Klein/Brown's/HHO Gas

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 · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 47

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.

quickerest · Coal Joined: May 08, 2008 Posts: 3

I see alot of opinions here but if you wade through all the mess and pull out the facts you will see the basics are agreed on.

The internal combustion engine is a old archaic machine with a low power yield. Then add all the moving parts and there loss and if you look at it in a purely scientific manner the "modern" car should be scrapped altogether. HHO systems that are attached like a "turbo" or other power enhancing accessory use energy and optimize. The power capability is already there just not used. As for the specifics of any added gas or mixture of low octane fuel with a hho mix I would say keep it simple. You are adding hydrogen fuel (in a form) with the use of power from the engine. So the first loss as we all know is the production of the gas. So if done improperly all you’re doing is baring wires and spreading your car onto a piece of plywood for mommy to see. BUT if done correctly you can optimize your cars combustion enough to have a gain of efficiently. Really remember we all know the efficiently gained is still within the extremely archaic system called internal combustion.

Again the energy source for the enhancement of the system is the water. The cost is the energy used from the alternator and if done correctly there is enough energy left over to optimize significantly reducing the use of your initial fuel. This would never be worth while when gas was a 1.00 but at 4+ dollars a gallon it is very worth while because the gain becomes 4 times greater based on the cost difference. Even if you only break even any fuel replacement gained is a cost savings.

You can add hho you can also recirculate used gasses and even change your transmission fluid more often…oh even checking your air pressure on your tires will help. We are talking about optimizing. So how much hho can be used and how can the production of this alternative be made less of a drag on current systems. My opinion is it is worth trying. I figure if I can save even 50 dollars a month and invest it over time with a 12 percent gain I will more than make up for the loss .

I know I know somehow that alternator on my engine will reduce the compounding of my saved money. It will be the newly discovered dynamics of string theory and the relation of the harmonics of the specifically loaded alternator that creates a disturbance in the human psyche sufficient to create a 100 year market crash forcing an average of only 3% gain out of an extremely bearish market… Still I would be ahead.

I see many hack jobs out there too but come on I see many "other" companies lying and hacking up the truth about yearly profits and pollution into the environment regarding there products. You’re always going to have hacks in the mix.

quickerest · Coal Joined: May 08, 2008 Posts: 3

I see alot of opinions here but if you wade through all the mess and pull out the facts you will see the basics are agreed on.

The internal combustion engine is a old archaic machine with a low power yield. Then add all the moving parts and there loss and if you look at it in a purely scientific manner the "modern" car should be scrapped altogether. HHO systems that are attached like a "turbo" or other power enhancing accessory use energy and optimize. The power capability is already there just not used. As for the specifics of any added gas or mixture of low octane fuel with a hho mix I would say keep it simple. You are adding hydrogen fuel (in a form) with the use of power from the engine. So the first loss as we all know is the production of the gas. So if done improperly all you’re doing is baring wires and spreading your car onto a piece of plywood for mommy to see. BUT if done correctly you can optimize your cars combustion enough to have a gain of efficiently. Really remember we all know the efficiently gained is still within the extremely archaic system called internal combustion.

Again the energy source for the enhancement of the system is the water. The cost is the energy used from the alternator and if done correctly there is enough energy left over to optimize significantly reducing the use of your initial fuel. This would never be worth while when gas was a 1.00 but at 4+ dollars a gallon it is very worth while because the gain becomes 4 times greater based on the cost difference. Even if you only break even any fuel replacement gained is a cost savings.

You can add hho you can also recirculate used gases and even change your transmission fluid more often…oh even checking your air pressure on your tires will help. We are talking about optimizing. So how much hho can be used and how can the production of this alternative be made less of a drag on current systems. My opinion is it is worth trying. I figure if I can save even 50 dollars a month and invest it over time with a 12 percent gain I will more than make up for the loss .

