Jump to content

Talk:Oxyhydrogen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Renders incorrectly in Firefox

The picture with the text "The overall electrolyzer apparatus designed by Dennis Klein.[19]" renders over some text when I view it in Firefox. I dunno enough about wikiediting to do anything about it, Im using Firefox 2.0.0.12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.184.214 (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Aquygen reference

Removed a reference to Aquygen, for which there is no peer-reviewed evidence. Once there is such evidence, and if Aquygen survives AfD, then it would be appropriate to replace this extract. LinaMishima 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No relation whatsoever Between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen

Should not be merged, as there is absoluetely no relation between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen. There is moreso a relation between HHO and Brown's Gas, but in such a case this article should remain to clarify the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. Please read the article for more information on the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. -->

Somebody please separate the retardate claims of greater than 100% efficiency and magical HHO gas from the useful factual information, ie oxyhydrogen as a mixture of O2 and H2, refs of oxyhydrogen torches, etc. Let the cranks have their own page, preferably as far away from something claiming to be an encyclopedia as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.136.240 (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)



Should not be merged, as there is absoluetely no relation between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen. There is moreso a relation between HHO and Brown's Gas, but in such a case this article should remain to clarify the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. Please read the article for more information on the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. 18:22, 22 November 2006 User:Nseidm1

So, what IS HHO then, please explain. Since you claim there's no relation between a gas containing two H and one O, and a gas containing two H and one O, what is the difference? (Ignoring the O2 and H2 thingy here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.126.2 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

HHO is common ducted oxyhydrogen; therefore it is a type of Brown's Gas. As stated in the previous sentence there is moreso a relationship between HHO and Brown's Gas, being that HHO is a brand name for a type of Brown's Gas. Oxyhydrogen is purely H2 and O2, whereas ongoing research is showing, and substantiating that Brown's Gas is predominantly H2 and O2, but also contains allotropes and isomers of hydrogen and oxygen gases. Ongoing Gas Chromatography analysis, of Brown's Gas, is producing empirical data establishing substantial scientific integrity. Noah Seidman 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't know what you are talking about. Allotropes refer to different states of solid matter formed by the same element. There is no such thing as an allotrope or an isomer of hydrogen or oxygen molecules. (Well, there are ortho and para isomeric forms of hydrogen, but the thermodynamic difference between them is negligible outside of a cryogenic laboratory.) Long Island Expressway (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You do know what your talking about. Although allotropy is not limited to solids by definition. See the third introductory paragraph in Allotrope; O3 is an allotrope of oxygen. Also diatomic structures are considered allotropes of there monatomic form, therefore diatomic hydrogen is by definition an allotrope. Also isomerism is independent of phase. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Diatomic H2 and O2 are not considered to be allotropes of anything. They are the only stable form under the conditions within the scope of the article. Allotropy refers to stable alternative structures for elements.Long Island Expressway (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Essentially the difference is in the molecular structures. Noah Seidman 19:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a molecule of "HHO". Really. Oxyhydrogen is a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. Santilli is a crackpot, as the reference I've included in his cleaned-up wikipedia article shows.Long Island Expressway (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Duhh, obviously HHO is a gross manipulation. I have been saying that for three years now since this article was in shambles with no citations. The difference between Brown's Gas and oxygen is merely the design of the electrolyzer, which I have also been saying for years. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I think the article is now improved due to references to prevalent scams, which non-chemists might come here to see. Although some better references would also be good here.Long Island Expressway (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your deleted comment. H2 and O2 mixes do not definitively contain allotropes or isomers, in fact on my website I use the word "potentially" a lot. In either case I couldn't care less about the theorized, or claimed molecular formations. All I care about is "fuel enhancement", which for the longest time was thought to be a scam until I posted all the academic reference now available in this article!!! The only thing that can be done about the claimed molecular structures is academic publication. FYI thank you for your contributions, for the longest time this articles talk page has been dormant. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if Brown's Gas is left sitting in an open container there is a component that is denser than atmosphere that will remain after much time has passed. This denser component is volatile, and remains present in a completely open container (I measured 30 minutes when I did the experiment). Since H2 is less dense than atmosphere, and must rise out of the open container, speculation is inevitable. This dense components apparently does not explode, and during combustion there is no popping noise which is always associated with explosion; all that is observed visually is a dim flame and water condensation. Plus, the combustion of this dense component does not break or deform the container, allowing me to infer that there is no resulting positive pressure thus substantiating an implosive characteristic. On the other hand if Brown's Gas is ignited immediately after combustion, in an open container, the container breaks (obviously positive PSI) allowing me to infer immediately after production something is different chemically to account for the apparently different combustion characteristics at different times during the experiment. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  1. This should not be merged if it has independent significance in biology. I'm confused as to what the significance is, though. Knallgas seems to be a type of bacteria? What does that have to do with the gas?
  2. In a welding machine, the oxygen and hydrogen are not mixed until the nozzle, right? A tank full of actual oxyhydrogen might as well be a bomb. Are they mixed inside the nozzle or directly in front of it?
  3. It says that oxyhydrogen "reacts explosively back to water", but this doesn't happen at room temperature, right? It's "stable" until ignited?


1:no, it is a gas, Into the Mitochondrien of living cells it comes with the final oxidation in the complex IV in the breathing chain to a similar, but strictly controlled exergonen reaction (biological detonating gas reaction), which serves the power production of the cell, i.e. the formation of ATP molecules:
2:depends on the design
3: no idear
4:Merge proposel, Oxyhydrogen flame, is the base for the designs of different applications in different areas.i am opposed, .cheers. Mion 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Are these mitochondria found in all cells or only bacteria? Can you provide some documents or references about this? All the Google results refer to a type of bacteria:

  • the recent discussion pertaining to the use of the 'knallgas' bacteria
  • Genome sequence of the bioplastic-producing "Knallgas" bacterium Ralstonia eutropha
  • digested cell envelope preparations obtained from the knallgas bacterium, strain
  • CO-2 FIXATION BY KNALLGAS BACTERIA

4. You are opposed to a merge with oxyhydrogen flame because of the biological definition? Maybe we should have a separate article for the welding and a separate article under the name Knallgas for the biological? — Omegatron 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In detail, in grammar:-
    • In "oxyhydrogen" used by itself to mean the gas mixture, it is a dvandva and means "oxygen plus hydrogen".
    • As part of a longer compoound, e.g. "oxyhydrogen flane" and "oxyhydrogen torch", it is the beginning of a tatpurusa that hs two first parts and means "using oxygen and also using hydrogen".

Anthony Appleyard 05:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

dabify?

This page looks like it might serve as just a dab page... 132.205.44.134 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottled Gases

keep, Oxyhydrogen is not inherently produced in an electrolyzer, and standard tanks/bottles can be used to produce the gas. Also oxyhydrogen refers to a gas, not a production method or a production device; watertorch is a device Noah Seidman 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

"This must be done carefully due to the explosion hazard." This statement is easily resolved by thoroughly insulating the interior of the electrolyzer with PVC or a comparable insulation material. Noah Seidman 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Citation

The Encyclopedia used as the main reference of this article is a large volume therefore it is requested that the particular pages within that source be referenced.

Maybe this entire article should start with the exact text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

We should utilize references from the Encyclopedia to establish at least some citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nseidm1 (talk • contribs)

Two external links are utilized in this article that are most likely not consistent with "external link" policy

  1. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

and the link to the HTA website which violate

  1. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Does "Unprovable unrealistic" in the Doubtful Claims section, utilizing an example of the claims made, constitute improper synthesis? Wouldn't we have to utilize a citation to someone saying that the claims are unprovable and unrealistic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nseidm1 (talk • contribs)

heat->energy

I made this fairly minor change, changign the singelw word "heat" in the lead section to "energy" This use of "heat is not inacurate, but it can be confusing fo those with limnited physics background IMO, since the paragraph describes how one reaction is "hottet" than another because the same amount of "heat" is produced. I am well aware that "hotter" is being used in the sense of temperature, or average molecular kenetic energy, while "heat" is being used in the sense of total molecular kenetic energy. But many readers will not appreciate that distinction.

Furthermore, to be strictly technical, the amount of "heat" many not be equal, what is strictly equal is the total energy release. Some of that energy goes not into randomized molecular motion (heat) but into macroscopic kenetic energy (explosive impuse). How much will depend on the precise circumstances, particualrly the degree of confienment of the gas, and the amount of energy going into grose physical work may be different between stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric situations, although the total energy release will be the same.

Thus "energy" is both less confusing and more accurate than "heat" and I wonder why my change was reverted without discussion or even an edit summery beyond the automated one. DES (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Either is correct here, but I judged 'heat' to sound better in this sentence; it's also more precise, since we are talking about the heating of the gases. True, energy can also go into macroscopic motion but that's quite negligible in a flame. The way, the truth, and the light 05:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual motion hoaxes

There are hoaxes floating around the Internet regarding a perpetual motion car which uses oxyhydrogen generated from water as fuel. The most commonly cited example is a news story from a local FOX affiliate at [1]. Since this article covers controversial claims and hoaxes, maybe a mention of this car could be added? 70.233.144.86 22:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cars cannot run on oxyhydrogen. Don't get swayed by crapola; that Fox News broadcast was MISERABLE, and has detrimentally tarnished credibility for truly substantive technology!!!! There is already an article on "water cars", and the so called "water fuel cell". Incorporation of such material would "dirty" this rather clean, and evolving article. Noah Seidman 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"Cars cannot run on oxyhydrogen". Why not? The article claims that igniting oxyhydrogen produces heat. Pretty much any source of heat can be used to power a heat engine, e.g. a steam engine. While you obviously could not burn oxyhydrogen in a car designed to burn gasoline, you could construct a "car" (vehicle) that was powered by a supply of oxyhydrogen, could you not? 71.146.147.108 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Its about energy and efficiency. Its not conservative, nor economical. Noah Seidman 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also oxyhydrogen cannot be stored at viable pressures, therefore its a completely impractical concept. Noah Seidman 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hydrogen powered cars can and have been made to work, FACT! 4:03, 6 November 2007 User:195.195.236.129
Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas are not Hydrogen. They contain Hydrogen. Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas cannot be stored under high PSI! Noah Seidman 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't say "Cars can't run on oxyhydrogen". It's obvious to anyone that knows a little science that they can. Say "It would be stupid to run a car on oxyhydrogen". The reason this is a hoax is not that it's impossible, but because it's wasteful and uneconomical. — Omegatron 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should cover these hoaxes in the article and explain why they are bogus so that people aren't mislead and don't have to ask questions like this anon anymore.

