# Hydrogen Fuel Cell



## Buzz (Jul 4, 2008)

I always thought that these were off topic but as someone mentioned them on a different thread, I thought i would share something i bought off eBay the other day.

It's a pdf and about 1.4mb, so the analogue modem guys might need to give it 5 mins to download.

http://tinyurl.com/5gqqoy

Nice project if you ever get stuck with nothing to do!  

Have fun
Buzz


----------



## Scott2357 (Jul 4, 2008)

Thanks Buzz  

This is one of my other projects. The design is similiar to what was going to use except for physical layout and a few electrical specs. Will analyze and pick best features from both. The use of a toroid coil is interesting. I may finally find a use for that spool of 28,000 feet of #28 enameled copper wire in the garage.  

When complete I hope mine will generate Brown's gas as well as hydrogen and oxygen. If so, then I can tweak it to generate more Brown's gas and less seperated H2 & O. Normal electrolysis rips apart the water molecule into 2 gases. I think Brown's gas is something like ionized water molecules. Still H2O but just in an altered state. I compare it to popcorn. In either state it has the same mass but different physical properties.


----------



## cerise (Jul 4, 2008)

I have a Cell ,Which i can easily seperate H2O and then do with it as i wish. Now im working on the hydrogen fuel cell which i will use, then invert it to voltage for my shop and house but i thought of getting one of those japanese cars as well.
Cerise.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 4, 2008)

browns gas is electrolized water without the gas products seperated.


----------



## loco (Jul 8, 2008)

from documentation I have saw online the brown gas fuel cell isn't worth it, heck even myth busters tv show tackled that topic. It fails laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## Buzz (Jul 8, 2008)

Well,

If you look on ebay.co.uk and search for hydrogen cell, you'll see one for sale at £65.

I bought one of these about 3 months ago and fiited it to my 1400cc petrol.

I can say, hand on heart that the cell has got me a 30% increase in mpg.

The only problem i've had with it is that the lid is starting to warp due to the heat in the engine bay. They say that a newer version is coming out soon to remedy that.

I bought the plans i posted in this thread to try and build my own cell that would prove to be more robust. Problem is the measurements are all in US imperial. I just cannot work in imperial anymore.

With petrol in the UK running at $2.30 ish a litre, i'll take the 20% thanks.

Do they work? it does for me.

In this day and age, you absolutely must not believe everything you read in the papers or watch on the TV.

Regards
Buzz


----------



## NuggetHuntingFool (Jul 8, 2008)

Buzz I agree.

The T.V. show on Mythbusters could have easily been sponsored by "big oil". Most of the things on T.V. are completely controlled. Now you can call me a conspiracy nut if you want to but I can put 2 and 2 together. Fox News tells me that 2 and 2 is 5. See?

Thanks for the information.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 23, 2008)

Myself and a few enginners from GM's onstar program have been fiddling with this idea for almost a year now. The concept is entirely possible but we have come to observe that it would be a waste given how a car works. 

A typical gasoline engine is only 16% efficient because of the "E.G.R" (Emission Gas return" Valve. This valve is controlled by the down flow O2 sensor. The purpose of the O2 sensor is to open the Egr valve when the O2 sensor detects a diminishing amount of Hydro carbons. The exact amount which is programmed into your (E.C.M) Engine Control Modual.

What is the purpose of this system? To reduce the amount of harmful emissions produced by excess hydro carbons in the exaust. 

Your catalytic converter(creates back pressure on engine through exhaust gas's), and e.g.r system all drastically effect your Average fuel economy.

In short the computer will reexplode partially ignited gas so the catalytic converter has enough hyrdo carbons to react within the catalytic converter, doing this destroys fuel economy.

Now! Why does browns gas preform poorly in a modern engine? The EGR System is present in all cars/trucks dating from 1975 - present.

Alternative fuels like browns gas, and Ethanol or propane are clean burning fuels and do no create many hyrdo carbons, thus are forces to be re burned on every cycle which causes them to be less efficient. 

:roll: - now

These fuels are more efficient then gasoline in engines designed to run them instead of flex fuel engines. Myth busters never tested browns gas in a engine designed to use browns gas.

also Current ways of creating browns gas are ill contrived because of the following.

