mdr

Anyone read or know anything about HHO generators?


I had never heard of it until a few nights ago my daughter was telling me about it and I scoffed at the thought of it.
I have been searching google and there seems to be lots of people playing with it and getting some results. Then again most of them are selling kits or how to kits.

So anyone here researched anything on this?

matt13b

I dont even know what they are??

Angry Bunny

Seriously? have you ever seen video of a car running on water? Do any of these websites offer anything other than "testimonials" from people who swear by it?
Any pictures of the kits? Any dyno numbers? Any specifics of any kind?

enforcer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spzbn...eature=related

mdr

Yeah actually they do if you do a google search or youtube search on HHO there are hundreds of videos out there some of them are pretty bad and make you think yeah right. Some of them show actual dyno numbers and have some realistic info in them.

At first I was like you car on water? SURE! but after thinking about it a bit and doing some more research I am starting to wonder here.
They are not running on water they are making hydrogen gas out of water and injecting that into the air intake of the car to use less petrol to keep the car running. Now common sense says it takes more power to convert the water into the gas form than you get out, but if your car is putting out unused amps from the alternator already and you using those to make the conversion then is it possible?

Interesting thread on the Ford forums I just found still reading it on some of them trying it on their cars.

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/boost...as-t59449.html

mdr

Yeah first doing it in glass jar is just stupid. Second lighting the gas in kitchen in the glass jar is even stupider.

But it does prove there is gas in there that is explosive and burns.

auzoom

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=123863

Angry Bunny

Let me express my skepticism in a different way. There is no recipe given for this cake, everyone applauding it says it tastes great but nobody has ever tasted it.

No equations, no blueprints, no real proof.

Let's believe the Youtube video is real for a moment, does the youtube video state how long it took for the "hydrogen generator" to "fill" that glass jar with that much hydrogen? Do you really think it can produce enough gas to be usable at automobile combustion rates?

So all the car companies in all the world haven't at one point in the last 40 years implemented this process to gain on it's competitors? Not a single one?

Each one is currently spending money researching hybrid and electric vehicles when the answer has been there all along in the form of electrolysis of water?

Electrolysis of water to create gas "appears" to be real, but not efficient or sufficient enough to run an automotive engine.

Anybody find any real proof let me know, I'd really like to save some gas money. I need a new TV!

labrat

The ABC's Robyn Williams said once that science is the ultimate bullshit detector. This is definitely true in the case of "hydrogen generators" on cars, and all sorts of other devices which claim to save you money by putting water into your motor. The science of chemistry lets you actually calculate that this is bullshit.

If you burn hydrogen in air you get water and heat. Water is just burnt hydrogen which has given up its energy. If you want to get back hydrogen from water, you have to put back (at least) that lost energy. I say "at least", because no process is 100% efficient; there are always losses along the way. Theoretically, you need approximately 15.9kJ of energy for every gram of water to get hydrogen from it. Actually, you'll need a lot more because of inefficiencies in conversion. OK, so you bolt a hydrogen generator on your car. Where are you going to get the energy? Umm, I guess from the motor to drive the alternator, and where does the motor get it's energy? It's that stuff sloshing around in the tank in the back of the car. Hmm, something smells like bullshit.

In my opinion, people who tout this stuff are committing frauds on the general public, because what they say is demonstrably untrue. Therefore, they should be prosecuted. I would have thought that the Trade Practices Act has application here. Actually, they should also include naturopaths, chiropractors and people who sell anti-ageing creams in the same pack of crooks.

Unfortunately, because fewer and fewer people are studying science these days (understandable, because it's a hard way to make very little money), we are going to see more and more of these frauds committed on an increasingly susceptible population. It won't be too long before we start burning witches at the stake again.

lilturbododge

for everyone that wants to know how it works...a website that gives all info for free, so those paying to learn the info, google a bit more...
http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_B...rolizer_Plans/

btw, anyone knows what hydrogen embrittlement is on metal....may want to look into that a bit more....can we say bye bye motor...

mdr

Then again it may not be as far fetched as it sounds.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?vi...videoChannel=1
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/g...-cell-vehicle/

labrat

.

There's obviously still one being born every minute. In science, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Where's the energy coming from to power the energy generator?

mdr

Read more about it here.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...080613/153276/

Revolver

Wake me up when you lot have thrashed out a definitive answer on this one - all this technical/science crap bores the **** out of me...