Lots of facts and references can be found at Brown's gas and HHO gas, and the content can be merged here as per the deletion discussions. — Omegatron 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Foundational Information

In theory this section should allow for substantial investigation, thus potentially avoiding unnecessary comments, and edits. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"common ducted"

I've deleted the chapter for a reasons. It's partly duplicated from the other infos about Brown's gas and partly just repeating unreliable sources. "common ducted electrolysis" (or "common ducted" NEAR electrolysis) isn't even a valid technical term. It gets zero hits on books.google.com and scholar.google.com and very few and insignificant hits on a normal Google search.

I know that this article has many problems, but me must start fixing them somewhere.

--Pjacobi (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert by User:Anthony Appleyard

Care to explain we you've reverted the link spam back in? If you have arguments for keeping the other part you've reverted back in, see section above and explain please. --Pjacobi (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The matter which I reverted back in are:
    • Links to captionless image of water torches (not to the head-pages of companies that make then).
    • The information paragraph "Some water torch models mix the two gases immediately after production (instead of at the torch tip) making the gas mixture more accurate; this electrolyzer design is called common ducting. Common ducted electrolyzers are typically series cell parallel plate design, but can also be built using cylindrical cells. The main criteria for common ducting is a single gas output hose. Oxyhydrogen gas produced this way is sometimes called Brown's gas (see below). Oxyhydrogen gas produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer is not considered Brown's Gas. Independently ducted electrolyzers have substantially separated anodes and cathodes, are typically rod type design, and have separate hydrogen and oxygen gas output hoses.". OK, it may need revising.
    • Links to 4 related pages: Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency, Hydrogen welding, Air fuel ratio, Octane rating.

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Images: I don't consider For images of water torches see <some URLs> to be encyclopedic style. Also the images don't tell much about oxyhydrogen.
  • In-line weblinks general: The link after "avoiding the need for supplied oxygen and hydrogen." just goes to one manuafacturer. As the use of oxyhydrogen is mentioned in several books and e.g. in the 1911 Britannica, we shouldn't link to a single manufacturer.
  • There is no reliable source for "common ducting" (and next to nothing for the entire Brown's gas business) to be a reasonable description, it's may just be a term invented by User:Nseidm1 for this article and his company website. See section above.
  • As nothing can reliably said about Brown's gas there is no rationale for giving just a list of wikilinks in that chapter.
--Pjacobi (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the temperature claim requires citation. Common ducting is a status quo design characteristic. The "1'st and 2'nd laws of electrolysis" is common sense; its electrolysis. The foundational links are important to remain somewhere in the article, otherwise anonymous posters will continue to make frivolous comments. And the applications section; there only two applications listed there that happen to have content rich wikilinks. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
After all this time I'm sick of tired of the "common ducted" stuff. See above. Quote reliable sources. We will get rid of this strange term which is nowhere used except on Wikipedia and some websites of dubious merit. Or just show me my error researching the usage of "common ducted". --Pjacobi (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It simply means that the electrodes are both in the same chamber and the gases are allowed to mix, unlike the traditional setup like this that tries to keep the gases separate so they form normal diatomic gas.
The "common-ducted" version appears in Brown's patent, in which he says it is good to allow the gases to mix because you want the flame to be neutral; too much hydrogen and it is absorbed by the metal causing Hydrogen embrittlement, too much oxygen and the metal oxidizes (which I believe is why they use Shielding gas). I don't think he makes any other claims about this arrangement, though. Not in the patents, at least.
There was once a discussion of how other compounds can form in such a device, like H2O2 and H2O3, but those discussions have probably been thrown in the memory hole... — Omegatron 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Images of watertorches

  • "Images: I don't consider "For images of water torches see <some URLs>" to be encyclopedic style. Also the images don't tell much about oxyhydrogen.": Some people would want to know what watertorch equipment looks like, and, as those images are copyright, I must link to them, not copy them into Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Copy one into Wikipedia. We have every right to use them in our articles. Don't let the "not free enough" crowd scare you. — Omegatron 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to use the image off my website, but I don't want to post it myself cause of conflict of interest. Its on "The Company" page available in the main navigation. Maybe the product label can be blurred to maintain a modicum of anonymity to avoid promoting the actual product. I think an image will greatly enhance the quality of this article, but I want to image to be NEUTRAL and not promote any particular product. Maybe a carefully chosen patent image will suffice to express the the series cell design. Noah Seidman (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you willing to provide it under a free content license? — Omegatron 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I will contact the owner of the image and respond promptly; I don't see any reason such an image should be restricted by copyright. Its like a picture of a car or any other appliance. Otherwise I will also do some searching for an explicit patent image descriptive the the cell design and arrangement. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
All photographs have copyright. In order to put it on Wikipedia, the person who took the photo needs to license it freely or it needs to be used with a fair use rationale. Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags — Omegatron 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I myself publish the image on my website. I know that many other people on the internet also publish the same image, and all publishers likely do not receive explicit permission. I feel that the image in question falls under fair use rational. I think the Santilli Chromatography photo has been posted on Wikipedia using fair use rational; the same rational can be used in this instance. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The images that I linked to ([2] [3] [4] [5]) do not seem to show a maker's name clearly, and thus seem to satisfy Noah Seidman (01:34, 4 January 2008)'s specification. Many Wikipedia pages link to external images instead of copying them because of copyright. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I wouldn't mind linking to them, but it would be more aesthetic to include an image directly. I feel that all of those images fall under fair use rational to show the general public actual items are have been constructed. Although most of those images are way out of date, and some of the torches depicted aren't even manufactured anymore. these are newer images that are of products still in production. [6] [7] [8] Noah Seidman (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Heres an image of the hy-drive 18 wheeler fuel enhancement system. [9]. Heres an image of the CHEC HFI 18 wheeler fuel enhancement system. [10]. Heres an image of Go Green Fuel's fuel enhancement system. [11] Noah Seidman (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Series Cell Image

From The referenced patent is figure #2 that depicts the series cell, single output design. Figure #2 Noah Seidman (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Enhancement Image

This image is mine, and I authorized GFDL image licensing if its appropriate to post. Enhancement Image Noah Seidman (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Those Who Judge

I have recently added a generous amount of citation. I would like to share the following personal quote.

For the record, please don't put quotes in italics. Short quotes should be "in quotation marks", and long quotes should be a blockquote without quotation marks:

long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here

— Omegatron 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Patent Application Citation

I cannot find the appropriate means for referencing a patent application, rather than a granted patent. The reference to my patent application only shows up in PDF format, and not in the general USPTO search. This is because it was not granted, but it is indeed a publicly published document searchable in the USPTO patent applications database. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Heres a link to the patent application in the USPTO database. [12]. If someone know how to cite this correctly please adjust citation #22 accordingly; your assistance is greatly appreciated. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{US patent application}} — Omegatron 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikify

Noah, please fix your quotes according to the WP:MOS#Quotations, don't duplicate references, etc. Please learn to format things nicely. We shouldn't have to clean up after you. 

First instance of some reference.<ref name="US patent 1234567">Reference text</ref>

Later instance of the same reference.<ref name="US patent 1234567"/>

— Omegatron 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation duplication fixed. Removed all dubious claims. Removed reference to George Wiseman books to preempt conflict. Removed italics on citations. Added blockquote to design section. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
George Wiseman is now reasonably referenced. There is nothing extraordinary. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Updates

