H2O to HHO: Is Water Power the Greatest Invention Ever?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power Water
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around skepticism regarding claims made about a water-fueled welding machine and the concept of "HHO" gas, often referred to as Brown's gas. Participants express doubt about the legitimacy of the technology, questioning the efficiency and scientific basis of the claims. Concerns are raised about the lack of transparency and detailed explanations regarding the process, with many suggesting it resembles long-debunked pseudoscience. The welding machine's reliance on a gasoline engine to power the hydrogen generator further fuels skepticism, as does the vague terminology used to describe the gas produced. Participants highlight that the claims have been around since the 1960s without substantial evidence or peer-reviewed support. The conversation also touches on the potential dangers of DIY hydrogen production methods and the inefficiency of using water to generate fuel, emphasizing that the energy required for electrolysis exceeds the energy gained from combustion. Overall, the thread reflects a critical examination of the scientific validity of the claims and the motivations behind them.
Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/waterfuel.html

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:
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
It's not even debunkable! There's no description of the process, or of the chemistry, or of anything - only vague, indefinite claims.
 
Rach3 said:
It's not even debunkable! There's no description of the process, or of the chemistry, or of anything - only vague, indefinite claims.

I was hoping someone had heard of the guys or its a common hoax or something to that effect
 
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown's_gas

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

Take your pills :biggrin:
 
Pengwuino said:
Because then i would have an actual answer from a horribly vague report

Huh?...[/color]
 
  • #10
It would be nice to know what is going on here compared to not knowing what's going on here.
 
  • #11
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
legit).
 
  • #12
See also MagneGas:

http://www.usmagnegas.com/technology/hy-coal.htm

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

Page 1

"It is indicated that the creation of the gaseous and combustible HHO from distilled water at atmospheric temperature and pressure occurs via a process structurally different than evaporation or separation, thus suggesting the existence of a new form of water, apparently introduced in this paper for the first time, with the structure (H × H)–O where “×” represents the new magnecular bond and “−” the conventional molecular bond. The transition from the conventional H–O–H species to the new (H × H)–O species is predicted by a change of the electric polarization of water caused by the electrolyzer. When H–O–H is liquid, the new species (H×H)–O can only be gaseous, thus explaining the transition of state without evaporation or separation energy. Finally, the new species (H × H)–O is predicted to be unstable and decay into H × H and O, by permitting a plausible interpretation of the anomalous constituents of the HHO gas as well as its anomalous behavior. Samples of the new HHO gas are available at no cost for independent verifications, including guidelines for the detection of the new species."

Page 2

"2. Experimental measurements on the new HHO gas Under visual inspection, both the HHO gas results to be odorless, colorless and lighter than air, as it is also the case for the Brown gas. Their first remarkable feature is the efficiency E of the electrolyzer for the production of the gas, here simply defined as the ratio between the volume of HHO gas produced and the number of Watts needed for its production. In fact, the electrolyzers rapidly convert water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi) via the use of 5 kWh, namely, an efficiency that is at least 10 times the corresponding efficiency of conventional water evaporation, thus permitting low production costs. The above efficiency establishes the existence of a transition of water from the liquid to the gaseous state that is not caused by evaporation. By keeping in mind the combustible character of the HHO gas compared to the noncombustible character of water vapor, the above efficiency suggests the existence of new chemical processes in the production of the gas that deserve quantitative studies."

Page 3 - Column 1

"A fifth feature of the gas is that it exhibits a widely varying thermal content, ranging from a relatively cold flame in open air at about 150 ◦C, to large releases of thermal energy depending on the substance to which the flame is applied to, such as the instantaneous melting of bricks requiring up to 9000 ◦C. The measurements conducted by the author at various independent laboratories on the HHO gas can be summarized as follows. On June 30, 2003, Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohi, measured the specific weight of the HHO gas and released a signed statement on the resulting value of 12.3 g/mol. The same laboratory repeated the measurement on a different sample of the gas and confirmed the result. The released value of 12.3 g/mol is anomalous. In fact, the conventional separation of water into H2 and P2 produces a mixture of 2/3 HBN2 and 1/3 O2 that has the specific weight (2 + 2 + 32)/3 = 11.3g/mol. Therefore, we have the anomaly of 12.3 − 11.2 = 19 1g/mol, corresponding to 8.8% anomalous increase in the value of the specific weight. Rather than the predicted 66.66% of H2 the gas contains only 60.79% of the species with 2 atomic mass units (amu), and rather than having 33.33% of O2 the gas contains only 30.39% of the species with 32 amu. These measurements provide direct experimental evidence that the HHO gas is not composed of a sole mixture of H2 and O2, but has additional heavier species. Moreover, the HHO gas used in the tests was produced from distilled water. Therefore, there cannot be an excess of O2 over H2 to explain the increased specific weight. The above measurement establishes the presence in HHO of 5.87% of hydrogen and 2.94% oxygen bonded together into species heavier than water, as identified below via mass spectroscopy and other analytic measurements. Adsorption Research Laboratory also conducted scans of the HHO gas via a Gas Chromatographer (GC)"

