# Water-powered car?

What happens when you break the molecular bond, and burn the hydrogen? Is the water "destroyed"??? And what happens to the hydrogen atoms when your burn them?

Does it break the ecollogical water-cycle, or can there again be a recombination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms?

That would just reverse the original reaction and result in a water molecule. H+O2 -> H2O

russ_watters
Mentor
To be pedantic:

H+O2<-->H2O + E

mrjeffy321
To be pedantic:

H+O2<-->H2O + E
Better yet,
2H2 (g) + O2 (g) --> 2 H2O (l)
ΔG = -474.26 kJ under standard conditions.

2 H2O (l) --> 2H2 (g) + O2 (g)
ΔG = +474.26 kJ under standard conditions.

When you break the bonds in the water molecule you form Hydrogen and Oxygen gas (H2 and O2). These gasses can be recombined by burning them to re-form water.
You will not get extra energy out of burning the Hydrogen to reform water. The best you could do is just reclaim the energy one originally put into splitting the water, but actually you cannot even do this good since you will also loose some energy to heat.

With a simple device that uses electrolysis to convert water into hydrogen, you can increase the fuel economy of your car. This link may be somewhat helpful: [Moderator note: crackpot link removed]. A cursory glance at its contents and the cost for the informative booklet may inspire thoughts of a scam, but the idea holds much merit. In fact, if you want to build such a device, you can easily build one from looking at the examples shown. However, I don't recommend a plastic mason jar since it will deform rather quickly due to heat. Depending on your driving conditions (highway/city) you may obtain as much as 50 miles per gallon or more. No joke!

Last edited by a moderator:
Dick
Homework Helper
With a simple device that uses electrolysis to convert water into hydrogen, you can increase the fuel economy of your car. This link may be somewhat helpful: www.water4gas.com. A cursory glance at its contents and the cost for the informative booklet may inspire thoughts of a scam, but the idea holds much merit. In fact, if you want to build such a device, you can easily build one from looking at the examples shown. However, I don't recommend a plastic mason jar since it will deform rather quickly due to heat. Depending on your driving conditions (highway/city) you may obtain as much as 50 miles per gallon or more. No joke!

Yeah, sure. It does more than 'inspire thoughts of a scam'. It is a scam. What about mrjeffry321's point?

Last edited:
Yeah, sure. It does more than 'inspire thoughts of a scam'. It is a scam. What about mrjeffry321's point?

I agree that mrjeffry321's point is absolutely correct, but be open-minded regarding the idea. Simply put automobiles require two energy sources to operate, gasoline and electricity. This device receives its energy from a car battery and proceeds with the reaction as described by mrjeffry321. Sure, energy is lost with the production of hydrogen, but an alternative fuel source is produced which conserves gasoline.

I know for a fact that this device works because my father and I built one for his 2004 Nissan Sentra, and he averaged close to 50 miles per gallon on his trip to work. I would expect that the life of the car battery is shortened due to the extra load, but with these results it more than compensates.

Dick, if you still are skeptical--which I completely understand, since a lot of ideas are only scams to make a quick buck--then build one yourself and report back to me. The necessary parts to build a device are cheap.

Dick
Homework Helper
buffordboy23, the energy to charge the car battery comes from burning fuel turning a generator or alternator, not from the battery itself. I think the success of these devices is due more to a placebo effect. I.e. power of positive thinking. I'd have to invest in a car first before I could actually test one. But 'I don't have to go to the arctic to know it's cold'.

Last edited:
buffordboy23, the energy to charge the car battery comes from burning fuel turning a generator or alternator, not from the battery itself.

Dick, you are correct in regards to the above statement. Perhaps, I should have been a little clearer.

However, is it absolutely necessary to have your engine running to listen to the car radio or turn the head lights on? No, but your battery will eventually die and need recharged. When your car is jumped, we let the engine run so that the alternator recharges the battery. Now when we turn the vehicle off with the battery recharged, we are able to start the automobile again with no problem. This suggests that the alternator is able to supply more energy to the battery than the needs of the automobile require.