Current thoughts on electrolisys are two stick a anode and cathode in a bucket of water and forcibly destroy all the molecular bonds within. This takes a Humungus amount of energy to do. This currently process is inefficient because electricity is being applied to much water at any one time. Because of of electrical leakage half of the overall energy is lose on molecules which have failed to split do to being exposed "to little current", those molecules that fail to split because of under exposer lose that energy through heat.

How does one fix this?

A batch system of electrodes which is designed to break down smaller amounts of water is the key. 

if your interested Goto youtube and search for a man named "Stan Meyers". He was killed in the 80's for inventing such a system.

Copies of his patents have been released on the internet. They are for his conceptual device and have been sterilized severely. 

The exact details of Stan Meyers production device have never been released.


----------



## Buzz (Jul 23, 2008)

Looking further into this it seems the latest designs are moving away from the two stick anode cathode setup into fancy spiral shaped systems.
I've also seen a very "frilly" type setup.

It also seems that if your engine is newer than 1996, you need to fit something called a MAP gas enhancer which fools the engines computer system.
No idea how though.

Regards
Buzz


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 24, 2008)

> I've also seen a very "frilly" type setup.



the shape of the anode hardly matters. By doing that you increase the amount of water that can be electrolyzed at one time but, it still doesn't change the fact that 90% of your energy is lost through heat. its lost through heat because of water molecules are "underexposed" those further away from the electrode.

Thus only slightly increasing the cells efficiency. 

The mapp enhancer is used to keep the EGR valve from activating. It is a replacement for the upstream o2 sensor. 

It tricks the engine's computer into acting as if loads of HC is coming down through the engine, then the downstream o2 sensor confirms those "HC" molecule were properly catalyzed by your converter.

in reality your car leans back on the fuel, and the browns gas which burns hotter makes the explosion more efficent. this way you get almost 100% of the power from your gasoline, and an addition 10 - 30% off the top with browns gas.

Also on a side note, engines with high compression tend to see much greater percentages then a typical 8:1 engine

10:1 and 13:1 engines typically see 40 - 50% increases. :wink:


----------



## adrag10 (Apr 8, 2009)

Jdwisnie, as an engineer working in the auto industry, I have to disagree with with you on the purpose of the EGR. EGR stands for Exhaust Gas Recirculation. The purpose of it is not to recirculate unburned hydrocarbons back into the engine to be burned, but to lower the temperature of combustion. 

See most of the air we breath is nitrogen. That nitrogen usually passes through the engine with no change, unless the combustion temperature goes above 2900 deg F, at which point the nitrogen can chemically react with oxygen to form oxides of nitrogen(NO, NO2, NO3, ...NOx). Nox is also known as smog as it hangs in the air and is an irritant. One way to reduce the temperature of combustion is to recirculate some exhaust gas back into the engine. Most cars do it this way, some use only computer control of spark timing and fuel to do it.

Unburned hydrocarbons are burned off in the cat. If you ever had an engine apart and looked at the EGR, you would also see that it's a very small tube which recirculates only a small portion of the exhaust gas. With the EGR open, the other 90% of the unburned HC would continue on out of the exhaust. So that right there tells you it's purpose is not to recycle unburned HC. 

Al lot of misinformation in here about hydrogen. Think about this: no reaction is 100% efficient. There is always a penalty to convert energy from one form to another. If you spend X amount of energy to break down water into browns gas, you can not recover 100% or more of that energy. The amount of available energy from that gas is now maybe 70% of X(the other 30% escaped as heat). So then you combust the browns gas and release maybe 70% of that available energy. You've used more energy to make your fuel than you can ever get back from it.

Where does the energy come from in HC fuels? Well, like everything else, it came from the sun, this time millions of years ago and is stored in the bonds of the molecules. When HC fuels are burned, the bonds are broken and the energy released. We have the technology to make our own gasoline or propane. But we dont make it because the process would involve adding energy to form those bonds. When that fuel is burned, the energy released would be less than the energy used to initially make the fuel. It is no different with hydrogen. 

