Klein/HHO Gas

dshairbear · Coal Joined: Apr 14, 2008 Posts: 1

as I see it, what qualifications do you nay sayers have to kick this hho gas in the dirt. I have seen all my life people who know nothing about something kick it down before they know anything.
I know nothing about this and am finding it hard to call it a scam cause I can not find anything from an acredited sorce calling it a scam. what do you say to that. if you know something I do not let me know but please know what you are talking about and have some kind of education to back up what you say. or are you guys just a bunch of oil company lovers.

JRP3 · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 23, 2006 Posts: 343

NotFree · Coal Joined: Apr 20, 2008 Posts: 2

Just to straighten out a few things.

Those for and against the research work with regard to HHO generation PLEASE read this and factor it into your debates.

First, all of the “scientists” & “engineers” from MIT and alike should get their facts straight. You guys sound like fools.

Second, you free energy NUTZ sound just as ridiculous.

With regard to HHO production and it use in the ICE it is NOT perpetual motion, over unity, or whatever you would like to call it. It is NOT more out than is contained within.

For the purpose of getting the debate straight, I will define Free Energy as: The Battery runs a motor, which in turn spins a generator, which recharges the battery. A loop. That does NOT work. NO kidding. There is no energy in the Bat, Mot, Gen, loop.

So many make the mistake of thinking that the people who are seriously working on this technology think it is free energy. For those of you that support HHO, stop calling it over unity, or free energy. It is NOT and you make others look stupid.

MIT, pay attention! Are any of the following perpetual motion, or over unity?
1) The Hydrogen Bomb
2) The Uranium Bomb
3) Gasoline
4) Lightning
5) Hydropower
6) Wind power
7) Solar Power
Cool

Burning wood
9) Burning straw
10) Burning Corn

NO NO NO NO NO they are NOT. Energy was released or harvested, etc. Whatever terminology you want to use. The energy was already their!!!!!!!!! And you know dam well were the energy came from in the first place in each example.

So it is NOT Free, or magic! If I burn an oak tree it will certainly release more energy then I put into it. Correct? Exactly!

People have been trying for over 100 years to figure out a way to release the energy in H20, with a net gain. So far, no significant proven result. Why do you (MIT Types) have to tear down people that are trying? There is no LAW in any discipline of science that implies a net gain of energy from H2O is impossible. Perhaps the methods being used are not efficient, and do not yield net gains, but that why they call it RESEARCH!!

I am exhausted on listening to so called energy experts claim that there is an element of perpetual motion involved in this HHO research. Additionally, HHO supporters, you have tell the MIT Guys that you understand there is NO free energy. And you should apologize for the idiots in you ranks that call this research free energy. You are simply continuing the past 100+ years of research on extracting energy from H2O with net gains. So Please both sides Stop.

There is a lot more to be gained when both side realize that the serious researchers are not talking about magic.

Thanks

JohnnyNeutron · Coal Joined: Apr 20, 2008 Posts: 2

I have some polite concerns about the assumptions frequently asserted on this board that the added efficiency claims of this HHO thing are somehow presented as an ideally efficient process and not just an improvement in efficiency. It looks to me like this electrolysis stuff is not designed to function as a closed system but is integrated with the original fuel & electrical systems, and don’t forget that this electrolysis device does consume a fuel source (water) without perpetually replacing the fuel by it’s own work. If the system tapped the engine’s exhaust and drew back enough water vapor to maintain a constant water level, then you would have an argument. But as I understand it, you have to occasionally add water to maintain continued operation. Therefore I believe that it is incorrect to state, as a fact, that the added current needed to properly induce electrolysis must require more fuel consumption than the improved efficiency of the new fuel mixture. I understand that the increased load on the alternator does result in greater load on the engine. However, a turbocharger also initially increases load on an engine by restricting the exhaust flow with the turbine wheel, but the mechanical energy transferred from the turbine wheel to the compressor wheel and intercooler are used to compress and cool the air forced into the intake of the engine resulting in a net increase in power and efficiency (at or near the peak of the performance curve), not ideal but increased.

