I've been looking for new ways to save on gas and came across these self made hho generators on ebay. The theory is sound; running the generator vaporizes the water cooling the engine via the intake system in turn lowering engine temp. and burning less gas. Does anyone have any experience with these things or heard any good feedback.

it's called water injection and it won't do you squat for fuel mileage.

it works well for turbo guys as an anti-detonation method but it's not gonna do anything for fuel mileage at all

I really havnt seen anything that works for reducing your fuel consumption. The only two things that i know work are shifting at 2500 with driving easy and weight reduction. Somewhere there is a big post by someone about their fuel economy over a long time. He made a graph and everything. Ill see if i can find it. Here it is, should be a bit helpful

http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=89530&mesg_id=89530&listing_type=search

Originally posted by Hedge
I really havnt seen anything that works for reducing your fuel consumption. The only two things that i know work are shifting at 2500 with driving easy and weight reduction. Somewhere there is a big post by someone about their fuel economy over a long time. He made a graph and everything. Ill see if i can find it. Here it is, should be a bit helpful http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=89530&mesg_id=89530&listing_type=search

I'd forgotten about that thread, good stuff there

i think the REAL kit your looking for is refered to as an "Automotive Hydrogen Electrolysis Unit" and was invented by this guy:
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/entrepreneurs/garage-inventor-unveils-hydrogen-electrolysis-automotive-add-on/

however last i heard they run about $2K for the kit, and they do work but right now the cost/benifit just ist quite worth it for an add-on.
on an OEM car it might be a better deal though

so far though this seems the best bet, too bad its $100k :(
http://www.teslamotors.com/
silly rich people that can spend $7 a gallon on fuel dont need an electric car, the masses need one!

Originally posted by RoninEclipse2G
it's called water injection and it won't do you squat for fuel mileage. it works well for turbo guys as an anti-detonation method but it's not gonna do anything for fuel mileage at all

Water injection works on boosted applications because the water absorbs heat sufficiently to increase the effective octane of the fuel being used with it. So, just as running higher octane fuel won't provide improved economy, neither will water injection. (Although advancing ignition timing via MSnS would present a situation where water injection might be necessary while increasing economy, however slight.)

I know this is an older post but I need to clarify for those who need it.

Water injection is just that, water injection. You are injecting water/methanol through an injector or nozzle at higher psi creating a mist/vapor that is mixing with your air/fuel. Nothing special and everyone knows what the process is, applications are and the reasons for using and injection system.

Now here is the clarification.

Hydrogen injection has nothing to do with water injection. Hydrogen injection utilizes brute force electrolysis to break the covalent bold between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. These gases are pulled out (together) and sent into your intake in gas form not vaporized water.

Hydrogen is a combustible fuel that does burn in current internal combustion engines without any modification to the engine itself. (The electronics are a different story)

Hydrogen has something like 5 times more energy potential than gasoline and can be mixed with your gasoline/air mixture. As long as you take the appropriate steps to lean out your fuel trim you will yield a much higher mpg. As we all know our stock ecu is programmed to run NA and on gasoline. When you run the hydrogen/oxygen through the engine your o2 will read a lean condition and add more fuel. This condition will create a lower mpg average unless you fool the o2 or map to lean the fuel trim.

These systems do not store hydrogen in any tanks. The gas is produced on demand, when the car is not running the cell contains only water.

These types of systems are nothing new and have been around for awhile. There are people who say “no they don’t work or it’s a scam” And for those people all that can be said is do your homework.

I run these systems in two daily drivers, a Honda Civic and a Mazda 6. I have been able to get both vehicles well past the 50% mpg increase. In addition I have been installing one in my Eclipse, not for mpg gains, but for power gains. The nice part about my using one in my Eclipse is that I don’t need to worry about leaning out the fuel map because my goals are not to achieve higher mpg. I have not finished the install and have other issues to fix before I can fully test the combo of hydrogen and turbo but it should be fun! I get a little grin just thinking about the potential energy from forced induction and Hydrogen.

Anyway I know I may have perked your interest.

Brian

Juan and I saw one of these hydrogen generating setups at MOD 08. You can say I was a bit fascinated when I saw the guy start his generator and the water started bubbling. I'm still skeptical for a very big reason - why don't big car companies, nations, etc... do this? If only I still worked with that physicist I knew...