Al


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 26, 2009)

dear fellow inquistive humans i'm new to your form i have a friend who has builed a hho cell for his car & it works quit well it boosted his gas milage about 25 to 30%


----------



## eeTHr (Aug 26, 2009)

I've read about "free energy" machine demonstrations where observers discovered that the machine was actually plugged into a wall outlet somehow, and thus it was shown to be a hoax.

But a car driving down the road is a "closed system."

If you have two proven-to-be-identical cars with identical amounts of gasoline, and one without the modification goes 100 miles but the one _with_ the modification goes 125 miles over the same road conditions, then how could that _not_ be a gain?

I guess additional costs for using the modification would be in adding water, and the electricity to run the cell might put a strain on the alternator and regulator, but those could be remedied and wouldn't be a fuel supply cost factor.

I can see when people point out that there is an electricity cost to making the cell gas in your garage or plant, and that cost competes with any gasoline cost savings achieved by it; but when cars driving down the road are used for the test, everything is contained within the cars, so they are closed loop systems, and the pluses and minuses of the power tradeoffs all cancel out---so in that case, overall, a gain is a gain.


----------



## Platdigger (Aug 26, 2009)

Except for "consumables" such as the anode and electrolyte.


----------



## Oz (Aug 26, 2009)

eeTHr said:


> I guess additional costs for using the modification would be in adding water, and the electricity to run the cell might put a strain on the alternator and regulator, but those could be remedied and wouldn't be a fuel supply cost factor



The above quote is the problem. The greater the current you draw from the alternator the greater load on your engine consuming extra gasoline with several inefficiencies in-between that are losses before you get your hydrogen. 

There is one way around this that I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread. You need to generate your electricity for producing your hydrogen from a waste product that will not put a load on your engine such as exhaust or radiator heat. A Peltier device would serve well in this capacity and actually give you a boost generating electric to split water from otherwise wasted energy. 

In very general terms most internal combustion engines that are water cooled use the fuels energy as 1/3rd mechanical output, 1/3rd wasted as cooling, and 1/3rd wasted as exhaust heat.


----------



## Palladium (Aug 26, 2009)

The problem i see with it is you are using electrons to split the bonds. Power consumption is based on electrons. The more gas you produce the more electrons it takes, the more load is placed on the engine and alternator. By them rules of physics it will never work. Plain and simple.

Now there is another way to control the electrons. Voltage. Voltage exerts pressure on electrons. Voltage and amperage are two separate items in electrical circuits. I've studied the break down process (Dielectric) thoroughly. The most interesting was in oils that insulate power transformers that hang on a pole and feed your home. It can also be found in the field of pulse power switches that use water as a temporary storage device. If a field had potential to work i would say it could be found here.


----------



## eeTHr (Aug 27, 2009)

Oz;

That quote is not the problem at all.

_This_ quote is actually the problem---


eeTHr said:


> If you have two proven-to-be-identical cars with identical amounts of gasoline, and one without the modification goes 100 miles but the one with the modification goes 125 miles over the same road conditions, then how could that not be a gain?



Specifically the "If." In other words, if it works---it works.

My conclusion depends on whether or not it actually works. We have had some statements here that it works, stated as percentages of extra gas milage. These are what I was referring to.

I have never tried it myself.

I appreciate your technical analysis as I have thought about the same things, and your ideas may very well be more efficient.


Palladium;

I appreciate your detailed analysis, also, and your ideas may lead to some good things.

I understand that the "extra" energy must come from _somewhere._ But please see the quote above. Again, if it works---it works.

_If_ this were actually scientifically tested, and found to repeatedly show a significant gain in milage, then the only question left would be _why_ it works.


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 27, 2009)

eeTHr said:


> _If_ this were actually scientifically tested, and found to repeatedly show a significant gain in milage, then the only question left would be _why_ it works.


No question at all. If it works, it's because you have provided a method of converting energy that has been wasted to useful energy in propelling the vehicle. There is a finite amount of energy contained in any given fuel. How you use it makes the difference. 

If you, and all others will keep one thing in mind, these things become self evident. It's pretty simple, although there are factions that don't want to accept the fact that "there is no free lunch". There is no perpetual motion, and one can never operate a vehicle without expending energy. If there are no other losses, there's always friction, such as the tires in contact with the road. 

