Hydroxy gas

Status
Not open for further replies.
i see the most human belive wath they hier or read some wehre in the internet.

water has no resonating frequency by splitting throu current. this is a pure chemicaly process and appers by splitting the H2 molecul from the O2 molecule. So, as mutch Ampere you send throu the water - as mutch splited gas you get. There is no higher efficeny corsed by any pulsing. only one problen is, as chemicaly clean the water is, as high is the resistance of the water. As mutch salt of other is in the water as low is its resistance. but throu the salt or other chemical in the water youre gas is also dusty (not clean any more)

the next problem is , this gas is very explosive and dangerous.
 
Just another magic circuit. All in those special coils.

No chemical reaction or conversion of energy can be 100% efficient. Taking power from the alternator to do some trivial amount of electrolysis and expecting the H2 & O2 produced to give more energy that it took to produce it is not realistic. This has the same chance of working as the cow magnets did in mysteriously "realligning" the gasolene molecules for better combustion.

As retep stated, a mixture of H2 & O2 is dangerously explosive. Assuming you fed a significant quantity into the engine air intake and avoided a fatal explosion, the net result would be to raise the combustion temperature. The computer would lengthen the pulses to the injectors to richen up the mixture and lower combustion temp. Net result is lower mileage.
 

Yes it is Explosive, Followed by an Implosion.
But with a proper Feed to the carb and an inline bubbler, the chance of this happening is next to nothing.

And Adding a Small amount of the H2 and O2, Does increase Gas Mileage. This has been Proven by many persons.

Also it Does NOT Increase the Engine Temperature, it Actually Lowers it. Also Proven.

One Problem on cars with O2 Sensors is the Sensor Can't propery Compensate for the Added O2. But there are devices to help fix this.

However trying to get Large quantities of gas to Eliminate Gasoline completely, Is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE with onboard generation.

Lastly, Doing these Modifications to cars that are used on Public Streets is ILLEGAL in Most countries and cities.
 
Ah yes "proven by many people". The thing is there are literally hundreds of "proven" solutions that are complete bunk. Some are bunk created by manufacturers- intake spinners, fuel magnets, and fuel additives. Others are created by individuals with less clear motivations- a need to be seen as important really. Crackpots. Or peope who are simply mistaken- in fact simply being slightly lighter on the gas pedal, not having passengers, any number of variables can give you a 15% mpg improvement which seems to be a "standard claim" nowadays. There are many charts and stories and sadly after seeing so many that are clearly lying or mistaken I've got to say these are virtually meaningless.

These claims often make no sense to an educated individual. For example, the acetone in fuel- regardless of whether it works or not there was no way the proponents could claim that it aids in the vaporization by reducing the bonds or whatever. They had no way to observe that so they're just speaking out of their asses for an explanation.

In fact the EPA has tested most of these "solutions" and found that, regardless of the number of people swearing by them, they gain you nothing, often decreasing fuel consumption or increasing emissions.

The H2 solution makes little sense. Given the HUGE volume of air a car engine ingests, the lightly fizzing bubbles that bleeding a HP off then engine might produce isn't much. The total loop is that the HP that could have driven the car might create H2 with a 40% efficiency then the engine burns it with 15% efficiency, returning 0.06 HP for everyHP stolen from the engine output. Now if a small amount of H2 somehow changed the chemistry of the combustion to make it burn better that would be great, but the magnitude of the effect would have to be unbelievable because you're talking about a rather small amount of H2 relative to even the fuel mass. I mean, hydrocarbons already contain hydrogen. The engine turns most of it into H2O and CO2. The main reason an engine is inefficient is that the resulting gases have most of their energy in heat which we can't use. All we can use is the additional pressure created when you heat the gases. So how is adding 0.2% H2 going to suddenly change this reaction into something completely different?

And By the Way Nobody Knows what capitalizing Random Words in your sentences is supposed to Mean.
 
Last edited:
Sorry OZNOG, I Don't have an explaination as to why it works.
And I agree that scientifically it does not make any sense.

