Klein/Brown's/HHO Gas

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

As this is my first post, I know I will be under a bit of scrutiny. I am not a chemist, nor a physisist. I am but a lowly ER nurse with no more than a college degree in nursing, but this field does make one a trained observer.
I have read many sites on using HHO, or whatever the prefered verbage is. I have also come across a site where a researcher has supposedly made a tank that stores hydrogen in a "metal matrix" that bonds with hydrogen weakly and is released through heat that breaks the bond thus releasing the hydrogen.
HHO seems like a workable technology to me. I think the arguments and bantering back and forth are muddying the waters (no pun intended). The HHO gas can be produced. The gas can burn. These are the facts. The rest is just fluff. Whether the gas can be made in sufficient quantities to burn as just the primary fuel is not in question now. This is still a few years off now. Using the kinetic energy of the engine to produce electricity, and using a beefed up alternator concevably can produce enough HHO gas in an on demand process to supplement the energy produced to increase your MPG while driving. WOW! isn't that a profound concept? Who cares if there is a danger in storing the gas? Who cares if you can't produce enough HHO to run a car for free? The concept in the here and now is that the HHO gas can give you more miles per tank of Petro-gas by supplementing it with a fuel made from WATER! Saving $$$ and polluting less per gallon of petro-gas is the BIG benefit! The rest will come. The information here is being supressed by the big oil corporations. The missinformation regurgitated by the media from the oil corp's is hampering the efforts of those wanting to benifit mankind. It is the corporate greed that drives this.
More fuel efficient cars were in the works way back in the 1970's as a result of the fuel embargos of the time. Former Presedent Carter was attempting to make it law that cars were to get 30, 40 or more MPG way back then! Even the big ol' caddys were going to get 30+MPG. Then Regan came in a deregulated it all. Cars went back to plodding along without any real increase until the hurricane Katrina. Fuel prices went up as a result. I guess there hadn't been a hurricane in the Gulf before! Then there was another big storm again the following year! Gas prices went up again! Exxon/Mobile reported record profits! WTF??? I'll stop any further rants. But, as Fox Mulder would say, "The truth is out there!"

Gerben · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: Re: Klein/HHO Gas

skeptik · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: Re: Klein/HHO Gas

perkins6354 · Coal Joined: Apr 06, 2008 Posts: 2

Just jumped on the HHO scene. I've converted my '80 Mercedes Benz diesel to run on a two tank waste veggie oil system. Always like to tinker with car/trks. In 1976 I replaced the 1969 Chevy 350ci gasser with a Perkins 6 cylinder 354 ci/5 speed manual/an over/under over drive. I think I was one of the first in Phx to put a diesel in a pickup. Been running great since. Now I'm going to convert it to burn veggie oil also. Going to try the HHO with my other MB gassers - '99 E320, '87 MB SDL, and MY '92 500SL. For those diesel guys, I'd suggest looking into the WVO scene. The "fuel" is free. Can't tell you how nice it is to pass up all those Southern CA gas stations. When I do have to purchase diesel, I put in 5 gals which last me almost a month! There a many "conversion kits" out there - very few good ones and lots of JUNK.
Perkins6354

perkins6354 · Coal Joined: Apr 06, 2008 Posts: 2

Just jumped on the HHO scene. I've converted my '80 Mercedes Benz diesel to run on a two tank waste veggie oil system. Always like to tinker with car/trks. In 1976 I replaced the 1969 Chevy 350ci gasser with a Perkins 6 cylinder 354 ci/5 speed manual/an over/under over drive. I think I was one of the first in Phx to put a diesel in a pickup. Been running great since. Now I'm going to convert it to burn veggie oil also. Going to try the HHO with my other MB gassers - '99 E320, '87 MB SDL, and MY '92 500SL. For those diesel guys, I'd suggest looking into the WVO scene. The "fuel" is free. Can't tell you how nice it is to pass up all those Southern CA gas stations. When I do have to purchase diesel, I put in 5 gals which last me almost a month! There a many "conversion kits" out there - very few good ones and lots of JUNK.
Perkins6354

lys3rg0 · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: Re: Klein/HHO Gas

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

To kamnet, rogueit, and all the others that are looking into this technology. As skeptik and Gerben point out, there is a high amount of energy needed to make this HHO gas. Logic may dictate that the energy yield is less than the required energy to make the gas in the first place. But, as far as I can tell, the lot of us are not experts in any of the sciences that could answer the questions undoubtedly. There would need to be alot of research needed, and this won't happen because it will never be alowed by the big oil corporations if there is any savings for us peons. I have read the accounts of a guy I can't remember the name of in the '70s that went to court, and I believe all the way to the Supreme Court, after he sold his idea to an auto manufaturer. He ended up being sued and fined for quite a sum. I'm not sure if it is true, but his death that was ruled a natural death, has some people wondering if there is more to the story. I wish I had more expendable money so I could truly get to the bottom of all this. I have to wonder if there is enough money to be made in a scam to justify the shear volume of the sites that promote the ideas of HHO. Just check out the site found by searching for Aquygen or PreIgnition Catalytic Converter. These sites have been up for a while now. Don't most, if not all scams just stay up for a short time, just to disapear into oblivian once they have scammed you of your money? PICC has been there, I believe for more than a year. And they actually respond to you rather quickly for your questions. Quite unusual if you ask me for a scam site! I'm willing to continue my looking and probing to see this through. I won't be easily dissuaded by a few nay-sayers with psudo-technobabble. Maybe I'm wrong. But the jury is still out. And to Mr. (Ms.?) Gerben, thanks for your input. I only wish some of these forums were live-face to face conversations. That could be fun!

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

Hey lys3rgo and perkins6354, I am buying a Golden Fuel Systems duel tank kit this Monday. I will also purchase a filtration system from an enterprise, fryer2fuel. If I find myself traveling alot, I may get Golden Fuel Systems portable filtration set up. I will be happy to put out $ for a known fuel savings! WVO is GOOD! HHO is still a question for me. I have been blending during the warmer months. Not as good in the long term, so thus the conversion. Maybe a good new topic! Here's to $0.20/gal instead of $4.00+/gal for diesel! More later. By the way, anyone know about how I can avoid issues of paying road tax to keep the feds from breathing down my neck, should it come to that?

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: 394

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: 605

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!