The energy of the future: HHO dry cell generators.

For those who don't know what it is, it is converting water into gas through electrolysis.

I know for a fact from speaking to mechanics, HHO systems will boost fuel efficiency by 30-40%. We run forklifts and other vehicles off propane and butane etc. Why can't we run vehicles off hydrogen/HHO. I do not have a lot of knowledge on the matter, so I am asking Engineers who might have info.

I have started to accumulate the materials to manufacture a HHO dry cell generator. What recommendations do people have as to the most efficient way of producing one?

originally posted by: TheChrome
For those who don't know what it is, it is converting water into gas through electrolysis.

And for those that don't understand electrolysis, it can never give you more energy out in the form of hydrogen and oxygen to be combusted than you put in in the form of electricity. Ever.

In fact, it invariably wastes some of the energy in that electricity as heat. There are some types of electrolysis that are fairly efficient, but these are cranky and small scale. The more common form of electrolysis, where you stick a couple of electrodes into some water with an electrolyte, is less than 70% efficient. So you are chucking a third or more of your input energy into the trash.

A lot of electrolysis hucksters will try to handwave this with sciency sounding bafflegab. You'll no doubt hear all about HHO not really being the same as hydrogen and oxygen. It is. Or that, somehow, "Brown's Gas" has more combustion energy than the hydrogen and oxygen that makes it up. It doesn't. Nor can you get magic over-unity efficiency from a mystic catalyst, nor "resonance", nor "frequencies", nor any combination thereof. Magic quantum fairies don't live in Joe Cells.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: TheChrome
For those who don't know what it is, it is converting water into gas through electrolysis.

And for those that don't understand electrolysis, it can never give you more energy out in the form of hydrogen and oxygen to be combusted than you put in in the form of electricity. Ever.

In fact, it invariably wastes some of the energy in that electricity as heat. There are some types of electrolysis that are fairly efficient, but these are cranky and small scale. The more common form of electrolysis, where you stick a couple of electrodes into some water with an electrolyte, is less than 70% efficient. So you are chucking a third or more of your input energy into the trash.

A lot of electrolysis hucksters will try to handwave this with sciency sounding bafflegab. You'll no doubt hear all about HHO not really being the same as hydrogen and oxygen. It is. Or that, somehow, "Brown's Gas" has more combustion energy than the hydrogen and oxygen that makes it up. It doesn't. Nor can you get magic over-unity efficiency from a mystic catalyst, nor "resonance", nor "frequencies", nor any combination thereof. Magic quantum fairies don't live in Joe Cells.

I understand what you are saying, since it would seem to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, there seems to be some evidence that we need to re-think as I gather more and more information.

a reply to: TheChrome

You would be lucky if you got a 10% increase.

I played with them for a few years and they make one hell of a mess. They can also ruin a engine if you do not make a lot of adjustments to the programing. If you are set on doing it I advise buying a cheap generator and do a proof of concept first to familiarize yourself. I still have an HHO tank hooked to my truck, but I run a chemical reaction not electrolysis. My beer and coke cans get turned into mush and hydrogen. That also can be messy, but simply dealing with pressure has been much easier. I can also switch back and forth the programing at a whim when the line isn't pressurised.

originally posted by: TheChrome
I understand what you are saying, since it would seem to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, there seems to be some evidence that we need to re-think as I gather more and more information.

I've never seen any that wasn't blatant measurement error or a scam. If "resonance" or "quantum" is part of it, you should re-read it and mentally substitute "bull#" for those words, see if it improves the text some.

Unless you are able to electrolyze water, outside of known chemistry, hho will never give you over unity. the trick would be to condition the water to turn into a plasma of sorts.
a reply to: TheChrome

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheChrome

You would be lucky if you got a 10% increase.

Best of all, set up a metered hydrogen tank with a valve you can't see or get to.

Have an assistant turn the thing on or off for each tank of gasoline and NOT tell you.

You'll find that increase then approximates closely to 0.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Unless you are able to electrolyze water, outside of known chemistry, hho will never give you over unity. the trick would be to condition the water to turn into a plasma of sorts.
a reply to: TheChrome

Even if you use a block of americium or something to directly dissociate the water, it's never going to give you more energy of combustion than you put in to dissociate it, no matter how you dissociate it.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Unless you are able to electrolyze water, outside of known chemistry, hho will never give you over unity. the trick would be to condition the water to turn into a plasma of sorts.
a reply to: TheChrome

Does the "trick" involve using a Garfield?

a reply to: Bedlam

I don't know if it is zero or not, but it seems o make a difference. With my chemical tank I managed to get a small generator to run directly off of it. When I played with the dry cells I had a separate battery in the bed that ran it and the battery was charged during the day with a solar panel (florida) and I didn't drive much. It was just too bulky and a big hassle when I needed the space in the truck bed.

