We know that - but where are you getting the free electricity to generate the HHO?.
It's NOT an efficient process, you would be better off using the electricity to charge a battery, and use a battery powered mower.
water.... It's not absolutely free but 22oz of water from my tap in the house is like .0026 cents and that can generate enough HHO to mow my lawn 4 times witch is about 8 hours of run time.
It's actually very interesting and possibly the most simple thing in the world to accomplish. Pass electric current through water H2O, blow the molecules apart and presto changeo Hydrogen and Oxygen.
So sell it, become a millionaire. What's stopping you?
We know that - but where are you getting the free electricity to generate the HHO?.
It's NOT an efficient process, you would be better off using the electricity to charge a battery, and use a battery powered mower.
fourteen thousand different ways to make electrolsys more efficient. My mower has a high output lighting stator wich generates electriciy while running and a battery to start the production and the mower. Come on people this is not worth arguing about. It's a very simple process and can be made extremely efficient.
Yea right, heard that before. Why ever would anyone who could feed the world ever want to sell or heaven forbid be a philanthropist and offer his invention to the world. Never seen it happen and never will.I have my own personal proof, I can walk outside and touch it I can use it, start it, enjoy it without having to argue that it is in fact possible.
Where is it now? These so called water cars pop up all the time, zero of them work it's just another scam.You do realize that when the automobile was introduced it recieved less questions and arguements about how it ran and the reality of what was driving it, than hho has produced.
Yea right, heard that before. Why ever would anyone who could feed the world ever want to sell or heaven forbid be a philanthropist and offer his invention to the world. Never seen it happen and never will.
Why not build a generator and power your home, neighborhood, town. After all water is not nearly as expensive as gasoline.
Where is it now? These so called water cars pop up all the time, zero of them work it's just another scam.
Since a patent only lasts 25years max it's now in the public domain. What's the patent number so we can look it up?
The 200MPG carburetor is yet more snake oil.
**broken link removed**
If you haven't already read the intro to this proof, please do.
The first thing you'll note about these "run your car on water" schemes is the size of the electrolysis cell and the wires that lead to it.
Typically they're about jam-jar size and the wires are about 16 gauge, a thickness that can comfortably carry about 30A which, at 12V, represents about 360W of power.
So the first question obviously has to be...
How much gas is needed to reduce fuel consumption by 40%?
Well the first thing is to work out how much energy it requires to keep an average vehicle cruising at(say) 65mph. According to **broken link removed** it takes around 20HP to cruse at that speed.
Let's convert that to electrical energy by multiplying by 746 (the number of watts in a horsepower). We get 14,920, or roughly 15KW.
Now, if we want to replace 40% of that power with energy from HHO gas, we'll need to use at least 15KW x 0.4 which comes to 6,000 watts (6KW).
If we assume that the electrolysis cell which converts electricity into HHO gas is 100% efficient (which it certainly isn't) then that means we'll need a massive 6000W/12V or 500 amps of current to make that much gas.
Suddenly those 30A wires are looking rather inadequate aren't they?
What's more, since the average car's alternator can only deliver about 80A of current, this means the battery would have to deliver the other 520A and (in the case of even a good 80AH unit) would be flat in under 10 minutes.
Of course these simple calculations ignore the fact that electrolysis cells are not 100% efficient and the even more important fact that the average internal combustion engine is only around 30% efficient -- so even if we delivered 6KW of HHO gas to the engine it would only produce under 2KW of actual power.
With these inefficiencies taken into account we'd actually need a staggering 1,500A of electrical current to generate the necessary HHO gas to reduce our fuel input by 40%.
So clearly the math doesn't add up. There's just no way you can extract enough electrical energy from your car's automotive system to create the gas volumes needed to create any meaningful amount of energy.
How efficient are those electrolysis cells
Well in the above calculations, we've assumed 100% efficiency but the sad truth is that even the best electrolysis cells offer far less than that.
In the case of these "run your car on water" scams, the tiny containers of water usually pictured are grossly inadequate, not only in their efficiency but also in their actual size.
Take a look at the YouTube video above and note the following:
Obviously, given that it's taking 1.7KW (or around 2.3HP) of electrical energy and a huge electrolysis cell to create *just* enough gas to keep a lawnmower engine barely idling, the jam-jar sized cells promoted for vehicles are a joke.
- the amount of power the small single-cylinder is producing
- the amount of gas being used to produce that small amount of power
- the size of the electrolysis cells needed to generate that amount of gas
- the amount of electrical power (1.7KW) needed to generate that gas.