Harold


----------



## eeTHr (Aug 27, 2009)

I looked up "Brown's Gas" on Wikipedia, and found this: "Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to operate a vehicle using water as a fuel. The common counter argument is that since the energy required to split water exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency."

So it would seem that the only way that burning it with gasoline would increase milage is if the _combination_ of the two somehow released more energy than the sum of their _individual_ energy releases.

I have no idea if that would be the case or not.


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 8, 2009)

An alternative to using a Hydrogen cell for increased mileage on your vehicle would be to use the cell to produce fuel for your Hydrogen torch.
I recently bought a torch kit from a UK supplier, and although I have no connection to the company that supplies them, I would whole heartedly recommend them to everyone on the forum that wants a simple no nonsense torch capable of melting platinum group metals.
Not being very computer savvy I would struggle to produce a video of the torch in action but you can have a look at their website where they have a video which was enough to convince me to give one a try.

http://www.emissionsbusters.com 

If this post breaks any of the rules on the forum I will gladly remove it


----------



## Buzz (Sep 9, 2009)

I've been looking at these too.

Plenty of videos on You Tube.
Just search for HHO Torch

Buz


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 26, 2010)

Harold_V said:


> eeTHr said:
> 
> 
> > _If_ this were actually scientifically tested, and found to repeatedly show a significant gain in milage, then the only question left would be _why_ it works.
> ...


all great points although, Not sure anyone is looking for a free lunch, Just a more economical one.

Btw, For anyone still playing with the Browns Gas Cell for your Car here are some helpfuls.

Sulfuric acid for an electrolyte works nicely, Also every 776 watts of juice the cell absorbs will rob 1 horsepower from your car.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2010)

Harold[/quote]
all great points although, Not sure anyone is looking for a free lunch, Just a more economical one.

Btw, For anyone still playing with the Browns Gas Cell for your Car here are some helpfuls.

Sulfuric acid for an electrolyte works nicely, Also every 776 watts of juice the cell absorbs will rob 1 horsepower from your car.[/quote]

Harold,
You hit the nail on the head with the power required to produce the gas(HHO)mix to add, it does not come from electricity the alternater is already generating and wasting, it makes the alternater generate more electricity, placing a heavier load on your engine, making you use more fuel.

If you want to find out how this works, get one of them little 1.5 volt hobby motors and turn it with your hand it will turn very easily, as will any alternator without a load on it, now take a wire and connect the leads as a dead short, try and turn it, you will find that even this tiny motor will be hard to turn.
Shorting the lead is the same as putting the extra load on your alternator.

You can increase mileage by advancing the ignition timing, this allows more of the fuel to burn, but makes the engine hotter, and damages rings, valves etc. I would bet the increase in flame speed with more oxygen and free hydrogen in the mix is why the engine is showing increased mileage (assuming they do) with a electrolysis system. The increase in flame speed will do the same as advancing the ignition timing and most likely does the same or more damage.

Jim


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 27, 2010)

james122964 said:


> Not sure anyone is looking for a free lunch, Just a more economical one.


One of the facts of physics is that you can't change methods of storing energy without losses. That is key to the reason why you can't use an alternator for gain. Should you be so fortunate to increase mileage by a small percentage, I am of the opinion that you could accomplish the same end by a simple tuning of the engine. It makes no sense that you can get as much out as you put in----let alone more. Any way you look at this problem, you can't get more out than you put in. Nothing is going to change that----not as we know things now. 



> Harold,
> You hit the nail on the head with the power required to produce the gas(HHO)mix to add, it does not come from electricity the alternater is already generating and wasting, it makes the alternater generate more electricity, placing a heavier load on your engine, making you use more fuel.


Absolutely true. Anyone that thinks an alternator is putting out unused power has no clue how they operate. If they think an alternator runs without effort, they also have no clue. I used to run a 12V alternator with an 8 horse Kohler engine. Took everything the engine produced to put out the amperage required to keep three battteries charged (in a boat). 