In fact, an alternator is a self-sustaining, regulating device that tries to keep the car battery at a certain voltage for recharging purposes (a little above 14 V). The rotation speed of the serpentine belt that drives the alternator does not necessarily determine the power output of the alternator due to the alternator's design--the electric signal passes through a rectified diode bridge. So, some energy that was available will be lost as heat anyways. Therefore, why not attach the discussed device, which does increase the overall load on the battery, but diminishes the wasted energy produced from the alternator?

mrjeffy321
Every drop of energy in the car’s battery comes from the fuel which is burned in the engine (neglecting the energy initially there when installing a new battery).

If you attempt to run the engine solely on Hydrogen produced using the battery and/or alternator (which, in turn, gets its energy from the engine) you are bound to fail since you are forming a closed loop in your energy flow diagram and effectively are trying to make a perpetual motion machine. Even if we ignore the fact that in order for this to be practical you would need to be able to extract extra energy from this closed loop to make the car move (instead of merely discharging then recharging the battery), you are also bound to loose some fraction of your energy as heat. Over some time period, the battery will just drain down to nothing and the car will stop.

Another, less blatantly illegal, approach would be to merely supplement your gasoline fuel with Hydrogen, as you describe. Some theories suggest that the Hydrogen itself may not be so much an energy source as it is something to increase the efficiency / completeness of the combustion of the gasoline fuel.
With all the modern day gadgets and computers cars have now-a-days to try to control the fuel delivery to the internal combustion energy under different conditions, I am not sure how much I believe some of the explanations given.

The only way I can see something like H2-supplemented gasoline fuel working is with sacrificing a lot of engine’s output power. That way your gasoline mileage will increase and at the same time the law of conservation of energy is preserved.

Dick
Homework Helper
buffordboy23 is making this sound somewhat more plausible by claiming the alternator is wasting some largish amount of energy which can be reclaimed for splitting the water. This doesn't violate any conservation laws, but it does imply the alternator/recharging system is so badly designed it turns a substantial portion of the engines output into waste heat. I remain deeply skeptical.

The alternator has an efficiency of 50-60% when it is operating, so a lot of potential energy for output is wasted. Also, since alternators are controlled by a computer, when the battery is fully-charged when the car is running, the alternator shuts itself off. Therefore, the mechanical energy from the serpentine belt that turns the coils of the alternator is also wasted during this condition.

The purpose of this electrolysis device that splits water is to increase the fuel efficiency of the automobile, as also suggested by mrjeffy321. The electronic control module (ECM) controls many functions of how the car engine operates and makes modifications accordingly. In this case, the most important one is the amount of fuel that is injected into the cylinders. With the addition of hydrogen and oxygen, the combustion of gasoline is more efficient, so the ECM "tells" its attached components to inject less fuel into the cylinders because the car's energy needs are satisfied.

The best results from this device occur when driving at a steady speed, such as on a highway. This is because the ECM makes adjustments according to the car's energy needs. For example, approaching a large hill and then accelerating heavily to compensate for the increased energy needs to get the car up the hill causes the ECM to make drastic adjustments relative to driving at a steady speed on a level highway. This scenario is less stable, and therefore, the increase in fuel economy is lowered. The same analysis applies to city driving, where there are many stop-and-goes.

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

Carnot, Thompson, Kelvin, Otto,....

mrjeffy321
Can we run our car with water and gas?
Sure, but it might not be nearly as efficient as other fuel systems, much less practical, and could result in a drop in power output of the engine relative to gasoline fuel.

Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?
I do not understand why so many people insist on referring to “HHO” gas. I am not specifically referencing you in particular (johnandrews52) this is just something I have noticed happening a lot over the years.
When you split a water molecule you produce Hydrogen gas (H2) and Oxygen gas (O2), not some type of ‘new’ water molecule that has a differently written chemical formula.

Sure, but it might not be nearly as efficient as other fuel systems, much less practical, and could result in a drop in power output of the engine relative to gasoline fuel.

