Hydrogen On Demand

[Kerry Phillips]

[quote=Jackstand Queen;365408]DO The MATH!
On each revolution two cylinders are firing. So divide the RPM by 2 and you get 1750 compression/firing strokes per minute TIMES .8 liter (@.4 liter per cylinder). Now multiply the 1750 times the volume of two cylinders (.8 liter)and you get 1400 liters of air being pumped into the motor each minute.

Here is the flaw

Okay you have overlooked the volumetric efficiency. Your math assumes that the cylinder will fill to 100% its capacity. Remember the THROTTLE acts as a restrictor, in simple terms, half throttle, cylinder is half full.

In addition to the throttle, the RPM effect volumetric efficiency, as well as the TVIS system.

At cruising speed, the engine only needs to produce about 20 horsepower!

Now about producing Hydrogen, the covalent bond between the H and O is so strong, that it takes more energy to separate them then what burning hydrogen produces. I also agree with your concept, introducing a very SMALL percentage of hydrogen is NOt going have a BIG effect.


Another fact overlooked.... Air is a mixture of different gasses, but mostly 21% oxygen which supports combustion and 78% of inert nitrogen. By introducing hydrogen, you are reducing the percentage of Oxygen!!!!

I suspect that if MPG increases are for real it is because of two reasons, 1 by reducing the Oxygen % you are de-tuning your engine for less power and or because your engine is operating more efficient due to much higher exhaust emissions.

[seanfromnh]

Its true that it requires more energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen but in contrast an alternator works backwords...( almost defies physics...) an alternator can produce a massive amount of energy/amperage with very little usage of energy- makes up for the lack/excess use of electrolysis and hydrogen..

I think most people are thinking that some of us are just burning the hydrogen... In fact, (like what i tried) i still kept the normal air intake, i just replaced the gasoline with Hydrogen and Oxygen(HHO gas from electrolysis)...

I did a little math too... with air being 21%oxygen and 78% inert nitrogen the percentage of oxygen would increase... not only simply because you are also adding more to it (HHO= a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen...) but gasoline (i dont think) has free oxygen... HHO does... the proper ratio fuel/air is 14.7/1 i believe.... with that in mind... WITH HHO, 73% of the chamber is inert nitrogen, 4 2/3% is Hydrogen, 20% is oxygen from the air and another 2 1/3% oxygen from the gas... Theoretically, and even in numbers it is definately possible... all we need is someone to take it to the next step...

One man already did... im not sure if youve all heard about Stan Meyers but he successfully ran his car 100% of water- no gasoline...
heres a link to a couple vids... id check em out...
Stanley Meyer

[U-235]

I've never been a big fan of the electrolysis in cars thing, honestly because I've never seen anything that I thought was conclusive enough to show that it even remotely works, ceterus paribus.

My biggest issue with it is that you are NOT going to get enough hydrogen or oxygen in any combination out of such a small, car mounted tank of water to effectively do anything in a chemical sense- remember, in (for example) a 2.0l engine (assuming 100% volumetric efficiency) you are moving 2.0l of air PER REVOLUTION through the intake. That's several thousand litres of atmosphere every minute and I'm not going to be simply convinced that a handful of oxygen or hydrogen atoms from a bucket of water in your trunk is going to have any noticeable, practical impact on that.

Notwithstanding this, some people actually do get extra MPG with these setups, but as Kerry Phillips said earlier in the thread I'd be more inclined to believe this is a result of the setup doing something that makes the engine computer freak a bit. I guess the ultimate test in this case would be to test it on a carburated vehicle with no engine computer.

Not trying to be a buzz kill or anything but that's my perspective.

Originally Posted by seanfromnh

Its true that it requires more energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen but in contrast an alternator works backwords...( almost defies physics...) an alternator can produce a massive amount of energy/amperage with very little usage of energy- makes up for the lack/excess use of electrolysis and hydrogen..

Eh, no. This stood out to me because I was just working a problem involving dual alternators...

As far as usable power is concerned, you get remarkably little out of an alternator because most of the power that goes into turning it is lost to heat from normal mechanical friction and magnetic friction caused by the eddy currents due to operation.

[Jackstand Queen]

The Bottom Line is . . . . will having this environmentally correct system in your car . . . . get you laid by that . . . . . vegetarian, hemp clothed, hairy arm-pitted, . . . global warming protesting . . CHICK?

Take it from a butterfly who has tasted many flowers . . . its not worth it.