HHO generators don't work because the amount of electricity needed to get the hydrogen to separate from the oxygen puts a generous load on your alternator. The power has to come from somewhere. When you load your alternator like that it draws more power from the engine. In order for an HHO generator to work in a car you need to be able to separate something like 5cc/min to get the energy that you are drawing off the motor back.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_HHO_generator_work_on_vehicles

Read that for a more detailed explanation. Trust me, if HHO worked every single car manufacturer would have been on this years ago. If HHO worked efficiently, we would have fusion reactors.

Ahh, wiki articles are always right. I guess I should take the units that are on my two cars off and go back to OEM conditions because your wiki link says they don’t work.

Your little link is one of the best examples of why people should DO MORE RESEARCH. In that research consult more than just the web and wiki pages. Speak with educated knowledge, not from ignorance. Obtain your knowledge from real life scenarios and experience, don’t just regurgitate what a book tells you or a wiki page claims.

As to your 5cc/min, it’s a good thing I can produce over 5 Liters/min (5000 cc/min) to recoup your suggested power loss from the vehicles electrical system. In addition I only pull 25-30 amps to do this (no more than the AC system). If I want to run at a more conservative pace, a 10-15amp draw will produce between 1.5-2.5 Liters/min (1500 -2500 cc/min) Do you think 15 amps is a lot to draw?

I had the same questions when I first started reading about these systems. Rather than read and decide I chose to experiment and decided. My experiments made me a firm believer. It is hard to ignore the numbers when they are right in front of your face and you performed the controlled experiments yourself.

Sorry about this little rant, but I feel you are posting just to post and you need to fully research in the above mentioned ways before you make a “they don’t work” claim. I don’t ask you to believe me, I ask you to educate yourself and discover for yourself. I can only share my personal experience. If I asked you to believe me they you would be forming an opinion on what you read, which is exactly what you are doing with your wiki link.

Feel free to slam me all you want in your next post. I am going to continue to put my money in the bank and not in my gas tank, if it cost me a little verbal abuse it’s worth it :)

Have fun
Brian

I hear it cleans the output of smog to nill if this is true then that would be a nice way to pass a smog test. :)

My grandpa runs his 70's ford truck on part hydrogen and it works, I have seen it personally. He built the setup himself. his gas mileage is amazing and that thing runs like new! So please do research it does work.

Researched article number 1

So if we put aside the spectacularly improbable prospect of fueling our planet with extraterrestrial hydrogen imports, the only way to get free hydrogen on Earth is to make it. The trouble is that making hydrogen requires more energy than the hydrogen so produced can provide. Hydrogen, therefore, is not a source of energy. It simply is a carrier of energy. And it is, as we shall see, an extremely poor one.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

Researched article number 2

Therein lies central issue that undermines the hype about hydrogen as an endless, virtually free, source of energy. First of all, it is not energy. It is what the engineers and scientists call "a carrier." You have to break the hydrogen molecule free from others to use it and that requires energy. Thus, you have to use a lot of energy in order to use hydrogen to make energy. In real life there is no free lunch.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/907351/posts

Researched article number 3

This article I like because the tree huggers discount the fact that it takes more energy to refine hydrogen than the energy that it carriers. So that makes it ok because it is clean burning.

Hydrogen is a lot like electricity: we make it in one place, transmit to another, and then transform into something we need, like heat or light or mechanical power. It doesn't matter that we never get more electricity out of the wire than we put in at the other end. What does matter is that we can do things that we couldn't otherwise do.

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca/code/navigate.asp?Id=221

That is two published sources of information and a pro-hydrogen site. If you want I can talk to a couple Chem Engineers that I know and have them do the math on why it can't work.

We are not debating the topic of zero point energy nor are we claming that we are breaking the first law of thermodynamics.

Stop reading and start building and experimenting.

We are capitalizing on brute force electrolysis and combining hho gas with current fuel. We are then trimming our base fuel map because we are adding an alternative combustible fuel.