Harold


----------



## hphoa (Jun 22, 2010)

hi all I've been reading with interest about this thread because I've always thought you had to use electrics to get hydrogen. i bought off ebay a kit made out of p.v.c pipe with instructions!!!!! how to get hydrogen out of aluminum cans. " home land security" run till it runs out, put in another can wait till 30 # take off .just watch out as it will rust your engine, valves and exhaust out. i thank its a great way to make gas for a torch though.  :shock:


----------



## Harold_V (Jun 23, 2010)

You'll pay a serious price for the hydrogen. Aluminum has value, and the required chemicals do, too. I expect this is a losing proposition. 

Harold


----------



## joehast (Jul 30, 2010)

I also have an Hydrogen Cell, and I have built them.(Great science project) The H gas generator is a fact, there is nothing fictional about them. Of course it takes electricity to make H-gas, but if you have excess electricity why not try it.

I think these work better on older cars(w/ no computer & Cat), I have not had much success with my 2005 Focus as I have improper non-efficient combustion burning problems (sulfur smell & no increase in MPG). There is apparently a way to get around this, I'd like to know one that works.

I have made a few Torches, it's very easy. They're great for melting & cutting metals.You think Oxygen burns hot, wait till you try one of these.! It sure would be nice if a reputable manufacturer would sell these on the market. To build one you need a one way check valve & or Fine bronze wool to occupy the space in between input & output. H-gas escapes at fast velocity, much faster than Natural gas for example, so it may not be as dangerous as one might initially think in certain respects. However, if the gas backfired into your Torch or tank it could get ugly.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 30, 2010)

joehast said:


> I also have an Hydrogen Cell, and I have built them.(Great science project) The H gas generator is a fact, there is nothing fictional about them. Of course it takes electricity to make H-gas, but if you have excess electricity why not try it.
> 
> I think these work better on older cars(w/ no computer & Cat), I have not had much success with my 2005 Focus as I have improper non-efficient combustion burning problems (sulfur smell & no increase in MPG). There is apparently a way to get around this, I'd like to know one that works.
> 
> I have made a few Torches, it's very easy. They're great for melting & cutting metals.You think Oxygen burns hot, wait till you try one of these.! It sure would be nice if a reputable manufacturer would sell these on the market. To build one you need a one way check valve & or Fine bronze wool to occupy the space in between input & output. H-gas escapes at fast velocity, much faster than Natural gas for example, so it may not be as dangerous as one might initially think in certain respects. However, if the gas backfired into your Torch or tank it could get ugly.



Hi,
Well, a lot can be said about, there is no manufacturer doesn't that say it all?
Oxygen does not burn it oxidizes other materials.
Your car does not have excess electricity, every bit that is generated is used, if more is needed more power is required to overcome the drag on the alternator.
If you do not believe it, try the experiment I posted a few post back.

Jim


----------



## goldenchild (Jul 30, 2010)

My one co-worker built a functioning hydrogen fuel cell for his car. Its a huge older lincoln. A true boat! I got to talking about hydrogen fuel cells for some reason one day and he casually says "I have one in my car". I told him I had to see it. 

When he popped the hood I was shocked to see how simple it was. I was expecting something from outter space with flashing lights and crazy sounds. It was two plastic containers with some kind of elecrolyte solution rigged to the battery and airflow system. He tells me that the car was getting 10 miles to the gallon and is now averaging 30 miles to the gallon :shock: He told me that he got it to work easily for his car but is having trouble getting one to work with his wifes newer car. He says its because on older cars its easier to trick the oxygen sesor and on his wife's car there are 4 sensors that are in a bad place to allow the cell to work. 

Hydrogen fuel cells are definately out there and from what my coworker tells me its easy to obtain the information and materials to build one.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 31, 2010)

Noone has said you can not generate hydrogen, and also, if you look at a post little ways back about advancing ignition timing, flame speed, and engine damage you will find there is no free lunch.

Jim


----------



## qst42know (Jul 31, 2010)

Just the latest sugar pill, placebo effect. :roll: 

In the seventies it was a device injecting water into your intake, harnessing the awesome power of steam! No mention of the engine damage from the steam cleaned oil free piston cylinders.  

There is No free lunch, and no free energy either.

If there was *any* merit to this scheme, every car, on every lot, from every car maker would include one.


----------



## goldenchild (Jul 31, 2010)

qst42know said:


> If there was *any* merit to this scheme, every car, on every lot, from every car maker would include one.



