Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

H2O->HHO, water power

  1. Jun 15, 2006 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/waterfuel.html [Broken]

    Since the nobel prize hasn't been awarded to them yet, something must be up that either makes it non-greatest-invention-ever or the news footage kept crucial info out... anyone know about this?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 15, 2006 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm not sure what they are claiming. The welding machine requires 220VAC, so maybe they are doing something that is more efficient than typical electrolysis systems, but they are not getting the energy from water. And the car appears to be a gasoline powered engine powering the hydrogen generator. So again, unless they are intentionally misleading people, and it really seems like they are at times, it may just be a more efficient process than what's used today. I tend to...am strongly inclined to doubt that they are doing anything special at all.
  4. Jun 15, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah it came off to me as if the welding machine wasn't even plugged into anything.

    How does/can the flame be almost cool to the touch and still create such a high output? Or might that be part of a hoax as well?
  5. Jun 16, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't see how the welder in that clip is any different from a 1960s era oxyhydrogen electrolytic torch. This one probably uses separate ducts for the two gases.
  6. Jun 16, 2006 #5
    It's not even debunkable! There's no description of the process, or of the chemistry, or of anything - only vague, indefinite claims.
  7. Jun 16, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was hoping someone had heard of the guys or its a common hoax or something to that effect
  8. Jun 16, 2006 #7
    What difference would it make to you - if it's obvious crackpottery, does it make an iota of a difference whether it's "original", or a rehash of some decades-old scam? Scientific claims ought to stand or fall on their merit alone, notwithstanding any sociological contexts. In this case, it's not scientific, nor is it a claim at all (more definite then the nebulous "it's not hydrogen").

    In this case it's a decades-old psuedoscience, apparently:

    The claims have been around since 1966, and no supporting evidence has ever been presented apparently. Nor even a specific description of what it is, exactly, that's being claimed - is it a combustible mixture of hydrogen gas? Or a bizarre new metastable molecule that turns quantum chemistry on its head? (yeah right!) Or do they think water vapor is spontaneously combusting? H2O->HHO, water power
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2008
  9. Jun 16, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Because then i would have an actual answer from a horribly vague report

    Take your pills :biggrin:
  10. Jun 16, 2006 #9
  11. Jun 16, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It would be nice to know what is going on here compared to not knowing what's going on here.
  12. Jun 17, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I have heard of this guy before….by which I mean I have seen this video before.

    It sounds totally bogus beyond belief.
    Obviously, you cannot expect a reporter to know any science, much less report it (ordinary viewers will get bored), he is probably just restating what this guy has told him.

    "The flame instantaneously turns hotter than the surface of the sun",
    Really, the surface of the sun? That is pretty hot (although the corona can be millions of degrees, the surface is “only” about 6000 K…but the news reporter knew that, right?), you would think that would melt through the gas nozzle too, or at least melt that brick and metal ball faster than it does (despite being claimed that it melts “instantly”).
    Just by watching the video, one can see that it take more than 3 seconds to melt that metal ball, contrary to what is claimed, “"3 seconds turns a brass ball to glowing liquid metal".

    Also, what is this HHO stuff it is talking about?
    Of course normal water is H2O, two Hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an Oxygen atom. Writing it as HHO almost implies that the Hydrogen is the central atom in the molecule (for example, writing Sodium Hypochlorite as NaOCl instead of NaClO) with the Oxygen with another Hydrogen atom covalently bonded to it (not something that is prone to happen considering Hydrogen only needs 1 bond to fill its S orbital).
    It claims this HHO is a gas, which would imply that the intermolecular forces of attraction between the molecules are significantly less than water. The Hydrogen bonded within the ordinary water molecule keeps it in the liquid phase when it would ordinarily be a gas at room temperature. HHO apparently lacks this Hydrogen bonding, which I guess would make sense, sort of, since the Oxygen might not be the central atom any more (assuming that is possible), but you will still have a an electronegativity difference between the “central” Hydrogen and the Oxygen, making the Oxygen side (along with its unbonded electron) negative, leaving the other side less negative, if not positive.

    Also, if he has his car capable of running purely off "water", why
    does he still use a water-gasoline blended Hybrid fuel system? If
    his special water is so great, why still use gasoline, especially
    with today's prices?

    As the news story says, he has his process patented. I think he
    could be a little more open with us (and the rest of the world) as
    to what is going on here...for the good of humanity (assuming it is
  13. Jun 17, 2006 #12
    See also MagneGas:


    http://www.hytechapps.com/presentat...ser added/Santilli, International Journal.pdf

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  14. Jun 17, 2006 #13
    Again, blatant crackpottery!

