Such nice work usually lacks explanation in simple words.
Am I undertanding correctly that the idea here is to efficiently break up the water using a katalyst, running a car on the Hydrogen combustion, AND generating sufficient electricity to do it all over again?
This would oppose the gas station variety where some form of compressed hydrogen is tanked. It would just tank water and do all the splitting itself.
Hope I am guessing this right

By offering in-detail info only, the masses are not oing to understand the big picture. Cool, so you're splitting hydrogen, big deal, we did that at school.

Sorry if this came across too negatively. I've determinded that reading up on FE option is a 500% efficient time burning exersize.

Yes, that's exactly right - the car runs on hydroxy gas (HHO) generated from water alone to power the car.

You might wonder if this really could be the case that with not much more than 5LPM HHO we can run a vehicle. Let me remind you that FEMA (yes FEMA) put out a detailed document on how to convert internal combustion engines to run on WOOD!

Just imagine with wood chips and a small fire underneath to coax the woodchips into releasing burnable gas was running LARGE FACTORY Equipment!!

Here is the manual:
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming..._generator.pdf

Here is an overview of woodgas:
Wood gas generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW, a lot of people have been tinkering with HHO technology out there but for whatever reason people were consumed with being able to produce extremely large volumes of HHO thinking you need 100 LPM to run a vehicle.

YOU DON'T!!! You only need a small amount, just like with the woodgas.

The bottom line is you just need a small HHO cell (which you can easily construct) a propane conversion kit for the carb, change timing to TDC and add a vaccuum regulator, 1 more alternator and 1 more battery and IT'S DONE!!!! THE CAR WILL BE RUNNING ON WATER ALONE!!

Thank you for your confirmation and elaboration.

Seems that when you want to run solely on water, even using splitting catalysts, you'll be propelling the car at best on the positive efficiency difference between the input (splitter) and output (ordinary combustion engine). And let's not forget generator efficiency in providing electricity running the splitter. Quite a few big efficiency losses there, but if the catalyst improves splitting capacity by like factor 2 or 3, I can surely see the car tanking just clean water.

These hydrogen litres per minute, I suppose, are at ambient pressure? Can't be hard to calculate it's combustion power potential per litre and eventually per second, to multiply with engine efficiency to obtain a kW figure. Then the energy requirement for the splitter would need to be deducted. A larger reservoir (bomb waiting to happen) of hydrogen might allow for short bursts of output power to accomodate car performance when a petrol head in a Porsche lines up with you at the red light.

Can a regular engine at all deal with pure hydrogen operation, however economically dosed compared to regular petrol?

Hy ShamanSaid,

well, you said that we need only few lpm to run car on hho gas?!
I saw in your video, at idle regime, that engine require 4.5-5 lpm.
Did you try under load!?

-D-

You need about 2000 watts or so (without surpassing Faraday calc's) for the hydroxy generation which is easy just by adding an additional alternator and battery this should consume approx. 3hp from the engine no big hit (maybe forward the idle slightly if at all).

Note this is not pure hydrogen but hydroxy which is reported to be 6x more powerful than the gas of gasoline and it is more powerful than hydrogen alone. So we don't need much, just like with the wood gasifier I posted, you can see a large engine can run from the fumes of the wood chips, so it's no stretch to see we can easily accomplish this by extracting pure combustible hydroxy from plain water.

The best systems, utilize 316L (or 317L) Stainless steel w/KOH (Potassium Hydroxide) as the electrolyte which is not consumed in the process.

Yes, it's been calculated many times but nobody is doing it correct so we'll have to trial and error it a bit. The problem is we are dealing with a more powerful gas so it's hard to say you need the same quantity in the cylinder for the spark / compression it appears you don't. According to the video he also has removed completely the air intake so it is only pure HHO.

I have recommended to him one addition to add a dessicant chamber to dry the gas after the bubbler and prior to entry which should make it burn even easier.

Yes it can, but again we are talking HYDROXY and basically you just need to convert your car to run on propane using the existing kits online with elimination of the air intake.