Based on some of the reasoning I’ve read on this board one could surmise that a turbocharger must be a perpetual motion machine as well, but like the electrolysis device a turbocharger is not a closed system but an integrated part of the overall engine or what some tech-geeks would call the dynamic system. As long as the car with the new turbocharger continues to visit the Exxon station on occasion, it is not powered by a Carnot (perfect) Engine, even if the visits are less frequent. Just the same, as long as the fuels (gasoline & water) are still consumed and need to be replenished in this new wham-a-dyn electrolysis boosted water…car…..thing, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics is still intact.

By the same token, if I replace my $2 Champion spark plugs with $8 Bosch Platinum +4s I’ll put an increased load on my ignition/electrical system, but I’ll see increased power and efficiency as well. I’m not saying that I know or believe that this HHO electrolysis stuff really works the way they say it does or that it works at all, but I do think it is wrong to write off the concept as impossible based on the Second Law.

entropyfails · Moderator Joined: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 595

The guy said "over unity" on his own site and then went into super secret hiding mode. Now who am I gonna believe, you or my lying eyes?

You don't need fancy equations to debunk this...

HHO gas == H2O gas == Steam

If he is claiming to have found some new bonding state of H2O then he has some serious explaining to do. He needs to pull this state from the Standard Model somehow. He needs to detail exactly how he thinks the physical process works in rigorous mathematical detail. He could then help by fully specifying the experimental apparatus, though if he can provide a good theory based on the Standard Model someone would be able to replicate it without his help.

Instead, he goes on local TV with a blowtorch and a car with tubes in it claiming it contains the power of the "special steam." He doesn't even make you work to ridicule him. His behavior simply doesn't have any defense.
_________________
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

NotFree · Coal Joined: Apr 20, 2008 Posts: 2

Note: MIT is my generic reference to those educated, published, and well respected in their field of science.

I support no one specific person, group or their claims and or beliefs. My attempt is to try and clean up the debate table and maybe offer some perspective to both sides of the debate. I think many supporters of HHO are NOT scientist or engineers. They are optimistic people that are using the wrong terminology and in doing so angering those from the MIT labs.

Over unity is BS, and until someone proves otherwise with pier review and acceptance, it is junk science. HHO people, you have to accept this as fact at this point in time. Even if in your heart you feel you can beat it, fine but in this world you will have to keep your mouth shut about it. Allow your means to justify the ends.

I also would say that HHO supporters need to understand that if you want the help of MIT, and you will need it, start learning the language of science. I would STOP calling the gases you are producing HHO, which alone is discrediting you.

Send your test cell to a volunteer MIT guy and have him read, measure and document what is coming out of the cell, and then call it what it is. Use the same terms MIT would use to describe the gas.

Until the non MIT people get their nomenclature in order, may I suggest that you cut them a break. Try to decipher their slang terms and then help them.

As others have pointed out in this thread, advances in science often take generations, building on the work of others, often with credit given to the wrong people. But, what is often true is that 2 parties have been involved, at least. Usually, the very creative, out of the box thinkers, supported, followed, etc, by the very scientific. We Need both haves, both haves of what is the recipe or formula for net positive results. I think our global energy problems are worth accepting the fact that even with out an education; people can have great intuition provided by the “thought experiment”. And don’t forget just because a person has a double doctorate from MIT, does not mean they are close minded. They simply work in a world of rules, very strong rules. Your new idea may fit very nicely into these rules, but both sides have to invest the time and patience to understand each other.

I doubt any large leaps in science will come with out the following equation being involved. Creative + Scientific = Positive Net Results.

Thanks

gnm · Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: Re: Klein/HHO Gas

JohnnyN, Turbochargers and spark plugs don't produce "fuel" and cannot be compared to a "fuel" HHO generator.

There is nothing special about electrolysis. So what if you are using a portion of the ICE engines power to crack water.

-G Mad

Why do I bother... Rolling Eyes

And no I don't work for MIT....
_________________
All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!