If the big oil companies allowed it...


----------



## HAuCl4 (Jul 31, 2010)

How about near-free hydrogen to precipitate gold?. 

Advantages/Disadvantages?


----------



## joehast (Jul 31, 2010)

Well, there's another way to generate H-gas w/o using electricity using Red Devil Lye. No wires and no draw from your auto's electrical system.! This is a *strong* alkaline so be damn careful.! The thing is, It works..! Is it cost effective.? I think so, you be the Judge.


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 1, 2010)

joehast said:


> Well, there's another way to generate H-gas w/o using electricity using Red Devil Lye. No wires and no draw from your auto's electrical system.! This is a *strong* alkaline so be damn careful.! The thing is, It works..! Is it cost effective.? I think so, you be the Judge.


No, it isn't cost effective, and it never will be. If you study the basic tenets of physics, you come to understand that you can not convert energy from one form to another without losses. There is no free lunch----there is no free lunch today, there was no free lunch yesterday, and there will be no free lunch tomorrow. Anything you do to extract energy will have losses--it's a matter of choosing which one offers the least in the way of losses. The hydrogen liberated by using lye, to dissolve base metals, is no different from using HCl to dissolve steel. It, too, liberates hydrogen. You pay one hell of a price for enough to do any serious work. Remember me saying there's no free lunch?

If a guy claims a car that used to get 10 mpg is using hydrogen and now getting 30 mpg---you're not being told something---what you're not being told is what the question is. I don't believe it, and I wouldn't believe it if I stood before the dude. I'd have to see it for myself.

Harold


----------



## Irons (Aug 1, 2010)

Harold_V said:


> joehast said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there's another way to generate H-gas w/o using electricity using Red Devil Lye. No wires and no draw from your auto's electrical system.! This is a *strong* alkaline so be damn careful.! The thing is, It works..! Is it cost effective.? I think so, you be the Judge.
> ...



I must agree with Harold.

Here's something a bit more practical, if you wish to experiment:

http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/GeneralTechnical/GeneralTechnical.htm


----------



## goldenchild (Aug 1, 2010)

Harold and Irons,

I too didnt believe it at first but I remember my co-worker giving me a very technical explanation on how it worked and it sounded feasible. Before becoming an engineer this man was a mechanic for both motorcyles and cars for 15 years. He definately knows his way around the hood of a car and if anyone could make a cell work it would be him. I've known him for some time now and lets just say he is a very honest man. He would have no reason to lie about such a thing. Also it would be kind of silly for him to be riding around with that stuff under his hood if it didnt do something  

Think of it this way guys. Im sure at one point solar power was thought to be impossible, and probably even laughed at. But today it is tried and true. As I alluded to in a few posts up, I firmly believe that big oil keeps many of these alternative energy technologies from coming to light. They are greedy tyrants that will do just about anything to eliminate anything that will interfere with their profits.

Anyway... for your consideration check this video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owftWTFbQFM


----------



## joem (Aug 1, 2010)

I wonder if big car companies put the same effort and money into building and testing cars in the same race situaitions as Formula1, stock, rally, endurance and so on. would we see more of "alternate" fuel advances and car technologies on the road today?
my thoughts


----------



## KWyant (Jun 12, 2011)

I know this is an old thread, and not desiring to open up any old wounds about gas mileage. Is anybody using an hho device for a hydrogen torch for melting gold? If so, can you tell me your thoughts on it. I am considering buying one and would like to discuss with somebody who has used one.

Thanks,
Karl Wyant


----------



## butcher (Jun 12, 2011)

Never used one, but have big plans someday to build one, they should work great for melting small amounts of gold, there have been members here on the forum showing their home made Hydrogen torches melting gold, from what I have seen these are small torches (hypodermic needles size) but high heat and clean burning if gas is scrubbed, I also am interested in learning as much as I can about making them.

On a note Harold said using aluminum would not be cost effective for generating hydrogen as aluminum is costly or something to that effect, it made me wonder how much electricity and power went into mining and making that piece of aluminum metal, and then if using it to make hydrogen how much electricity or power would it produce? I would put my money on Harold advice you don't get something from nothing, with fuel prices rising we will be seeing more and more people trying to get something from nothing.