I know I know somehow that alternator on my engine will reduce the compounding of my saved money. It will be the newly discovered dynamics of string theory and the relation of the harmonics of the specifically loaded alternator that creates a disturbance in the human psyche sufficient to create a 100 year market crash forcing an average of only 3% gain out of an extremely bearish market… Still I would be ahead.

I see many hack jobs out there too but come on I see many "other" companies lying and hacking up the truth about yearly profits and pollution into the environment regarding there products. You’re always going to have hacks in the mix.

quickerest · Coal Joined: May 08, 2008 Posts: 3

I see alot of opinions here but if you wade through all the mess and pull out the facts you will see the basics are agreed on.

The internal combustion engine is a old archaic machine with a low power yield. Then add all the moving parts and there loss and if you look at it in a purely scientific manner the "modern" car should be scrapped altogether. HHO systems that are attached like a "turbo" or other power enhancing accessory use energy and optimize. The power capability is already there just not used. As for the specifics of any added gas or mixture of low octane fuel with a hho mix I would say keep it simple. You are adding hydrogen fuel (in a form) with the use of power from the engine. So the first loss as we all know is the production of the gas. So if done improperly all you’re doing is baring wires and spreading your car onto a piece of plywood for mommy to see. BUT if done correctly you can optimize your cars combustion enough to have a gain of efficiently. Really remember we all know the efficiently gained is still within the extremely archaic system called internal combustion.

Again the energy source for the enhancement of the system is the water. The cost is the energy used from the alternator and if done correctly there is enough energy left over to optimize significantly reducing the use of your initial fuel. This would never be worth while when gas was a 1.00 but at 4+ dollars a gallon it is very worth while. Even if you only break even any fuel use replacement gained is a cost savings.

You can add hho you can also recirculate used gases and even change your transmission fluid more often…oh even checking your air pressure on your tires will help. We are talking about optimizing. So how much hho can be used and how can the production of this alternative be made less of a drag on current systems. My opinion is it is worth trying. I figure if I can save even 50 dollars a month and invest it over time with a 12 percent gain I will more than make up for the loss .

I know I know somehow that alternator on my engine will reduce the compounding of my saved money. It will be the newly discovered dynamics of string theory and the relation of the harmonics of the specifically loaded alternator that creates a disturbance in the human psyche sufficient to create a 100 year market crash forcing an average of only 3% gain out of an extremely bearish market… Still I would be ahead.

I see many hack jobs out there too but come on I see many "other" companies lying and hacking up the truth about yearly profits and pollution into the environment regarding there products. You’re always going to have hacks in the mix.

gnm · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: Re: Klein/HHO Gas

kamnet · Coal Joined: Mar 22, 2008 Posts: 3

gnm · Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: Re: Klein/HHO Gas

Well alternator size and output will vary a lot depending on the engine. The problem is electrolysis is very inefficient and will cost you somewhere between 8 and 10 times the amount of energy that you will get out of burning the resultant HHO. So unless HHO makes your gasoline burn amazingly efficiently you are just throwing away power.

(And it doesn't because if it did all cars would already have this - I mean seriously do you think Toyota would pass up on a no brainer like this if it could pump another 30% efficiency into their hybrid?)

ITS A FRAUD PEOPLE.

-G
_________________
All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!

RMForbes · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 47

All I know is I built a unit using seven 4X5 inch stainless plates, installed it on my '93 Lexus ES300 and it works great. It idles smoother, seems to have more power, and my mph went from 18 to around 27. The unit pulls a little over 8 amps when warm. I'm not sure of the volume of gas produced but it looks like alot.

I don't see how you can say it's a fraud without experimenting. Remember that water has unique properties, it expands on changing state from both liquid to solid and liquid to gas, in it's liquid form cannot be compressed, to mention the most obvious. Through my experiments, I have found that water also separates into it's gasous componets with very little energy input, my stereo system uses more energy. No other substance reacts like water, it is truly a freak of nature.