    Everyone knows magnetic effects between electron orbitals are orders of magnitude weaker than even H-"bonds", let alone covalent molecular bonds. Hilarious name - "magnecular" - can you advertise yourself as a crackpot anymore loudly?

    Thermodynamics? What's that?

    I've skimmed through the 2nd paper, it's awful. Basic misconceptions about QM and atomic physics abound (not a single equation - they do "conceptual drawings"!).
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  15. Jun 18, 2006 #14
    That includes me of course.

    In science, names are not supposed "hiliarious". Nonetheless, I find it amusing that someone exagerratedly sees the word "magnecular" as hilarious. Names don't prove worth a damn; they would be better being replaced by ellipses. If you think I'm talking about ovals now, then you're brainwashed. Ellipses is also the plural of the word "ellipsis" which can be seen as three periods "...".

    A course in thermodynamics, as opposed to a one sentence "definition", provides a better answer to this question.

    Not to be assumed ad litteram of course. Their ideas do not imply anything about their experiments, but their experiments, which can easily be seen as being existent (e.g. welding certain materials with ...) do influence their "ideas". The only way you could understandably make criticisms like that is if you don't take everything with a grain of salt. To take everything with a grain of salt would include litterally everything to say the least. That is not to say that we should treat all ideas equal as there are ideas which are patently false such as flat earth and other kook hypotheses.

    Kook theory is an oxymoron. Well substantiated ideas cannot come from kooks.

    But even kooks can make pretty a pretty damn good welding apparatus such as the H20 2000. ;)
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2006
  16. Jul 4, 2006 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It has been requested that this thread be opened again. It looked to me like we were done, but we will see.

    The thread is open.
  17. Jul 4, 2006 #16
    I know about this test. On wikipedia talk pages I did mention the possibility of mass loss.

    When it has not been demonstrated that there is a lack of mass loss? What is the point of the 19th-century test then if you are free to make a conclusion without the applying the test?

    Bottom line: What is really going on will have to wait for later.
  18. Jul 5, 2006 #17

    Aparently the combustion reaction of HHO -> H20 reduces the volume so much that a vacuum is formed as it is coming out the nozzle, with aparently a very low radiant heat property it does not heat up the tip of the torch much.
  19. Jul 5, 2006 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would not really call it a combustion reaction.
    It is a little bit difficult to try to classify this reaction since both the reactants and the products have the same chemical composition but, supposedly, the arrangement is different is my understanding. Perhaps and Decomposition + Synthesis?

    Assuming this is real (I have extreme doubts, but for the sake of argument),
    HHO --> H2O
    1 mole of HHO "gas" forms 1 mole of H2O gas (steam due to the elevated temperature).
    It is a 1:1 mole ration of gasses in the reaction
    Since the HHO is close to room temperature....lets assume STP, then it will have a volume of about 22.4 Liters per mole (ideal gas assumption).
    If we assume the steam is an ideal gas at 134 degrees C, then it will have a volume of 33.4 Liters per mole. This would not create a vacuum as the volume of the products is greater than the volume of the reactants.
  20. Jul 14, 2006 #19

    I think the assumtion that HHO has the same chemical composition as H20 is rather presumptuous. Again according to the water torch site (which obviously may be incorrect)

    "The total mixture of gasses that evolve by electrolyzing water in an electrolyzer specifically designed NOT to separate the gasses.
    The BG mixture consists of diatomic hydrogen, diatomic oxygen and water vapor."

    It also lists other semi-explinations as well.


    "BG in an enclosed area will explode 99.99% of the time. In an enclosed area, it requires a very exact situation (nearly impossible to achieve) to implode without an initial explosion. In an enclosed area, the 'burn' goes to detonation velocities (explosion about 5000 meters/sec). During the 'burn' or explosion, the BG turns back into water; with a net reduction in volume of 1860 times. The near instant volume reduction causes a vacuum so fast that we label it an 'implosion'. The net result of the explosion-implosion is a vacuum. "

    Incredebly psuedo-intellectual I know but it explains it.

    Edit: http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/whatis.html

    Something slightly better.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2006
  21. Jul 14, 2006 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It doesn’t seem like they [those that believe in this "Brown’s gas" HHO stuff] can never get their story straight. Some people claim it to be simply a mixture of H2 and O2 gas, others claim it to be "HHO", and others claim it is some combination of both.

    1 mole of steam (ideally at ~134 degrees C) will have a volume of 33.4 liters. 1 mole of liquid water will have a volume of about 18 mL.
    Condensing 1 mole of steam into 1 mole mole of liquid water decreases the volume about 1856 times, so I can accept their figure about how a vacuum is created...but this of course assumes that the water is almost instantly condensed as it is formed....something that might be hard to achieve in reality.
    But I don’t see what creating a vacuum has to do with anything anyway.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook