HHO fuel cells - Are they worth the money or are they just a scam?

Thanks for that. Taking each of your points:

>--the flammable gases are not free; cost of generation is not accounted for

Not sure why you believe the cost of generation is not accounted for when there is an obvious cost of the HHO unit and an obvious electrical/gas overhead in producing it.

>--hydrogen gas causes premature wear on metal components, especially joints/welds

Not aware of that. Have you a reference to support that statement?

>--quantity of flammable gas required to supplement 20 gallons of gasoline requires high-pressure storage container

That's not required for HHO fuel cells. The HHO is sucked directly ot of the cell into the air intake.

----now you need high pressure pump/transfer

Not needed for HHO fuel cells

----now you have more welds/seams to fail under high pressure

Not relevant for HHO fuel cell systems as they work close to atmostpheric  pressure

I am looking for rather more information on the cost benefit justification, or otherwise, than you have provided so far. I am not looking for 'clues' I am looking for hard evidence or at the very least a carefully argued case - one way or another. I am fairly well informed about how HHO cells are supposed to work, how much they cost and how they are installed. What I am looking for is a well argued case for or against HHO fuel cells.

>--hydrogen gas causes premature wear on metal components, especially joints/welds

Followed up on this point and find that hyrdogen embrittlement happens more with:

* harder and higher tensile steels

* higher temperatures

I'd care to bet that both of those conditions apply in the combustion chamber. However whether such low concentrations of hydrogen (0.07%) would have that effect when it is part of a combustion process I really don't know - somehow I doubt it - but then again, may be I am totally wrong.

It seems few people are even aware of this area of Experts Exchange. Perhaps not surprising since it claims to be new. But then most people visit EE for IT solutions not automotive solutions - which is what I claimed in another thread. However maybe time will tell and members will flock to this area - if only because almost everyone has a vehicle of some sort.

My bet is this question will remain open for a long time with few contributions. I will leave it open to see what happens.

That's an excellent contribution - thank you. It gave my quite a few laughs as well. I loved the idea of anyone being brave or daft enough to try 30,000 volts - amazing. You may not be a physicist but you've made a pretty good fist of it.

The thing that beats me about the whole HHO saga is that there are businesses selling HHO fuel cells for lots of £££'s and yet no one has so far sued them for false claims. I just don't understand it. What is going, how do they get away with it?

Your last few comments are a timely reminder to would-be re-inventors that the HHO technology can go disastrously wrong and can be amazingly dangerous. I read somewhere that the optimum electrode separation is of the order of 0.5mm. How that can be maintained reliably and safely in a vehicle I really don't know. It's hazardous at the very least and fault prone at best, whilst at the same time being totally useless in improving fuel consumption.

  Thanks. :)

  I wouldn't be surprised if the HHO people are getting sued, or at least people are attempting to sue them.  A lot of the people aren't going to be willing to admit that they were wrong, and I've even seen some people who swear by them.  Of course, I've seen people swear by other things that don't do anything, like the cell phone "antenna boosters" that are just a foil stamp that they stick in the battery door, and magnetic alignment power boosters that are suppose to align the atoms of the fuel as they pass down the fuel line, so they can enter the engine in an orderly fashion.  :)  

  If I remember right, my plates were separated by 0.25mm, by nylon washers.   The cell is taken apart right now, so I can't really check. :)  I was playing with a few alternative configurations, and since the container doesn't hold any substantial pressure, I can't make a real go of it.  My plates were 3/8" thick carbon welding backplates, that I had to special order from a major industrial tool distributor (well known, I just can't remember the name right now either).  They don't flex, so they work well.

  My first design looked a lot cooler.  I had 64 1/4" thick carbon rods, spaced 1/4" apart, each with an alternating charge.  It took me forever to wire it up.  It looked something the control rods for a nuclear reactor. :)  As it turned out, the rods would move slightly on their retainers while I was driving, so the bottom of the tank was covered in carbon particles, which shorted the whole thing out, and popped the fuse.   After dismantling the whole thing and cleaning the tank, I started experimenting with the distance between electrodes.  To increase my electrode surface area, I switched to stacked plates, approx 8"x8"x3/8", spaced .25mm, riding on nylon bolts, with anternating notched corners, so I could run one conductor up each side.  I found out the hard way that having any metal at all inside the container, the metal would oxidize very (VERY) rapidly.  