Noah Seidman (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Contra I'm really perplexed where all this going. Now a number of bold claims ("new gaseous and combustible form of water", the 100% efficency claim) are provided, sourced of course, but being silent on the general non-acceptance of these claims. --Pjacobi (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, regarding Noah's "Those who judge...": If this technology is really able reach the claimed efficency gains, it after a thorough examination of the all relevant sources get its own article instead of being saved from AfD into this article. But I really have no idea how get an independant expert doing an investigation of this.
I think this content belongs in oxyhydrogen. Oxyhydrogen encompasses all of the included material. Oxyhydrogen is the umbrella concept. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But I'm dead sure that Santieri's Magnecules are pure snake oil -- if he would be able to specify a reproducable experiment even only hinting a new form of water, he would have his Nobel prize by now instead of being regarded as a black sheep of the scientific community.
--Pjacobi (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"But I really have no idea how get an independant expert doing an investigation of this". I used mostly quotation so that all the material can point back to a specific article, or patent. Anyone can research this, the entire list of references is present. I have no opinion on Santilli at this time; his theories have caused a mess that I have had to cleanup, explain, and clarify. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"new gaseous and combustible form of water". This is just the name of a journal article publication. Its a title. Its used as a reference for a couple of quotations, nothing more. I have added doubt to the HHO section. "A new gaseous and combustible form of water" is now cited as a doubted claim. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way; Santilli magnecules are just a "theory". Frankly a theory is only as good as the "tests it predicts". This article has come a long way, and is extremely important to clarify this whole "run your car on water" crapola. The introduction to Brown's Gas clarifies the mistaken difference between the water fuel cell and Brown's Gas electrolysis. Its really very simple, its just a matter of putting all the informational puzzle pieces together. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What I agree is snake oil is that Santilli claims to manufacture the very item he "theorizes" to exist. This is extremely fishy. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no "100%" efficiency sourced; the image you are most likely referring to is the table data. Also note that this is an academic publication that anyone can purchase from the SAE for review purposes. The image description specifically says "100%" increase in mileage. Which is specifically for a hydrogen reformer operating at 80% efficiency, not 100%. Nothing nothing nothing can operate at 100% efficiency. Its simply not LOGICAL. Take a second look at the table data, it says a 50% reduction in fuel consumption, which is equivalent to a 100% increase in mileage. You do realize that a 100% increase in mileage is only "doubling" the mileage. This isn't magic, there is no free energy BS here. This is efficiency. This is lean air/fuel mixes. Add Brown's Gas to the air intake, lean the air/fuel mix, and retard the timing. Maybe a little modification to the engine system to improve longevity, and further mitigate potential corrosion. Maybe a teflon lining on the inside of the air intake system can help. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that I have added three more journal articles to the Hydrogen fuel injection page. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent expert

I have no idea why an independent expert would want to investigate this. Fuel Enhancement is only a means of increasing gas mileage. Its only a means of reducing pollution. I have proven its notable and verifiable with all the references, therefore anyone can retrieve, purchase, copy or download the actual material that has been cited. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The almighty statement: "If this is soo great why isn't it huge? Why isn't everyone using it?". My answer is "because no body cares" Noah Seidman (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If this is so great, why isn't everyone using it? becomes a fascinating self-referential recursion loop, should large numbers of skeptical people ask this question. A similar problem occurred with the Wright brothers in the early 1900s, when Scientific American refused to investigate their claimed success.
Why would SciAm refuse to send a reporter? The SciAm management was sure that, if the Wright's claims were real, then other magazines would already be sending reporters, and the story would be all over the newspapers already! Think about it: if all newspaper and magazine reporters only will investigate an amazing event if OTHER magazines have first investigated the event... then no reporters are sent at all. Well, in the case of the Wright Brothers, a bee-keeper's newsletter author did go and watch the flights. Amazingly enough, he was the only one. Even the local newspapers in the same city (Dayton) refused.
So why is Oxyhydrogen so unknown and obscure? Perhaps it's because the professionals all refuse to look at it on the grounds that all professionals refuse to look at it. Nobody will take it seriously until someone takes it seriously. A recursive feedback loop! Perhaps someone should name this phenomenon, and add it to the list of Logical Fallacies. --72.55.203.215 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for General Comprehension

Gas mileage is directly proportional to the amount of fuel injected into the engine. If you change from a 15:1 air/fuel ratio to 30:1 you are injecting exactly 1/2 the fuel per engine revolution. If you inject 50% less fuel then your fuel supply will last 2x as long. Making your fuel supply last 2x as long is a 100% increase in mileage. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is all this going

The purpose of this article is to be a well referenced, third party source of information. This article is not for my benifit, its for the benifit of everyone. People can only make good decision by being well informed. This article is designed to clarify a highly ambiguous field. This article separates the "BS" from the "science". This article uses third party academic publications, and patents to reference important information. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Me

I added all this information and sources to show everyone that this isn't a fantasy. This is not original research. I admit that much of the more recent internet activity is purely pseudoscientific, but the roots of Brown's Gas technology are thoroughly expressed in academic, patent, and book based literature. I am rational, I do not believe things that cannot be proven via logical experimentation. I do consider "theories", but do not "believe" them without a modicum of evidence. I do consider the referenced material, in this article, to be evidence.

Learning Methodology

  • Hear the theory
  • Gather the references, and associated contextual information
  • Conceptualize
  • Theorize
  • Experiment
  • Potentially draw conclusions

This is my rational. It is not purely scientific, but I am only 24, and need something to believe in. Because of my thousands of hours of involvement, I do get "insulted" by resistance, but I completely understand. I understand that I have a unique comprehension of a stereotypical, and controversial technology. I greatly appreciate when a devout skeptic actually reads the referenced material. I have put so much time and effort into this article not to prove people wrong for spite, but to help them understand something that can make a profound difference in their life. All I can hope for is people taking a "second" look at the material. Think about it with the "slight" possibility that all the referenced material does make sense.

This article is a story beginning in 1966. Don't dismiss the dutiful work of soo many people. Hear their story.

Is it completely impossible that most of my ideas are correct? (rhetorical) Noah Seidman (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Substitute Fuel

Im not quite sure where to place this material. The hurdles, and pitfalls of the hydrogen economy need to be explicitly expressed. Brown's Gas is not economically viable as a substitute fuel for the exact same reason as hydrogen. Its much more economical, and conservative to utilize the electricity directly. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Took care of of it in the Brown's Gas introduction. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Analysis" sections

I'd consider the analysis sections to be mostly encyclopedic, or to put it more mildly, out of place here. I addition they should be sourced, but if a quick scan doesn't mislead, the equations are all rather trivial. --Pjacobi (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the equations can detract from the content of the article. Do you think that a couple of more informative equations should remain? Or should all of them be removed? I think the Math Talk and Efficiency Analysis sections are important; although they don't have a source other than the mathematical analysis. Is mathematical analysis considered original research? Noah Seidman (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Propose them for inclusion at Talk:Electrolysis. I don't see anything specific to Oxyhydrogen -- let alone Brown's Gas -- in the equations. I'd even think, that they are of highest importance, where electrolysis is used on a industrial scale, e.g. Hall-Héroult process. --Pjacobi (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Should I remove the Math Talk and and Efficiency Analysis sections to further wikify? I think talking about the efficiency of the series cell design is important because it is one of the more fascinating aspects to Yull Brown's design. Noah Seidman (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Math Talk section, but upon reconsideration the two mathematical equations remaining are simply a description of the cited material, therefore they are relevant to this article. The Efficiency section is also good because it is an important characteristic of Yull Brown's design. I will consider removing/modifying more material if we have some input from other editors.Noah Seidman (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Enthalpy

It's been a while since I took Chemistry, but there was a listing of energy release of the reaction, which I put a cite tag on, and it's not even there anymore. Here are some references:

Not even sure how this is relevant, but now we at least have refs. — Omegatron 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great additional refs. The calories produced is part of a blockquote from the 1911 encyclopedia, which did not mention enthalpy. I removed that enthalpy content because there was no verifiable source, but now with these new references there should be some relevant content for this article. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that minus sign is throwing me off too. Is it, or is it not a typo? (rhetorical) Noah Seidman (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts: a negative enthalpy would symbolize order rather than increasing disorder. Since the combustion of hydrogen forms a molecular structure the negative is reasonable. The combustion of gasoline, for instance, should have a positive enthalpy; the molecular structure are breaking down into simpler components, which is increasing disorder. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Enthalpy#Heats_of_reaction — Omegatron 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion:

  • "a gram of hydrogen" = 0.99 mol of hydrogen atoms (standard weight = 1.00794 g/mol)
  • as a gas, this is 0.5 mol of hydrogen molecules (2 atoms per molecule)
  • when burned, it releases "34,116 calories" = 142.74 kilojoules [14]

142.74 kJ / 0.5 mol = 285 kJ for every mole of hydrogen molecules. If you're talking about an oxyhydrogen mixture, though, the actual value would be for every mole of hydrogen or oxygen, right? — Omegatron 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the actual value would be for every mole of hydrogen (285KJ / moles). Only hydrogen contributes to the net energy output; the oxygen acts solely as a facilitator. Therefore to actually consume 2 moles of hydrogen 1 mole of oxygen must be present to react. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the standard way to talk about this stuff. If you burn one mole of hydrogen molecules, you will release 285 kJ. But if you ignite one mole of oxyhydrogen gas (with 2 H2 molecules for every 1 O2), you would release 190 kJ.

Also there's the discrepancy between producing liquid water and water vapor. I don't know how people typically talk about this. — Omegatron 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go: Heat of combustion

The discrepancy is between LHV (120.971 MJ/kg = 241.942 kJ/mol) and HHV (141.9 MJ/kg = 283.8 kJ/mol). — Omegatron 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This article desperately needs to mention the fact that the amount of energy released by burning hydrogen or HHO must always be less than or equal to the mount of energy that was consumed to turn water into hydrogen or HHO in the first place. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Find a verifiable source, and add the material with an appropriate citation. Frankly what you are talking about is thoroughly discussed already in electrolysis. And anyone that understand electrolysis inherently understands that the output energy is less than the input. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A verifiable source? How about the first law of thermodynamics? — Omegatron 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I find that expressing the concept of 1'st law of thermo is much better than just saying "because of the 1'st law of thermo". You handled this perfectly in the intro of this article. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hydrogen#Hydrogen_combustion — Omegatron 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Temperature of atomic welding

See Atomic hydrogen welding. I inserted the high temperatures from that into this, but then realized it might be a different process because of the pre-mixed oxyhydrogen.