(always glad I dropped physics and chemistry... )

labrat

--- and all the richer for it. When you boil it down, physics and chemistry is really just about doing sums. In this case, the sums don't add up. One of the advantages of a science education is that it does you give you the tools to filter out the bullshit which these days seems ever more abundant. I'm not saying it makes you bullshit-proof, but it does give you a starting point.

I read the article. It's still bullshit. The system uses a battery. Where do you get the power for the battery? Either:
- from a motor (petrol or diesel)
- from a powerpoint connected to a power station. In Oz, that mostly means a coal power station.

So where is the net carbon advantage? What's the net efficiency?

These articles are written by journos from press handouts. Most journos aren't trained in science, therefore, they tend to accept whatever is put before them. They're bullshit magnets. Bullshit in, bullshit out.

mdr

It would appear that the Japanese are using a modified version of the Purdue University hydrogen project.

Purdue have been working on a hydrogen generator that is based on a chemical reaction to adding water to a composite metal (alloy) made of aluminum and gallium which separates water into its component molecules. The composite attracts oxygen, but not hydrogen, leaving the former element free and separated. No or very little energy in is needed to start the reaction.

But in the Purdue project you are left with Alumni (melted aluminum) maybe they have come up with a different metal that last longer or they are betting on Alumni reclamation stations which is something I know Japanese unis have been working on for hydrogen projects.

There has also been some work done by some Israel researches into using zinc and some unnamed metals to do the same things and is claimed to last longer, the only thing is the amount of zinc needed cost more than the fuel is worth and is a very dirty metal to produce.

labrat

Sorry, but once again this is bullshit. Aluminium reacts with water under certain circumstances to produce hydrogen and aluminium hydroxide.

2Al + 6H2O -> 2Al(OH)3 +3H2

I say "certain circumstances" because normally aluminium has a protective coating of an aluminium oxide which prevents this from happening. This can be avoided by reacting with a metals such as gallium and mercury. Gallium is a rare and very expensive metal which behaves in a chemically similar way to aluminium. Thus, after the reaction, you'll get Ga(OH)3 mixed up with the Al(OH)3.

Now, there is no such animal as "alumini", unless you mean the plural of the word "alumnus", a graduate of a university. And you don't end up with a metal at the end of this process, but a metal hydroxide. And it is not easy or cheap to recycle. First you have to heat the hydroxide to very high temperatures to get the aluminium oxide, then you have to use massive amounts of electricity to turn the oxide into metallic aluminium. Making aluminium uses huge amounts of energy, and as I've said, mostly we make electricity in Australia by burning coal. That's why those nice people at Rio Tinto Alcan own a power station at Gladstone. Most of the energy is used in the aluminium smelter down the road at Boyne Island. That's why those greeny people hate aluminium smelters - those massive carbon emissions.

So you see, you need massive amounts of energy to make the aluminium, and equally massive amounts of energy to get it back. Remember I said that in science there's no such thing as a free lunch?

BTW, I spent 20 years as a chemist in the aluminium industry.

mdr

I apologize for not using the correct term for you.

alumina is the term, silly me, I spelled it with an i instead of an a, had I known it was going to confuse an aluminium specialist I would have been more careful in my spelling.

Then again I suspect you knew what I was saying but felt the need to try and prove your superior knowledge anyway.

Revolver

Come on guys, let's continue playing the ball, not the man.

Or is that all you got Monte??

mdr

Excuse me?

I don't think I played the man at all until the last post, however I saw it as I was the man being played.
No where did I make a statement that I was sure this was real and verifiable I tired to ask questions and post what my research on the internet had lead me to. But with responses like one born every minute and the totally uncalled for smart *** comeback I think it best I now stop posting about this subject here, obviously it is not something everyone wants to discuss and the subject seems to upset some people.

So I will let it die here.

enforcer

Bumble_Bee

^ Can't see the pic....


Didn't they make an "8" run on hydrogen?
I've seen the pic and read the article...

Revolver

Monte, my remarks were largely tongue in cheek. Please don't take offence. Debate can get a bit robust in here at times but rarely is there anything malicious meant by those involved. I think you're the only one getting upset.

Best way to think of it is like a big pub, rather than a serious boardroom discussion (mind you, I've been in boardrooms where the differences were minimal)...

auzoom

You are so misunderstood Dave

Revolver

Yep, having a great time of it this week. For some reason people seem to take me incredibly seriously in here.

It's supposed to be a bit of fun people!