POST SCRIPTS

If it worked, it could only possibly be by catalyzing the gas or
diesel-oxygen reaction. I cannot comment on that possiblity, but I can
comment on just transferring energy between electrical energy and
chemical energy. Say you take given amount of electical energy of one
Joule (1 watt-second) and use that to electrolyze some water. What you
will get is some heat loss and some chemical energy potential in the
form of free hydrogen gas and oxygen. If you recombine the two gasses
perfectly, you will liberate the stored potential chemical energy. This
will be less energy( energy, guaranteed. If it were otherwise, you would be first in line for
the Nobel Prize, since you would have invented free energy.
Now if the gas/air or diesel/air reaction could somehow be catalyzed
by H2 and O2, thereby creating a more complete reaction, then there
could potentially be an advantage. I know of no such problems with the
reaction. We adjust carburetors for optimal fuel/air ratios and adjust
diesel injection systems for proper balances.

Jim

They are right, there is no "free" energy from the hydrogen process.

Consider that both superchargers and turbochargers increase fuel
efficiency (if you can keep your foot out of it!) even though they
parasite off the engine. This is because they raise volumetric efficiency.

As I posted, the gain is only about 10%.

I didn't see that Mythbusters episode, but something tells me their math
is off, and if they are only considering the energy in the hydrogen,
they are correct. But the process works (barely) by making the engine
more efficient, not directly because of a direct sum of the energy of
the hydrogen and liquid fuel. It is common knowledge that a
supercharger increases MPG is driving style stays the same.

Marty

Tasker, given that I have introduced supportable scientific fact and both sides of the story, I must conclude you have high admiration for my accuracy in political commentary too.

Thank you Tasker! I thought you would say something negative just to play devils advocate like you normally do.

Now all kidding aside, I really did present both sides for fairness. I note the claims and I note the disclaimers. My opening was to get your attention, if there was a misleading part it was the opening, but again it was just to catch the audience attention so they could read the whole story, disclaimers included.

It is a fact that hydrogen can power your car by itself, but in this case we are looking at a small electrolysis unit that produces a small amount of HHO pulled into the intake manifold while the car is running on either gasoline or diesel. The HHO is alleged to make combustion more efficient and this is where the improved mileage comes from. I've now highlighted in red the part of my story that refutes the claims of the inventors.

So, Tasker I don't know how much more "fair and balanced" I could be?

I almost agree with Tasker, but cut Jack some slack. Post Scripts is about sharing and discussing ideas. Here's what I have to contribute:

For things like welding/cutting torches an instant HHO rig is actually cheaper than going out and buying an oxy/acetylene gas package over mid and long term. I know that because I could weld with electric arc and oxy/a before I could drive. There, this invention makes good sense and there are some commercial units out there already that actually work very well. The downside is all that water vapor and condensation byproduct makes steel rust faster, so you have to do a little cleanup afterwards.

The big thing that this device misses for automobiles is that the electricity used to do the electrolysis comes from the generator/alternator/battery circuit of the vehicle.

Electroloysis, at its best energy efficiency approaches 80%. Its usually less.

Any electricity used for electrolysis will add an extra load to the generator, and thus use a little more gasoline....unless the amount of electricity used is below the idle threshold of the engine, and that electricity would only be dissipated in the battery in the form of heat anyway. Then there's the 20% or more efficiency loss in doing electrolysis.

A better way something like this could show a true energy gain would be if the braking of the vehicle were converted to electricity. Then we'd have kinetic energy, which is wasted as heat in brake pads, turned into potential energy in the form of HHO.

Right now some of our hybrid vehicles use a flywheel to convert kinetic mechanical energy to potential mechanical energy, which is used again for acceleration. Or in the case of the Ford Escape, braking runs a generator, which charges a battery, which turns an electric motor for accelleration. But the Escape still uses gasoline and produces NO2, CO, and CO2 emissions, though lessened.

In a vehicle that is fully hydrogen fueled, this process would actually aid the fuel economy by converting kinetic mechanical energy to potential chemical energy, which would be combusted as HHO for accelerating again.

The "mileage booster" units sold on Ebay capitalize on people that wish to improve gasoline mileage or lessen their environmental impact. But few of these devices if any actually deliver a net energy gain.

But instant HHO aka "Browns Gas" from electroloysis has potential, and is worth exploring and perfecting. Remember early solar cells and fuel cells weren't all that effective either, it just takes time and effort to get it right.

I wrote a paper in college on the "hydrogen economy". And while it has potential for replacing our "petroleum economy" the fact is that serious technical hurdles remain to be solved, and the net energy contained in hydrogen/HHO is less than in petroleum, so you have to have more volume than for gasoline to get the same results.

HHO is also VERY explosive, and even the most miniscule static spark can set it off. So not only are there net energy, delivery, and storage issues, safety issues are greater.