  There are quite a few videos on YouTube where people are experimenting with the same thing, but they're taking what they're finding online as truth, which has been entertaining.   Quite a few sources have suggested 1.5vdc, pulsed at a mysterious frequency.  If you look around, you can find the references on that one.  It doesn't work as advertised, but I'm willing to attempt anything, which is why I tried the variety of frequencies and voltages.  

  I was happy with the output from 12vdc.  I was amazed at the output from 120vdc.   I did try 120vac, just to see what would happen, and it heated the water very quickly.  

  I was careful to work in a safe environment.  Electrically, I was on the 15A main breaker, plugged into a GFI (ground fault interrupt) outlet, which would trip if there was a short.  I made an outlet box, with a switch, 10A breaker, and GFI outlet of it's own.   I'd rather trip those breakers, than electricute myself.  Until I've known that an environment is fairly safe, I've kept my distance, just in case something goes pop in a bad way.

  I do believe the idea can work, and it can be made to be reasonably safe.  Once I have a working product, which as I said will require a lot of power, I'm going to run it through a complete set of safety tests, which will include every scenario we can think of for failure.  I'm kind of looking forward to the "car crash and gas tank explodes" test, but I have no idea where I can test such a scenario.  It will probably consist of putting the energized tank into a gasoline fire, and then crushing it with concrete blocks dropped from say 10 feet.  :)   That's not exactly a garage, or even back yard experiment. :)

  Without all the tests, it's begging for disaster.  Not too many people remember the exploding Pinto's, which was a simple design flaw of putting the fuel tank in line with the exhaust, so a rear end collision would pierce the fuel tank with metal over the flash point of the fuel.   Boom!

 

 

I remember the Pinto only too well. It was Ralph Nader's making!

In the UK pressure vessels, such as steam boilers, have to be tested by Lloyds before insurance will be offered by any company. I imagine the same would be the case for a pressurized HHO fuel cell. I cannot imagine anyone's HHO cell passing such a test let alone the logical but drastic simulated crash test you are proposing.

Personally I cannot believe that it will ever work. The initial user/scammer (Stanley Meyer) was successfully sued in Ohio by his financial backers in 1996. It's all in Wikipedia.

 
  I avoid mentioning Meyer.  His was a scam.  A very cool looking scam, but a scam.  He's the one with the "special frequency" talk.  If you look around online, there's lots of talk, speculation, and people who even say they made it work to some degree.  Of course since you don't exactly see every third car on the road being powered by it, it obviously doesn't work.  Well, that or it's a huge conspiracy where "the man" is forcing us to use their oil.  :)

  I love conspiracies.  I run a news site, and am more than happy to scream "CONSPIRACY!" if there is one.  Unfortunately, I don't see one really being here.  

  There's another great one, if you like reading pseudoscience crap.  It's Joe Cell.  I thought it was neat, and since I do run a news site, and they were going to be doing a live demonstration in Utah, I was going to go as a journalist.  Well, a geek in journalists clothing. :)  I spoke with the organizer.  He was with (or represents, I can't remember) a group looking at alternative fuels in a very responsible manner. He was honest with me, and said that the Joe Cell guy kept saying that he was almost ready, but there was always some setback.  After months of "oh, it's just ___", they gave up on him.  Sure, you can "almost" have the latest, greatest thing in the world, but if it's impossible, you'll always be on that bleeding edge, lying through your teeth.  

  At least with what I worked on, I know it has a fatal flaw (need for more electricity), and I know how to correct it.  It may make a more fuel efficient vehicle, and maybe even be able to run on hydrogen exclusively, but it'll take an awful lot (extra batteries, inverter, etc), and will never be the "just put water in your gas tank" solution.

  I have seen some new stuff recently, where they're suggesting to use the hydrogen as a storage medium, rather than the fuel.  A home could use a large scale solar array, which breaks down the hydrogen and stores it, so you'd have a consumable buffer through the nights and cloudy days.  It also means that you'll need to have an internal combustion electrical generator running to provide electricity, which isn't exactly ideal.

  If (IF) I could work the bugs out, I'm fairly confident that I could make a suitable container that would be safe enough for regular use.  That, of course, will have to be one heck of a container, or it will need to handle itself well enough so if there's a breach there isn't enough free hydrogen in a given space to make a big difference.   A little poof isn't a bad thing.  A big BANG is. :)

Perhaps you could use a propane barbeque gas container for the hydrogen. However to store much hydrogen requires a lot of energy as it only liquifies below 20.28Kelvin (that's its boiling point). It would also require a hefty amount insulation. That's not impossible as that's achieved in rockets, so it can't be too heavy to get the right level of insulation.