----------



## samuel-a (Jun 12, 2011)

butcher said:


> more and more people trying to get something from nothing



I'm with you on that one, even with the most efficiant fuel cell, one can not pull more energy (heat) then he put in (electrical).

I have my HHO project on hold for some reason (lazy?), all i need to do it to come up with a new bubbler + scrubber (the last one blew up) and try again.
The cell produce stoichiometric ratio of H2 and O2, i'm thinking, maybe I'll connect also my O2 bottle next time.


----------



## KWyant (Jun 12, 2011)

Yes, I caught that. I am not sure what reaction they are using with aluminum to produce hydrogen, but I was simply planning on using electricity. My hydrogen needs are modest, just think it would be fun to use hho rather than buying bottled hydrogen, it might even be more cost effective, but I don't yet know. I've read much of Harold's advice in many posts since joining and in all that time I've never noticed a single error of fact in any of them, so I take your meaning. I've also learned a great deal from reading them. From what I could tell from this thread, Harold was mainly posting against the idea of using hho for massively improved mileage. My interest is a modest torch melting small quantities of gold. I wonder if a dry cell or a wet cell might be the best choice.


----------



## stihl88 (Jun 12, 2011)

here is my attempt at a HHO torch,

http://www.goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=8940&hilit=hho+torch

Theres a set of plans Ive added to the first post under the last picture i posted.


----------



## Harold_V (Jun 13, 2011)

KWyant said:


> Harold was mainly posting against the idea of using hho for massively improved mileage. My interest is a modest torch melting small quantities of gold. I wonder if a dry cell or a wet cell might be the best choice.


That's correct. I have no quarrel with producing hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis---a process that has been accomplished on a commercial basis in the way of a small hydrogen torch used in the jewelry industry. 

My quarrel with ANYONE is the one whereby they try to convince me that they can create more energy by producing hydrogen than the amount of energy consumed in its making. Physics says it isn't possible, and I've never seen even a remote indication that it is in my almost 72 years on this planet. 

A person can go through life unscathed so long as they don't allow themselves to think there's a free lunch. Those that think so are often suckers just waiting to be scammed. 

Harold


----------



## leoinker (Nov 3, 2011)

In this discussion, almost everyone is right - and wrong at the same time.
No - You cannot use your alternator to produce energy via an HHO system
Yes - You can achieve better fuel economy using an HHO system on a gasoline engine.

The modern gasoline engine has an energy efficiency(from the inert chemical energy in the gasoline, to the kinetic energy of tire rotation) of about 25% to 30%. This ratio can be increased with the use of superchargers, turbochargers, water injection, methanol injection, HHO systems, cold air intake, regenerative braking, spoilers, amongst numerous other devices. Each device has it's own method, and is designed for use in a certain environment. - Too much water will kill a cactus, but you can't drown a fish.

There is no free lunch, but if we try to understand the methods we use to get our lunch, we just may discover some ways to make it easier!


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 3, 2011)

leoinker said:


> There is no free lunch, but if we try to understand the methods we use to get our lunch, we just may discover some ways to make it easier!


Key, here, is keeping a sharp focus on the idea that there is no *free* lunch, the point all too many overlook. Pitiful as it may be, there's no shortage of people that still think there's a perpetual motion machine yet to be discovered. 

I think not. 

Harold


----------



## leoinker (Nov 3, 2011)

I agree. But may I add?
Crazy, 'free-energy lovers' that don't understand the simple Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy tend to have a distorted view of every energy related device. These types of people like to hear themselves "talk" and they spew enormous amounts of "information" everywhere. It's easy to see that where they are wrong in their conclusion, but that doesn't mean the original invention is utterly useless. 

What IS perpetual is the transfer of energy. We typically think of energy being "lost" via friction, heat, etc, during a process, when we have a specific goal that we want that energy to accomplish. - The "point" of an HHO device is to decrease these losses. If the amount of energy it takes to decrease the losses is less than the energy losses themselves, you have a more efficient transfer of energy towards the end goal - NOT a creation of energy.

