre, stop being an uneducated doushe.
- Migdilio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Persol, if you're going to call someone an "uneducated doushe," learn how to spell "douche."
Irony defined. - Persol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jigme Doushe claims to be a calligraphy expert. In reality some believe he is just a snake oil salesman. I thought it was an apt comparison.
- ButtFlange, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If anybody bothered to look at their web site he would notice The
Power Consumption required to generate this small amount of gas to run a small torch is : 17 Amps at 220-240 VAC. 50-60 Hz, thats a lot of power! A car would consume gas(HHO) at many magnitudes increase over the torch.
- molsen311, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2>When the energy you get out is more than the energy it takes to make it, you let me know.<
are you serious??? there isn't a single source of energy that we use today that meets that criteria. the allure of this energy source is that it's CLEAN and ABUNDANT. if it's slightly inefficient, that's not a big concern. it's not like ethanol where it costs money to grow and farm it, or oil where it costs money to drill and refine it. the costs for acquiring fresh water are minuscule in comparison.- djflx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Where are you going to get the electrical power to drive the electrolysis machines?
Unless you're using hydroelectric dams or nuclear plants, there's oil, coal, ethanol... - Persol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Molsen, this isn't an energy source. There is no energy 'stored' in fresh water.
They are using hydogen/oxygen as a battery (yes, more complicated than that... but I'd have to use big words). - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2For the other responding I think he was being sarcastic....I hope.
- xx0xx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i think he knew that it wasnt possible to have a source of energy that outputs more than it takes to make it in the first place, seems like common sense to me. achem... i think he was being sarcastic *hint hint*
well, logicnazi beat me to that one by a few seconds. :P - jayKayEss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, it's not "clean," read the other comments. The process requires a steady source of electricty, which comes from burning coal.
Also kudos to the person who pointed out "4th-gen nuclear plants." Did you know that in Japan they have nuclear plants that can turn our nuclear "waste" into fresh fuel? - gedankenus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@molsen311
I somehow doubt you've taken a class in chemistry or physics or if you had you need to get your teacher fired. Or maybe you do understand science but you are simply easily deluded.
Anyways, you can't split water, recombine its daughters and end up with a positive net energy.
Water is not a source of energy. - keylime48, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I suppose the extra energy is from fairy dust? In this demo, the energy from the gasoline is being used for electrolysis. In the absence of magic fairy dust or perpetual motion machines, the energy from the gasoline exceeds the energy produced from electrolysis. In the absence of gasoline, you'd need some other source of stored electrical energy to split off the hydrogen- like from a nice nuke or coal fired plant. Again, the energy consumed by the plant to produce the stored power for electrolysis would exceed any output. When you convert, you lose efficiency- that's the fallacy behind electric cars. Electric cars produce more pollution than gas- most electricity is from burning coal. And what do you do with all the lead from worn out batteries?
- djflx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Where are you going to get the electrical power to drive the electrolysis machines?
- Bryan6Aero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3A lot of people have commented that it will take more energy to produce the gas than the gas will release in the engine. That is true, but it is also true of hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, and every other alternative fuel. The only reason fossil fuels don't have this problem is because we aren't making them, just finding and filtering them. So in any case, to create these portable energy storing mediums we are going to need a lot more electricity, probably from newer fission, but maybe also from renew-ables.
The real issue is how we will change our national energy infrastructure. This idea sounds like it would allow for a very decentralized fuel industry. All refining takes place at home or the filling station (formerly the gas station). This would make the risk of terrorist disruption virtually nil.- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The complaint is that they are claiming to be making this energy while driving. In reality, they are just adding an extra layer of losses between the gas and the wheel.
This technology is basically the sdame princible as hydrogen fuel cells... problem being that they are useless if you don't generate them before driving, or using axle generators (regenerative braking).
- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The complaint is that they are claiming to be making this energy while driving. In reality, they are just adding an extra layer of losses between the gas and the wheel.
- gedankenus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This is *****.
This can't be anything more than simple electrolysis of water and recombining hydrogen and oxygen. I seriously doubt that this is some "special electrolysis process" creating HHO.