Just how you would liquify the hydrogen when it had been produced by the solar cells would be the major challenge and not exactly power saving!

I've had a look at the YouTube Joe Cell video clips and I really don't know what to make of them. The strange experiment with water in a balloon looks like a party trick and I can't explain it. There seem to be so many people that are participating in these events that it's truly hard to believe that they're all such good actors that they're able to totally hide their disbelief.

Oddly I'm now wondering whether my deep scepticism isn't perhaps a bit too deep. I'm going to watch for developments. However I am still stuck at the stage of the law of conservation of energy. You can't get out more energy than you put in. If you could you'd have a perpetual motion machine - and we all know that's not possible.

Thanks for your contribution.

HHO systems are not a scam.  

there are years of research, patents and loads of videos with results of people using these systems.

the majority of those who sell their system is a scam.  you are better off researching and making your own very cheaply if you have the technical know how.

the big problem is the use of electricity in the right way with the write hho generator.  amperage and voltage hold the key along with the right materials.  there are factors involved.  water does boil.  hho typically generate lots of heat so you need to over come the boiling point.  also there is scientific data that shows equations for the energy conversion of water.  its really low but remember HHO generators are like a large capacitor.  things get complicated at this point.

if you go the route of hydrogen only added to the system you can build a generator that will pull the hydrogen only at home and compress to a tank.  use solar panels!  free energy once you buy the parts.

cars do benefit from HHO mixture added to gas mixture.  the burn rate of hydrogen is very fast and can facilitate thorough combustion.  hen hho burns it produces water.  there is water content in gas already so i dont see how HHO hurts welds or what ever that guy said.

then comes applying the unit to the car.  you need to account for the computer system in the vehicle already.  it does not work on HHO, only gas.  so you can either reprogram the system and add sensor for the application or create a piggy back system to account for hho.  things to take into consideration are the HHO flow rate as well as the actual o2 readings.  sure you can just trick the o2 but what if the actual o2 readings indicate trouble?  well you dont want to prevent that from the ecu seeing it.

all of this is possible but very complicated.  instead of talking about it how about we do something.

i will come back here when my system is developed and installed with results.

I am sure you believe they aren't a scam. However I am erring on the side of total disbelief. Not one HHO cell manufacturer seems to have organised independant tests to verify their claims. In the absence of those veryifiable results I believe the whole thing to be a large self-delusional exercise.

I believe their are ways to achieve it, but so far no one seems to have stumbled across the obvious way to get it to work. However even the apparently obvious method would require considerable technical knowhow to make it function safely.

very very true.

nothing was specific on what kind of hho system.  most if not all sold are hicks looking for a buck or scammers.

a system can be made to work.  i myself have a design not seen anywhere.  let me try it.  if it works i will share it.  and no it wont cost hundreds of dollars to get my information.

i just don't want people to hear those spreading false information that have not tried making one themselves.  if they provide techical details as to why it doesnt work then they are capable of making one that at least produces a 1mpg improvement which proves they work.  any system that hurts gas millage is not configured to adjust the o2 reading, plain and simple

forgot to state the answer.

HHO is not a scam, systems currently sold are most likely.  look for people who share their design plans for free.  the improvement is minimal but do improve millage.

  Gleneaton29,

  I believe that's what I said, but you made a very good summary.  :)

  I'm close to something useable, but I have no funding.  I don't want to ask for funding that may just be a perpetual hobby, rather than something useful.  

  I believe I stated my design, which I've tested virtually everything I could find, and found huge holes with.

  My favorite, that I believed would work, is a length of 4" PVC pipe, sealed at the ends, with steel wool and a stainless steel switch cover. :)  great idea.  Easily accessable parts.  Won't work.   The steel will break down way too fast.  The distance to the electrodes can't be optimized or stabilized (i.e., you're going to get a short inside the unit).  With the available power, you won't provide enough hydrogen to make a difference.

  At least the last 12v design I made could power a torch, which gives a real world example that it is putting something out.