I do not understand why so many people insist on referring to “HHO” gas. I am not specifically referencing you in particular (johnandrews52) this is just something I have noticed happening a lot over the years.
When you split a water molecule you produce Hydrogen gas (H2) and Oxygen gas (O2), not some type of ‘new’ water molecule that has a differently written chemical formula.

It has an official chemical name and a trade name, actually; Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas.

It's been used in welding for decades.

It has an official chemical name and a trade name, actually; Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas.

It's been used in welding for decades.

HHO may have a trade name but it is not an "official" chemical name, whatever that means. Gunsmiths have used sweet spirits of nitre for generations but that still doesn't make it a chemical name.

An official chemical name would be one created using IUPAC's nomenclature system. But, you're right, the word I should have used was 'common' chemical name, which is 'oxyhydrogen.'

An official chemical name would be one created using IUPAC's nomenclature system. But, you're right, the word I should have used was 'common' chemical name, which is 'oxyhydrogen.'

But, isn't the common name for HHO "water"?

But, isn't the common name for HHO "water"?

I usually see water written as "HOH," as it makes it more clear what you have. Otherwise it'd be $$H_{2}O$$.

Water as a supplement to gasoline!

hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed,only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site [Moderator note: crackpot link removed] i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

Last edited by a moderator:
I usually see water written as "HOH," as it makes it more clear what you have. Otherwise it'd be $$H_{2}O$$.

Exactly.

mgb_phys
Homework Helper
I found the way through this site [Moderator note: crackpot link removed] i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

Thanks, we have been spending billions of $on engine research for 100years but somehow missed that site. Does it work for aircraft and naval engines as well? We were just waiting to make aircraft that could fly around the world efficently but in spite of all the billions of$ we spent on research at Boeing/Airbus/Rolls Royce/GE we missed this site.
Thanks again - we look forward to halving the cost of airline tickets by July.

Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913
Gold Member
The alternator has an efficiency of 50-60% when it is operating, so a lot of potential energy for output is wasted. Also, since alternators are controlled by a computer, when the battery is fully-charged when the car is running, the alternator shuts itself off. Therefore, the mechanical energy from the serpentine belt that turns the coils of the alternator is also wasted during this condition.
Incorrect. The reason the alternator shuts off when not needed is because it requires energy (i.e. gasoline) to power it. If you leave the alternator running you will see a corresponding increase in fuel consumption.

Sorry, no matter how you cut it, your gas savings will be nil.

Incorrect. The reason the alternator shuts off when not needed is because it requires energy (i.e. gasoline) to power it. If you leave the alternator running you will see a corresponding increase in fuel consumption.

Sorry, no matter how you cut it, your gas savings will be nil.

I do not claim to be a car expert, but I am not completely understanding your point. From your argument, it suggests to me that when the vehicle is running and the alternator subsequently shuts itself off, it is because not enough gasoline, or "energy", is being provided to power it. Is this correct? If so, I do agree with this statement to a point. Some alternators are designed so that they operate above some lower RPM limit. However, this is not true for all cars, since many cars have alternators that operate regardless of RPM--their output can vary with RPMs but is not totally reliant on it, since the regulator ultimately determines what is outputted.

Your argument in regards to my statement about the alternator shutting off does suggest that my statement could probably have been said a little clearer. What I really mean is that when the battery is fully-charged, the alternator no longer needs to supply power to the battery, although it is still operating to provide power to run the electrical systems of the car.

Also, I never claimed that the operation of the alternator could lead to gas savings. However, I did claim that by attaching a device that uses electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen it is very likely that your car will have better fuel economy depending on your driving conditions.

DaveC426913
Gold Member
I do not claim to be a car expert, but I am not completely understanding your point. From your argument, it suggests to me that when the vehicle is running and the alternator subsequently shuts itself off, it is because not enough gasoline, or "energy", is being provided to power it. Is this correct?
No. I'm saying the alternator shuts off when not needed because the alternator is a drain on power (and thus will use fuel). Like every other device, if you don't need it, shut it off.

However, I did claim that by attaching a device that uses electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen it is very likely that your car will have better fuel economy depending on your driving conditions.
I thought the issue was how would you power your device? To which your suggestion was: from the alternator of course. To which my response was: but the alternator uses energy, eating up any potential savings.

