Any experience with HHO aka Oxy-Hydrogen
- Thread starter Searchman
- Start date
Flatheadyoungin
Veteran Member
What little I've read, it sounds interesting......
Searchman said:
BobG_in_VA
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,002
- Location
- Central VA, USA
- Tractor
- Mahindra 6000 MWFD, 2 1950's Farmalls, 1974 Farmall 140, 1967 Mf 135Delux
Oh, you mean the HHO, (H2O) that I call water??? No, I haven't heard of that...yet....BobG in VA
DavidPerry
Bronze Member
Oxyhydrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oxyhydrogen torch
An oxyhydrogen torch is an oxy-gas torch, which burns hydrogen (the fuel) with oxygen (the oxidizer). It is used for cutting and welding metals, glass, and thermoplastics. An oxyhydrogen torch is used in the glass industry for "fire polishing"; slightly melting the surface of glass to remove scratches and dullness.
The oxyhydrogen flame begins a short distance from the torch tip; if the distance is great enough the torch tip can remain relatively cool.
Oxyhydrogen torch
An oxyhydrogen torch is an oxy-gas torch, which burns hydrogen (the fuel) with oxygen (the oxidizer). It is used for cutting and welding metals, glass, and thermoplastics. An oxyhydrogen torch is used in the glass industry for "fire polishing"; slightly melting the surface of glass to remove scratches and dullness.
The oxyhydrogen flame begins a short distance from the torch tip; if the distance is great enough the torch tip can remain relatively cool.
Bill_C
Gold Member
Unfortunately this isn't a real gas-saving method! From Wikipedia:
"Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to increase automotive engine efficiency or to operate a car using water as a fuel.
Many of these claims, prima facie, violate the Laws of thermodynamics. See Conservation of energy and Electrolysis of water:Efficiency."
Basically they're claiming (with various variations, but still the same basic concept) that you can generate hydrogen gas with your car's electrical system, then burn that gas to run your car.
But it won't work that way. It takes energy to generate the hydrogen gas... in fact it takes a lot of energy to produce hydrogen gas!!! It takes more energy to generate the hydrogen than you will produce by burning it. A LOT more energy than you get back by burning it.
So in other words, despite all the slick claims, convincing stories, and fancy pseudo-scientific babble that people toss around, this is just another one of the "perpetual motion" schemes that have been touted for centures. And like all the others, some people will swear its true.
edit: Try this article on water-fuelled car: Water-fuelled car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And look at the discussion page. It doesn't matter how many scientists and physicists know this is a perpetual-motion machine and hence impossible....there are still fanatics who SWEAR that it actually does work...but it was suppressed by big business...just send them your money....
"Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to increase automotive engine efficiency or to operate a car using water as a fuel.
Many of these claims, prima facie, violate the Laws of thermodynamics. See Conservation of energy and Electrolysis of water:Efficiency."
Basically they're claiming (with various variations, but still the same basic concept) that you can generate hydrogen gas with your car's electrical system, then burn that gas to run your car.
But it won't work that way. It takes energy to generate the hydrogen gas... in fact it takes a lot of energy to produce hydrogen gas!!! It takes more energy to generate the hydrogen than you will produce by burning it. A LOT more energy than you get back by burning it.
So in other words, despite all the slick claims, convincing stories, and fancy pseudo-scientific babble that people toss around, this is just another one of the "perpetual motion" schemes that have been touted for centures. And like all the others, some people will swear its true.
edit: Try this article on water-fuelled car: Water-fuelled car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And look at the discussion page. It doesn't matter how many scientists and physicists know this is a perpetual-motion machine and hence impossible....there are still fanatics who SWEAR that it actually does work...but it was suppressed by big business...just send them your money....
Last edited:
charlz
Elite Member
The original question is about running engines on it.... not necessarily doing the 'supplemental' HHO that is more a scam than anything.
I would think you could run an engine on HHO.... which means you need a tank of hydrogen and a tank of oxygen and you mix them right before they go into the cylinders. How easy and controllable that is might be another story. Not to mention your cylinders are now full of water vapor half the time. Not so sure this is a good idea. If you had H and O freely available you could just power a fuel cell.
Basically the law on thermodynamics applied here is that you can never get more power out of something than you put into it ... "perpetual motion" would require that or at least zero energy lost in whatever process you are using.