And I know you already know this. - I'm writing this as more of a clarification to others.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Nov 3, 2011)

A story and a puzzle.

When I was experimenting with ion-exchange membranes, I did this crazy experiment to try and produce solutions that were out of balance, electrically. In other words, I tried to produce solutions that were either overly rich in anions (-) or in cations (+). I somehow thought these out-of-balance solutions might be a new energy source. If I remember right, I ended up with 7 chambers, all in a line, each separated with either cathodic or anodic membranes in a definite order. The anode was in the chamber on one end and the cathode was on the other end. 

When I turned the current on, the laws of nature fooled me. I could see gassing occurring at the bottom of each membrane, even though they were made of non-conductive organic materials. The system was splitting water in each chamber to make up for this discrepancy of either anions or cations. Where anions were needed, hydrogen gas was given off and OH- entered the solution. Where cations were needed, O2 was given off and H+ entered the solution. Nature wouldn't allow an electrical imbalance, obviously.

I never followed this up because, my experiment, at the time, failed. However, after thinking about this for years, I have always wondered if the amount of water splitting (and, therefore, the hydrogen generation) exceeded the current applied. In this experiment, I produced hydrogen from water splitting at 3 membrane surfaces. The current applied was reduced, somewhat, by the resistance in the system but was equal in each chamber. Were those chambers in parallel or in series?

?????? Any ideas?


----------



## leoinker (Nov 3, 2011)

goldsilverpro said:


> separated with either cathodic or anodic membranes



Can you tell us more about these "membranes"? I'm having a hard time visualizing your experiment. 

*Something like this? *
(+) |_|_|_|_|_|_|_| (-)

What materials were used?


----------



## goldsilverpro (Nov 3, 2011)

leoinker said:


> goldsilverpro said:
> 
> 
> > separated with either cathodic or anodic membranes
> ...



Exactly right, but eliminate 2 chambers. The electrodes occupied the 2 end chambers - 6 membranes and 7 chambers. The membranes, widely available commercially, either pass anions only or cations only. They were alternated somehow in this arrangement in a manner to attempt to produce either anion or cation rich solutions in the 5 intermediate chambers. I don't remember exactly how but I could probably figure it out. 

If this is a series circuit (which I think, in essence, it is), the amperage in each chamber or cell would be constant and would be the amperage generally applied by the PS (taking the resistance into consideration, of course). The water was split at every membrane membrane surface but, the way I had it set up, 3 of the membranes produced H2. The big question is, did I get an energy advantage, or not?

Maybe, the question of series or parallel doesn't apply in this case. It's just current flowing between the electrodes with 6 membranes in between, each of which creates a voltage drop. Actually, though, this sounds series to me.

The amount of current flow determines the amount of water splitting. If the current is the same, and not divided, at each membrane surface, it seems logical that there would be an advantage.

Over the years, I've posed this problem to a lot of intelligent people and no one has been able to tell me, mathematically, whether or not I got more hydrogen out than what would be predicted by the amount of current going in. I guess the only solution is to set it up and measure the total H2 coming off without contaminating it with the O2 coming off the other membranes.


----------



## eeTHr (Nov 3, 2011)

GSP---

Your cells were in series. As such, the individual resistance of each of the cells would add together, and the sum would be the total resistance of the set of cells.

If all the cells were the same dimensions, then the current in each cell would be the same.

The amperage "applied" by the power supply is mis-terminology. Voltage is electrical pressure, while amperage is a flow resulting from that pressure. So voltage is "applied," and the resulting amount of current is dependant on the resistance of the circuit. If there is no return path to the other terminal of the power source, it is an open circuit, which is maximum resistance. If there is virtually no resistance in the path back to the other terminal of the power source, it is a "short" circuit, resulting in tripping a breaker, blowing a fuse, or dangerously high levels of heat in the wire, or melting of the wire resulting in an open circuit.

So, several cells in series would reduce the current that would normally flow through only a single cell set-up, for the same amount of voltage applied. And the power dissapated by the string of cells in series, would be the same as for only one cell by itself.

Although I'm not familiar with the membrane particulars, or the theory of how they work, it's almost certain that the production from the several cells would be the same as from a single cell if it were by itself, because of the power distribution.


----------