Here are some kits, including an interesting one I found just now that allows for a highly controlled propane gas injection that is very tunable. I think this should work for HHO no problem:

Propane power kits, propane conversion, small engine propane conversion kits, auto propane conversions - Welcome to Powered By Propane!

Here are some kits to change small electric generators to propane, but should work just fine to convert to HHO (also note they permanently hook up a tachometer to get the timing correct and ensure efficient operation):

Change over any Tecumseh engine to run on propane or natural gas.

Hi, I did not do these videos nor do I personally know or work with these guys but I found the information and it's spot on from the research I've done (a lot of research).

From the videos they are at the point that they have the system working to idle the Geo utilizing another vehicles alternator running next to it. They need to install a second alternator and battery to perfect the system. The second battery can pull the load to generate enough HHO to start the vehicle from the first battery. After that it should largely self regulate, as you accelerate the RPMS go up along with the power generated but they are talking about perhaps some PWM or other stuff to make it a bit more smooth.

The bottom line though is this works, I'm converting some electric generators to start and will move to vehicles after.

Thanks some more!

A quick search learned me that hydrogy translates to (my) Dutch as "knalgas" (bang gas) which I did remember. I of course observed hydroxy bangs in school classes, but remembered it to be less powerful than H and O2 seperately. Beats me why, if indeed more powerful, the Hoffmann aparatus would be used to first separate the H and O2 before burning the one rushed by the other.

So how much more easy is a catalyzed water to be converted into hydroxy compared to plain water? I suppose as the catalyst us taken out, the energy BACK is that released by hydroxy being turned into water.
A significant difference from the catalyst, and some efficient processes, and we've got a self runner.

If it would cost 3 horsepower to run this splitter, I wonder what the engine does with this hydrogy low. Less than 10hp and I fear we're pushing it to do more than idle the engine.

Quick calc, with the climate in my country, and a good rainwater collection system on the car's bodywork, would nett me hardly ever opening fuel cap. 7M2 surface for a car, getting most of its rain when outside at night, 80cm worth each year. 5.5 tons of fuel. As long as I don't drive too much between rain showers, it's lazy cruising!

I like the idea to self-brew rather than tank BP hydrogen. Having so much of it on board scares me.

For the gas to explode the Oxygen is needed, when you break the water you get 2 parts Oxygen to 1 part Hydrogen that's why Hydroxy is more powerful than Hydrogen alone. When you put the hydrogen in normal air you get a lot of nitrogen and other stuff but only around 20% Oxygen in the Hydroxy we have around 66% Oxygen.

You can use a Hoffman to take them separately off the electrodes but it's not necessary for combusting we leave it together. But if you did split it off with a Hoffman (or you can pass it through an electromagnetic splitter too) then you can pump some oxygen into your passenger compartment while you fill up your blimp with the hydrogen. =)

It seems you are thinking of chemical processes, this method has no consumed catalyst there is only the electricity and an electrolyte that does not get consumed.


It's on-demand system so when going slow there is not much need for Hydroxy so the system needn't draw much power.

Hehe, yea you could put a rain catchment or perhaps take something the windshield (and/or wipers) to collect into a water basin.. =)

You're right stored Hydrogen is bulky, expensive and somewhat dangerous, much better to generate it on the fly.

>It seems you are thinking of chemical processes, this method has no
>consumed catalyst there is only the electricity and an electrolyte that does
>not get consumed.
I realize this.
My question is, whether the energy IN to product hydroxy (thanks to the non-used up catalyst) is really significantly greater than energy produced when combusting the hydroxy.
Else, secundary or even primary other energy inputs are required to power the splitter, and the car doesn't solely run on water.

Hydroxy is nice to have on-demand, but what does it cost, and what punch does it pack? How many HP do we get from this 5 litres per minutes? We'll subtract 3 for the splitter and have a figure to work with for the useful engine power.