This is fundamentally no different than other attempts to find the elusive "free energy".

No. I'm saying the alternator shuts off when not needed because the alternator is a drain on power (and thus will use fuel). Like every other device, if you don't need it, shut it off.

From my understanding, the alternator will always be a drain on power, even if we assumed it was turned off (i.e. outputting no energy to the electrical components). I say this because the alternator has an internal rotor that spins via the serpentine belt. The combustion of gasoline leads to the turning of the crank, which in turn rotates the serpentine belt. There are definitely frictional losses somewhere just by the fact the alternator is part of the system, although not operationable.

I thought the issue was how would you power your device? To which your suggestion was: from the alternator of course. To which my response was: but the alternator uses energy, eating up any potential savings.

This is fundamentally no different than other attempts to find the elusive "free energy".

My argument here is that there is "free energy" available to power the device. The rotational speed of the serpentine belt determines the rotational speed of the rotor inside the alternator, and hence, creates some initial AC current that is available to power the electrical systems. However, the output current from the alternator is controlled by the regulator, which monitors what energy is needed at the current moment to run the electrical systems--this is why I previously said that RPMs do not determine the energy output of the alternator. If the initial energy available is more than what is needed, there is a loss of energy through heat. Now, if we attach the described device to the car's electrical system, we increase the energy needs to power the car. If the initial energy available from the alternator is still greater than what is needed with this new component, then we are well in bounds in terms of the conservation of energy.

I know it's hard to believe, but nothing beats experimental verification, which I have achieved. If you are interested, see my previous post about a website that shows what these devices look like and how they operate. I am not promoting their website, nor encouraging you to buy their books, but only to use it for ideas on how to build such a device because it is so simple to see from just one picture.

mgb_phys
Homework Helper
Yes there are some frictional losses by having the alternator spinning but unloaded, but there would be exactly the saem frictional losses if you used the alternator to do work AND there would also be the extra power extracted from the engine to do that work (plus anny efficency losses in the process)

Yes there are some frictional losses by having the alternator spinning but unloaded, but there would be exactly the saem frictional losses if you used the alternator to do work AND there would also be the extra power extracted from the engine to do that work (plus anny efficency losses in the process)

I agree with your point about the frictional losses being the same for an operating and non-operating alternator. However, I don't understand why you say that extra power must be extracted from the engine to do work. Initially, the field coil of the alternator must receive current from the battery when the car is turned on to power the alternator. The spinning of the field coil by the serpentine belt--due to engine RPMs--produces a magnetic field that varies accordingly with RPMs and induces a current in the stator coils, which is outputted to the electrical systems. After a short moment however, part of the alternator's output is redirected back to the field coil and the process repeats, but now the alternator is self-sustaining and no longer relies on the battery. The regulator controls this process by regulating the current to the field coil--although the RPMs may be constant, the current into the field coils is not. Therefore, the potential work that could be done by the mechanical energy of the RPMs from the crankshaft-serpentine belt system is not fully used. Attaching this electrolysis device requires the regulator to pass more current or pass it more frequently to the field coils, which accesses more of the available mechanical energy from the crankshaft-serpentine belt system RPMs.

Dick
Homework Helper
buffordboy23, I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt here. These explanations are getting increasingly implausible. I can understand how earnest people might believe in this. This is the "I want to believe" syndrome. Look at Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion. Do you know how much that web site looks like a scam? Flashing gaudy colours, garish typeface, hysterical testimonials. It hurts my eyes. I looks a LOT like a scam. $97 USD for an ebook. Give me a break. Can we drop this? Last edited: buffordboy23, I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt here. These explanations are getting increasingly implausible. I can understand how earnest people might believe in this. This is the "I want to believe" syndrome. Look at Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion. Do you know how much that web site looks like a scam? Flashing gaudy colours, garish typeface, hysterical testimonials. It hurts my eyes. I looks a LOT like a scam.$97 USD for an ebook. Give me a break. Can we drop this?