  We shouldn't be saying HHO though.  I believe HHO is a trademarked term by a guy in Clearwater, Florida.  There was a news piece on him, that he had the latest, greatest thing, that'll save the world.  The video is on YouTube.  As far as I can tell, he's fallen off the face of the planet.  He claimed his "HHO" was a special molecule, produced through a "secret" process.  His demonstratable unit was a welding torch that wouldn't burn your skin, but burnt hotter than the sun and would dissolve any metal.    Ya, subtle flaws with that logic.   His welding torch didn't show how it was powered, but if I remember right it was something like a 50A 220V circuit.  That's something you won't reproduce on a car for very long, and the amount of fuel he put out wouldn't make a notable difference in a car.  

  I do fully believe with what I have worked out, it would dramatically increase fuel economy and reduce emissions.  With that and some nice paperwork, I could get a patent, but that's not what I was interested in.   I'm not claiming to be the end-all expert, just a guy who's tried all the options I could find, and worked out quite a few on my own.

  I hope this is allowed here.  If anyone wants to contact me about what I have done, I can recite it from memory to you.  You may contact me at jwsmythe@jwsmythe.com .  I'm not charging anything, I believe in the free exchange of information for the betterment of technology.  If you do make a working commercial unit though, I'd like to get one free for my input if it's useful. :)   That's only fair. :)

>the improvement is minimal but do improve millage.

Prove it.

simply put if you adjust the o2 reading alone you get better gas millage.  that i know for a fact.

if you lean out the car too much it burns too hot.  adding hydrogen can cool the combustion.  water vapor produced will absorb some of the heat.

right there is proof that minimal gains can be achieved with the assistance of an hho generator.

patrickab, i suggest you find free plans to build one and try it out.  if you are not technical enough to do so then just sit back and wait for a company to make claims.  that being legally backed, documented claims.

Sorry, I just do not accept your, "Oh it's so simple explanation.".

I have no intention of wasting my money building an HHO generator. I have all the equipment and the technical ability to do it, however the maths do not add up. Apart from which the laws of thermodynamics tell one very clearly that you cannot get something for nothing. A so called HHO fuel cell produces tiny amounts of hygrogen and oxygen and there is no way that those tiny percentages of HHO will affect anything significantly. a 2 litre car revving at a modest 3000rpm sucks in 3000 lires per minutes. An HHO fuel cell might produce 2 litres of HHO per minute. If you do the maths you will find that the HHO only represents 0.06% of the fuel intakeby weight. You cannot be seriously suggesting that such a low percentage of the fuel intake will affect anything.

Just in case my reference to the laws of thermodynamics hasn't really rung the right bells for you let me put is another way. In any system, you cannot get out more energy than you put in. It does NOT matter the form in which form the input or output energy is - the rule holds true. It is an absolute law and there are no exceptions. Whilst you may find that hard to accept as a fact, consider this for a moment. If you had a system which produced more energy than went into it, you would be able to get the system (an engine for example) to run for ever without needing to provide any fuel. In other words a perpetual motion machine. Which simply is impossible. Until you understand and accept this basic law if physics we cannot progress in this discussion.

There is no independantly assessed HHO system that can be shown to be cost effective. There are rows of people having fun on YouTube, and taking in huge numbers of people but no one, repeat no one, has verified their claims.

There are many companies claiming benefits from their HHO systems but I believe those claims to be fraudulent.

I believe you should do a bit of homework on the subject and find out about Stanley Meyer who was successfully prosecuted for fraud in Ohio for this so called invention. It is not his invention as electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen has been known for a very long time. It is an energy hungry process which is pretty inefficient. If it wasn't inefficient then the commercial producers of hydrogen and oxygen would have adopted it as their method-of-choice a long time ago - but they haven't. So let's be clear about this. It's not a viable method of producing anything other than tiny quantities of hydrogen or oxygen.

I have done the maths on a theoretical saving of let's say 5% in fuel usage. On that basis with an HHO fuel cell costing approx £400 (USD744) it would take me about 13 years to cover the initial outlay. And that is ignoring the cost of finance. However a 5% saving is a ridiculous dream so the whole project is a total and utter waste of time.

patricklab,

  I'd argue against your example of 5% improvement in fuel economy.   I'm arguing in your favor though.  

  The "best" (note I quote best) information I've seen on the subject has a whole series of improvements.  Once you install their water device, you would then change your driving habits.  Draft behind big trucks.  Roll to stops (neutral, not braking).  Drive at more economical speeds.  Overinflate your tires.  Make slow graceful starts and stops.