Those refs give temperatures from 3400 to 4000 deg C for this process (why do they vary so much? see talk), but they also say that this is from hydrogen recombining into H2, not from combining with oxygen. The hydrogen acts as a "shielding gas", and so the hydrogen atoms only see each other, not the outside air, and only after leaving as molecules do they burn. It would presumably be different if there are oxygen (atoms? molecules?) in the mix. — Omegatron 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Which refs in particular? I have also seen varying reports on temperature; there is no way to form a conclusive opinion.
If the oxygen is acting as a shielding gas allowing the combustive formation of monoatomic hydrogen into diatomic hydrogen, wouldn't the diatomic hydrogen then combust with the diatomic oxygen? Its apparently a multi stage combustion process. The final stage is rather interesting; after the combustion formation of water energy will be absorbed creating steam. What is the relationship between the energy released from combustion, versus the energy absorbed in steam formation? (rhetorical). Noah Seidman (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What I find fascinating is the huge increase in relative efficiencies achieved in the SAE journal articles. To account there must be some extremely interesting chemical reaction going on in the fuel enhancement, and subsequent combustion process. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Atomic hydrogen welding — Omegatron 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see [15] — Omegatron 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Linear Heat

Also, the high temperatures are predominantly in the direction of gas flow. There is little temperature laterally and behind, hence the, at this point humorous, hand next to the flame videos. Quite a fascinating property, with no substantive information to stand on yet. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this different from other torches? — Omegatron 03:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Its not different, although the ratio between direct, and indirect heat released is likely greater for oxyhydrogen. It is apparent that substantially less energy is released in the lateral and anterior directions as compared to other torch gases. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it the gas or the torch configuration? — Omegatron 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It is likely the gas, as I am not aware of any common ducted electrolyzers currently manufactured to utilize an electric arc in the torch. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean the torch and flame geometry itself, not the arc. — Omegatron 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have used a regular oxy-acetylene torch head with the same effect achieved. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you've used oxyhydrogen gas in an oxy-acetylene torch head, and the head was cold, but when you use oxyacetylene, the head is hot?
Yes. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Don Lancaster says the flame is high temperature, but relatively low energy. Not sure if this has anything to do with it. — Omegatron 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brown Vs. HHO

Rhodes filed his patent before 1960, and Brown received his patents in 1977, and 1978. These patents have long expired. Is the information in expired patents considered public domain? Noah Seidman (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe all patents are in the public domain, with a few exceptions, as soon as they are published.

In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent," patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did not have the legal protection of patents, in many cases, they would prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret. Awarding patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly available, for exploitation by anyone after the patent expires, or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when a patent's term has expired, the public record ensures that the patentee's idea is not lost to humanity.

— Omegatron 13:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If a common ducted electrolyzer is manufactured according to Brown's patents, without the electric arc feature, is it producing Brown's Gas? Or to be precise, would the gas be called common ducted oxyhydrogen rather than Brown's Gas?
Klein's patents says HHO is produced in a single output electrolyzer missing the electric arc feature. Would an electrolyzer manufactured according the Brown's patent, minus the electric arc feature, therefore constitute HHO production? Noah Seidman (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Klein's electrolyzer is based on public domain information published in Brown's patents. Is the info in Brown's patent still public domain, or is it protected by Klein's patent? This is specifically with regard to the "common ducted" feature. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You're assuming that there's actually something to the claims that "Brown's gas" is different from oxyhydrogen, which is different from "Klein's gas". I'd start from just looking at the patents themselves, and decide that Rhodes, Brown, and Klein invented electrolyzers and torches, not types of gas. Instead of talking about "Brown's gas", we should really be talking about "Brown's torch".
But the names "Brown's gas" and so on are common, so we have to describe them and what they mean.
On patents, read up on it yourself.  :) I believe the whole point of the patent system is so that people put their designs into the public domain and, in exchange, are granted a temporary monopoly on their creation. Then anyone else can improve on that public design and get their own patent on the improved design, and so on, with all of it benefiting society. — Omegatron 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Clear, and understood. Well observed. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack

Sorry for interrupting, and even more sorry for not having the time (not to speak of motivitation, online library access, and eventually money) to address the problems with this article myself. As I've said more than once, I'd like to give this a fair hearing, but my resources are limited.

By now this a article is a textbook example of Wikipedia:Coatrack, it is nominally about "Oxyhydrogen", a boring, uncontroversial plain-vanilla topic, but most of its content is about Brown's gas with some Aquaguyen and Santilli thrown in. A topic often related to perpetual motion machines, investor (and consumer) fraud, and junk science.

At this point of time, it would be more honest, to spin off that conten to Brown's gas and endure the deletion discussion which may arise (I specifically promise to not directly or indirectly nominate it for deletion), instead of "hiding" the content unter an unsuspicious lemma.

--Pjacobi (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Create a relevant vote. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We decide things based on good reasons, not votes.
I think it needs to be higher quality before we subject it to the inevitable AfD that a split would bring.
And now that we know more about the subject, I think a split to Water torch might be more appropriate. To my knowledge, Brown didn't claim to have invented a gas, but to have invented a torch. — Omegatron 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Your knowledge is correct. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Layout

It seems to me this article could be reorganized a bit...it seems to mix uses for oxyhydrogen with methods of production

I propose the following sections:

Properties

Applications

Lighting

Welding / Cutting

Automotive

(without discussion of production... simply a discussion of fueling cars on hydrogen)

No!! You misunderstand. Fuelling cars on hydrogen has NOTHING whatever to do with Oxyhydrogen. No engineer with half a brain cell would be stupid enough to put a 2:1 molar mixture of hydrogen and oxygen into a big tank and drive it around in the back of their car! That mixture is spontaneously explosive...it doesn't take much of anything to make it blow up because (like all good explosives) it contains both fuel (the hydrogen) and the oxidizer (the oxygen) and in the perfect ratio! Also, why would you want to haul vast quantities of oxygen around in your fuel tank when the very air we breathe is full of the stuff! It's tough enough to make bulk storage for the hydrogen - without considering the problem of containing a similar number of atoms of a vastly heavier gas! It's just dumb! No, if hydrolysis of water is used to make bulk fuel for cars, the hydrogen manufacturers will perform the childishly simple task of separating the bubbles that come off the anode from the ones that come off the cathode. The hydrogen goes into bulk storage tank - the oxygen either gets vented to the atmosphere or is bottle commercially and sold for other purposes. At absolutely no point in the process will oxyhydrogen gas ever be created! SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of the edits you undid. Take another look and you'll note that the edit stated that these systems are physically impossible and redirected the reader to pages that elaborate on the shortcomings you note above. The term oxyhydrogen and associated neologisms are most often used by people promoting water-fuelled car or the toned down variation scam hydrogen fuel enhancement. Since this is the most common use it would be worth while addressing it here.--OMCV (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Exactly. You'll note that at no point did I say or suggest anything about the merits of suchs a system. All I'm saying is that this term is associated with 'watercars' and various associated terms which (to date) have been scams. 70.5.17.190 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 

"simply a discussion of fueling cars on oxyhydrogen" might be a better phrasing.   70.5.17.190 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whooopsie. Gotta learn to login! The above is all me.Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


...the article says 'Many of these claims violate the Laws of thermodynamics' while the use of a weasel word means this is always possibly true it is not actually true - the conservation of energy simply states you can't get more out of a system than you put in, this isn't a valid criticism of #most# of the claims which describe an increase in combustion efficiency due to less wasted energy during the process of combustion. I understand that many people feel the need to remove psudo-science from wikipedia and i applaud those people (as long as they use citations) for their great work, however lets not be over zealous and risk muddying the waters of science with opinion and hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.87 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In well designed engine combustion efficiency is very high 99.9+%. The whole idea of a more efficient burn is the basis of a scam called hydrogen fuel enhancement. There is a place to study fuel mixtures but as it stand there are no commercial applications of hydrogen fuel enhancement. Everything out there that invokes hydrogen fuel enhancement, HHO gas, Aquygen, Brown's gas, magnegas, and the others are scams. Removing questionable material does not require citation however adding it does. The work you are alluding to does nothing but muddy science.--OMCV (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Methods of Production

Electrolysis

Discussion of efficiency

Various Patented methods of production

Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Brown's Design - Applications

Is this section supposed to be describing an invention or patent? If so, the applications subsection goes way off track. If oxy-hydrogen, brown's gas, hho, or whatever warrants consideration as a fuel supplement, then this should be under an altogether new heading and should be dealt with correctly. The way it is presented here does not belong in an encyclopedia: this is essentially a persuasive paragraph with the aim of suggesting that the gas is a proven and substantial fuel enhancement or supplement. The facts should be presented without bias and there should be better consideration for the balance of energy if purporting it as a fuel supplement. (In other words: present counter arguments as well, describe what is required in energy and quantitatively how the benefits compare, and provide better descriptive info from the references, with perhaps a broader base of references, to judge the merits of what is presented.)

oh, yea. As for this unfortunate statement: "When Brown's Gas burns it forms water, resulting in cooling the combustion chambers of engines, effectively allowing for greater compression ratios (see: Water injection)." That is silly. Steam is formed as a combustion product... at combustion temperature! The same steam is formed in gas and diesel combustion reactions, and without this mysterious magical cooling effect. Yikes! Deleted! Tjcognata (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a much better way to present the info that has been placed in the Brown's Design - Applications section. See Hydrogen fuel enhancement. In fact, it would probably be best to move the content of applications to a heading titled "Applications" and remove much of the content regarding fuel enhancement in favor of a brief introduction and a link to Hydrogen fuel enhancement. That way the Brown's Design section remains consistent with the article, and what appears to be its purpose, namely describing an apparatus for producing this gas. Tjcognata (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Applications

Without any discrimination as to the content, I separated the portion about use of oxyhydrogen as a fuel supplement into a new sub-heading of applications. It appears from this content that it is a general application for the gas, not necessarily of Brown's design, and for the sake of clarity and organization it belongs at a higher level. In fact, I would think Brown's water torch was intended as a design for a welding/brazing tool rather than a gas generator for enhancing IC engines based on its description. Tjcognata (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing again

Bag! By now the sourcing has become like a snapshot of uspto.gov. In my opinion, and I just got some affirmation that I understand this correctly[16], patents are of extreme limited use for sourcing encyclopedia articles.