SteveinThurmont · Coal Joined: Mar 29, 2008 Posts: 5

Thank you NotFree, Your eloquence far surpasses mine. I have felt that there is some potential validity to the "HHO" gas, but without the full working knowledge of the device, I can only go by what limited education I have in the related fields-mostly self educated-and go by what seems logical. I have to believe there is energy to be had, and there has to be a way to get it to work for us.

Many advances have been supressed due to corporate greed. Nikola Tesla was supposed to have an idea of deriving electricity from the Earth's magnetic field, but a detractor (Westinghouse?) asked "Where do you plug in the meter?" How much is true, I don't know. But ANY technology that threatens big oil or other power entitiy's proffits seems to get squelched. I remember during Ex-President Carter formulating laws in the '70's that would mandate auto manufacturers get 30-40 mpg even for the bigger cars. The tech was available then and now! Regan's deregulating allowed auto makers to go back to the 15 mpg standard, and with $4/gal prices, we are only now looking at getting more efficiency.

But what is with the White House promising only 20% increase by 2017? So a similar car that gets 20mpg now will go to 24mpg in 9 more years? Not much of a headway in the last 30 years!

I will stop my rant, but end this with my continued questions about the validity of HHO gas, regardless of the wrong or right nominclature. As Fox Mulder would say..."The truth is out there!"

JohnnyNeutron · Coal Joined: Apr 20, 2008 Posts: 2

“…Turbochargers and spark plugs don’t produce “fuel” and cannot be compared to a “fuel” HHO generator.” – gnm

With respect, the first part of your statement is true, they don’t produce fuel, but they do transfer energy, and per the Second Law they must do it with frictional and ambient losses. Yet the net result of their work is an increase in the efficiency of the dynamic system they serve. Since the Second Law applies the same for any & all forms of work (usable energy) i.e. mechanical (turbocharger), electrical (alternator/spark plug), and chemical (fuel: gasoline/water) regardless of how complex or simple the systems in question are, I would argue that my previous comparison is valid.

It seems that many believe that the entire concept behind this electrolysis stuff is to take only the alternator’s energy output to the electrolysis device and chemically transfer only that initial electrical energy back into the ICE in the form of “created” hydrogen (as in “out of thin air” or “…with bolts of lightning from his arss!” – Braveheart 1995). But, the energy provided from the ICE to the device is not being used to create, make, produce, originate, generate, establish, beget, constitute, hatch, breed, sire or spawn hydrogen out of nothingness. It is being used to release the pre-existing hydrogen from a consumable fuel source provided externally. The hydrogen already exists within the device before you turn the silly thing on. Yet, the absolutely enormous amount of stored energy in the H2O continues to find itself deleted from many “Work In > Work Out” equations.

Let me give you a slightly more complex example than the turbocharger. I work at a commercial nuclear power plant. With the exception of the metric butt-ton of manual hand valves and a few backup diesel pumps & generators, all the other devices in our plant are powered and/or controlled with electricity and a lot of it. However, all of the electrical power we use to operate our plant is provided by the output of our own main generator. WOW!!! How can that be! How can ALL the energy needed to power your system be provided ONLY by the work of your system?! Well, it’s not and here’s why: We don’t use electricity to directly generate more electricity. We use electricity to control, contain and maintain an externally provided fuel source (reactor core). The reactor heats water that is eventually turned into steam, the steam turns a great big turbine, the turbine powers a honkin’ big generator, and the generator poops out a bunch of mega-watts (MW). Some of those MWs are cycled back into the plant, but most of the MWs get pooped out onto this humongo thing called the grid. Yada, yada, yada.

------------------------------- Intermission ----------------------------------

O.K., more yammering. The reactor core is fueled with uranium isotopes contained smartly in things called fuel bundles. Each bundle contains nearly 50,000 tiny fuel pellets. A fuel pellet is a half inch long cylindrical thingy about as thick as a pencil. Each individual little fuel pellet is supposed to contain more stored energy than an entire boxcar of coal. A BOXCAR OF COAL worth of energy stuffed inside a tiny little thing with the mass of a few pennies and it can produce an enormous amount of usable heat for approximately 4½ years!