[Kerry Phillips]

Sounds like the National Enquirer to me. I suspect he has Elvis working with him and Amelia Airhart flying him around....

I recently read an article in a reputable magazine claiming cars can and will get up to 300mpg of gasoline. This is 100% true, a car will travel 300 miles on a gallon of gas, but their math/thinking was unique.

This 300mpg was on a plug in hybrid using E85 fuel. The 300 miles consumed several KWH of electricy and gallons of ethanol, but sure enough only a single gallon of gasoline! LOL


How many of these tinkerers make the same oversights. Change of driving techniques, other modifications-like tune-ups, tire air pressure, monitor engine performance and emissions...

[1stgen]

Hydrogen Fuel Tanks Made from Chicken Feathers Could Save $5.5 Million : CleanTechnica

[U-235]

Originally Posted by kerry Phillips

Sounds like the National Enquirer to me. I suspect he has Elvis working with him and Amelia Airhart flying him around....

I recently read an article in a reputable magazine claiming cars can and will get up to 300mpg of gasoline. This is 100% true, a car will travel 300 miles on a gallon of gas, but their math/thinking was unique.

This 300mpg was on a plug in hybrid using E85 fuel. The 300 miles consumed several KWH of electricy and gallons of ethanol, but sure enough only a single gallon of gasoline! LOL


How many of these tinkerers make the same oversights. Change of driving techniques, other modifications-like tune-ups, tire air pressure, monitor engine performance and emissions...

Haha, that's awesome!

However, there are many practical technologies to gaining a few extra miles. I tried like hell to find a link for this and couldn't, but some while ago two independent research groups from two different universities discovered that by passing a small electrical current at a certain frequency through the gasoline between the pump and injectors, that the surface tension of the fuel would increase resulting in higher vapor pressure and better atomization by the injectors.

Albeit this was done in a lab setting and details weren't provided about the engines they were doing this for, they got something like 15% better mileage with the new setup depending on application.

[seanfromnh]

[quote=U-235;467993
My biggest issue with it is that you are NOT going to get enough hydrogen or oxygen in any combination out of such a small, car mounted tank of water to effectively do anything in a chemical sense- remember, in (for example) a 2.0l engine (assuming 100% volumetric efficiency) you are moving 2.0l of air PER REVOLUTION through the intake. That's several thousand litres of atmosphere every minute and I'm not going to be simply convinced that a handful of oxygen or hydrogen atoms from a bucket of water in your trunk is going to have any noticeable, practical impact on that.
[/QUOTE]

Your right in your numbers but its the fuel thats missing... The air doesn't get swapped with the hydrogen-just the gasoline does.... so instead with that 2.0L your only using about .13L of gas per stroke... at 1,000 rpm thats about 130L/min.... thats alot but not too bad (in my opinion) to make it work a 1.0 turbo charged 3 putter would perform normal and make it alot more achievable....

in my setup i only had three sandwich containers with a gallon and a half of water- pretty easy to hide- i only used 5 amps of power and i made this pretty quickly in my basement.... i made about 10 L/min with my little setup... bump it up to 20 amps and you've got 40 L/min! (i only have three cells) with 10 cells you'll get about 130 L/min- enough for that 2.0 in your MR2!! thats also only five gallons of water which doesn't take up much space at all....

just youtube some videos of it and definately research stan meyers... theres some interesting stuff out there with resonant frequencies and whatnot...

[seanfromnh]

i actually should correct my math.... I said at 1,000 rpms the car used 130 L/min... but i forgot that the cylinders work separately.... its actually half that... so the cells would only need to produce about 75 L/min... and by following my math from above, one could see that its definately possible...

[Kerry Phillips]

20 amps at 13.8 volts= 276 Watts, figuring 50% efficiency at the alternator, about 550 watts. 746 watts=1 horsepower.


Now one horsepower sure does not sound like much, BUT.........

At 50mph our MK1 only take about 10-12 Horsepower, that is it. So this contraption will increase the power demand by almost 10%

5 gallons of water weigh about 42 pounds, plus the other hardware. Have U travelled in a MK1 lately? With a passenger? Where are you going to put a five gallon bucket at?


If U really want to travel on the cheap, IMHO do a tdi diesel conversion and make your own biodiesel.