We are not using traditional electrolysis. We are using series cells with multiple sets of anodes and cathodes, spreading current over neutral cell plates and releasing both gasses simultaneously. This gas is not hydrogen and not oxygen, it is referred to as HHO, hydroxy or Browns gas. It displays characteristics that are completely unique and not exhibited in any other form of gas.

Its stupid simple if you understand what to do and how to do it. The fact that it is so simple is the reason individuals such as yourself can't seem to grasp it. Instead of opening your mind you just rehash literature. Keep reading, maybe you will find the books saying the atom can't be split and that Einstein is full of shit too. Traditional science, has and probably will always reject the current theories and proven facts of modern science. Your counter points are all based on traditional science BS.

Seriously, stop reading about hydrogen and start reading about HHO systems, Look up dry cell systems (these are by far the most efficient brute force electrolysis systems), plate cell configurations, understand what MMW means and how to calculate, understand potential use applications, study wet cell designs, understand why they are not as efficient as a dry cell, build your own cell, buy a manufactured cell, experiment, experiment, learn, pull your head out of your ass, learn, then apply what you have learned to an application in which you can improve upon something (automotive application)

And most importantly - HAVE FUN

If this worked, manufacturers would have already been doing it. the energy required for brute-force electrolysis to create oxyhydrogen ("Brown's gas") is greater than the amount of energy recouped by burning it - PERIOD! This always results in a NET LOSS OF EFFICIENCY!

You're full of shit.

Originally posted by JustOne
The fact that it is so simple is the reason individuals such as yourself can't seem to grasp it.

No, people don't accept the idea due to the fact that it defies some basic laws of physics. It's also the simple fact that manufacturers, nations, and especially the armed forces would already be doing this if it worked. I don't think any of us need to test it ourselves, when common sense says IT DOESN'T WORK

>>You're full of shit.<<

Sorry you feel that way kid!

As for “net loss of efficiency”

(1) H2O electrolysis + 249.68 Btu Delta G ==> H2 + (1/2)O2 per mole of water (1 mole = 18 gms.).
This means that it requires 249.688 Btu of energy (from electricity) to break water by electrical fission into the gases hydrogen and oxygen.
(2) H2 and (1/2)O2 === catalyst ===> H2O - Delta H 302.375 Btu per mole of water.

This means that 302.375 Btu of energy (heat or electricity) will be released when the gases, hydrogen and oxygen, combine. The end product from this reaction is water. Note that more energy (under ideal conditions) is released from combining the gases than is used to free them from water. It is know that under ideal conditions it is possible to get some 20% more energy out of reaction (2) above, then it takes to produce the gases of reaction (1) above. Therefore, if reaction (1) could be carried out at 100% efficiency, the release of energy from reaction (2) in an optimally efficient engine (such as a low temperature fuel cell), there would be a net energy profit which would make the use of water as a fuel an economically feasible source of energy.

The US military is testing this technology as is the UN.

I’m sorry you feel so closed minded about this guys. I have absolutely nothing to gain from convincing you one way or another, believe what you want. Unfortunately I have to believe what my eyes and my fuel tank tell show me.

The question was asked and I answered because I use these systems currently and have been using these systems for going on a year in November. I see gains in mpg, what more can I say. Again I stand to gain nothing nor do I have a reason to tell stories. I’ve been around for a LONG time and have never been out to seek fame or recognition from anyone; I don’t need it nor want it.

I thought the same as you, decided to find out for myself, knew I would learn a little in the process and discovered that it is applicable. (has been for me)

Your chemistry is absolutely wrong. To begin with, any scientist worth his salt doesn't use the BTU; calories or joules are preferred. Second, delta G, or the change in Gibb's free energy, for the electrolysis of water under ideal circumstances is roughly 237.1kJ/mol. The inverse reaction is -237.1kJ/mol.

Again, those are under absolutely ideal conditions. In reality, an efficiency of 70% is really good, and that's only considering the net loss of electrical energy to pure hydrogen's chemical. More realistic numbers are far lower, especially with less precise (i.e. homebrew) rigs.

The argument you presented above suggests a "free energy" situation. If you actually stumbled upon a chemical process that releases more energy in one direction than it absorbs in another, you would have solved our planet's energy crisis.