DD is scetchy at best

Daniel Dingle has a somewhat unreliable record. Since there is a mention of gas other than HHO gas as fuel here I am skeptical at best of this being reliable information...
There is however hope to the value of both natural gas and propane gas in connection with Hydrogen fuel as a good mix for alternates to oil
This is part of the solution to our current energy problem

Both propane and natural gas are fossil fuels. the only benefit you get from them is a cleaner combustion. We do not have an energy problem we have a political problem. Our government here in the US is buying stock in GM. Then here comes a cash for clunkers deal. Next is emissions testing in all 50 states. Cleans does not mean sustainable. There is a company out there working on a trash to liquid fuel processor. It produces a hydrogen rich gas that can be chemically converted to any hydrocarbon based fuel.

not really "Stan Meyer - style"

Hi Shamansaid.
I can appreciate the work done here, and admittedly have not watched every video, only the first one. Believe me i am not out to discredit this work. However, i have a very genuine feeling that Stan Meyer is rolling over in his grave to have his namesake attached to the process by which HHO is being created in the first video at least.
I believe that Stan Meyer utilized a cool negative ion potential charge to generate his hydroxy gas through the use of bifilar chokes, in the lab, and a very different apparatus that fracturized water to HHO gas very near to the point of implosion in the cylindar of the motor of his vehicle models.
In either case he did not need high levels of current input. I'm talking about .5 amps at 24 volts. 12 watts of input. He would do this generating ZERO temperature gain in the water similarly to how radiant energy is used to apply a potential charge to a battery with no heat being generated between the cathode and electrode of the battery. In a battery negative ions will cause sulfation to fall off of the plates inside. When powering an HHO cell (when switching between positive and negative ion input) you will no longer see the brown build up that is idicative of high levels of current with positive ions beating upon the plates of the electrolizer. I equate the brown build up in a electrolizer to the sulfation in a battery.
My concern for this design is for its loss in efficiency with running time, as well as a cascading issue with regard to potential temperature increases inside the cell and cooling chamber. Long journeys might not be possible.
I hope i haven't spoken in error about the methods utilized in these videos, i have only observed the high level of current being used to make my observations.


Heres a video where Stan talks a bit about his process. ( poor bandwidth here might need to let preload and come back to watch)

Still nice video and an operational vehicle so cheers!

No offense, but who really cares about what Stanley Meyer's opinion is?

Not me, I studied his techniques and I believe he was doing a jack of all trades master of none thing out trying novelize the expired patents to make $$$..

Same deal with Dingle, I only put these guys names on here because they are familiar to those looking to run their car on water. Once again, in case you didn't read this whole thread, I am not affiliated with advancedtecheng - I'm a researcher/inventor myself and I'm in the process of converting some electric generators to water.

If you want to fracture water at low amps you do it ultrasonically, you can buy the Mist Maker for like $30 at an aquarium shop. Very low amp and will mistify the water to a fog.

His tube chambers probably worked like crap (on the ultrasonic side) because of the low nickel amount in the steel, which is the only real magneto-constrictor in the mix of S/S. So he had a very lame ultrasonic action with his electrolysis. Later you see he moved to the water sparkplug, he did this most likely because he realize that you can't light the fog on fire, so he went to plasma arc but also there he now had ceramic element which is indeed a good magneto-constrictor so he thought he hit the jackpot.

If you are technical and want to do the water fracturing right, realize that water molecule is around ~2nm in size, to make it dance till it disappears you'll need high frequency (multi-frequencies) like Puharich and Meyers knew, read this: United States Patent: 2907648

I simply was making a recommendation Shamansaid. I'm not telling you your wrong. I'm only saying that there is a better way if you would consider it.
Let me ask you a couple of questions then. Wouldn't you prefer that there be no heat generated in your electrolizer. Wouldn't you prefer to not have the color "brown" associated with the water inside of it? Wouldn't you rather use less than 10% of the current input illustrated in the first video of your post?
I've done the experiments both ways and have observed some obvious advantages that your missing out on. If your not interested that is totally fine as well.
Sorry if i seem condecending here as it is not my intent.