[seanfromnh]

well, 5 gallons can fit in the rear trunk nicely, or since you wont be needing that gas tank, theres a whole bunch of space there.. also to make extra power, a turbo and a second alternator is always fun... works nicely too... And since HHO is a waay better fuel (burns 99.9%- could say 100% but you know...) The motor itself will be more efficient- more horsepower... And also, those worrying about the price of distilled water going up instead... (just a fun-fact..) when HHO is burned, it simply turns right back into water... so if your MK1 is running off purely HHO, you can put your exhaust right back into the "fuel" tanks so youll never even have to fill up!! or if your like me and love the sound of your car.. a small dehumidifier on the front would be pretty sweet... then you can dangle a cup off your exhaust and get a drink if your thirsty... lol

Im not sure why theres a big problem with coming up with the extra electricity required for the electrolysis cells... I know plenty of people with sound systems that require more.... or just think about limousines, 6 tvs, surround sound, laser lights, fog machines, lights, microwaves, fridges etc. or look at some of the hybrids out there- they gain the electricity to power that massive electric motot just by hitting the brakes! Its not too hard too get alot of power from your motor... after all, even the modern day engine isn't even 30% efficient, which means theres ALOT of extra energy there to use...using the HHO that same motor is about 80-90% efficient. these are true facts, im not just blowing smoke here... im just trying to get people to look at it differently.
The only way to know is to test it yourself... math isn't always the answer, sometimes you just have to experiment...

[U-235]

Originally Posted by seanfromnh

Your right in your numbers but its the fuel thats missing... The air doesn't get swapped with the hydrogen-just the gasoline does.... so instead with that 2.0L your only using about .13L of gas per stroke... at 1,000 rpm thats about 130L/min.... thats alot but not too bad (in my opinion) to make it work a 1.0 turbo charged 3 putter would perform normal and make it alot more achievable....

in my setup i only had three sandwich containers with a gallon and a half of water- pretty easy to hide- i only used 5 amps of power and i made this pretty quickly in my basement.... i made about 10 L/min with my little setup... bump it up to 20 amps and you've got 40 L/min! (i only have three cells) with 10 cells you'll get about 130 L/min- enough for that 2.0 in your MR2!! thats also only five gallons of water which doesn't take up much space at all....

just youtube some videos of it and definately research stan meyers... theres some interesting stuff out there with resonant frequencies and whatnot...

So somehow, hydrogen coming in through the intake is having a profound effect on the engine computer causing it to yield petrol flow to the injectors? I don't buy it.

Furthermore, burning hydrogen in the cylinder still puts off significantly less energy per mass than would gasoline. Other than being simple chemistry, this was PROVEN ON THE ROAD with the BMW Hydrogen-7 vehicle.

Even the reaction that converts HHO to H2O puts off less energy.

I'm also assuming that you're creating these litres of hydrogen at standard temperature and pressure (STP). Given that 1 litre of petrol at STP is WAY different than 1 litre of hydrogen at STP on the mass scale and you factor in the inherent lower energy density of the hydrogen... There is just no way it's adding any appreciable amount of power or efficiency to your car.

If adding jar-fulls of gaseous hydrogen would remotely meet the needs of the engine, the boys at R&D wouldn't be spending nearly as much time or money trying to create a compressed hydrogen storage tank for automotive use.

Moreover, this is also a simple violation of the law of conservation of energy. If you are convinced that the alternator, using x amount of power and electrolyzing y amount of water to produce z amount of hydrogen and then combusted in that engine is going to have a net energy benefit larger (or even CLOSE to, considering substantial heat loss) than x, then you need to be talking to those Nobel guys.

More bad news? Check out Popular Mechanics on the subject.

It's simply bad science. If you wanted to do better to convince me otherwise, then run your car on pee, the conversion is simpler.

I'm just trying to say- I'm not knocking the idea because I'm a hard-headed neigh sayer. I'm knocking it because I haven't seen a shred of science that actually supports it working in the method that it is claimed to be working. All science is pointing in the other direction.

Originally Posted by seanfromnh

Im not sure why theres a big problem with coming up with the extra electricity required for the electrolysis cells... I know plenty of people with sound systems that require more.... or just think about limousines, 6 tvs, surround sound, laser lights, fog machines, lights, microwaves, fridges etc. or look at some of the hybrids out there- they gain the electricity to power that massive electric motot just by hitting the brakes! Its not too hard too get alot of power from your motor... after all, even the modern day engine isn't even 30% efficient, which means theres ALOT of extra energy there to use...using the HHO that same motor is about 80-90% efficient. these are true facts, im not just blowing smoke here... im just trying to get people to look at it differently.
The only way to know is to test it yourself... math isn't always the answer, sometimes you just have to experiment...

The problem exists as I said before in the law of conservation of energy, but I'll humor you for a minute.