However, a new fuel bundle (NFB) is about as inert as a marble statue. You can walk right up to a NFB, touch it and it won’t burn you. It won’t zap you with a painful electric discharge or blind you with its radiance. Even with all that massive stored energy just waiting to spring into work, it won’t even irradiate you. You could walk right up to it and hug it if you wanted to, just don’t let my boss see you do that. Once we load it into our core we can insert positive reactivity into the NFB through the work of our system, only then will it begin to release energy (heat) and start functioning as fuel. Prior to that we spend many hours, even days pumping butt-loads of non-nuclear energy through our system before the NFBs are producing a net gain in usable heat-energy. Our entire system from the reactor core to the main generator is only about 34% efficient at best, but at full load we produce more than 20 times the electricity than we use at the cost of our depleting uranium fuel source.

Within water there is fuel, it just needs the work of a properly engineered system to convert it to usable energy. I agree with you when you say “There is nothing special about electrolysis.” There was also nothing particularly special about boring old cooking oil, until they discovered that you could power a diesel engine with it. I know, I know, you don’t have to crack corn oil (no pun intended) before using it as fuel, just don’t get me stated on pig farts.

All systems use work whether you are pumping a liquid from one tank to another, compressing a fluid, turning a gear, or cracking chemical bonds, work…is work…is work…is work with varying degrees of efficiency and required energy. Why electrolysis is impossibly inefficient in concept just doesn’t compute. Ignoring the calculation of the stored energy in H2O is the missing link that this debate hinges on. After all, they do use fossil fuel energy to mine for and process fossil fuels, don’t they? I’m pretty sure those guys make money. As for the rest of us, well, if every time mankind tried doing something industrious he ended up with less than he started with, I think we’d still be sporting loin cloths and carrying pointed sticks.

gnm · Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: Re: Klein/HHO Gas

mrweasel · Coal Joined: Apr 25, 2008 Posts: 1

OK, Look here, let's get a few things straight...
1. Water is not fuel - it's got two things in it that, when combined, release energy. But in the form of water, they've already been combined, and that energy already went away. To separate them into things you can burn takes as much energy as they gave off when they combined, and recombining them immediately after can't give you more than it took to split them up!
2. Gasoline internal combustion engines are designed to burn gasoline mixture (which is a witches brew of crazy stuff, and changes depending on the season etc.) However, they're pretty resilient and can burn lots of crazy stuff, including gasoline mixed with corn squeezings (don't get me started) and various other nutty stuff.

Now, turning water into stuff you can burn to get energy out, then burning it and getting energy out, that is always going to be a losing proposition in and of itself... the goal of a "100% water burning car" just isn't going to happen, get over it!

However!
It is plausible, at least, that cracking water through electrolysis into whatever you want to call it (and I call it "33% O2 molecules and 66% H2 molecules), mixing it on the fly with witches brew gasoline, and jamming it through a gasoline engine could end up giving you a more efficient, and possibly cleaner-emitting process to get the energy out of the two inputs...

So you've got one real energy input, gasoline, this is what everyone knows about and it works pretty well.

Then you've got the temporarily stored energy in the H2 and O2 you've cracked the water into (and the energy for the cracking is a parasitic withdrawl from whatever electrical generation system you're using, definitely not an external input). The water is just a carrier, used temporarily, for turning the electricity into chemical energy - and you definitely can't get as much out as you put in! (and yes, if you really had an efficient system for reclaiming exhaust-gas water you would never have to top off the water tank, you could refill it off itself... only theoretical because the energy required to collect it and make it clean, and the cheapness of water makes it pointless to try)

But from the engine's point of view, it doesn't care whether you're giving it H2 and O2 from recently-cracked water, or a nuke plant and the air around you, or from magical pixies that fart H2 and O2... if (and this is the *BIG IF*) the internal combustion engine can burn the magical mixture of gas, H2, and O2 more efficiently, and get more of the stored energy of the total mess than it usually gets just from gas alone, and if that delta is bigger than the cost of cracking the water, then we've got a winner!