However I have seen a few of these conversions first hand and with before and after results, properly documented.

Maybe you should try it before you discard it?
Sometimes it pays to think outside the box.

I don't use this system on my vehicle but its already quite cheap to operate, running on Propane here and half the price of gasoline.

I'm done, I have no more comments on this subject.

As to those Capital letters, I like them.
 

As far as I can see all it's doing it making the engine run leaner, thereby using less fuel - which you could do by simply adjusting the mixture!. However, there's sound reasons for the mixture settings to be where they are, so it's probably not a good idea?.
 
On a lot of vehicles- esp older ones- you can get a little bit better mpg by advancing the timing. However this does mean it may ping under certain conditions, also I've heard it can make it fail emissions though I don't know why.

It cracks me up that the acetone people and most of the other guys talk about making the fuel vaporize and mix with the air completely. This mix can be dangerous! In fact the whole point of high octane fuel is to slow down the burn. If fuel is totally mixed it may detonate explosively, which isn't useful for pushing a piston but good for blowing holes in pistons. This would be like running your bike on gunpowder by pointing a gun at the pedal.
 
Ah, Texas - the oil cpmpany state... Just kidding, I know Texas has a lot more going for it besides the the George Bush corperate office.


Anyway, this thread was about a fast method of producing gas. It's a hobby venture, which a vast majority of don't pan out or even get completed in the end. The fun is in the adventure, the building, the dreams of someday... Why kill it over theories. Great thing occasionally come from bending the rules. I personally have numerous projects sitting around, from barely started, to functional - but still need refinement. Few actually get enclosed in a case (only stuff that needs protection outside actually...). Where I grew up, our next door neighbor was building a boat. Over the 15-16 years, it still wasn't ready to sail, and I'm pretty sure the building around it would need to be cut away to get it out (seemed a little tall and wide to fit through the door). But it was always fun listen to the dreams of his planned retirement on that boat.

Hobbies don't have to be practical, profitable, or even save you money over going out and buying something ready made. It's the journey from concept to completion that makes it rewarding. So you finish something, and it doesn't work out as well as you had hoped, oh well. You learned many thing along the way, and several ideas for improvements, or other ways to try next time.
But you can have the satisfaction of knowing you did your best.
 
Hey I'd be a bit curious to see it experimented with for real. There's a possibility that a small H2 addition might make the gasoline burn better, albeit an unlikely one IMHO. Great when Mythbusters does it.

However swearing that it must work because crackpots on the net said it does is not where realistic expectations come from. Nor is it likely the person will be able to take objective measurements of the results and will probably claim 20% gains when nothing at all happened other than driving a bit softer on the pedal. Quacks are like zombies- they surround a person, bite them, next thing you know there's one more zombie walking around moaning "20 percent... 20 percent!!!"
 
When I look at the sum of all the evidence for Stanley Meyers device not just one or two "crackpots on the internet" I find it is just too great to ignore.Especially credible professionals who have witnessed the device, risking their reputations by talking about it on camera.Also university studies and companies who have clamied to have a working device about to be for sale only to later deny it or change applications other than powering a vehicle.Also Mr. Meyers had many US and international patents for his device.And as you may or may not know a patent must proven to work and as described by examination from patent office experts.

Sunday, 17 December 1995,U.K.
The BBC's series: "Equinox"
Episode: "It runs on water"

Download:
**broken link removed**
Stream:
**broken link removed**

(Time 4:27) Professor Paul Czyszrof Aeronautics, St. Lewis University and (Time 12:45)former top NASA scientist
(Time 5:45) Dr. Keith Hindley UK Research consultant

A different method than Mr. Meyers but a professional Unversity study:
"Confirmation of anomalous hydrogen generation by plasma electrolysis":
Hokkaido University,Japan
http://files.myopera.com/H2earth/files/Anomalous%20Hydrogen%20Generation%20by%20Plasma%20Electrolysis%20P3.pdf
"Continuous generation of hydrogen above levels predicted by Faraday’s law is observed when temperature, current density, input voltage and electrode surface meet certain conditions. Although only a few observations of excess hydrogen gas production have been made, production is sometimes 80 times higher than normal Faradic electrolysis gas production."

