# HHO Torch



## ThePierCer (Mar 21, 2008)

I was wondering if anyone had and experience with a HHO torch? As a side project an assistant and I have been building HHO fuel Cells to run home generators on water. We’ve had a tremendous amount of success. My prototype is on the highway rite now doing an road test to Florida and back. At the last check-in, my assistant was getting 70-75 MPG with HHO assist in his 2004 Chrysler 300. 

As part of out testing, we attached a torch head onto the end of out Gas line attempting to maintain a sustained flame. To our amazement, we maintained a 6” White flame. 

Our Cell is amazingly efficient and can produce that flame using a 12 volt battery charger running @ 5 amps. I mention this to compare the cost of oxygen, Mapp, ect. To the cost of electricity to run the cell. 

I’ve seen YouTube videos where people have used these torches for cutting solid Steel. How do you think this will work for melting PM’s? I’m under the assumption that a White flame will be upwards of 2100+F


----------



## Lou (Mar 21, 2008)

What the heck is HHO? Easier abbreviation for 2H2/1O2?


Do you mean Brown's gas? From electrolysis you should (at least past the electrodes) get hydrogen and oxygen in stoichiometric quantities.


----------



## ThePierCer (Mar 21, 2008)

We've never referred to it as Browns gas, and yes, it's just an easy abbreviation. I guess HHO is just what a lot of us developing cells at home call it. Basically collecting the gasses produced by electrolysis, pressurizing it, then a controlled release.


----------



## Noxx (Mar 21, 2008)

Yes Lou,

HHO and HOH are wrong appellations massively used for Hydrogen + Oxygen torch.
The real equation is: 2H2 + O2 = Q + water

The resulting flame is VERY hot and I'm sure it could melt gold rapidly.


----------



## ThePierCer (Mar 21, 2008)

I personally hated the abbreviation HHO, but in the course of several meeting and discussions with other developers, the abbreviation just stuck. Sometimes to communicate you need to use the accepted slang.


----------



## Lou (Mar 21, 2008)

Oh, I understand piercat. Jargon-speak in chemistry, physics, math, econ., medicine, etc... all big deals.

@Noxx, I love oxyhydrogen...clean to work with, useful for melting platinum and palladium. Flame is fairly hot, not quite as much as oxy acetylene, but still, very nice because it does not form carbides.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2008)

wouldn't it be easier to use a arc torch? I have used them with my welder and they work pretty good for me and I can crank that baby up to 200 amps if I want.


----------



## Lou (Mar 21, 2008)

For melting Pd, Pt, and Rh? Nope...reason being is that you can cool your more reactive metals under hydrogen, preventing oxidation. Additionally, you can pyrolize various salts of the PGMs to ground state metals (i.e. PtCl2 to Pt metal) using a reducing flame rather than using conventional wet chem methods to reduce the metals.


----------



## Arcani (Mar 21, 2008)

> As part of out testing, we attached a torch head onto the end of out Gas line attempting to maintain a sustained flame. To our amazement, we maintained a 6” White flame.



Are both gases together or u collect them in different lines? At what rate are u able to produce HHO? Are u using the spiral inverted cone design?
Have u tried resonance frequency to improve efficiency? I've been working on this technology as well as a few others on this site, H/O for melting or cutting is very clean.




> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> We've never referred to it as Browns gas, and yes, it's just an easy abbreviation. I guess HHO



I think they call it that because there is a 2/1 ratio of H to O in plasma.


----------



## ThePierCer (Mar 22, 2008)

Arcani said:


> > Are both gases together or u collect them in different lines?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We experimented briefly with different frequencies, but had feel 12vdc and regulating the current produces the best results, and can easily be powered by a vehicles alternator.


----------



## peter i (Mar 22, 2008)

ThePierCer said:


> As part of out testing, we attached a torch head onto the end of out Gas line attempting to maintain a sustained flame. To our amazement, we maintained a 6” White flame.
> 
> Our Cell is amazingly efficient and can produce that flame using a 12 volt battery charger running @ 5 amps.



6" of flame with just 60 Watt input...
:shock: 

5 Amps should give you less then 60 mL of gas per minute.

That's a "too good to be true"


----------



## ThePierCer (Mar 22, 2008)

my mistake, we had 12v @ 10 amps, 120watts. We have also experimented with 6-24v at the same amperage, but use the 12v because it’s the most readily available. 

I find it amusing I get the same reactions and disbelief when I tell other circles I get gold out of old computers. 
:roll:


----------



## ThePierCer (Mar 22, 2008)

Here is a very poor picture of our cell producing 7psi @ 10.72v 10 amps. Mind you we have lots of pics and video of our work and progress. I'm aware that anyone could pick them apart. We didn't take them to prove anything to anyone, just for our own personal records.


----------



## Froggy (Mar 22, 2008)

Looks like a bomb ready to go off! :lol:


----------



## peter i (Mar 23, 2008)

ThePierCer said:


> my mistake, we had 12v @ 10 amps, 120watts. We have also experimented with 6-24v at the same amperage, but use the 12v because it’s the most readily available.
> 
> I find it amusing I get the same reactions and disbelief when I tell other circles I get gold out of old computers.
> :roll:



120W is not a lot either.