Don't know what to do about the Brown's Gas section (which I still consider out of place taking more than a half of mainstream article), but I've deleted "Klein's design" which was only sourced to the patent application.

--Pjacobi (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Same thoughts here - Brown's Design warrants a considerable bit of snipping. Only the very first paragraph is really necessary to put across its relation to the actual topic. The rest of Brown's Design may warrant a separate topic, but its presence here is really out of proportion to its contribution to the topic. Tjcognata (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I cut browns design down to the pertinent information. This describes its basic concepts which are:"common ducted," series cell electrolyzer, and arc at torch. Tjcognata (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Needed citation"

The article mentions that a citation is needed for the statement that "has been referred to as "Brown's gas"" I was going to paste in a link to some place like water4gas where this term is used, but I don't think that really supports the claim. I think we need the term because it is being used by scammers and other questionable sources to refer to oxyhydrogen, and it's a term that may help people find an article with more reliable information. Why does the claim that it "has been referred to as "Brown's gas need a citation anyhow? --Yoderj (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, if we look at other articles about gas mixtures (Coal gas and Forming gas two pick a couple of examples) the other names for them are stated without references. It might be better to have a reference - but it's just not a controversial statement (for the mainstream view) so we don't have to justify it. However: In this case, there is controversy at the fringes that cannot be ignored. Plenty of the fringe theorists have claimed that whatever their electrolysis unit produces is not 2H2+O2 - and have claimed one of these other names for whatever they claim to produce. That is controversial and absolutely requires a reference. So I think we should take the mainstream view - state boldly and (if necessary) without special references that Browns Gas, Oxyhydrogen and whatever other names are out there are all the same thing - then go on to say that some hold the fringe view that they are not the same - and because that is a remarkable thing, we'll need references to indicate who makes these claims. SteveBaker (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aquygen info

From their website: 

  Aquygen™ is a novel gas made from ordinary water through our patented electrolysis process

It is not a trademark for their device. Their gas product is not claimed to be a new mixture. They do claim that their gas generator is patented and novel.

I dont see any reason to discuss their trademarking an ordinary gas mixture.

Probably discussion of their device should be under a 'methods of production' sub section?

Aquygen also seems to make claims that contradict the "Electrolysis of water:Efficiency" section, with claims of "average increase of 20 to 30 percent in miles per gallon" using their branded "Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen System". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Please sort out here whether or not to include a link to http://aquygen.blogspot.com , rather than an edit war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to post links to blogs/websites. If that website is linked to my website should be linked to; therefore no websites should be linked to. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nseidm1: links to blogs are permitted by wikipedia if the source is an authority on a topic. This blog is an authoritative source of information on aquygen and is not affiliated with Denny Klein. It is relevant to any understanding of HHO gas or Oxyhydrogen. It's not my purpose to have an edit war with you. You do a fine job of maintaining a fine article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurphee (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The blog looks pretty much like spam to me, definitely not a reliable source for anything. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Its only value is to demonstrate that the HHO/aquygen/whatever fraudsters are really making the claims we say they are. As evidence of HHO's existence or properties, it's worthless. — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TWTTATL, the site consolidates news & reviews of aquygen and hho gas. Perhaps maybe you would like to recharacterize your disagreement with it's inclusion on this page? A bit too quick to dismiss I think. Folks who are interested in hho gas but dont have a phd in chemistry need a place to find plain english descriptions about this area of technology. They want to understand it's practical application and track it's viability for use in consumer products notably cars. Having a site which brings all that level of information together regarding Aquygen in particular is the focus of the site. As a result, the source of information is largely news sources and occasional blog entries. There are plenty of wikipedia articles which have external links to similar sites. Noah's assertion that if his obviously commercial site--devoted to hho gas consulting--can't be linked to then no sites can be linked to is not simply arbitrary...it is spooky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.247.162 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


It really doesn't matter how good the blog is - we flat out aren't allowed to link to blogs or forums...except under extremely extenuating circumstances. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided:

  • WP:External_links bans "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." - if the author is claiming to be a "recognised authority" on this topic - then show us where that recognition may be found. (Since the author signs himself 'B' - that's going to be an interesting matter!) If the author of the blog is indeed an established authority in the field then there are VERY likely to be Conflict of Interest issues that mean that this person shouldn't be editing this article at all (let alone adding blog-links to it) !!!
  • I would argue that all blogspot.com pages fail several other tests in that section of the WP guidelines - it's a form of social network (it has all of the 'sharing', 'rating', etc features that are so characteristic of social networks, and it carries advertising.
  • Your blog most certainly doesn't "...provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article".
  • Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services are banned and since almost every blog entry promotes one commercial product or another, it's unacceptable for that reason.
  • It falls under the ban on linking to sites with temporary content.
  • Since the entire topic of the blog is about water fuelled cars, it's most certainly a Fringe theory - and as such is also banned under the "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." rule. (The word "unverifiable" refers to the Wikipedia verifiability rules.
  • You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
  • We are prohibited from linking to sites that violate copyright. The blog contains MANY images that appear to have been copied from various company web sites - with no indication that permission was granted to do so.

If any one of the things I said above is true - then your blog cannot be linked to.

So: NO WE CANNOT LINK TO YOUR BLOG. Is that perfectly clear?

SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Feedback Arrangement

Fuel enhancement systems do not use an external energy source. They are comparable to mechanical supercharger systems, where a portion of the output energy is consumed to effect the input into the engine. In both systems the portion of output energy consumed effectively improves the efficiency of the system to such a degree that the overall increase in energy output accounts for the energy consumed in the production of the oxyhydrogen. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noah. I have a few reservations on the addition to the Fuel Supplement section about feedback. It is not entirely clear what is being related and the overall impression is of an inappropriate use of technical terms. Feedback and positive feedback are typically associated with control systems and controls theory. I don't think the use is appropriate here. Could you put this in other terms?
On another note - of the references in peer-reviewed journals for the Fuel Supplement section, how many of these use electrolysis generated oxyhydrogen? (I suspect the intention of these authors is to generate hydrogen on-board via the gas or diesel fuel, perhaps in a partial-oxidation reactor.) Tjcognata (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The comparison to a supercharger is bogus. A supercharger takes mechanical energy from the motor and uses it to force more air into the engine - this in turn allows more fuel to be burned - which makes the car go faster DESPITE the load of the supercharger on the engine. But it doesn't improve your fuel consumption - in fact, it makes it significantly worse. Look at (for example) the 2006 MINI Cooper and the MINI Cooper'S - identical cars except for the supercharger. The regular Cooper gets about 35/38 mpg and the Cooper'S gets 32/35 mpg. So the supercharger made fuel economy much worse. On the other hand the supercharged version shaves about 2 seconds off the 0-60 time and adds an extra 20mph to the top speed. So superchargers get more power from the engine - but only by burning more fuel.
However, these bogus 'enhancement systems' use electrical energy from the battery to generate hydrogen which is burned in addition to the regular gasoline fuel. The trouble is that the energy produced by burning the hydrogen is (by necessity) far less that the electrical energy required to produce it - which has to be replenished by recharging the battery. The more the battery has to be recharged, the bigger the load on the generator and therefore the bigger the load on the engine. Even if this were not true - the lame setups they use produce an almost entirely negligable amount of hydrogen gas - you would not be able to even measure the additional energy one of these cells would add to the motor. The net result is that these gadgets don't work as claimed - it's completely impossible.
What complicates things greatly is that the sellers of these machines deliberately confuse two entirely different technologies. The hydrogen generator contraptions are worthless - but the gadgets that spray water or steam into the cylinder really can work to improve fuel economy. The water cools the cylinder more rapidly than usual - this retards and smooths the burning of the fuel resulting in a more efficient burn - you can use a lower octane fuel and a leaner burn without so much risk of 'knocking'. Yeah!!! Finally, a gadget you can buy on the internet that actually might work!! But please - practice the art of critical thinking. You should be asking yourself: If it's so good - why don't all modern cars come with water injectors as standard equipment? With the push to improve fuel economy and the fact that this technology has been known for at least 40 years and costs just a few dollars to install - why doesn't every car have it straight from the factory?
Well - guess what - there really is an excellent reason for that. It's because there is a horrible problem. Injecting hot water or steam into your cylinders induces corrosion - the resulting water vapor can rust out your exhaust system - and the water in the cylinders can wash past the piston rings and get into the engine oil too. Oil and water don't mix so you either get areas where the water displaces the oil and you can seize up the engine - or you get the oil and water 'emulsifying' into a white gooey substance that clogs the fine oil passageways in the engine...the result is much the same...a dead engine within just a few thousand miles. That's "A Very Bad Thing". The small savings you gain on fuel economy are utterly wiped out by the fact that your engine is going to die much, much sooner than it should. However - the shysters who sell this stuff either don't know that - or they are immoral enough to take your money and run anyway.
So - don't do it. These things are a con trick that (at best) do nothing and (at worst) wreck your engine.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Most fuel enhancement systems are scams in that they do not provide a way to achieve >=30:1 air/fuel ratios. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Supercharger systems can improve efficiency, if it is chosen to use leaner air/fuel ratios than an unsupercharged system. Most car manufacturers choose to use superchargers to improve the power output of the engine, rather than to improve economy. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Fuel enhancement systems are based around engines operating at lean air/fuel ratios. Gasoline does not burn at a 30:1 air/fuel ratio, but the hydrogen allows the gasoline to remain flammable. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