I'm sure you don't have any reasons to tell stories or make things up, but I do think you're a little misguided. After all, what do we have to gain from convincing you one way or another? The science behind "hydrogen fuel enhancement" just isn't sound.

Additionally, the MPG "gains" you noticed aren't great enough to be statistically valid. Remember, correlation does not imply causality. There could be a variety of lurking factors affecting your MPG; the most likely being your driving habits. I don't know about you, but if I had a bucket of water sloshing around in my trunk and tubes full of flammable hydrogen running through my car I would probably be persuaded to drive more carefully.

>>but I do think you're a little misguided.<<

Quite possibly, but I think I’m going to continue to run my systems and keep that extra 170 miles to a tank, regardless. It has nothing to do with my driving habits, I drive my dailies just as hard as the Eclipse.

Average mpg on my civic w/o the system is 34-36 city
Average mpg on my Mazda 6 w/o the system is 27-29 city

With the system running average mpg on the Civic is 54 and the Mazda is 44 city.

Im not too worried about the gas, it’s created on demand and runs through Teflon SS line and AN fittings. There is no storage tank so there is not worry of massive explosion and the cells that I use have been designed and tested to withstand full flashbacks. I run two flashback suppressors and have a blow out valve incorporated into the system, all of which have been tested well past 200 consecutive flashbacks and none of these systems have failed.

Misguided or not my opinion has been stated and yours as well. I will gladly wear the “full of shit” label as well as the “misguided” one 

Some entertaining videos for those who want to see:

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

YouTube.com

Obviously there is a ton of others…

Have fun!

Originally posted by JustOne Misguided or not my opinion has been stated and yours as well.

Well, I agree with you there. The problem is that we're dealing with matters of fact, not opinion. Science is pretty black and white, right or wrong, no shades of gray.

For anyone who's interested, I think this is a far more viable solution for increasing fuel economy in the short term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermiling

I'm not doubting the potential, but as stated above, if it works so well, and apparently is made reasonably cheap, why hasn't any major auto manufacturer integrated it yet?

By the way, that website with the chem equations is pretty good (http://waterpoweredcar.com/puharich.html). I really like the part about how they got a 78 camaro to run on water, but yet no one can replicate it, down to the 800W inverter, the 14-2 household wiring, and a relay that trips when the coil fires to transfer the 110V to the plug.

JustOne - how do you have your system setup? I'm not doubting that some system could be installed, i'm curious on yours, and pics would be great also. Psi regulation, valving, intake tapping, etc...

And as for hypermiling, congradulations to those people for learning how to drive like an elderly person :)

Hypermiling is for fags in Priuses that like to draft 18 wheelers without the motors running.
/offtopic

I just don't see how it could work JustOne. I've read up on this before and it never seemed to make sense to me. All things considered though, I enjoy the 26mpg my 2gnt gets.

Old topic I know, but interesting one. I'm no chemistry major or anything, but a buddy of mine and the family he lives with are currently researching blueprints and going to design their own unit in a compact size.

The way he was explaining it to me is there is a small tank (about 1 gallon or so) or water mounted either in your engine bay if you have room, backseat, whatever with an electrolysis unit hooked up in some fashion (he was kind of vague on that part) where you actually use the process of electrolysis to break apart the molecules (as stated above). Yes I can see it taking an incredible amount of power/energy to do do, so he was talking about hooking the unit itself up to a separate second battery so there would be no draw on the electronics of the car to do the process. From that unit, you would take a stainless steel braided line and run to a port somewhere on your intake. The ideal place for that would be where our stock EGR pipe goes on the backside (for those who have it removed...if you don't, some drilling required) so that you hook up the line in a similar fashion to nitrous.