And the sad thing is that, even if you used a huge cell like this, the amount of gas created would still be too small to have any discernable effect and the amount of electrical energy required would be beyond any vehicles electrical system.
So there you have it folks.
The laws of thermodynamics remain safe. The only thing at risk is the hard-earned cash of those who are gullible enough to be duped by these scammers.
No, you can't run your car on water by installing a useless electrolysis cell under the bonnet.
But wait... I've recently had a lot of email from HHO scammers who claim that I've got it all wrong and that HHO doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Here is how they claim it works and why I still say it doesn't.
Quick navigation of this feature:
Please spread the word to save people from wasting their cash and help put these scammers out of business. Link to the first page of this feature and tell your friends about it.
- The HHO Scam-busting homepage
- The proof HHO is a scam
- A reply to the HHO scammers
- Proof that hydrogen enrichment won't work
- What the scammers say about this site
- The HHO Scam FAQ
- HHO Scams in the news
- Other fuel-saver scams
- Stanley Meyer's Claims
- Who is Ozzie Freedom?
- The One Million Dollar HHO challenge
- **broken link removed**
- A journalist's guide to HHO (run your car on water)
**broken link removed**
Published by **broken link removed** at 8:08 am under **broken link removed**, **broken link removed**, **broken link removed**
Table of Contents for HHO Scam
- The HHO Scam: Run Your Car on Water, Part I
- **broken link removed**
- **broken link removed**
- **broken link removed**
- **broken link removed**
**broken link removed**
With gasoline prices through the roof (nearly tripling in 18 months), everybody’s looking for a salve to reduce their pain at the pump. As always in the Land of the Free, this brings out the kooks and charlatans, offering novel ways to help you. Any excuse to sell you some Snake Oil.
The “**broken link removed**” scam is a classic example. The Internet is filling up with click-by-night websites detailing how you can get up to 40% better gas mileage Right Now, using a **broken link removed** of mysterious means and water. (Oh, and don’t forget to send along some money.)
Okay, what are the claims, really? They are simple, and go something like this: An experimenter somewhere, untrained and unskilled in science (apparently), has found a magical principle that has been overlooked through all the decades by an intensely inquisitive scientific-industrial complex. That principle allows you to attach a small, black-box mechanism, using light-weight electrical leads, to your engine and Voila! You will convert ordinary water into “HHO Gas,” which gas is then injected directly into your fuel system. Said gas is burned with your precious gasoline, adding tremendous performance improvements in fuel economy. Claims of up to 40% mileage gains are rampant on the Web.
(I recently got “spammed” through Twitter. **broken link removed** signed up for my microblog!)
This series of posts will examine this “breakthrough technology” in detail. First, though, a quick disclaimer. I have not laid my hands on one of these remarkable contraptions yet. I’ve asked for “test examples,” as I have a doctorate in physical chemistry and do thermodynamics research at a university. I’ve offered to provide validated claims, and a detailed physical and chemical rationale, if someone would simply supply a working example. So far, nada. You think one of these groups would want somebody like me to back their play!
I absolutely refuse to send my hard-earned bucks to someone I believe is scamming the public, just so I can see what’s going on inside the box. This means I can’t refute the claims in direct, validated-research ways. Yet.
That said, let’s take a look at this scam, er, technical revolution by examining the following areas:
**broken link removed**
The “Sniff Tests”
My dad used to tell me, “Son, if it smells too good to be true, then it is. Trust your nose.” That advice works here, and it’s the simplest, non-technical way to get at the heart of this matter. Let’s look at some of the assertions.
Look at that carefully. Read it slowly a few times. Anybody want to take the over-under on that bet? If so, then I have some real estate we should discuss. I mean, really; there may have been a time in America when such a discovery could be made that way. I would even cede that small innovations are made by “loners” still today. But not something this big, this powerful. It’s like claiming a college kid solved the cold fusion principles. (Any such kid would already be out beyond Mars.)
- An automotive-energy technology, overlooked by science and engineering research for decades, is found by a lone inventor, working in his garage.
You have to squint one eye, close the other, and look this one over forwards and backwards. We’ll get to the thermodynamics and kinetics of this later on, but for now, I ask you: That much energy available from our faucets? Stand back when you wash the dishes!
- You can get up to 40% improvement in fuel economy from common water.