While most systems are indeed scams, the concept of a lean/air fuel ratio has been around a long time. It takes a much more sophisticated computer management system to control an engine under such conditions. There is no reason a car cannot be built from the ground up to deal with the issues. Any system that only sells an electrolyzer is a con trick, most likely due to the manufacturer not understanding the concept of fuel enhancement and lean burning IC engines. There of people in the industry that know what they are talking about, or are at least rational; don't lump us all in the same category. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The supercharger comparison is applicable to fuel enhancement systems. Superchargers consume energy parasitically from the engines output, in turn to effect the input into the system. This is where the concept of feedback comes in. Feedback is used in electrical amplifies to stabilize the system, where some of the output of the amplifier is diverted back to the input. In a block diagram superchargers are the same as fuel enhancement systems. Even if the hydrogen is produced from the carbon fuel source, some of the engines energy (heat or electricity) is used directly or indirectly to effect the input into the system. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A clarification: the concept of fuel enhancement has nothing to do with the energy content of the hydrogen. Hydrogen allows gasoline to remain flammable at lean and ultra lean air/fuel ratios. At an air/fuel ratio of 30:1 or greater, the temperature of combustion is substantial reduced, which will practically eliminate NOx pollution. Also associated with a more complete combustion process is the complete formation of dioxides from monoxides, which will completely eliminate the need for a catalytic converter. Unburn HC emissions will be eliminated, and smog (O3) will fully be consumed in the combustion process leaving the exhaust relatively cleaner than rich air/fuel ratios. The only reason rich air/fuel ratios are used is to use excess gasoline to cool the combustion process; this is because car companies went the cheap route in designing the programs in the ECU. It take a much more sophisticated computer programs to properly manage a lean burning IC engine. For instance, on cold starts the air/fuel ratios need to be richer, which is also the case at WOT. But under partial load, idle conditions, and moderate acceleration substantial lean (or ultra lean) air/fuel ratios can be implemented have marked benefits. You would need different fuel maps under different driving conditions, and not just under different loads/rpms; this entails more sensors, and more money. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, to answer your question why aren't the car companies using the fuel enhancement concept. Because they want cars that are practically identical, and easily duplicable. They do not want to custom tailor ECU's for each make and model engine. They also want interchangeable parts. On another note, water injection has been used in Jets for almost a century. The harrier for instance uses water injection during is VTOL phase of operation. The Harrier requires substantially lean engine conditions to produce the power required for VTOL maneuvers. I'm pretty sure corrosion resistant material can be used to deal with water contact ;) Noah Seidman (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because a concept is not widely implemented does not mean that it is not a good idea; it is a fallacy to suppose this. Often the cost to implement it is not practical when compared with the benefit to the specific application. Steam/water injection in an automobile, which SteveBaker mentioned, requires a very different set of materials in the cylinder and exhaust system, not to mention additional control, which adds more expense than a consumer will find in benefit from a vehicle. In industrial turbine generation however a 1% increase in efficiency can mean millions in profit on a daily basis, and that often justifies the greater cost in special coatings and materials necessary to maintain a service life comparable to a dry system. I have seen steam injection in many cases in turbines because the benefits make sense in that application. (also could add combined cycle generation... not in widespread use by the public, much less in vehicles, but under no circumstances a concept without merit.)
There may be merit to the lean-burn emissions claims for hydrogen fuel injection. The trouble arrives when you begin to consider efficiency claims - for example: there are many means for hydrogen generation: partial oxidation, electrolysis, steam reforming, etc. The "well to wheels" efficiency will differ based upon the efficiency of the generation method used supposing all else remains the same. Electrolysis, and consequently oxy-hydrogen, is a pipe-dream for fuel enhancement simply by the the large energy required to crack H2O. Any hydrocarbon based method would be preferred by merit of the relative efficiency in producing hydrogen. This is why industrial hydrogen is typically made from natural gas, not from water. Tjcognata (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Efficiency claims are dealt with precisely. (See: Hydrogen fuel enhancement:Fraud considerations). Your other points about viability are debatable. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Noah Seidman claims that Harriers jets use water for fuel enhancement. This is absolutely not true. The Harrier uses water to cool the outlet nozzles not to get more engine power or better fuel efficiency. It carries only enough water to do this for 90 seconds and it only does it while hovering. Check out our articles on the aircraft if you are not convinced. I used to design flight simulators - including one for the AV8B version of the Harrier so I'm 100% certain of this. SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Noah Seidman said the harrier uses water for water injection. Water injection is not fuel enhancement; it is used to cool various components to deal with high temperatures. Also note that Noah Seidman wants to learn, and everything I say may not be 100% accurate. We have to debate to make progress. Where else is this topic discussed in an open forum? Why must their be animosity? Should our conversations be constructive? If a statement is found to be the contrary you can delete it outright, or debate it to gain a better understanding. As I will say for the billionth time all I want is to make progress and gain a clearer understanding of what can fundamentally work versus outright fraud. Sheesh. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note that many people are 100% absolute of things. Richard Feinman said things are not absolute, they are either likely or less likely. To think anything is absolute is irrational; and there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate. I don't claim anything; claims are for patents. I do on the other hand think alot. I have many ideas, of which some are likely to be correct, and others erroneous. Lets focus on progress rather than who claims what. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, are you using the Harrier misunderstanding to discredit me somehow? Because I don't understand everything does not mean all my ideas are completely incorrect. Great, as you said my statement is "absolutely not true". Now I know what is true, and I have incorporated it into a better understanding of things. Did I not just learn something? Noah Seidman (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere there are people in this world that laugh when someone is wrong, and there are people they try and help other people learn. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you read animosity or hostility into what I wrote - I merely corrected your incorrect statement. You were talking in the context of fuel enhancement - I don't think you intended a complete non-sequitur to talking about cooling systems - which is why I corrected you. At any rate there is absolutely no relationship between the water used to cool the nozzles on the Harrier and the way water is being employed in the context being discussed here. The nearest analogy would be to the coolant circulating in a car engine. You misquote (and misspell) Feynman - he was talking about the nature of natural laws - not about a specific man-made machine, whos design and purpose may be known with as much certainty as you know that I write this post. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I was having a bad day. Your comments were constructive, and your editing of the article is much appreciated. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Noah, I think you mis-understood me. On one point I was partly buttressing your argument about why good technologies are not adopted whole-sale. I also brought up application suitability. Mabey I could put this another way - Steam turbines did not displace steam engines, even though a viable, proven, and promising technology, until Charles Parsons humiliated the Royal British fleet by leaving them in the wake of his Turbinia at the 1894 Naval Review. Don't assume that just because a concept or technology is not widely accepted that it has no merit.
As for the other point, I was basically suggesting that there are a number of hydrogen generation methods which are much more efficient than electrolysis. A more efficient hydrogen generator will make for a more efficient system given that all else remains the same. That is why I feel oxy-hydrogen is not a viable fuel enhancement save perhaps in very special cases. Tjcognata (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. I think a hydrogen reformer is much better suited for fuel enhancement applications for reasons of efficiency.
As for electrolyzers, although there is a substantial drain on engine performance when using an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen, there are positive considerations. Being that fuel enhancement systems are an aftermarket technology marketability is important. Producing hydrogen from water, rather than from the vehicles gasoline has interesting marketing components, which has been grossly misused in internet frauds. In any arrangement be it a hydrogen reformer, or electrolysis energy is needed from the output of the engine, which will decrease the performance of the vehicle in exchange for allowing the engine to operate with substantially leaner air/fuel ratios than possible with solely gasoline. The net equation is performance in exchange for mileage? How much performance is dependent on the method of hydrogen production? Noah Seidman (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is 100% lies

There is no such thing as Browns gas. Brown was actually a swindler and quack.

There are hardly any applications for hydrogen + oxygen welding since it has a WEAK worthless flame. It's only good is for liquid rockets.

Your comments are nonconstructive in creating a better article. If you wish for your comments to be taken seriously you should adjust your tone and elaborate further. For example: considering the properties of the flame welding is not a viable application, although torch applications have logistical and environmental implications.
Note that you say "it" has no applications, and then you say "it is only good for liquid rockets". You are not consistent, and inaccurate. Brown made a torch design, and associated electrolyzer that produces oxyhydrogen. Because of this oxyhydrogen produced in the relevant design is commonly referred to as Brown's Gas. Brown's Gas is oxyhydrogen, and oxyhydrogen is a torch gas. This article contains references regarding the topic of oxyhydrogen. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is of course the user whose repeated insertion of material caused this article to be protected.
Note that a torch has other applications than welding. Also, the fact that the oxy-hydrogen flame is poor for welding steel does not make it inappopriate for fusing other materials such as glass, plastics, and precious metals. Some of this is described in the article.
I don't particularly care for the term "Brown's gas", but since it is notable, and many people seem to use it, we need to mention it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Having multiple names for oxyhydrogen is very frustrating. I have been dealing with this for a long time. The only significance to the term Brown's Gas is that it implies a particularly designed electrolyzer. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aquygen Blog

User User:Jmurphee continues to add the aquygen blog to the external links. If the link to this blog remains I will add my website; well not really. I feel that the link to this blog should be removed ASAP by another editor. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Noah Seidman (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He linked a few similar blogs in other articles as well. I have removed them all. William Pietri (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories.