  Tire inflation is an arguable point.  Bringing a 35psi rated tire to 40psi isn't going to help significantly enough.  If that same 35psi tire is normally 10psi, it'll make a notable difference.  The reason "overinflation" makes a difference, is because you're now paying careful attention to your tire pressure, and you won't drive on underinflated tires. Overinflation causes faster tire wear on the inside part of the tread.  Underinflation causes faster tire wear on the outer edges of the tread, and on the sidewalls.  Proper inflation causes normal wear, does not generate extra heat, etc, etc, etc.   But the argument here isn't tire inflation.

  The "good" system causes you to save fuel by driving habits.  People will associate this to adding the device, so they'll believe it works.  The device didn't make the difference, the way you manipulate the pedals does.

  I had an in depth discussion with someone recently on fuel economy and driving.  He came to me with the statement "if everyone drove the speed limit, the country would save x million barrels of gas per year."   That is  a false statement.  To get the best fuel economy, you want your engine to be running in the best performance profile possible.  For most normally aspirated gas engines that is between 1800 to 2200 RPM.  The number is dependant on the torque curve of your particular vehicle.  

  On my car in 6th gear, I should cruise at 107mph.   I haven't tested at 107 yet, but I did two cross country drives on I-10 (United States I-10)  from coast to coast by myself, with the cruise control set at one constant speed as much as I could.    One I had the cruise set to about 78mph, and got 24.5mpg across the whole trip.  One I had the cruse set to 85, and I got 26mpg.

  75mph = 1,400rpm
  85mph = 1578rpm
 96mph = 1800rpm
 107mph = 2000 rpm

  My wife's car is substantially different.  It is a 4 cyl Honda CR-V with an automatic transmission.   On the same route, driving together so we were hold very close to the same speed, holding about 75mph most of the way, she got about 20mpg.  I was in another car than the previous test, with a 4 speed automatic transmission instead of a stick.  I got 24mpg.  

  I did the calculations for her car.
  44mph = 1400rpm
  56mph = 1800rpm
  60mph = 1900rpm
  63mph = 2000rpm

  She would have done better holding 60mph, and I would have done better doing 96mph.  Unfortunately, that would mean she would have completed the trip in 41.6 hours of driving, and I would have completed it in 26.0 hours of driving.   I also drive harder than her.  Alone my stops consist of stopping for gas, food, drink, and restroom.  Together, there was sight seeing, shopping, and sleeping.   At peak fuel efficiency, I could make the drive in one long day.  In 41.6 hours, you require at least one, but more likely 2 or 3 stops for sleep.  She would have been very upset if I called her from the destination, and she had just started her second of 3 days of driving.

ok i hear your points. i really do.  and understand where you are coming from.

meyers being prosecuted was indeed for commercializing something that had patents on it already.  and making claims that could not be produced.  it could have even been his tests produced false results.

why have companies not used the technology yet? wake up man, you live in the USA.  since when does a company produce a product to better the world and not make much money?  not only that but technology advancement and cost of materials.  the best material to use in such a system is titanium.  that is expensive.

a running car uses gas to move and at the same time produces lots of electricity by the alternator that is not used.  the idea behind hho generator is to use up that extra electricity to produce h2 and o2 to supplement the running of the engine, potential of improving efficiency.  gas a/f is 14.7:1 while hydrogen is 34:1 or greater.  it does not take a lot of hydrogen to supplement the burning of gas.  plus the 2 h2 + 1 o2 mix alone is combustible enough to run an engine if provided in proper volume.  i do not see an hho generator ever making that.  

current systems you find on youtube or are for sale for 744 dollars as you claim is bogus.  one major problem with youtubers is their gas volume tests.  the gas is 2/3rds hydrogen and 1/3rd oxygen.  so when one says i made 1 liter of gas in a minute its not 1 liter of hydrogen gas.  i ran through material cost and to make one myself is under 100 bucks.  so as i had said make one yourself and don't buy one made.

the technology is out there.  the concept has potential.  when people start testing for the purpose of improvement over personal gain we will see systems sold affordable that do something good.  if legal issues can be worked out which i highly doubt.  someone will say its a stolen idea and shut it down.

i never said make energy out of nothing.  only thing close is a hydrogen generator stationed at your home producing from solar panels which is free energy.  and if gas stations are suppose to provide hydrogen in this same manner then there is a device that can produce large volumes with little power.  little power could very well be larger than an average automobile alternator.  but still it is the idea in the works with a few running now.