Now through that lines is where the hydrogen GAS atoms are run, thus "dumping" hydrogen (a highly combustible gas) into your intake to aid combustion. Now in order to receive the mpg increase, obviously fuel curve mapping is needed, through a stand alone FMS (for example megasquirt or other of your choosing) where you would lean out your fuel maps in order to compensate for the added hydrogen, thus using LESS fuel to get the same amount if not more thorough combustion which as we all know, using less fuel = more miles per gallon of gasoline. The setup if done right would run on all hydrogen and no gasoline, 75% hydrogen/25%gasoline or whatever ratio you choose to use. Keep in mind the less amount of gasoline you can use to provide the same combustion through alternative means, the higher your miles per gallon of GASOLINE (not miles per gallon of H2) will be. In addition, this unit can take any form of water and pull hydrogen out of it. Whether it be, distilled water, well water, lake water, river water (not advised in high population areas) or shockingly...even your own piss (yes i know it sounds fucked up, but can be used). Anything other than tap water or distilled water will require the use of some kind of filter upon pouring the fluid into your tank/resevoir (coffee filters will do just fine, or you can go the extra mile and get scientific filter paper...) He also said 1 gallon of water can produce 80 or so gallons of hydrogen GAS, which without further research I can't guarantee accuracy of that statement. Also in order for this to work properly without error you need to have stainless steel exhaust and the alluminium head will work as well. The logic behind this is the rise in EGTs after combustion of hydrogen gas. Just any metal will not withstand the heat. Ceramic, Alumimum, Cast Iron, Stainless Steel, Galvanized steel are all appropriate metals to use as well as any others that you can discover. Other than that, the only mod you need is the unit and an FMS like I said above. Obviously this is a rough sketch of what the unit is doing, but it can give a good idea to those who are willing to try it out. Look it up but don't read too far into it, talk to the guys that have done it, see what they noticed...do what have you. But by all means don't start slamming things into the ground saying they aren't possible without first trying. Nothing aftermarket is going to be a PERFECT fit (some modification may be required), unless you pay the BIG BUCKS for it anyhow...

A friend of his is currently running it on his 60's model mustang with a hydrogen "booster" (dumbed down name for the electrolysis unit) and has stated he noticed a significant mpg increase, a cleaner combustion as well as more amount of/more consistent power (not much but a little bit). Another friend is currently working on designing his old bronco II to run COMPLETELY on water/hydrogen through the same process as above.

AS for the "why didn't manufacturers use this before..." question, the answer is sort of simple. Scientific advances have come a LONG way in the last decade as well as the rising oil prices, people are looking for alternate means of fuel. E85, electric cars, hybrid vehicles, hypermiling (which is a joke...doesn't it take more fuel to start the car all the time rather than just run it? within reason of course). Who said anything about this unit being used except recently? There may have been people who tried it here and there who had bugs, so in the manufacturer's eyes, they don't want to spend the money to implement all these systems and not have them work perfect right out of the gate. It's just like the internet. Who would of dreamed of being able to post on a board like this with people all over the globe before all the technological advances in the last decade? Right now, hydrogen "boosters" are a fad, they may/may not catch on and at that time if they do, the manufacturers will see this taking place and they may implement these systems in a few select models. Who would of thought of running a car by electric power only before the last decade...same principle. You guys can sit here and degrade this all you want but let me throw one more example that is a little more relevant to our community. How many people "back in the day" said that you could NEVER by ANY stretch of the imagination turbocharge the 420a? Now look, advances made it possible and it's now widely used. Right? No documentation blatantly said "oh it's possible..." it took experimentation and guess what..IT WORKED or all your turbo 420a's would be still NA. What I'm getting at is you will NEVER get anywhere on this topic unless you experiment just as JustOne did. For those who say it isn't possible or he is full of shit...I challenge you to give it a shot and see if you can get it to work. People have already, my buddy's friend, and JustOne to name a couple. Never hurts to try...refer to the turbo example.

No one ever said turbocharging the 420A violated the laws of physics, though. There's a difference between an idea that just needs more development and an idea that's physically impossible.

Also, electric cars have been around for much longer than the past two decades: since the early 1800's!