Page 3 - Column 2

"On July 22, 2003, the PdMA Corporation in Tampa, Florida, conducted InfraRed (IR) scans reported in Figs. 2–4 via the use of a Perkin-Elmer IR scanner model 1600 with fixed point/single beam. The reported scans refer to a conventional H2 gas (Fig. 2), a conventional O2 gas (Fig. 3), and the HHO gas (Fig. 4). Inspection of these scans shows a substantial differences between HHO gas and H2 and O2 gases. In fact, the latter gases are symmetric molecules, thus having very low IR peaks, as confirmed by scans 2 and 3. The first anomaly of HHO is that of showing comparatively much stronger resonating peaks. Therefore, the indicated IR scans establish that the HHO gas has an asymmetric structure, which is remarkable since the same feature is absent for the conventional mixture if H2 and O2 gases. Moreover, H2 and O2 gases can have at most two resonating frequencies each, one for the vibrations and the other for rotations. Spherical distributions of orbitals and other features imply that H2 has essentially only one IR signature as confirmed by the scan of Fig. 2, while OO2 has one vibrational IR frequency and three rotational ones, as also confirmed by the scans of Fig. 3. Inspection of the IR scans for the HHO gas in Fig. 4 reveals additional novelties. First, the HHO scan show the presence of at least nine different IR frequencies grouped around wavenumber 3000, plus a separate distinct frequency at around wavenumber 1500. These measurements provide experimental evidence that the species with 18 amu detected in the GC scans of Fig. 1 is not water vapor, but a yet unknown bond of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms."

Page 7

"In conclusion, the experimental measurements of the flash point and of the scans of Figs. 5 and 6 establish beyond doubt the capability by the HHO gas to have an anomalous bond with liquid fuels, that is, a bond that is not of valence type."

Page 11

"Note that the studies of the Brown gas [2] have indicated the need for atomic hydrogen. Therefore, the presence of atomic and polarized hydrogen is a novelty
of the HHO gas."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
kmarinas86 said:

Again, blatant crackpottery!

"It is indicated that the creation of the gaseous and combustible HHO from distilled water at atmospheric temperature and pressure occurs via a process structurally different than evaporation or separation, thus suggesting the existence of a new form of water, apparently introduced in this paper for the first time, with the structure (H × H)–O where “×” represents the new magnecular bond and “−” the conventional molecular bond.

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?

When H–O–H is liquid, the new species (H×H)–O can only be gaseous, thus explaining the transition of state without evaporation or separation energy.

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:
  • #14
Rach3 said:
Everyone knows magnetic effects between electron orbitals are orders of magnitude weaker than even H-"bonds"

That includes me of course.

Rach3 said:
let alone covalent molecular bonds. Hilarious name - "magnecular" - can you advertise yourself as a crackpot anymore loudly?

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 "...".

Rach3 said:
Thermodynamics? What's that?

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

Rach3 said:
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"!).

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:
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
pigscantfly said:
There is an extremely rigorous 19th century test that can be applied to this problem: measure the mass of water produced by burning HHO in an isolated system. If no water mass is lost, then the process is strictly chemical, and they are full of crap! You cannot alter a compound and then return it to its previous state without losing energy! Does anyone smell perpetual motion here? If water mass is lost, then they have discovered something other than combustion, and we're in for a whole new world of physics!

I know about this test. On wikipedia talk pages I did mention the possibility of mass loss.

pigscantfly said:
Bottom line: this is garbage!

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.
 
  • #17
www.watertorch.com

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.
 
  • #18
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
www.watertorch.com

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.
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.
 
  • #19
mrjeffy321 said:
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.


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.
http://www.watertorch.com/whatis/whatis1.html

also

"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:
  • #20
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
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."

"[...]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. "
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.
 
  • #21
mrjeffy321 said:
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.

Apparently the burning of HHO gives of little radiative heat.

Their site says that the Nozzle of the torch doesn't heat up due to the flame being in a "tunnel of vacuum" and since the only way for heat to pass through a vacuum is radiation the nozzle doesn't heat up much.

Thats all that a vacuum has to do with the torches.
 
  • #22
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
Apparently the burning of HHO gives of little radiative heat.

Nonsense. The chemistry of the flame is quite irrelevant to its thermal radiation. See for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

Of course electronic absorption/emission is a different matter, though orders of magnitude smaller.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
mrjeffy321 said:
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.

Of course they can't - they're all crackpots, categorically. This stuff is comfortably in the domain of well-understood science - basic molecular physics and thermodynamics here. That's why none of this stuff ever went through peer review. Obviously the general public, the target of these scams, needs places to go to to see this junk debunked - and S&D provides a valuable service there, I think. But as you point out there is no straight story here - no solid claims have been brought up here to be refuted. The two links brought in were (i) a blatant crackpot paper with obvious distortions of basic QM and (ii) a casual interview with a man and his welding torch. There's nothing to refute here; but if a positive claim were made, I'm sure I'd be glad to help debunk it.
 