now i dont know anything except for the few seconds i seen on tv.  but there is a local gathering of energy conservationists that provide free education on alternative energies.  there is a guy that apparently has some type of hydrogen generator that increased millage by 3 per gallon on their truck.  information and materials are provided for free.  its a church group and am not fond of the church but ill try and get the info. ill be happy to share it.

just think about this... if plans got out for everyone to build a device that would cut gas consumption in half to everyone in the country and or world what would that do to economies?  oil is the leader in wealth in nearly all countries.  people with power would be upset.  and possibly drinking water supplies taking huge hits cause people are too lazy to even try collecting rain water instead.

what i am trying to say is don't completely disregard it.  if you research other inventions for the purpose of alternative fuels you will find many bought out by oil companies.  ethanol at the pump is cheaper to gas but to use it in your car will cost more in the end.  it takes more ethanol in a combustion chamber than gas does to produce the same power. in addition, ethanol in gas today reduces the gas efficiency.  you might have seen political commercials on this issue.

i have some ideas that are no where on the internet.  im not going to share them without testing so i dont waste anyone's time or money.  when i have a prototype i will.

by the way i am up for discussion as long as you or anyone wants to.  i am not looking for any flame war in this.  and i hope i have not added any fuel to the fire.

OK, let me take apart your ill-researched claims.

1. >meyers being prosecuted was indeed for commercializing something that had patents on it already.  and making claims that could not be produced.  it could have even been his tests produced false results.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer

"In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[2] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of energy and the military.[20] The Water Fuel Cell however, was examined by three witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the two investors their $25,000.[2]
Meyer claims the Times article wrongly implies that the U.S. Patent Office has not the ability to rule on the technical merits of issued U.S. Patents, as so granted to inventor, Stanley A. Meyer, under 35 USC 101[21] and that the article wrongly implies that the Plaintiff's three experts had the necessary scientific background to properly evaluate the various stages of the tech-development of the WFC technology.[20 "

So I'm afraid you are not even close. Do please take the time, trouble and effort to look into this properly.

2. >the best material to use in such a system is titanium

Who says so? What is the basis of your claim?

3. >it does not take a lot of hydrogen to supplement the burning of gas

Really, how do you know what percentage is required to make a difference?

4. >current systems you find on youtube or are for sale for 744 dollars as you claim is bogus.

I never claimed they were for sale on YouTube. However they are for sale at the price I quoted on the internet.

5. >if legal issues can be worked out which i highly doubt.  someone will say its a stolen idea and shut it down.

I don't know where you get that idea from as there is nothing patentable about the electrolysis of water. Anyone can do it for profit - if they want to try.

6. >...if plans got out for everyone to build a device that would cut gas consumption in half to everyone in the country and or world what would that do to economies?

Like many of your countrymen you like conspiracy theories. The truth is that if it worked, it would have been commercialised a long time ago. The only difference now is that it can be run on a multi-scam basis on the internet with almost no come-back by anyone.

This table (pic below) gives you an idea of how little gas is produced from HHO cells. When compared to the air sucked into a car's engine per hour of 180,000 litres, the HHO component is pathetically small. ref: http://www.hydromotion.co.uk/

I wish you luck in your development work.

titanium does not corrode, or at most corrodes very slowly in water.  most metals tested corrode at an accelerated rate.  stainless hardly does at all and titanium would be one to get years of operation out of.

when i said units you find on youtube that was a general statement.  and units costing 744 i have not seen but i do not doubt it.  i don't look to buy a system.  basically currently anything for sale is bogus and a scam.

meyer committed fraud, i stated it wrong.  oops.  he was trying to patent something that had patents on it.  there are patents you can find for electrolysis now.  blah blah, fraud yes. he was wrong and a scam.  if you ever find his patents they do contain some information worth a read.

and your last bit about country men and conspiracy.  there is lots of facts for things other than hho generators to create what people call conspiracy.  i prefer to call it partial evidence of the full truth.  but thats for another thread.

seriously, run your car on water website?  like you should read anything on that.  that is a scam site. no wonder the chart looks funny.

if this electrolysis is a bogus concept then what other ways can you split water to get hydrogen?  its talked about on tv including discovery channel that they have solar powered hydrogen gas stations.  what are they using to go from solar panels to hydrogen?