All of the talk of Brown's gas, Oxyhydrogen and HHO (and probably other things too) come under the heading of "Fringe Theories" - and we have to approach them as such. Mainstream science (rightly or wrongly) doesn't acknowledge that there is anything other than a good old mixture of H2 and O2 produced as the perfectly normal results of electrolysis of water without adequate separation of the resulting gasses. Taking that mainstream perspective (as Wikipedia guidelines require) means that these three terms all mean exactly the same thing - and even when all are taken together, they are only just barely worth an article (because their claim to notability is - at best - thin). So let's keep our eyes on the mainstream view - and write only about properties of these gasses that can be backed up with articles in peer reviewed journals. Anything else we want to say has to be of the form "so-and-so so claims that..." with references that show that they do indeed claim that. We cannot say "this is true because so-and-so says so" unless this is referencable with peer-reviewed science.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I dont understand why aquygen is even referenced...as it seems to be simply a trademark for a common gas mixture. There doesnt seem to be any clear distinction to their production methods from ordinary hight school science electrolysis except that for some very dubious claims. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As you noted this material is at most high school science. Since its so simple there is very little if any current peer reviewed work on the subject. The only scientific interest at this point is developing electrocatalysts for the electrodes. The fringe theories which apply these neologisms are the core of scientific frauds used in commercial frauds. For example one company [17] using an associated fraud is attributed to have raised 21 million dollars in capital based on these "theories"[18]. This doesn't include all the trucking owner operators this company ripped off over the years.
These theories need to be acknowledged some place. Oxyhydrogen is a historic way to refer to the hydrogen and oxygen produced through the electrolysis of water making it a reasonable place to mention these fringe neologisms. Other pages and associated talk sections related to this subject are water fuel cell, electrolysis of water, hydrogen fuel enhancement. I would appreciate any help you can offer in clearing up this material.--OMCV (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Beware: User:JoeShea & User:70.126.22.247

Head's up: Two extremely poor edits were added over the weekend by User:JoeShea & User:70.126.22.247 - both were (wisely) reverted. It is worth noting that 70.126.22.247's first edit contribution is for the article Joe Shea. Hence these two accounts are likely to be the same person - and could well be someone who has no problem with violating COI and autobiography rules. SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Think its really Joe Shea? He seems to be a legit person.....unfortunately the HHO expo address is the same as his newspaper. 12.29.38.14 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
We cannot say "this is true because so-and-so says so" unless this is referencable with peer-reviewed science.

Yes, but it is also our duty to say "so-and-so claims x to be true, but this is false because of y". For instance:

Denny Klein claims that his welders produce a flame at a temperature of "10,000 degrees", due to their ability to "subluminate" tungsten. (The boiling point of tungsten is 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.) However, his demonstrations of the effect occur in air. In air, tungsten oxidizes to predominantly form Tungsten(VI) oxide, which then melts at only 1473 °C and is ablated away by the flame as smoke particles (which can be seen in Klein's videos). The temperature required for this effect is then consistent with that of an oxyhydrogen flame.

and include references to Don Lancaster, James Randi, etc. — Omegatron (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm all for that. Shoud be added to the section on Aquygen. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Aquygen Section REMOVED

I completely removed this section for a number of reasons. It had numerous flaws.

  1. We don't need to name names so much. What about (for example) the other 5 or 6 companies that market the same stuff this HTA does? It's better to mention the companies in passing, since not really any one of them are notable or leading the market.
  2. The HTA firm seems to be non-notable. According to the USPTO website, which lists the trademark for Aquygen, the party has never used their trademark from the time of filing until at least March 20, 2008. They keep filing for an extension to use the trademark every six months. In other words, it is NOT NOTABLE for the Wikipedia, given we are talking about a nothing company with just a trademark and a patent. Big deal.
  3. The trademark Aquygen is not just for the gas. It is for products that generate the gas, too. They have not "trademarked oxyhydrogen as Aquygen" -- they are using the trademark for many parts of their technology. (I found their website and peeked at the way they use it.) They don't always call the gas Aquygen, rather they call it Aquygen Gas and the generators Aquygen Gas Generators, etc.
  4. The HHO trademark has nothing to do with the HTA company nor with the HHO we are discussing here. The HHO trademark was registered in 2008 for what seems to be a catalyst in the petroleum industry. To "Headwaters Incorporated" of Utah. Again, see the USPTO.
  5. The summary that purports to summarize the section with "a number of fraudulent claims, and third party water-fuelled car scam attempts" makes no sense in the context. If we are going to mention something about junk science, controversial claims, or whatever it is, there need to be a non-biased, NPOV section about the issues at hand. We can't summarize anything without discussing the claims, the pro/con, or presenting both sides of the case in an unbiased, encyclopedic method. Furthermore, this

would more easily go into a more general section or article.

I would think a more general section would be appropriate, although there seems to be an article at water-fuelled car that may be similar.

Here is the snippet I removed: I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The firm Hydrogen Technology Applications (HTA) has trademarked oxyhydrogen as Aquygen. HTA's founder Dennis Klein holds a patent for an electrolyzer design which states that it differs from Yull Brown's torch patents in that it lacks an electric arc feature.[1]

The claimed applications of HHO and Aquygen are practically indistinguishable from the original claims of Yull Brown. The HHO trademark is associated with an unproven state of matter called magnegases, and a discredited theory about magnecules,[2] which is the basis for a number of fraudulent claims, and third party water-fuelled car scam attempts.


I think they deserve a mention at least in a discussion of companies that use and abuse the various oxyhydrogen terms to sell dubious products and to link folks to the appropriate discussion of the science and facts behind the claims. There are a LOT of scams using HHO, Brown's Gas, Water Car, etc etc etc.. and there are many more to come as gas prices climb. I think we'd be delinquent not to at least mention them. If there's no mention on wikipedia it suggests that there isn't consensus about the science underlying these schemes, and perhaps they have some validity as a 'new science' that hasnt been explored. I'd rather see something that says 'high school science' 'well understood' 'doesn't work, can't work, and won't work' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's end ongoing reverts in the contentious automotive applications section.

There have been continual reverts - tweaks and weasel-words for the sentence that currently reads:

To date, none of these claims have been proven true by reputable sources, and many have been shown to be fraudulent.

...most of the changes are by IP accounts that may trivially be traced back to the sellers of the very kinds of obvious scam devices we're talking about here - that's not just unethical - it's also a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. If you have anything to do with making, selling or marketting these devices then you may not edit the article directly (although you are welcome to state your case for changes here in the Talk: page).

So - in an effort to get "right on our side", I've gone to some effort to track down some pretty solid references for the two clauses of this statement. Please notice that I've added references for both the "none proven true" and "many shown to be fraudulent" statements.

The "many shown fraudulant" thing is an easy statement to reference - there have been plenty of court cases involving fraudulant oxyhydrogen schemes - and I've listed a couple of the more notable ones there. That's really impossible to deny - so you can make no case for changing that clause of the statement.

For the "none have been proven" statement, we have a harder problem. It's obviously impossible to prove a negative with references - but I have shown that not one oxyhydrogen fuel enhancer has ever been EPA approved as a fuel saving device for cars and trucks - which is a pretty strong statement in the negative direction. If someone produced a device that they truly believed would actually work, they'd be rushing to get that coveted "EPA-approved" sticker on their websites. The well-referenced fact that they have not done so is a strong demonstration that they are all fraudulant...but I'll admit it's not proof. So, if you have a reputable source (by which we mean "reputable by Wikipedia standards") that shows that commercial oxyhydrogen systems work in cars and trucks then please add your reference and correct my statement. But please don't update it without some pretty darned solid references or it'll simply have to be reverted again. Note that "some sellers website" or "some free energy site" isn't enough to meet Wikipedia standards. We need a clear statement that the device has been proven to work in a reputable, peer-reviewed, journal.

Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure Steve, but I propose we make that section even better. (And so I edited a few times today.) Listen, I removed the junk on Aquagen or whatever, but this automotive section is still worthless without talking about both sides - pro/con, in a NPOV. You can't say negative blasting debunking stuff without describing what we have to debunk. This is what I said earlier (see above) and now I went ahead and wrote what the purported applications are here and now, 2008... what people are making and building. If you notice, the item which I described is perfectly funtional and violates no scientific principles.... It is just as you said, however, the claims of fuel efficiency have not been substantiated.
However, it must be acknowledged, that, even if the claims of fuel efficiency are bogus, the devices actually:
  1. Use electricty
  2. To electrolyze water
  3. Which makes oxyhydrogen
  4. That is injected somehow into a car
  5. To burn inside the engine
Which, in all honestly, doesn't violate any principles of science. My other point is that there could be folks who are beginning to catch a clue on the issue of what they claim, and they make little or no claims of junk science, rather they simply stay under the bar of accountability. Here is why I make this point:
A lot of things you can buy at a Mass-market auto store have some carefully-worded labels which seem to imply one thing but say another. Remember Slick 50 and Dura Lube and their run-in with the EPA? Those guys just changed their formula and boxes and kept selling it I think. Buyer beware, but these things exist and they will continue to exist for a long time. (See Oil_additive#Additives_in_the_Aftermarket_and_Controversy)
But also, as we all know, these guys have very little funding to produce a $100,000 research scientist with the willingness to say one way or the other, much less a peer-reviewed college professor and department. I have seen some research, but most of it is on hydrogen alone without the full meal deal of electrolysis and oxyhydrogen. What little I found, I will try to post here. And a newspaper article may work for some things, but I want to be careful.
I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:FRINGE. We are required (on scientific matters such as this) to represent the mainstream view and NOT give undue weight to the fringe theorists. The idea that you can make a car use less gas by hooking up a jam jar full of water and a battery is to say the very least NOT mainstream. Hence we must NOT give undue weight to those who peddle such piles of junk to gullible motorists. If you can find mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals or other equally appropriate sources that say that these things work - then fine, we'll make the article more balanced. Newspaper articles and TV reports and random websites are not acceptable sources in these cases. Representing the commercial interests of a bunch of con-men when there is ZERO mainstream acceptance of these theories would be extremely off-balance. Like I said - read WP:FRINGE. SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