All of those gizmos sap more juice from the alternator which in turn forces the engine to run harder and impacts fuel economy. Limos, people with insane in-car-entertainment, etc., run high output alternators which ALSO sap more power, in addition to extra batteries to feed those amps.

Alternators are do not just spin faster and faster and put out an infinite amount of power based on how fast you can turn it. They lose efficiency due to heat, internal resistance + inductive reactance in addition to magnetic braking caused by eddy current formation. It will get to a point where it will spin faster, but it will not produce any more electricity- only heat.

Hybrids use regenerative braking to make up some of the energy wasted by having to use the brakes. And when the batteries need more power? It's time to fire up that engine and let it rev higher to charge those batteries (and for this reason is why the mkI Insight for example only used a 1.3l engine- to minimize fuel use at added RPMs to recharge the battery).

Also, you're misinterpreting the engine being "only 30% efficient." What that means is that only 30% of the energy put off from the engine is used to power the electronics and move the car. That other ~70% is GIVEN OFF AS HEAT which you ARE NOT going to harvest through electrolysis.

And your "true facts" are blatant lies, guy. Hate to break it to you, but you either ARE blowing smoke or someone, somewhere, sometime has absolutely and profoundly misled you.

[U-235]

Originally Posted by kerry Phillips

If U really want to travel on the cheap, IMHO do a tdi diesel conversion and make your own biodiesel.

Or any diesel conversion and run it on vegetable oil- it's actually cheaper and safer than trying to make your own brew.

[seanfromnh]

I understand what your saying but i do know that with gasoline you might be pumping in a certain amount of fuel( amount of energy) but gas engines are actually very inefficient in burning all that gas. that means the engine requires less than it "uses"- the rest is burned up in the cat...
I know, I know.... the science laws.... ive heard it a million times... Im not trying to change the laws, im just saying that the numbers we all know and love that deal with how our gas motors work in comparison to HHO is wrong... When i said just throw in some extra alternators i just meant it as a simple reply to demonstrate what i meant... In reality, that much power isn't even needed... to get really into the science of this stuff, water has a resonant frequency that some people have toyed with.... the hydrogen and oxygen bond breaks apart much easier and very little electricity is required...

"So somehow, hydrogen coming in through the intake is having a profound effect on the engine computer causing it to yield petrol flow to the injectors? I don't buy it."

Well, actually it doesn't have anything to do with the computer... like i said earlier, gas engines don't burn all the fuel- (hydrogen is explosive and all is burned if ignited) so adding the hydrogen would make for a more complete/efficient burn- reducing your fuel/air ratio would cause a dramatic loss in fuel consumption, but then again so would takking your foot off the skinny pedal... lol.
I also dont look too much at the "hybrid" of gas/HHO. I was more-so talking about if was a complete water-burning car. With the right setup its possible but not many people have done it successfully nor have many at all tried...
I've been playing around with this stuff a little and using only 5amps-13.6 volts I got about 9-10 liters of HHO/min. Since hydrogen takes up about 35 times as much space (btu wise) as gasoline my numbers are insignificant... BUT it is also much more combustible (about 3.5 times more btu wise) and when you factor in the added power (btu)/ introduction of extra oxygen/ efficiency of the burn its about five times that... so... im making (hypathetically) a little more than 1.4 L/Min of equivalent gasoline... Yes the fuel still takes up more space but thats what i was talking about in previous posts with a turbo... a small one for fuel input would work...
Anyways... 1.4L/min of gas equivalent fuel... well, thats a long way from the 75 i mentioned earlier but there are obviously other factors i missed... I know this because my lawn mower uses more fuel im sure but it ran ok off my cells for about two minutes and slowly puttered down/ cells started losing power- (was hooked up to my cavaliers battery... Damn things have the smallest batteries...) So, it is possible to do as I as well as others have proved, it just needs to be done on a larger scale... For those who still have doubt, i strongly suggest looking into the work of stanley meyers who ran his buggy off his HHO cells honestly. He has hundreds of patents, a one-BILLION dollar offer for his idea and his unfortunate death a week later to prove it... Just go to this website (it explains alot about Stan) or just do some you-tubing and stuff... best of all, experiment a little. The numbers NEVER match up and seem possible until you try it... trust me!
just click on the link>>>>
Stanley Meyer

[U-235]

The inefficiency of an internal combustion engine isn't a result of the fuel it uses, it's a result of the factors surrounding the combustion of that fuel (compression, port/direct injection, atomization, timing, mechanical loss, etc.). The fuel used determines the power output of that conversion, and the two are not one in the same- otherwise we'd have replaced petrol with ethanol by now.