Like I said, this is nothing I've tinkered with, so thanks for everyone's input. I have talked to people who slaughter the idea, and people who swear by it. Of course that means I will experiment on my own, for understanding, because if you have two sides claiming something, the only way is to test it yourself.

a reply to: TheChrome

Cool topic. Don't give up just because some people don't believe in you.

originally posted by: TheLord
a reply to: TheChrome

Cool topic. Don't give up just because some people don't believe in you.

Ha Ha! Good comment! There are some anomalies within the information published, that is why I ask. Who is telling the truth?

originally posted by: TheChrome
Like I said, this is nothing I've tinkered with, so thanks for everyone's input. I have talked to people who slaughter the idea, and people who swear by it. Of course that means I will experiment on my own, for understanding, because if you have two sides claiming something, the only way is to test it yourself.

As Bedlam said if you really want to eliminate your own bias from your own test, you need someone else's help to blind the experiment. The people who swear by it might genuinely THINK it works but they probably have not done the unbiased blinded type of test Bedlam suggested.

What if you save $100 worth of gasoline and cause $1000 worth of engine damage? That could happen too. Adding HHO can increase temperature, and increase engine wear, and ultimately this has a negative effect on efficiency.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TheChrome
Like I said, this is nothing I've tinkered with, so thanks for everyone's input. I have talked to people who slaughter the idea, and people who swear by it. Of course that means I will experiment on my own, for understanding, because if you have two sides claiming something, the only way is to test it yourself.

As Bedlam said if you really want to eliminate your own bias from your own test, you need someone else's help to blind the experiment. The people who swear by it might genuinely THINK it works but they probably have not done the unbiased blinded type of test Bedlam suggested.

What if you save $100 worth of gasoline and cause $1000 worth of engine damage? That could happen too. Adding HHO can increase temperature, and increase engine wear, and ultimately this has a negative effect on efficiency.

I'm not really looking at gasoline. I am looking at things such as: A forklift runs off propane. So do some cars. What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen? Oh, yes Oil companies will fight that just like Ford and Chevy fought Tucker.

a reply to: TheChrome

What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen?

You claim to be an engineer yet you are having a hard time understanding why we don't run cars off of hydrogen.

We can run cars or any engine off of hydrogen, but it creates some problems when it come to storage.

I am just curious about what kind of engineer you are because those problems should be self evident to an engineer.

originally posted by: TheChrome
I'm not really looking at gasoline. I am looking at things such as: A forklift runs off propane. So do some cars. What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen? Oh, yes Oil companies will fight that just like Ford and Chevy fought Tucker.

Some vehicles run on hydrogen and are designed to do so, and that's not a problem if the engine is designed for hydrogen.

Where you can find problems is when people burn hydrogen in engines NOT designed to burn hydrogen. But even vehicles designed to run hydrogen can have other problems besides engine damage from burning the wrong type of fuel:

Hydrogen Vehicles

The drawbacks of hydrogen use are high carbon emissions intensity when produced from natural gas, capital cost burden, low energy content per unit volume, low performance of fuel cell vehicles compared with gasoline vehicles, production and compression of hydrogen, and the large investment in infrastructure that would be required to fuel vehicles.

Despite those issues, Toyota launched a hydrogen powered car in Japan and plans to launch in the USA, but it does have limited range etc because of those issues:

Toyota launched its first production fuel cell vehicle, the Toyota Mirai, in Japan at the end of 2014 and plans to begin sales in California, mainly the Los Angeles area, in 2015. The car is expected to have a range of 300 mi (480 km) and to take about five minutes to refill its hydrogen tank. The sale price in Japan is about 7 million yen ($69,000). Former European Parliament President Pat Cox estimates that Toyota will initially lose about $100,000 on each Mirai sold.

So, if you've got an extra $69,000 and live in Los Angeles, maybe you can buy one. They would need to sell at $169,000 to break even.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?

a reply to: Grimpachi

The only reason that there's a problem for storage is because the most efficient means was utilized for making making weapons of mass destruction.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheChrome

What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen?

You claim to be an engineer yet you are having a hard time understanding why we don't run cars off of hydrogen.

We can run cars or any engine off of hydrogen, but it creates some problems when it come to storage.

I am just curious about what kind of engineer you are because those problems should be self evident to an engineer.

A Mechanical Engineer. I work on pressure vessels , knockout drums, fractionation towers, and oil refineries. I do not have a monopoly on all information regarding different disciplines, thus I ask in this thread different opinions. I have not experimented with this technology, but know some auto mechanics that have seen hydrogen systems installed on vehicles and say they work phenomenal. The down side is a possibility of throwing the check engine light. This is why I ask, for others experience!

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Unless you are able to electrolyze water, outside of known chemistry, hho will never give you over unity. the trick would be to condition the water to turn into a plasma of sorts.
a reply to: TheChrome

Even if you use a block of americium or something to directly dissociate the water, it's never going to give you more energy of combustion than you put in to dissociate it, no matter how you dissociate it.

What I was getting at was to condition the water to contain only free radicals, a plasma of sorts if you will.
This has been achieved already to some extent and water electrolyzed outside of known chemistry