If it's so impossible though how did JustOne do it? You saying he full of shit and he is lieing? NOTHING is impossible...period. Hydrogen boosters are being used by people already and I bet you money there is documentation to back it up too. Read more than the first 10 hits on Google and you might find something...maybe a blueprint or some kind of proof. Obviously my buddy did, I highly doubt he is talking out his ass along with the hundreds if not thousands of others are all saying the exact same thing. He is working on a kit for his honda (yes i know it's a honduh) and if it proves successful he is gonna hook me up. THEN IF...(notice the IF) it works out and proves to be viable then I will post up documentation on it, but I have no idea how long this process of hie testing and designing will take. Besides...if it's impossible then what is this? http://www.hydrogengarage.com/hydrogenboost.html who in their right mind would blow $1600 on something that will absolutely NEVER work...? Use that design and make your own out of materials from the hardware store. I'm not saying this is an easy process because obviously it is more involved than what i wrote in my last post, but i'm not saying it's impossible either. Try thinking a little more positive on the topic. Try it yourself. You will NEVER learn exactly how it works and if it works by sitting behind a computer screen all day. You think the knowledge through this board came ALL ENTIRELY from reading? Granted a good portion did, but it actually proved itself when it was attempted.

EDIT* = if everyone here is saying this defying all laws of chemistry/physics and impossible you better all have doctorates in Physics and/or Chemistry and start spitting out complex formulas and showing the proof. And if that the case wtf are you doing working on cars? Just because you didn't learn how this stuff works in your high school/college classes, doesn't mean it's all false. You know you don't learn it ALL in high school science or basic college sciences. Besides not EVERYTHING you see on the Internet is true. Like Wikipedia, only about half that info is true, although they are cracking down on false info more, but you will never control it all...There are some jacked up folks out there who write stuff down and make it believable and you take it for granted and assume they are right, but never really try it out for yourself or talk to a Chemistry/Physics professor at an area university. I'll be sure to talk to them at my university in the near future, and I'll tell you what THEY said about this topic. Hell I'll even talk to the Mechanical Engineering professors. Most of these folks have their doctorate and are pretty credible. Go talk to NASA, ask them how the hell they landed their asses on Mars when it was thought to be physically impossible at the time...

To me this debate will continue in a back and forth game forever on this forum.

Using systems such as mine I am not breaking any laws of physics. Secondly talk to any physicist worth a shit and they will openly acknowledge that there are A LOT of gray areas and that science is not black and white. If science is truly a black and white world why did they spend 30 years and billions of dollars to collide particles at unimaginable speeds? Probably to get some answers to these GRAY areas.

Science is not black and white!

I’ll tell you what though, you keep living in your black and white world and I will live in mine with the shades of gray, I look better in gray anyway. Again, its traditional science vs. modern science. Traditional science usually won’t accept proven data from modern science for decades. This is a fact! Do we need to start the discussion involving Tesla and the gray world he lived in?

For people who say why aren’t the manufacturers implementing this into cars? Go rent The Death of the Electric Car, it’s a good starting point.

I am at a loss as to the comment of it takes enormous amounts of power to split the water molecule. What do you mean by enormous? Is 12 volts enormous? Are 10-15 amps enormous? Modern science has proven that it does not take as much power to disassociate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules as once believed.

Lastly, (slight correction) I believe 1 gallon of water will yield 1600 gallons of hydrogen gas.

Have Fun!
Brian “full of shit and miss guided” :)

I never said the design was impossible to implement: electrolysis is relatively simple in concept, though there are complex ways to optimize the process. The root of my argument is that the effect you're expecting is impossible to achieve. It's unlikely that adding an additional stage of energy conversion in a closed system will ever yield a gain.

As for using "complex equations" to disprove a theory, it's simply not necessary. The basic equations will do! I wouldn't assume that those with advanced degrees in the fields of engineering, physics or chemistry wouldn't also enjoy tinkering with cars. If you do, I'm sure you will be very surprised!

KnightHawk434th, I find it likely that your friend's design could increase MPG, but his design is different; it's no longer a closed system. He's pulling energy from one system and dumping it into another, so there could easily be apparent gains. The problem is, once his second battery dies, he'll need to recharge it somehow -- whether it be from the car's alternator or a charger at home. To me, that defeats the purpose of one of these devices. If he'll go that far, why not just strap a tank of hydrogen in the trunk? The effect will be the same...

JustOne, theories and uncertainty come in shades of gray, good results are black and white. The LHC will tell us whether or not the Higgs boson is real, not "maybe, sort of, kind of real."

Also, I think what you meant to say was "traditional science versus pseudoscience." I don't understand how you can discount millennia of cumulative scientific knowledge and then say traditional scientists are discounting you. Researchers at the forefront of any field base their theories on what's known to be true.