If this innovation is real, why doesn’t everybody have one, on every gas-powered engine in their arsenal? It’s better than a license to print money, if true.
To close this portion of the refutation, uhh, investigation, I will note that a prize of $1 million (U.S.) has been offered for a proven demonstration. So far, no takers. If HHO worked as advertised, you can bet there would be a line of candidates slobbering to get at those bucks. Maybe the **broken link removed**; a million of them still approaches **broken link removed**.
I don’t mind crackpots and their mechanisms. After all, anyone with an idea is a nutcase until they’re proven right. The “water for gasoline” mountebanks should be shot on sight, however; they’re more dangerous than a crooked Senator…
Seeya Around the Ol’ (Overpriced) Gas Station!Powered by **broken link removed**
Technorati : HHO, fuel economy, gasoline prices, scams
Ah yes the mandatory cover up.been covered up by whoever to either push fuel injection or promote poor fuel economy
Right...In Australia there is intense opposition to anyone using the Nitro Cell on any engine. In New Zealand, to the magnetic motor of Robert Adams which is 700% efficient. In the UK, to devices for water-splitting and permanent magnet motors. In Japan to Teruo Kawai’s patented magnetic motor which is 160% efficient.
The Chemical Free Lunch
by Brynn Hibbert
Once in existence force cannot be annihilated; it can only change its form. (Mayer, 1842)
The energy of an isolated system is constant. (First year university chemistry textbook)
There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Brynn Hibbert)
The stars twirl apparently endlessly in their orbits and if God happens to ask a chap in Utah to solve the World's energy problems he should see no great problem in obliging the deity. Mind you, this was Utah in pre Fleischmann and Pons (cold fusion) days, but one of the Middle East wars was in progress and the price of oil had just taken a hike, so the prospect of running your motor car on cheap water rather than expensive oil was too good to miss. Thus was the story unfolded unto me by a producer of the television program Beyond 2000 some years later.
A salutary tale
The producer had been sufficiently enthused to send a reporter over to Utah to view the device, a perspex cylinder about 50 cm tall by 20 cm in diameter containing metal tubes running vertically. From the top it looked like a latter day gatling gun. The video that they brought back showed the putative inventor pouring "pure" water into the cylinder, then switching on a generator upon which bubbles swirled up from the metal tubes. Evidently the electricity from the generator was used to produce hydrogen and oxygen. If a lid was bolted on then a rapid rise in pressure could be seen on a gauge. The gases escaping from an orifice could be ignited and lo! they burned with a clear flame.
Stop me if I'm wrong but was not electrolysis discovered by Volta in 1800 and communicated to the Royal Society in London (whose President was Joseph Banks the Australian explorer), and would not any student of science explain that bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen are exactly what would be expected. The difference (according to the inventor) was that the generator was there merely to provide an oscillating electric field and that the process was not electrolysis but resonance. Springs resonate, atoms in molecules resonate, so it was argued that by hitting just the right frequency the hydrogen atoms and oxygen atom in water will fly apart. The analogy with soldiers walking over a bridge in step causing it to collapse, or the note on the church organ that brings the roof in, was perfect. Why could not a suitably directed electric field do the same with a molecule? To add to the credibility there was a interview with a gent with donnish half-glasses purporting to be the Dean of Engineering at London University who, while clearly trying to hedge his bets, said that there was something in this resonance theory and perhaps it should be taken seriously. The brochure that came from the inventor invited investors to set up their own resonators, while counselling that this opportunity was for the 'financially sophisticated' only. I shall leave you to ponder on the problems of resonance. ( **broken link removed**).
Two hours later a sadder, and I hope wiser, TV man left my office. I knew I had got the message across when he inquired whether the First Law of Thermodynamics did work everywhere. "Yes", I assured him, "it would be a very strange God who suspended the Laws of Physics only in Utah".
Much to my surprise the man and his device reappeared in a New Scientist article in September of that year [1]. Resonance had fallen out of favour, now it was zero point energy. I could not help but write to that magazine pointing out that zero point energy like resonance was a chimera as far as useful work goes.[2]
More woe for science
What astounds me is the sheer gullibility of people, not the least journalists. A few years earlier I had been involved with an Australian invention that claimed to make a new form of hydrogen and oxygen. The front page article in the Sydney Morning Herald [3] blasted Fire from Water .. an inventor's triumph, and started "A cramped workshop at the back of a suburban house in Sydney's west seems an unlikely place to trigger a global energy revolution.". There clearly has been no global energy revolution emanating from a Sydney back yard, but there is a race memory that major problems are being solved, so that when Professor Hibbert turns up offering a more tame discovery, he hears that all this has been done, and why are the taxpayers wasting their money on pompous academics who bag independent seekers of truth.