A large collection of files related to hydrogen production involving many methods.
http://my.opera.com/H2earth/blog/cybrarium

Xogen:http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=584
Now they only talk about wastewater treatment,there are others I can't find all the old links.

If you do a search for Stanley Meyers you will find all the usual information such as:
"An Ohio court found Stanley Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors. The court decided that the centerpiece of the car, his water fuel cell, was a conventional electrolysis device, and he was ordered to repay the investors $25,000.[1]"
But what you won't find is detailed information about the court case.Answers/about.com at one time had this information then removed it.
**broken link removed**

I have worked around caustic soda(KOH) and known it's nasty stuff but you only need tiny amount in water to effect the amperage.Stanley Meyer did not use electrolites in the water.My only theory is that he was on well water but that wouldn't explain the lack of mineral buildup after many uses,I just don't known.

Not very scientific but some interesting information for tinkerers.
**broken link removed**

Image for a minuite if the year was 1943 and you told someone,"On July 20 1969 a man will walk on the moon"Or "I have handheld cordless phone that will allow you to talk to anyone in the world who also has one".Or "I have a handheld device that can store the equivalent the bed of a pickup truck filled with paper, a symphony in high-fidelity sound, An hour of television, The average book found in the Library of Congress (text and images).(1 Gigabyte thumb drive)They would call you crazy.

The four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature:Arthur C. Clarke
a) "It's nonsense,"
b) "It is not important,"
c) "I always said it was a good idea," and
d) "I thought of it first."

“I believe that water will one day be employed as fuel, that hydrogen and oxygen which constitute it, used singly or together, will furnish an inexhaustible source of heat and light, of an intensity of which coal is not capable.” – Jules Verne, The Mysterious Island (1874)
 

By your own admission above, NO ONE has ever been able to show a working device - do you think there might be an obvious reason for that?, like perhaps it doesn't work?.

I don't see how anyone can claim to be a 'credible professional' if a working device doesn't exist?.

Also Mr. Meyers had many US and international patents for his device.And as you may or may not know a patent must proven to work and as described by examination from patent office experts.
Click to expand...

There are huges numbers of patents issued for devices that don't work, including thousands of 'perpetual motion machines', of which this is just another type!.

If you think it works, then by all means go ahead and build one - if you can do so you will be VERY rich - but more likely the only way to get rich from it is to scam investors like everyone else does!.
 
Hello ,

I'm a new member on this forum.

I've bought 2 tubes of Stainless steel , one of 2,5cm & one of 1,8cm.
(1 inch = 2,54 cm) to make a H²0 reactor, I use tap water only (or rain.)
BEWARE: Stainless steel is very very expensive.Check that before buying.

I use T316L stainless steel.

I plan to built myself AN OTHER similar electronic circuit with a very high voltage transformer found in an 20" old monitor

The problem is that most of old tellies or monitors used a frequency who is FAR BELOW 42Khz.

The solution to use this Frequency of 42Khz is to use a transformer in
a 17" monitor or more.

Because the characteritics of transformer from 17" monitor ALLOW the use
of 42Khz. Forget all small monitor from 14",15".

The reason is that the 17" monitor uses interlaced lines , the more the screen is bigger , the more the oscillator requires highest frequency for scanning
and the transformer must fit many scales of frequencies according the choosen definition.


I do that in my flat with all the windows opened , what is strange is the rods
become white when they are dried.Like a powder around them !!!

As Stanley Meyer said , the voltage is important , and using a strong current
is a mistake.
Using a pulsed high voltage and a very weak current is the solution.

Respecting all Stanley Meyer's parameters is the key for our solution.

Excuse my english.

François.
 

I don't think computer monitors use interlacing?, it would be a serious step backwards. The line frequency is determined by the resolution used, essentially the higher the resolution, the higher the frequency needs to be.