It is fine to disagree but provide an explanation why. Your current argument is weak; it attacks the website--which I do agree with you about--and me personally, once again, but not the logic of my arguments. What points about my previous arguments are implausible? In hindsight, my initial recommendation of the website probably caused some individuals to doubt the validity of my arguments. The reason I posted the URL to the website in the first place was to provide individuals with a picture of the device, so that they could design one themselves. Notice from my previous posts, that I stated it is not essential to buy the ebook because the device is so simple to build.

Dick
Homework Helper
Because to get the claimed 25-50% fuel saving requires a hugely inefficient electrical generation system. And while I am certainly no expert I would expect that any decent engineer would figure out a way eliminate much beyond essential frictional losses in the drive mechanism. It's not that hard. If nothing else you could power down the field coils.I simply don't find any of the arguments all that compelling. I don't have to disprove them one by one. You've already changed the basis of the argument at least once. And, yes, referring to a scam website for credibility or even a diagram doesn't help. Shall we try the 'injecting hydrogen increases gasoline burning efficiency' one? Sorry, I'm not buying this.

Because to get the claimed 25-50% fuel saving requires a hugely inefficient electrical generation system. And while I am certainly no expert I would expect that any decent engineer would figure out a way eliminate much beyond essential frictional losses in the drive mechanism. It's not that hard. If nothing else you could power down the field coils.I simply don't find any of the arguments all that compelling. I don't have to disprove them one by one. You've already changed the basis of the argument at least once. And, yes, referring to a scam website for credibility or even a diagram doesn't help. Shall we try the 'injecting hydrogen increases gasoline burning efficiency' one? Sorry, I'm not buying this.

You make some good points.

The alternator does not have an entirely great efficiency--there are many sources that quote a 50-60% efficiency. Also, not only is hydrogen injected into the fuel system but oxygen as well, since it is one of the products of the electrolysis reactions.

You said that I changed the basis of my argument. I don't recall this but perhaps it is true. When I built and used the device myself, I was skeptical until I saw the results. I must admit that when I made my initial post that I did not entirely understand why such a device worked. It was only when my claim was refuted that I had to research the operation of the systems involved to prove my point. Therefore, with my learning of these subjects, I was probably prone to some minor misunderstandings along the way and conveyed a misunderstanding or two in my statements. Perhaps, I don't have all of the knowledge necessary at the moment to prove my claim. Therefore, the only way of convincing nonbelievers would be to have the support of converts who were also skeptical.

I challenge any users of the forum to build this device and report with their results. It is relatively easy to build and cheap. This is the basic design and the materials that I used, although I believe that there are better materials to use. I used a plastic mason jar as the container--deformation occurred due to heat. For my electrodes, I have used both stainless steel and copper wire that was bent back-and-forth in a shape as depicted in the attachment--the stainless steel has a significantly lower conductivity than copper but the copper electrodes had a build up on them in a few days due to the chemical reactions involved. For the electrolyte, I used baking soda. I ran an output tube from the device into the air filter--these tubes must be sealed well. I connected the device to the car battery via alligator clips. Once attached to the battery, the electrolysis reactions begin to occur--a switch could be used to control the circuit before and after driving. A bracket was used to hold the device during driving. We obtained close to 50 mpg with a 2004 Nissan Sentra driving on country roads at a near constant speed of 50-60 mph.

#### Attachments

• electrode.bmp
158 KB · Views: 425
DaveC426913
Gold Member
Attaching this electrolysis device requires the regulator to pass more current or pass it more frequently to the field coils, which accesses more of the available mechanical energy from the crankshaft-serpentine belt system RPMs.
If this energy from the alternator/belt mechanism really is wasted as you propose (such that hooking up your device causes no increase in energy requirements) where do you propose the extra energy is going? Heat?

Consider the implication of this: the corollary of your cliam as that hooking up a device (any device, not just yours) that puts a load on the alternator will serve the secondary effect of cooling the engine (since you're now not expelling the extra waste energy-which-is-dumped-as-heat).

You've got to see that this is wrong.

Dick