Some history
These modern day perpetual-motion vendors have a long pedigree that was only mildly disrupted by the statement of the **broken link removed** by Mayer in 1842. Water features large in these efforts.
The energy crisis in 17c England was caused by the lack of mill streams to turn water wheels. Robert Fludd (1574-1637) left a number of illustrations of a device to recirculate the water in an overshot water wheel. In this device the falling water that turned the water wheel provided enough energy to both grind the corn and return the water to the mill race via an Archimedean screw.
Fludd was not a charlatan and neither was the Bishop of Chester who in Mathematical Magick (published in 1648) discussed the use of a magnet to attract a steel ball up an inclined ramp, "which steel as it ascends near to the lodestone may be contrived to fall through some hole in the plane, and so return to the place from whence at first it began to move; and being there the lodestone will again attract it upwards till coming to the hole it will fall down again; and so the motion will be perpetual...". The good Bishop seems to have invented the first executive desk toy, as he proposed no way of exploiting the work done by this recirculating ball.
Whatever the current energy fad, a perpetual motion machine was made to exploit it water, wind, electricity, steam, magnetism [4]. I have always particularly liked the Zimara (1460- ca 1523) self-blowing windmill, in which the rotation of the sails of a windmill work enormous bellows to provide the wind to turn the sails to work the bellows...
**broken link removed** The Bishop of Chester, Bishop Wilkins' demonstration of Magnetic virtues, 1648
The lodestone sits atop the pedestal and the small shot is supposed to race up the inclined plane, then drop through the hole at the top and reappear at the bottom to be carried up again ...
The USA joins the party
The American Patent Office tried to cope with the steady stream of putative perpetual motion devices by issuing the following notice:
"The views of the Patent Office are in accord with those scientists who have investigated the subject and are to the effect that such devices are physical impossibilities. The position of the Office can only be rebutted by a working model. ... The Office hesitates to accept fees from applicants who believe they have discovered Perpetual Motion, and deems it only fair to give such applicants a word of warning that fees cannot be recovered after the case has been considered by the Examiner."One of the great perpetual motion frauds was John Worrel Keely who claimed to invent a generator that turned tap water into high pressure etheric vapour when vibratory energy was applied. The Keely Motor Company raised $5 million from spurious inventions based on a hydro-pneumatic-pulsating-vacu-engine, sympathetic equilibrium, etheric disintegration and even quadrupole negative harmonics. Even when Keely was dropped by his eponymous company he found a rich widow to support him. On his death in 1898 his house in Philadelphia was searched to reveal a labyrinth of pipes that conducted compressed air to power his perpetual motion machines. The New York Journal ran a banner headline in January 1899: Keely the Monumental Fraud of the Century.
Advice ...
My advice to skeptics when faced with fanatical inventors is to remember the First Law is always right and to cut through the circuitous explanations. Draw a box round the device with one arrow in and one arrow out and invite the inventor to say whether he claims that there is more energy coming out than going in. If he says there is invoke the First Law, if he prevaricates thank him kindly and take your leave. Do not get drawn into arguments about "High Temperature Confined Carbon Plasma Magnetic Mirrors And Electronic Fields In Our Ioffe Bar Carbon Maser X-Ray Chromatic Turnable Particle Accelerator Laser" [5].
The answer
Finally the resonance argument fails because it is upside down. Think of resonance as helping a structure to go where it wants to go -- the bridge into the river or the church roof into the nave. Water is already where hydrogen and oxygen are heading (that is why hydrogen burns in oxygen, the heat is the excess energy after they are turned into water). Just as no amount of organ playing will re-roof the church, resonance, without all that energy, will not disassemble water.
**broken link removed**
The most stable states of bridges, and hydrogen and oxygen.
The collapsed bridge and the water molecules are both at a minimum energy.
References
[1] New Scientist, Just Turn on the Tap to Fill up the Tank? 18th September 1993, p20.
[2] New Scientist, 30th October,1993, p49
[3] Sydney Morning Herald, 13th September, 1988
[4] A.W.J.G. Ord-Hume, Perpetual Motion : The History of an Obsession, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1979.
[5] Noel Henry Wilson, Sydney, 1992
**broken link removed**
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?