But the byproduct of HHO combustion is pure H20...no oxides of Nitrogen, no CO or CO2...no soot, no Ozone from airborne chemical reactions with sunlight. So the potential for cleaner air is huge.

I think even our green friend Tasker would like that. I sure do.

Constantly amused by the 'clean fuel' created by electrolysis. So many seem to forget where the electricity comes from - coal fired, oil burning or nuclear generation... none of which is environmentally sound.

Pter,

If solar/photovoltaic was used to power electrolysis, it would be in fact "free energy" with no pollution. Same thing goes for wind power, or for wave/tide power where mechanical energy is convertered to electrical.

The downside is that its not at all efficient, with solar cells running at about 15% conversion efficiency and electrolysis at somewhere around 50-70%

The plus side is that solar, wind, or tide/wave power is truly free, all being sourced to our suns energy output with no ongoing pollution or other byproducts.

Of course when the sun turns into a red giant in a few billion years that will ruin everybody's day.

QUESTION: how do you make this, what is the formula?

Answer: unknown

They say to create HHO gas uses more energy than it creates....LOL... Well, suppose this theory isn't based on ordinary physics..... Which it really isn't. It isn't to anybody's true understanding. Because after it's burned, the energy that is created Is more along the line of Quantam Mechanics.. This is how cold fusion is produced... It is warmed up, excited, then releases atomic bursts of energy far more than is used to create it.. Any professor will tell you that we just don't understand how to harness it's potential yet.. We need another Einstein to find productive ways to use it other than in an extremely inefficient gasoline engine. HHO gas also can be produced from a number of products as seen in the Pantone/GEET engine design... However, our government does't want us to have the technology because it will crash the oil market. And Uncle Sam makes too damn much tax money on it... So, we need another guy like Paul Pantone to give this technology out to the public and put it in on your own until we create a public oil rebellion, after all, burning all of these pollutants will doom us in the very near future. If we don't find an atomic fuel source that has great potential, in December of 2012, all life will be gone on this planet. Our poles will shift as once happened before, and there will not be anything here to live on... So, we wil need to create sufficient light, heat, and electricity with water, the mass abundance we have to continue life and move technology on until we find another habitable planet. And I'd say we'll have to do it extremely fast!!

Thermoelectric devices produce power when given a heat source on one side with cooling ability on the other.

These are in wide use as heating / cooling thermos type units. These are widely sold in stores and are being installed in cars. The thermoelectric modules vary widely in price and size.

When using the modules to produce power, you need to use a 10% rule: if the unit is rated at say ten amp draw for power, you would get one amp electrical production out of the unit at -- say 200-300 degrees F.

Tests of actual results would be needed with series and parallel wiring to achieve needed voltage and amps.

Most of these would be in the 1.5-2 volt range. Series wire six for 12 volt, seven if lacking a bit. If amps are low, build an identical array and parallel it to the first, therby doubling your amps. Do this process until you are broke and have enough amps for your electrolysis.

It is the difference between the hot side and the cool side that produces power: the greater the diference, the greater the power produced (to the rated cap. of the module).

These are pricey, but arrays can be built -- similiar to solar -- and placed onto a muffler or radiator hose to provide power for electrolisis. Once the engine warms things up, you have power.

This approach will eliminate your alt. drag and inefficiency, supposedly.

Ok, i have read several of the comments in this and other blogs, and have a question for you people that did go to collage and did not flunk out of the Navy Nuc Program. What would happen if you ran that 12 volts produced by the alt thru something (readily avalible) that boosted the amps to the 12000 range? Is that not exactly what the ignition coil on a car does???? I literily do not know enough( Yet lol) about the power conversion process, wiether it depends on volts, amps ect to tell, but i thought i would throw it out and see what kind of response i get.

We have made the technology to build a water-burning hybrid easy and affordable.
Water can be used to fuel a car when used as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed! only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your vehicle's fuel efficiently,improve emissions quality, and save you money.
Our easy conversion guide will show you how to use electricity from your car's battery to separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Brown's Gas or Hydroxy, burns smoothly and provides significant energy - while the end product is just H2O! HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the stability of water.

Editor's note: There is no evidence this is true. Browns gas has been around for over a 100 years and somebody is always touting it as the end all be all fuel and it certainly isn't. IF SOMETHING SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE....
don't be flim flammed by quacks. This doesn't work and there is NO EVIDENCE to prove it does or you would be reading it in the headlines tomorrow. Now for my disclaimer: I don't own oil wells, nor an oil company or even a gas station and I sure hate paying high pump prices! If there was something that would help, even a little bit, I would jump on it myself.

This Brown's gas device produces the same amount of energy that it consumes. IT DOESN'T WORK.

Well, I was skeptical about this too and I found a guy near me thta makes and sells these units. He has a car that the dealer says should get 25 mpg and he's getting 35+mpg w/ this system. It does work.