And no it doesn't run exclusively on water. You need energy to split water. I read somewhere else that it costs $0.70 an hour to run so it's consuming ~ 7 kilowatts or roughly 7 space heaters (assuming he pays roughly $0.10 per kilowatt-hour). Anyways, that is very costly, certainly more expensive than regular gas nevermind the cost of upgrades. Also I don't see how this is better for the environment considering the fact 55% of the electricity we use is derived from coal.
And I doubt he's addressed the difficult issue of how to store a reasonable amount gas safety in cars. This is not an easy task.
And I hate when people try to patent chemical processes.- jjkirin2007, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0This is true if the mixture is just water. But the fact is, you can greatly increase the efficiency of this process by adding an ion into solution. Some possible mixtures could be bicarbonate, Sodium hydroxide, or Potassium hydroxide.
Solutions containing mixtures of these ions help to increase the amount of Hydrogen gas to levels that are greater than the energy that is used to split the water in the first place.
Plain and simple, this process works. The problem is, anyone that comes out and tries to push this technology into the media and spotlight is threatened with having their head kicked in by the oil companies. Does Stan Meyer ring a bell? He had this technology ready to go twenty years ago.
It's sad that everyone is so ready to bury this stuff before its even been given a proper chance. It's a reality that oil consumption will destroy us someday. Why do we fight change? - jjkirin2007, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Oh yeah, and the process makes enough hydrogen on demand that you don't need to store any hydrogen.
- jjkirin2007, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0This is true if the mixture is just water. But the fact is, you can greatly increase the efficiency of this process by adding an ion into solution. Some possible mixtures could be bicarbonate, Sodium hydroxide, or Potassium hydroxide.
- DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You have to be careful with this stuff, it's dangerous.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html- gedankenus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Pretty funny stuff.
Wiki article on the hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide
- gedankenus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Pretty funny stuff.
- TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Let's see...
Too good to be true? Check.
Contrary to basic laws of science? Check. (The first and second laws of thermodynamics)
Classic scam that has been tried again and again? Check. ("The car that runs on water")
Come on, folks, show some smarts. It seems like many of you, particularly earlier posters are taking this seriously.
This isn't "hydrogen power" -- it's an obvious confidence scam.
(Disclaimer: you can never be 100% right with science. A skeptic must admit the chance of error. I will however give you literally 1000 to 1 odds that this system doesn't work as presented, if you want to bet with me...) - alx1507, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Fox26 News seems to be legit though...
http://www.fox26.com/
But its just an image with links to different places...- lbermude, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3jeez. its FOX. if you belive them... its up to you... I will just feel sorry for you.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I hope the newscast was a hoax or at least they were being mislead. I would hate to think our milatary was wasting our money on this sort of scam
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sort of like sending you to school to learn to spell wasted money.
- spikes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yet another person that claims he violated the laws of thermodynamics. Remember kids, nothing comes for free. You always take one way or another, too bad most people don't realize this.
Converting one form of energy into another and expecting to have more than what you started off with is impossible. And that doesn't even include the efficiency rates along the way. You'll get 100% at the most, hardly an advantage, may as well just use gasoline.
Anyone who says I am wrong can ask me where I can find the latest Perpetual Motion Machine. - michiels, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0By the way. However the power to let the electrolysis run is generated outside of the car in a power plant, it is actually a clean way to let an engine run. As said, water is the exhaust, not CO or carbon dioxide.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In that regard, it's no different than a pure EV vehicle, or if rigged as an electrolysis hybrid, a currently existing battery powered hybrid available today.
It sounds like the guy demo'd a gas-water electrolysis hybrid car for the simple reason that operating it in pure water electrolysis mode would have the same limitations as an EV vehicle. He'd have to mention to the news crew that the thing needs a big battery in addition to an engine, and that it would be range limited by the battery.
Combining it with a gas engine means he could rely on the gas engine to generate electricity through normal means (alternator) and use that to power the electrolysis. I don't believe that he gets 100 miles per 8 ounces of water though... he probably ran for 100 miles in this hybrid configuration and measured his water reservoir to be 8 ounces less... never mind he probably consumed a few gallons of gasoline.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In that regard, it's no different than a pure EV vehicle, or if rigged as an electrolysis hybrid, a currently existing battery powered hybrid available today.