The first person to see the possibilities of large scale electrolysis was a Dane called Poul La Cour.
http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/lacour.htm That happened virtually in my back yard and for more than 100 years ago.

Yes, people will raise an eyebrow when you talk about gold from computers, but the moment you tell them that it is there for a reason and that electronics typically run higher in gold than a good gold ore, they will accept it.

That you can produce hydrogen by electrolysis is not new either. Carlisle and Nicholson discovered that 200 years ago and founded electrochemistry that way.
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/elechem.htm
And nobody with a minimum of education should be surprised by it (most people have done it in the classroom)


What makes ugly people like me sceptical and cynical is the moment somebody claim to have beaten the laws of thermodynamics (“Laws” is a bad word, nothing is easier than breaking the law).

Nobody has ever been able to beat the principles of thermodynamics, period!
The moment you do it, you will have created a variant of “perpetual motion”.


(But it would be so cool if somebody did. All the old guys would be terrified, but for young scientist it would be a goldmine of new “fields of fun and exploration”)


----------



## OMG (Mar 23, 2008)

So if energy cannot be made from nothing, then how was the universe created?
Don't say god. LOL


----------



## peter i (Mar 23, 2008)

It seems that things are pretty well explained down to the 10^-43 of a second after Big Bang.

Before that? ... gives me headache!

(But should we not keep this on topic?)


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 23, 2008)

Maybe the universe was not created and it "just is" or it was in fact God.


----------



## Arcani (Mar 23, 2008)

This is a doc on a new electric model of the universe.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...=60&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


----------



## Arcani (Apr 3, 2008)

good info on HHO
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/KellyAndBoyce.pdf


----------



## peter i (Apr 4, 2008)

Well, there is no BS in the first couple of pages, and there are some very nice instructions, that could probably be used to build rather efficient electrolysers.

But the magic pops up rather quickly insisting that 600% to 1000% efficiency should be obtainable and that “Bob’s electronics draw energy from the environment”.

There is one nice thing about it: “The electrolysis gas is explosive” and in that, he is right. The really scientifically challenged normally insist, that the gas “implodes”, totally ignoring the Ideal Gas Law and the temperature of the combustion gas.
We’re not even talking first hands experience, but just referring to what “Bob has done”.

Oh yeah, once again I’m a slave of traditional science and agent of the oil companies.

But let’s follow that assumption, and assume:

-	it really works
-	the oil companies control the US government and don’t want it to be known

What would happen?
There would be a huge benefit of anything giving independence of Middle Eastern oil, and any government harnessing this technology could give OPEC the birdie.
Believe it or not, but in most of the world the governments own the oil industry, not the opposite, and both Russia and China would do anything to humiliate both OPEC and the US.
Furthermore these countries have lots of very competent scientists and a willingness to test alternative solutions. 
Attempting to optimize electrolysis for a hundred years should also have given a hint that thermodynamics was not right, and electrolysis could work “wonders”

Once again, no one has ever made a “perpetual motion machine” or “free energy device” work in a controlled experiment. 
Please build one, and let’s see* it work.

*See as in ”Scientifically see”


Oh, and http://www.theorionproject.org/en/breakthrough.html 

"a non-profit organisation attempting to raise $ 60 million in 60 days"
:shock:


----------



## Arcani (Apr 4, 2008)

Peter , they give the info out freely and are asking for donations to bring this technology to the public. They are an offshoot of The Disclosure project, a group of former government employees(Documented employees) that have come forward seeking a congressional hearing so they can go on the record with what they know. people have been working on this for years in secret government programs and believe the time has come for disclosure.

The link i gave in my previous post is a good source for those who would like to build a HHO cell, and i don't consider it double posting if it is relevant to both threads, and it most certainly is.

B.T.W i have 255 Km's with the cell installed on my car and the battery is not dead yet as u predicted it would be, i will have to finish up the tank to see if there is any significant fuel savings.

U should watch the MLK video i have in my tag Peter, it might do u some good, today is the 40 th anniversary of his assassination. His words are as poinyent today as they where then.


----------



## Harold_V (Apr 5, 2008)

Arcani said:


> and are asking for donations to bring this technology to the public.


That doesn't send up a red flag for you?

When's the last time you saw money go looking for people?

Harold


----------



## peter i (Apr 5, 2008)

Just my words Harold :wink: 

And the problem about posting the same link in two places is, that it gets bloody confusing to have a good discussion!

I have already answered here:
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=2138&start=60


Yes, I have great respect for MLK (he did not believe in alchemy either, by the way)


----------



## Arcani (Apr 16, 2008)

> Arcani wrote:
> and are asking for donations to bring this technology to the public.
> 
> That doesn't send up a red flag for you?



I have not and will not give a donation. There are many sites selling the information that the Orion project is giving away for free,


----------