And I'm curious to know what these "number that lie" about our motors- stoichiometry doesn't lie.

And your chemistry is ALL WRONG. Adding hydrogen will NOT make the non-expended fuel burn more completely, because gasoline reacts with OXYGEN, not HYDROGEN to produce CO2 and water. Like I said above. There are many, many factors surrounding the efficiency of the burn of a fuel in an engine.

Now, let's move away from this for a moment, because I was focusing the bulk of my discussion on the use of hydrogen as a fuel in a self-contained, self sustained reactor, and not HHO.

HHO is no new news. Oxyhydrogen has been around for over almost 200 years now as the original hi-temp welding gas. And admittedly, it does have an impressive power output. However, you're talking about using a battery to start this reaction, to produce enough HHO to sustain several thousand RPMs in an engine that due to mechanical power transfer is only 30-40% efficient, which then has to convert that power back to electricity to electrolyze more water? I would believe it if it wasn't for one gigantic, glaring, flaw: the thing that makes burning HHO efficient is that it is a self-sustaining reaction post initial ignition and in welding there is no mechanical transfer. Due to the power cycle of an engine being interrupted by design in addition to a ton of mechanical transfer it'll never work.

You can also stop linking this Stanley Meyer guy. I don't like attacking people directly because I prefer numbers\results to stand over the credentials of any person. The claims of his fuel cell technology were ruled fraudulent by an Ohio superior court after investigating his car and he was forced to repay all investors when the products he provided them with also failed to deliver as claimed. His efforts failed miserably.

This man, and his technology has been debunked in every way scientific and legal, but somewhere some conspiracy theorist decided to keep the myth alive.

[Kerry Phillips]

One of the reasons our car engine's efficiency is relatively low....Is a lot of the power is being totally wasted in the form of heat. Not only are we failing to capitalize from this heat generation, we are taking some mechanical power to engergize the waterpump to get rid of this excessive heat.

If U want to increase this efficiency, I suggest U figure out a way to use this surplus heat.

Back to hydrogen. Again this is just theory/speculation on my behalf....

IF U could produce a large quantity of hydrogen and introduce this gas into the intake manifold, and reduce the fuel injectors output to compensate for the added fuel, U might get a small reduction in fuel consumptions. Now how would this effect exhaust emissions? And again U would be displacing some air for the added hydrogen, so the "air" going into the engine would have lower oxygen content, would be less able to support combustion, so U would have to reduce your incoming fuel slightly to compensate, again reducing engine output. To compensate for this air being slightly degraded, U could simply add more of it-now we are talking about forced induction, a turbocharger. Now we are talking about a massive increase in the complexity of operation, huge increase in hardware costs, the mass and space required by all of this, and at best, a slight increase if any.

Now lets take a quick look at Hybrid technology.

The economic payoff is still questionable.

Also the only real benefit is in city driving where engine idling unnecessarily has been eliminated and some of the energy is recaptured in regenerative braking. BUT and this is a big BUT.

How much increase in MPG is due to Hybrid technology and how much due to conventional technology and hardware?
Here is what I mean. The hybrid cars tend to be lighter, more aerodynamic, lower performance/rolling resistance tires, and slower acceleration.

If the original Honda Insight was stripped of its hybrid hardware, it would be lighter, cheaper, and its HWY mpg might actually improve-slightly while its city MPG would drop.
Kerry

[seanfromnh]

hmmm... though i still have my beliefs, i understand what your saying...
I do have one point though, if alot of the energy produced/used from a gas engine is lost through heat then wouldn't using HHO be an improvement? It has been proven that when burned together (obviously it just makes water again) that the container (cylinder or a welding torch) remains relatively cool/ or at least a lot less hot compared to gas... I remember doing this in my science class in high school....
So, wouldn't that make the engines energy consumption lower and make it more efficient? And im curious about the electronic frequencies and added potassium hydroxide- im wondering if these were factored into the original theory that in electrolysis it requires more energy to break the bond than the hydrogen can provide... and why does everyone forget about poor little oxygen?? Theres extra energy in him that doesn't get mentioned?... And im also curious as to why i can make my lawn mower run (granted it wasn't a complete setup) but i can't just make what i made a little larger and put it in a car? whats the difference?
Im not trying to be difficult... just trying to answer my own questions (which you are doing ) and try to enlighten others...