I would think you could run an engine on HHO.... which means you need a tank of hydrogen and a tank of oxygen and you mix them right before they go into the cylinders. How easy and controllable that is might be another story. Not to mention your cylinders are now full of water vapor half the time. Not so sure this is a good idea. If you had H and O freely available you could just power a fuel cell.
Basically the law on thermodynamics applied here is that you can never get more power out of something than you put into it ... "perpetual motion" would require that or at least zero energy lost in whatever process you are using.
Bill_C
Gold Member
I interpret HHO as another code-word for "running a car on water", that's also how Wikipedia mentions it in their oxyhydrogen article I quoted.
Certainly one could build a car that ran on previously prepared hydrogen (and oxygen even, though why you would tote around an oxygen tank would be beyond me, when it's freely available in the air). Hydrogen isn't a real great fuel, though, storing it is a real pain (it's small atomic structure means it diffuses through seals, valves, etc. very easily--ask the Hindenburg).
But I think most of the "Browns gas" or "HHO" references are to the water fuel concept.
Certainly one could build a car that ran on previously prepared hydrogen (and oxygen even, though why you would tote around an oxygen tank would be beyond me, when it's freely available in the air). Hydrogen isn't a real great fuel, though, storing it is a real pain (it's small atomic structure means it diffuses through seals, valves, etc. very easily--ask the Hindenburg).
But I think most of the "Browns gas" or "HHO" references are to the water fuel concept.
bluechip
Veteran Member
Bill_C said:
I think the Supreme Court ruled the laws of Thermodynamics unconstitutional, so this will probably work ;-)
Txhosstrader
New member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 4
bluechip said:
That does it for me, I'm in! Ha! If the U.S. Supreme court ruled against HHO as a possible fuel source then it must be a viable fuel source.
I have read a lot on the internet about this HHO back yard technology. Some of it is very interesting. I am not ready to totally discount it as just fodder yet. There are just too many personal testimonies with amazing videos and even several news stories on Fox TV and technology channels about this HHO stuff. There are a lot of independent experimenters working with this "questionable" technology. Just look at all of the hardware available on ebay and elsewhere on the internet, and all with their own different claims of MPG fuel savings. I can't believe that all of the "back yard engineers" and "engineer farmers" in America are all liars yet! Until I get around to experimenting with some of this stuff personally, just to prove it to myself, I won't give up hope that there is still some home grown remedy for this energy situation our government has got us into. If you have ever visited the Smithsonian Institute in D.C., and seen where most of the major inventions of technology came from in our country's history, you would understand my view. Just remember from recent history, where Microsoft technology originated from. It came from Bill Gates' own back yard shop! So, in my opinion the Wikepedia explanation or definition is not the final word yet!
Still holding out hope for the good ol'e USA.
alchemysa
Veteran Member
This subject got a workout in a thread I started in 'Related topics'.
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/related-topics/123811-gas-water-delusion-maybe-not.html
I'm still open minded about it. The question of 'breaking the laws of thermodynamics' is not straight forward. These 'browns gas' gadgets do not replace petrol. Rather, they supplement the air to provide an additive that improves the combustion properties of the petrol. They are not perpetual motion machines. When the petrol runs out, the engine dies. The 'Smack Booster' below provides up to 2 litres of air per minute. Yes thats a tiny amount compared to the total air intake but, likewise, lead was added to petrol in similarly tiny quantities to improve combustion. Whether it takes more power to produce this gas than its worth seems to be the sticking point.
MPG gains of 20% are claimed.
If its a scam then at least you can scam yourself for next to nothing. The 'smack' site provides full details on how to build the thing yourself.
http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/related-topics/123811-gas-water-delusion-maybe-not.html
I'm still open minded about it. The question of 'breaking the laws of thermodynamics' is not straight forward. These 'browns gas' gadgets do not replace petrol. Rather, they supplement the air to provide an additive that improves the combustion properties of the petrol. They are not perpetual motion machines. When the petrol runs out, the engine dies. The 'Smack Booster' below provides up to 2 litres of air per minute. Yes thats a tiny amount compared to the total air intake but, likewise, lead was added to petrol in similarly tiny quantities to improve combustion. Whether it takes more power to produce this gas than its worth seems to be the sticking point.
MPG gains of 20% are claimed.
If its a scam then at least you can scam yourself for next to nothing. The 'smack' site provides full details on how to build the thing yourself.
http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/