If you ever see a demo of a car running on just cracked water, demand to see a "before" and "after" of the total charge level of whatever onboard battery system the car has in it... if there really isn't any gasoline or other dense liquid fuel in the thing, and it really is running on just cracked water, I guarantee you the batteries are doing all the work and it's basically a very inefficient electric car!

Todd · Coal Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 1

Thee only thing I don't understand is if hho gas works and doubles your gas mileage, shouldn't there be live testimonials. If I had a car working it right now, I would be selling them like hot cakes and showing people how it works, not trying to sell the details for 50 bucks to get the details.

Again, does anyone know of anyone that has the vehicle, I'm near Orlando, FL. I would love to take a day out of my life to see it first hand.

RMForbes · Coal Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 11

I installed a home-made HHO gas generator on my '93 Lexus and my gas milage has increased by at least 30%. This is the second generation unit that I made, the first used 2 3/4 by 7 1/2 plates made from scrap aluminum and pulled 5 amps when warmed up (60 watts). It work well at first but gas production fell off after a couple weeks use because space between plate were clogged with white paste (aluminum oxide I would guess). My current unit uses 4 by 5 inch stainless plates and it is working much better. I was getting 4 to 5 mpg increase with the first unit but I have not used the second unit enough to even move my gauge off of full yet. I will let you know in a couple of weeks my final results.

TONY899 · Coal Joined: May 07, 2008 Posts: 1

Hi folks-

Thanks for sharing this, Greg. Really interesting. If you actually want to spend the time reading the technical goobla gabla, you may follow this link:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2008016318&IA=WO2008016318&DISPLAY=DESC

However, I would like to comment on some things about this technology as news articles can be misleading. Consider a few laws of Physics.

(1) The third law of thermodynamics says that a combustion engine can only be a hair less than 30% efficient which means that most energy leaves the rear of your vehicle out the tailpipe as heat. Regardless of whether you are burning straight gasoline or alternatively HHO (H2 + O -->H2O), most energy is lost.
(2) Energy cannot be created nor destroyed (unless we are talking nuclear physics where E = mc^2, where energy can be pulled from matter). Hence, the energy required to separate the water in the electrolysis process must come from somewhere before it can be used in combustion.

What does this mean? You can burn fuel "cleaner" using various catalysts, but if you are still using combustion engines and if no inventor has figured out a way to convert fossil fuels directly to electricity through an electrochemical process which does NOT use combustion, then ultimately we are still burning the same amount of fossil fuels --whether it is coal, oil or natural gas. We engineers should know those two laws of physics (above.)

So, the claim that HHO burns hot is correct. The claim that only a little bit of water will generate a lot of Hydrogen and Oxygen is true. What is misleading and is not true is that this gadget is NOT converting water in it's liquid form to straight energy.

What does this mean to you? Your best bet is to (1) buy a hybrid where the breaking energy is recycled. (2) Carpool, (3) drive a smaller car if you cannot afford an expensive hybrid. (4) Keep dreaming and learning about new technologies --such as a plug in electric car which gets its electricity from solar panels, windmills and solar powered generators rather than fossil fuels.

--Tony

WhoCares · Coal Joined: May 08, 2008 Posts: 1

Now I am not a physic student, but what appears to me is basic. There is no claim to running the car on water, but there is the claim that mpg is increased using electrolysis . It is a simple system. The electrolyzer is hooked up to the alternator. Remeber the alternator only operates while the car is running. The electolyzer is filled with water. While the car is running the water is being broken down. After the HHO gas is made it is then sent directly into the engine where it is mixed with the gasoline to help combustion. If you look on youtube there is an excellent explanation of this process. I do not have the URL. When I find it I will post it. This does not break any laws of physics. Water has to be occasionally added to the device as well as gasoline to the fuel tank. The hydrogen just helps with combustion to make the car more efficient. If you read independent reports, not ones on the sites selling the product, you will see that everyone reports better mpg. Some report better than others but all report an improvement. Where it will go with cars from here has yet to be seen.

I am going to attempt to install one on my car and I will post on whether it works or not.