[U-235]

Originally Posted by seanfromnh

hmmm... though i still have my beliefs, i understand what your saying...
I do have one point though, if alot of the energy produced/used from a gas engine is lost through heat then wouldn't using HHO be an improvement? It has been proven that when burned together (obviously it just makes water again) that the container (cylinder or a welding torch) remains relatively cool/ or at least a lot less hot compared to gas... I remember doing this in my science class in high school....
So, wouldn't that make the engines energy consumption lower and make it more efficient? And im curious about the electronic frequencies and added potassium hydroxide- im wondering if these were factored into the original theory that in electrolysis it requires more energy to break the bond than the hydrogen can provide... and why does everyone forget about poor little oxygen?? Theres extra energy in him that doesn't get mentioned?... And im also curious as to why i can make my lawn mower run (granted it wasn't a complete setup) but i can't just make what i made a little larger and put it in a car? whats the difference?
Im not trying to be difficult... just trying to answer my own questions (which you are doing ) and try to enlighten others...

Actually, running a cooler gas would be less efficient (read: ethanol). The reason for this that our engines work from a rapid expansion of pressure in the cylinder. We get this rapid expansion from the heat of combustion. Our "heat loss" is due to heat from the combustion not being entirely used (because the gasses are only in the chamber for so long they can't absorb it all) and because of mechanical friction.

Now for HHO, it produces a TON of heat. Depending on the hydrogen to oxygen ratio, you can produce heat up to 2,800C (per wikipedia). In welding, I will admit I don't know specifically WHY the tips remain that cold given the flame temps. If I have to speculate, I'd say that because water is so fantastic at soaking up heat (take at look at the W2A intercoolers ) that the resulting molecules are carrying the resulting heat away from the nozzle as steam.

Because the cylinder is contained to a much higher degree than an open atmosphere welder, it's temperature would rise.

People aren't forgetting about the oxygen. When they say that "the hydrogen is only providing x amount of power," they're referring to the chemical combining of hydrogen and oxygen.

However, hydrogen will always provide less energy than the energy it takes to break the bond (to oxygen. Remember, I did post a link earlier about it's bonds to nitrogen). This is part of the second law of thermodynamics- getting more energy from something than is put into it is called "perpetual motion" and is a scientific impossibility.

The issue then, is mode conversion- how can we extract more USABLE energy from it than we put in? Take a look at power plants for example. Geothermal plants get their "input" energy from (ultimately) the earth's compression. We just need an efficient means to harvest it. Coal/oil plants get their input from the decomposition of dead plants/animals and pressure from the earth. Nuclear plants get their energy from natural radioactive decay. Etc.

You could definitely run a car on hydrogen gas- but my argument has always been that you will NOT be able to do it with a self-sufficient, self-sustained reactor because of the mode conversion that is involved under the hood.

Side note: running the hydrogen in a hydrogen fuel cell to produce power will yield better power output per volume considering it's roll in automotive applications.

As for your lawn mower, please explain a bit more. If you're going to tell me that you ran it off water in a self-contained unit onboard as we've been discussing... Beg your pardon but I wouldn't believe you. Reason being: these are petrol engines. Gaseous hydrogen at STP only provides ~1/3,400 the power of gasoline per volume. While that full power commitment doesn't need to be fulfilled to run the engine, you aren't going to have the power to generate enough hydrogen by using the onboard power and you won't be able to attach electrodes with large enough surface area to make it happen in a timely fashion.

[seanfromnh]

Ya with my lawn mower It wasn't a self-contained unit (what i meant by "not complete" ) It was running off the electricity provided by my cavaliers battery and ran my little mower ( little two-horse i had sittin around... doesn't cut much grass as you can imagine so i figured id play with it...) Like i said it didn't run for a long time but it did run on just the HHO... I was under the impression that id easily be able to just attach an alternator and battery to the mower shaft and get the same result... But Im not sure if (like you mentioned earlier) the mower would turn the alternator efficiently?

[Kerry Phillips]

Storing gas under pressure does cause the cylinders to get hot, eventually they reach ambient air temp-equilibrium at work. As the gas is allowed to escape, the pressure is being reduced- the gas gets cold or technically absorbs heat. This exactly how air conditioning works.

So even though the gas is combusted, versus simply discharged, the cylinder still has the same cooling effect.

I suspect this cooling effect applies to the tip of the oxy-acetylene torch, and the fact the combustion is taking effect OUTSIDE the torch, not internally.

Hydrogen is slightly corrosive, and like helium in a balloon, hydrogen molecules can leak out of what appears to be healthy joints.