- hervey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I saw one inventor here in the Philippines, use water to fuel his car many years ago without any other form of liquid fuel.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've also seen "Psychic Surgery" done in the Philippines, too! That makes it REAL.
- TristanTee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2they wouldnt allow this to happen, it would cause a major neagative effect on the economy
- otherland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Too bad this is a hoax.
I can already hear the dems crying "No war for water!" Moms of fallen soldiers lining up to profit off this one.- ru1dt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yeah, stupid moms getting mad about their dead kids. They need to show some respect and obey the government like the rest of us.
And yes, people actually fight over water now. It's not that crazy of an idea.
- ru1dt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yeah, stupid moms getting mad about their dead kids. They need to show some respect and obey the government like the rest of us.
- Krusz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Let's play devil's advocate here:
I know everyone is calling BS, and obviously we should take this with a grain of salt, but honestly I don't place it outside of the realm of possibility. Sure, using electrolysis is, as we know it, slow and costly; too slow to make it usable for on-the-spot generation, and more costly than the energy you get back. So, the key is the process by which the water is separated into hydrogen (apparently 2 H atoms and not the expected H2 gas) and oxygen. If this man indeed found a trick, some weak spot in the bonds that hold water, and this could be exploited to break it up in a new and cheap way, then yes, we are pretty much talking perpetual motion.
I have doubts, but water has proved over and over to have very unique and unexpected properties. Who knows, maybe this is one of them.- otherland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Krusz. He doesn't deserve any publicity when he's just dropping a little bait and leaving us to speculate.
He's not Nintendo or Apple with a proven history of releasing innovative products.
Instead he just follows a long line of snake oil men.
- otherland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Krusz. He doesn't deserve any publicity when he's just dropping a little bait and leaving us to speculate.
- Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This gas is not water
H H Is water
/
O
HO
|
H is HHO
I'm guessing that the HO can oxidise easily and provide the activation energy for H to fully oxidise with less initial input. It has some pretty interesting properties too, apparently:
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/RhodesGas/- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Or it's just 2*H2+O2... like every other experiment of this ever done.
Other than the mythical free-energy aspect which is unproved, this is just electrolysis. - Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Persol:
It's not "just electrolysis" it's a different process, read the above link ^^.
Also, its not free energy either as, as you yourself said, it's electrolysis. As someone above said, its just a good way of turning electricity straight into a concetrated heat-output to power cars, welding or whatever else - Persol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Perhaps you should research more. Ther is NO (yes, NO) evidence that Browns/Rhodes gas is any different than 2H2 + O2. You have HO and O in ALL water and water vapor. The results of this resemble exactly a standard electolysis setup.
You can turn electricity for the car by use of a *GASP*, motor. Doing electrolysis in the middle is assine and a waste of energy. If you want heat, you have *GASP*, heating elements (resistors/motors/whatever)
Their claim of 100/8 miles/ounce IS free energy... unless you can point out where the water is losing this energy.
- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Or it's just 2*H2+O2... like every other experiment of this ever done.
- darkwolfbc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2How long till the oil companies shut this project down.
- drall.kj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1As long as Dick Cheney doesn't find out we all will be save
Give me a break! - IceUck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If I figured out a way to get cheap, clean fusion power tomorrow, how long do you think it would be before someone else, perhaps in another country figured it out? History shows that inventions often occur almost simultaneously in different parts of the world, by individuals that were unaware of each other's work.
Except for the rare leap of genius, most invention happens when the time is right. All the important clues are there, the materials are available, and someone smart has to see it, and put it all together.
That being said, what would be the likely result of the BIG BAD OIL companies shutting me down? Russia or India or China or some other country would likely have it in a few years. If they weren't generous about sharing it, we'd have a problem.
If a thing is inevitable, you don't suppress it, you get your self in a position to profit from it. The oil companies might pay me a visit, but it would probably be so that they can be the first to start selling my "Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor".
- drall.kj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1As long as Dick Cheney doesn't find out we all will be save
-
Show 51 - 100 of 195 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by