not everything that works is commercialized.  no profit.  wind power is becoming more popular sure.  this war in iraq has cost enough money to convert nearly all sources of electricity production in the USA to just wind power.  if they spent just 1/3 of that money to wind power there would be no reason to secure USA future by ensuring oil can be imported.  we have enough coal in the states to liquefy and make gasoline out of to supply us for the next 100 years atleast.  the excuse is no co2 regulations can be set in place to determine if building plants to liquefy is cost effective yet they know how much it costs to make 1 barrel from coal?  and the co2 regulations are so loose it doesn't matter anyway.

this can be debated and discussed for decades just like it has been.  just try to be open minded when ever possible.  and if you desire just ignore the hydrogen community.  its stupid to call it hho.

you must not be in politics or know much about it.

>not everything that works is commercialized.  no profit.  wind power is becoming more popular sure.  this war in iraq has cost enough money to convert nearly all sources of electricity production in the USA to just wind power.  if they spent just 1/3 of that money to wind power there would be no reason to secure USA future by ensuring oil can be imported.  we have enough coal in the states to liquefy and make gasoline out of to supply us for the next 100 years atleast.  the excuse is no co2 regulations can be set in place to determine if building plants to liquefy is cost effective yet they know how much it costs to make 1 barrel from coal?  and the co2 regulations are so loose it doesn't matter anyway.

That's a very interesting series of comments.

>its stupid to call it hho.

No, you are wrong and unnecessarily rude. It is a shorthand which is understood by those interested in the subject. It is a shorthand that personally I will continue to use as it's convenient.

>you must not be in politics or know much about it.

That was an unnecessary comment.

1. By the way you seem to be under the impression that if you can find a patent that somehow it prevents others from using and commercialising the complete idea. Patents usually expire after, I believe 14 years, and the invention cannot be re-patented. That applies as much to inventions that are cheap to invent through to those that cost hudreds of millions to develop - like pharmaceuticals.

2. > if this electrolysis is a bogus concept then what other ways can you split water to get hydrogen?

I have never said that electrolysis of water is bogus. Please read again so that you understand the points I have been making. HHO cells, that can fit in a car, produce very small quantities of hydrogen and oxygen (HHO). The amount of HHO is far too small to have any effect whatsoever.

>seriously, run your car on water website?  like you should read anything on that.  that is a scam site. no wonder the chart looks funny.

I understand you wanting to dismiss anything that doesn't support your belief, but you have missed the point of what I have posted. The point is the tiny amounts of HHO produced by even 24 cells. At 29 litres per hour from 24 cells that is 29/180000*100 = 0.02%. That is a ludicrously small percentage. You'd have to believe in automotive homeopathy to think that made any difference whatsoever.

i simply stated if you were  at all watching the major news sources and following various political matters you would begin to see the crap that goes on.  i was not being rude but maybe it was unnecessary.  and now that i have paid attention and know you don't live in the usa things make a little more sense.  it is messed up in the usa here.  i dont know a whole lot on your countries politics.  im sure they are better their than here.

you cannot believe anything on any of those run your car on water websites.  like i will believe that chart.  if you found that chart on a respectable scientific website say from a university then i probably would believe it.

by the way, that website you linked to.  watch video one.  that is hilarious.  it is outside are being sucked into a jar of water making bubbles that does create an extremely small amount of water vapor.  not much more than the humidity outside.  but it gets sucked into the engine to increase millage?  that thing doesnt even match the device they are trying to sell which looks really funny in my opinion.

I understand that you don't want to accept that website as gospel - nor do I for that matter. However consider for a moment that they are, if anything, trying to promote HHO technology and they are declaring the volume of HHO that cells produce. I agree it would be far better if the table had been extracted from someone's PhD thesis. Unfortunately I don't have access to such data so I'll settle for that for the moment.

Meantime...

"Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to increase automotive engine efficiency or to operate a car using water as a fuel. Because the energy required to split water exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency.[9] "

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

here is patent info.  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/kids/kidprimer.html

as to whether or not anyone could get a patent on their hydrgoen generator cell would depend on what patents exist.  patents can be renewed, not easy but can be.

i am saying that the site is a scam and who knows where they got the info for the table.  probably someone not educated came up with it.  i dont see it being accurate given what a molecule of water is made of and how those h and o molecules have to join to be stable.

now i have not and will not say that anywhere in the process extra energy is produced.