  • #24
i find this topic very interesting and i have decided i am going to do some exp. and try to find some flaws or proof of this hho gas being wht it is stated to be

i agree that it is very suspect that no info is being released other than a few unexplanatory video's

what i find most trouble believing as someone stated before is why on Earth does that dude who invented it still use half gas and half hho seems like there is a lot we are not being told about this.
nothing new though just like people still believe we have been to the moon lol

aslo i happened discover this on another forum


" RE: How i make hho gas from air or woter?

Even easier way to make hho



Get a glass jar and 2 stainless steel half inch round bolts X 3 inches long

Pour plain water from the tap into the jar until 3/4th full, amount of water does not mater

get some copper wire and wrap each bolt about 4 times so the bolt does not fall from the wire. Each bolt will have its own copper wire.

Add a tablespoon or 3 of baking soda and still it in the jar.



insert each bolt but doent let them touch.

Connect some jumper cables to a 12V car battery. Connect the + to 1 copper wire and - to the other.

If you want to use more afforable materia, you can buy a stainless stell spatula from the dollar store, ... then just use clips to connect to the flat part of the spatula you cut off.

Bingo HHO "

now i am off to have a little play n see what happens =p
 
  • #25
That would be H2, not HHO.
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
That would be H2, not HHO.

it is almost identical to the one you are able to buy off the internet called water4gas
although it has been somewhat proven to be wrong it just increases you MPG (miles per gallon) rather than completely running off water alone.

the only difference between water4gas and the home made version is that you are using copperwire and not their design that can b viewed here

http://www.auto-facts.org/images/water4gasscamjar.jpg

i could be wrong though but i believe it worth a try anyways i mean what can i loose ??
a little time or proof or it could be the beginning of debunking this skam

Peace
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
A cautionary note.

I've burned quite a bit of gas professionally (and occasionally exploded a bit as well!). In the process of doing that, I've had the need to test flame arresters to see if they meet accepted standards. The ones typically described in these "water-gas" sites scare the devil out of me. All of these are bad ideas; there are professional hydrogen-oxygen welding kits available that are cheaper (in the long run), safer, and more efficient. And almost nobody outside a few specialized industries needs hydrogen-oxygen welding anyway; acetylene-oxygen is a better general purpose torch.
 
  • #28
TVP45 said:
A cautionary note.

I've burned quite a bit of gas professionally (and occasionally exploded a bit as well!). In the process of doing that, I've had the need to test flame arresters to see if they meet accepted standards. The ones typically described in these "water-gas" sites scare the devil out of me. All of these are bad ideas; there are professional hydrogen-oxygen welding kits available that are cheaper (in the long run), safer, and more efficient. And almost nobody outside a few specialized industries needs hydrogen-oxygen welding anyway; acetylene-oxygen is a better general purpose torch.

thanks for the warning my friend =]

i still would like to try it i will just take extreme caution and use a long distance pipe from the electrolyte water to a lighting device so i can be well away from it

maybe even hide behind some things as an extra precaution too lol

Peace
 
  • #29
asthetics said:
it is almost identical to the one you are able to buy off the internet called water4gas
although it has been somewhat proven to be wrong it just increases you MPG (miles per gallon) rather than completely running off water alone.

the only difference between water4gas and the home made version is that you are using copperwire and not their design that can b viewed here

http://www.auto-facts.org/images/water4gasscamjar.jpg

i could be wrong though but i believe it worth a try anyways i mean what can i loose ??
a little time or proof or it could be the beginning of debunking this skam

Peace

It is Hydrogen gas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
HHO conversions for cars

If you type in HHO in google, you get all kinds of stuff about how you can convert your car to burn HHO gas along with gasoline or diesel an drastically improve you fuel economy.
One site specifically is www.waterforgas.com is this for real?
 
  • #31
Total BS. You need to split the water into HHO first, which is not an easy task, but more importantly, then you burn the HHO, you can't get any new energy out of it, just whatever you put into split it in the first place.
 
  • #32
They add baking soda as a catalyst and use the car battery to run electricity through metal coils submerged in the water container which has a vacuum line connected to it. Would that process work? Where is information that says that using this process would require more energy input in electricity than would be released as mechanical energy when combusting the product?
 
  • #33
W3pcq said:
Where is information that says that using this process would require more energy input in electricity than would be released as mechanical energy when combusting the product?

Try any chemistry textbook.
 
  • #34
Mine doesn't provide this info.
 
  • #36
You probably can. Still doesn't change the fact that you're paying for something that doesn't work.
 
  • #37
It is H2, not HHO. The hydrogen only remains monoatomic for a few milliseconds.

HHO = nonsense.

If you make H2 to burn in your car, you spend about twice as much energy to make it as you get back from it as a fuel.
 
Back
Top