But I digress... this argument could absolutely continue ad infinitum. I propose a continuance until a new party stumbles upon this thread and offers a fresh perspective.

1) I wasn't sure on the 80 gallon figure, was an guess based on what he was saying. 1600 seems a little more reasonable.

2) I'm not sure how he was going to keep his 2nd battery charged. Mentioned something about running a crossover cable between the two batteries, but even then like mentioned, you may need a high performance alternator. Strapping a tank of H2 in your trunk is dumb unless HIGHLY reinforced. You get rear ended and BOOM there goes you, your car and anything within a certain radius. With a water tank, the worst that can happen is a damaged electrolysis unit and/or damaged line, which even though in itself is dangerous if it is the carrier of a highly explosive gas, but not as bad as a tank sitting in your trunk that gets a pin-hole in it or a water leak with a little water damage. I'd take water damaged over an incinerated car any day.

3) By law of physics energy is consistent. Meaning energy cannot be created, nor destroyed...just transferred, which is what my buddy's system is doing. Transferring the energy from the electrolysis system to his fuel/intake system. That may have been a misconception on previous posts. People automatically assumed it was creating energy, which in itself IS physically impossible. But by transferring the energy makes it possible.

Still interesting though, I am really anxious to see if his design works and how well it works if so. Maybe if we can get some more examples of this being used with proof, people may begin to understand and we can all reach an agreement point on just how possible and what kind of gains are to be expected.

Originally posted by KnightHawk434thStrapping a tank of H2 in your trunk is dumb unless HIGHLY reinforced. You get rear ended and BOOM there goes you, your car and anything within a certain radius.

It was just an example to point out the specious logic being used here... :)

Originally posted by KnightHawk434th3) By law of physics energy is consistent. Meaning energy cannot be created, nor destroyed...just transferred, which is what my buddy's system is doing. Transferring the energy from the electrolysis system to his fuel/intake system. That may have been a misconception on previous posts. People automatically assumed it was creating energy, which in itself IS physically impossible. But by transferring the energy makes it possible.

Yes, we're on the same page here, but you need to consider the whole system. Mechanical energy from the engine is converted to electrical energy by the alternator. The electrical energy is then converted to chemical energy via electrolysis. The chemical energy then, coming full circle, is converted back into mechanical energy by turning the crank through combustion in the cylinder.

Of course, that description is simplified because we have not accounted for friction in the engine or friction in the bearings of the alternator, electrical resistance in the wiring, efficiency of the electrode material, impurities in the electrolyte, stray losses, etc. If all of those opposing forces were non-existent, the system would be self-sustaining. In reality, however, they degrade the efficiency of the process and cost us energy: hence the net loss.

Here's one last thing to ponder... since hydrogen is a compressible fluid and water is not, comparing volumes means nothing. The volume of a certain amount of hydrogen changes with pressure and temperature. Here's a little chemistry for you to mull over.

molar mass H2O = 18.0153 g / mol
18.0153 g / mol x (1 mL / 1 g) = 18.0153 mL / mol
18.0153 mL / mol x (L / 1000 mL) =  0.0180153 L / mol
0.0180153 L / mol x (gal / 3.785 L) = 0.00476 gal / mol
1 / (0.00476 gal / mol) ~ 210 moles per gallon


210 mol H2O = 420 mol H :210 mol O


PV = nRT -> V = (nRT)/P

n = 420 mol H
T = 20*C (RTP)
P = 1atm (RTP)
R = 0.08205746 L*atm*K^−1*mol^−1 (Ideal gas constant)

V = ((420 mol H)x(20*C)x(1atm)x(0.08205746))
V = 689.283 L
689.283 L x (gal / 3.785 L) = 182.109 gallons H

Essentially, one gallon of water can create 182.109 gallons of elemental hydrogen at room temperature and pressure (1atm and 20*C or roughly 70*F). At lower temperatures this figure is less and vice versa. Feel free to plug in your own temperature and pressure variables...

Well I'm now officially lost. Like I said, not a chemistry/physics major so I'm gonna stick it out and try it for myself someday then I'll share results lol.