there is a circle of energy in the system we speak of here.  i am not saying how much energy cause i currently do not know.  but gas turns the engine which turns the alternator and makes electricity.  as i have said, a lot of it is not used.  so you design a cell to use up most of the extra electricity produced to make hydrogen and oxygen mix that can be recirculated into the engine to facilitate combustion to increase efficiency to some degree.  if you can find the magic setup to be efficient enough to reduce gas consumption it will increase millage of a vehicle based on gasoline consumption only.

you will forever need to add gas and water to the vehicle.  as well, a car must start on gas only till the cell is in a state of operation.  and the cell output would be regulated by rpm of the motor.

like i have always said the systems sold and pretty much all talked about have huge flaws.

i feel the concept has some worth in it as it further develops.  one down side if this were to become of use in the future is drinking water will cost 5 bucks a gallon.  boon pickens (spelling) has bought about 70% of water rights in the usa.  he is one of the biggest oil men in the country.  

no i am not saying boon thinks hho generators are the way of the future. but him buying up all the rights is a contributing fact to water prices going up.  and if everyone was putting water in there car the demand is high.

now lets just say an hho system makes just enough mix to add to combustion that does not reduce fuel consumption but does increase combustion efficiency and uniform combustion and prevents scavenging.  that is something worth under 100 bucks from the stand point of someone in car performance.
what i am saying is it reduces the amount of unburned gasoline that goes out the tail pipe.

now talk of resonating frequency in the cell, i dont buy that.  resonating is sound frequency.  minute vibration wont do much to getting bubbles off the element.  and those pulse devices, i dont believe in what a lot of them say that it increases gas output.  but what i have read and do believe is the rapid on off pulses to the cell is intended to reduce the temperatures produced inside the cell.  if the cell gets too hot it produces loads of gas, as in steam which isn't what the device is suppose to do.

steam has a use in a vehicle but not really for fuel economy.  steam and or water with maybe additives are used to carry heat out of the combustion chamber.  more common to forced induction motor setups.

speaking of i did find a technical paper on hydrogen and its use in an internal combustion engine.  i can't find the paper now but will keep looking.  they mention the use of hydrogen to suppliment gasoline, most effective in forced induction motors.  however nothing of an hho generator is talked about.

you could think outside the box a little.  could an alternator be reworked to make additional power to run a cell?  or what about additional batteries to run a cell to add to the millage for a period of time?  i would rather make a cell and add batteries to my car than try and fit elelctric motors in the wheels of my car.  it would be cheaper with the cell and battery concept.  would it work?  i would have to make and test one.

or even a highly efficient solar panel across your hood that could provide power to the cell to extend millage during daytime hours which is most common driving time.  solar panels are improving rather fast lately.  soon this idea could come to light as well.

my point as said, the hho generator idea could hold some value.  but having said that i guess your original question would be answered scam.  nothing currently is worth it.

>patents can be renewed, not easy but can be.

That is very rare.

Even though this is my now closed question I am only just now going to unsubscribe as I am wasting my time debating this subject. So far nothing that you have said about HHO cells hangs together and you are sounding more and more like the sort of stuff the Joe Cell puts out in his website. It is hocus pocus and nothing more than that. You have not introduced anything that moves the debate on and not offered anything by way of real research on the subject.

You claim to have made cells and yet you haven't got any photographs or even results on a technical or scientific basis. Had you assembeld a cell, shown its design and reported on its HHO production rate then I would be interested. Instead it's all just unsubstantiated claims. The web is full of that stuff and I can't be hacked with it.

So goodbye.

i really did not find myself being ignorant.  not sure why you would need to be.  nor any reason to put words in my mouth.

i have not made anything nor have i said i have.  i said i want to and am going to.  no clue where you got that from.

what i have pointed out are things that can be true with a hydrogen source that functions.  i have stated ways a cell might work.  as well as how hydrogen does work in an internal combustion engine.

i do not sound like joe cell in any way.  i do not own a website nor linked any site here.  i do not sell any information or sell any device.  my only suggestion has been find free information and try it out.

until all potential is disproved then there still remains some potential of a device installed in a car being powered somehow and providing gases to facilitate the function of internal combustion.

i have worked on cars for over a decade and have a vast knowledge of how that part of the equation works.  i see myself as well as have read proof hydrogen does work in internal combustion cars.  how hydrogen is supplied to a car is the missing variable.  a cell might provide the answer.

We did one into an Audi and gained 5MPG with about 1L/Hour production.  We are working on a different design.