Even a small monitor should be able to do 42KHz - but a 17 inch one is probably more powerful?.
 
firewater said:
And as you may or may not know a patent must proven to work and as described by examination from patent office experts.
Click to expand...

You can Believe in Anything you want.

Patent Office Experts Know Nothing about the actual design. Nor do they actually attempt to Build any Patent to Prove the Patent Works as described.

They just deal in Reading a bunch of Legal Descriptions (Crap), that has been written by Patent Lawyers.

I Am a Patent Holder and Believe me, the Patent Process is CRAP.

You CAN Patent Anything.
You can even Re-Patent something that has a Previos Patent on it.

** You just need a good Patent Lawyer and Lots of Money.
 
To restate Nigel's point in a more blunt American way: Put up or shut up.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount gibberish and convoluted illogic that is spoken about something that has been never shown to work. What is wrong with that picture??
 
François you should go https://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=de05bf5e3dcee56013f5bd9ed3d7399a
Or Overunity.com where there are detailed discussions by long time experimenters especially Bob Boyce, he has experience in the method your using.Good luck, like myself you ignore the perpetual skeptics.

No, I don't belive the reason that no one has ever been able to show a working device is because it doesn't work.I believe it is a very complicated process or people are making more complicated than need be and there's a lot of incorrect / disinformation out there.
There are many reasons, look to the video on YouTube, how the scientists talks about it being Taboo, you need money for research and if you apply and say what it's for you'll be laughed at.It's obvious that there are incredible amounts of money at stake here.Companies and goverments would stop at nothing to protect.Look at all the corporate crime in recent years like Enron.If your a oil cartel making billions a year and suddenly there's a device that will allmost wipe wipe your profits what would you do?
 
Last edited:
firewater said:
If your a oil cartel making billions a year and suddenly there's a device that will allmost wipe wipe your profits what would you do?
Click to expand...

You buy it up and make billions from that technology, and continue selling your oil for plastics production.

The oil companies spend massive amounts per year on alternative technology, they are far more aware than us that oil is a limited resource, they want something ready to replace it, that THEY can continue to make money on!.

But I see that now the excuse has gone to "we need lots of money from investors" - you mean we want to get rich ripping investors off! - there aren't enough stupid investors (hopefully!).
 

I think you are correct that the oil companies will continue to profit well, regardless of what alternative fuels come about. Petroleum has a lot of other uses besides as fuel. The other point is being able to profit on the technology. It would be very difficult to profit on water as a fuel (although surprising how many people will spend a dollar for a bottle of water, when filtered tap water is only a few feet away, and free...). Tesla's wireless power project was killed mid-construction, when the principal invester learned he couldn't control, regulate, or bill the end user. I think any power producing industry, not just oil, would have an interest in squashing technology that the average Joe could throw together in a few weekends. It's not good for anybody's business. I wonder what percentage of my electric bill is cost, and what is profit. Got a hunch the profit side is much higher.
 
White film on tubes

Francois,the white on the tubes you are talking about is a good thing and has been seen by many working with WFC's (water fuel cells).
It happens when the cell has been run enough to "condition" the metal tubes.
It's also been observed in the Joe cell.

"It should be noted that shiny new stainless steel is not suitable for use as an electrode in any form of electrolysis.This can be seen in the joe cell construction were the steel cylinders need to be conditioned through repeated short periods electrolysis,The same applies to flat electrolysers where Bob(Boyce) points out that no serious volumes of gas will be produced until untill the stainless stel plates have recieved a white coating by leaving them to sit unsed in the solution of Potassium Hydroxide for a few days.The same applies to this replication of Stanley Meyers electrolysis unit."

NOTE: This is being updated, the orginal design inadvertidly left out an inductor.
http://files.myopera.com/H2earth/files/WFC%202006%20Replication%20Design.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

PWM - browns gas generator
6 7 8
Replies
143
Views
66K
Thunderchild
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…