The supporting articles Water-fuelled car,Hydrogen fuel enhancement,Electrolysis of water (etc..) can handle the details. There really isnt much of a reason for this article to exist except to point people to mainstream science, which doesnt recognize any difference between oxyhydrogen and H2/O2. It seems like the only people that use any of the terms for H2/O2 discussed in this article are trying to conceal what they do behind a thin scrim of technobabble. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say the strong response to the automotive section demonstrates it value. I would also like to voice my support for Steve's and Subway's proposal to keep it very simple and redirect people where they can get more information. If you have issue with the language please voice it on this page.--OMCV (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel enhancement

There is no peer reviewed evidence for using electrolyzers for purposes of automotive fuel enhancement. There is peer reviewed evidence for using reformation technology to produce hydrogen from gasoline. It comes down to the efficiency of converting gasoline energy to hydrogen. A 40% efficient hydrogen reformer has been shown to be effective at increasing efficiency. Given a 20% efficient engine, an 80% efficient alternator and a 50% efficient electrolyzer a 8% conversion of gasoline energy to hydrogen can be achieved. Via linear extrapolation this could have 1/5 the result of the 40% efficient hydrogen reformer.

Although since extrapolation is original research it does not belong in the article. I think a clarification should be made between marketing fraud and science. The science part boils down to efficiency, and the marketing fraud boils down to "cars cannot run on water", which is properly handled by the existing wikilink to the water fueled car article. Noah Seidman (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to discuss any of this here. This belongs on one of the other pages. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's intersting how context forces editors to look at topics in a width perspective. I've seen short descriptions that are both longer and better then the original articles. It's a lot of work sorting out.

I had written the automotive section like this:

See also: hydrogen fuel enhancement
Oxyhydrogen (commonly called Browns gas in this application) is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to miraculously operate a car using water as a fuel. Which would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Older combustion engines can be very inefficient, the fuel is not entirely consumed rather lost in emission. Here Oxy-Hydrogen is used to catalyze with the gasoline in pursuit of emission standards.
Engineers have known for years that adding hydrogen to fuel makes an engine run cleaner. "The trick was figuring out how to produce hydrogen quickly and compactly on board" Daniel Cohn[19]
MIT's microplasmatron is a fuel converter used on a vehicle to transform gasoline or other hydrocarbons with an electrically conducting plasma to accelerate reactions that generate hydrogen rich gas to be used in the engine.[20]

But it was reverted as usual. (laughs) MIT is not good enough. Gdewilde (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference and link to a report by Environment Canada which pertains to testing done on a production model automotive oxy-hydrogen generator.

Lets see.... that seems to be discussing enhancing fuel with hydrogen..... perhaps you could put it on hydrogen fuel enhancement? Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the link for that reason. It has nothing to do with "oxyhydrogen". On a different tact, the document itself wasn't available from the source, nor could I find any reference to it anywhere. Rklawton (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: reference to the document found. However, I see no indication that it was peer-reviewed. This thread picks up on the hydrogen fuel enhancement talk page where it is more relevant. Rklawton (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of the reference and comments duly noted. Yes, the link does go to a free file server where I posted the document myself. As far as the source goes, the verification process could involve contacting Peter Barton at Environment Canada in Ottawa directly to verify its accuracy and authenticity. If you have found the report or reference to it posted elsewhere I would be interested. This is contact information for the engineer who produced the report: Peter Barton P.Eng, Head, Vehicle Testing and Facility Engineering, Emissions Research and Measurement,Environmental Science & Technology Centre, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada Phone: (613) 990-3723 Fax: (613) 952-1006 Peter.Barton@ec.gc.ca

As far as the relevance of the link, I believe the manufacturer of that unit claims to re-inject both the oxygen and hydrogen which it separates from the water back into the engine, not just the hydrogen. The unit makes oxygen and hydrogen and injects it as an oxy-hydrogen mix. It seemed to fit to me.

For peer review, should anyone else qualified wish to check it out the report, it is here, on this free file server for now: http://ttoes.fileave.com/JetStar_reportERMD%202004-32_v2_final.pdf

I will not re-insert the reference without further discussion.Ttoesen(talk) 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. You seem to have missed the point. Please read Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources. We don't publish "expert's" opinions on anything. See also no original research. For us to use Eng's paper, we'd need to know what journal saw fit to publish his work. Only then could we use it - assuming that source was reliable.
  2. You also see to miss the point of this article. This article isn't about the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. It's about the mythical molecule "oxyhydrogen" (HHO) as "distinct" from H2O (or water). Believe me, you don't want to associate Eng's work with the various fraud's reported in this article.

Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is being used for a scam

This is not just a hoax, it's a con, with the "bait" that people can get better gas mileage by electrolyzing water to add to gasoline (they call this "HHO", a meaningless misuse of chemical formula)... and the con artists are using Wikipedia to promote their scam. Take a look at this site (scroll about one screen down, to the screenshot of Wikipedia).

This should be taken very seriously: con artists are using this Wikipedia page as part of their patter to scam people. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article in its entirely you'll note the automotive section contains ample links to areas of wikipedia that debunk any use of HHO/Brown's gas/Oxyhydrogen as an automotive fuel or fuel enhancer. Somebody else will probably revert your edit, its POV, but I'm happy to let it stand. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the scam site that cites this wikipedia page, it doesn't go down far enough to show the automobile discussion. Since this page is-- by a protected REDIRECT-- also the HHO, HHO gas, and HHO Gas wikipedia page, the fact that HHO gas is a scam needs to be right up top. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that selling HHO generators for cars is a hoax, a scam, fraudulant behavior, whatever. However, we are required to speak the truth, the entire truth and only the truth (and then, only when we can verify it with references). The little chunk they took from the article is perfectly OK. They gave us due credit, they didn't use our copyrighted logo, they didn't quote us out of context. We said that Oxyhydrogen is sometimes used in torches - and it is. They even put in our bit about this being a simple mixture of H2 and O2. If anything, we improved their page by telling people that HHO isn't something all that special. That's a good thing. They aren't ever going to quote from something that says they are scammers. I have reverted what you added to the article - it's not written in and encyclopedic tone and it's not well enough referenced for the VERY strong claims it makes. I'm not against saying something like this - but it has to be done RIGHT. SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Uggg, thats so infuriating that the website you linked to is referencing this Wikipedia article. We have to do something, but a distinction should be made between the company Hydrogen Technology Applications, of Clear Water Florida (Tradmark holders of HHO), and the con artists illegally using the brand name. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I recant. After a quick USPTO trademark search there doesn't seem to be a trademark of HHO owned by Hydrogen Technology Applications.[21] Back to square one. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
[22] , it seems they have multiple offices, Talk:HHO. Mion (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At the evident risk of edit war, I am re-reverting. First, saying that "HHO shouldn't be on this page" is rather disingenuous-- this page is the HHO page. I personally think that the redirect of HHO, HHO gas, and HHO Gas shouldn't go to this page, they should go to pages saying that HHO is a chemical formula that doesn't exist, but they do, and if the redirect goes to this page, it might perhaps should mention HHO right at the beginning.

second, I think that editors here are not being sufficiently attentive to the fact that in this instance, Wikipedia is being used to support a scam. This is not going to be a good thing for Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well either way, a blog is not a suitable source. I can find just as many blogs that claim that HHO is the second coming of Christ. Neither of them can be used here. Good intent, bad sourcing. If you'd like to try again, please discuss here first.Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The answer to bad sourcing is good sourcing. I notice you have not done that. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Using an image of a Wikipedia page without a link back to the Wikipedia page comprises a copyright violation. Specifically, all our works are protected by the GFDL copyright - a copyright which requires re-publishers to credit the text's author(s). Without a link back, the author(s) receive no credit, and that's a violation of GFDL. The catch is this: Wikipedia doesn't hold the GFDL copyright - we do. So the offended author(s) are the ones who will have to pursue the copyvios themselves. Not that a con artist would give a rat's patootie. Rklawton (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the Con

The con is premised on making it appear simple to modify a vehicle to increase gas mileage. The con also hints that a car can "run on water". The con is a gross exaggeration of Hydrogen fuel enhancement, fraudulently marketing a simple vehicle modification to achieve what really requires substantial modifications (plural). Noah Seidman (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can debunk the con by adding text describing what is required to increase gas mileage, i.e. increase compression ratios, leaner air/fuel ratios, and advanced timing. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's worse even than that - injecting water (or H2 + O2) into your cylinders results in lots of hot, corrosive water inside your cylinders and exhaust manifold and dribbling past your piston rings to emulsify the oil - thereby destroying its ability to lubricate. Using one of these gadgets will destroy your engine in fairly short order even if you do everything else you need to do. If it were otherwise, don't you think that the manufacturers of cars that are marketted for their fuel efficiency wouldn't already have done this? When you look at the cost an mechanical complexity of things like direct gasoline injection - there is no way the car manufacturers would have added those things if something as simple as a water sprayer would do the same job. SteveBaker (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but clearly your point is an important consideration when designing a vehicle. The HFI research does not make specific mention of increase corrosion. How corrosive is gaseous water as compared to liquid water? What about superheated water? Even using pure gasoline there is water as a byproduct; how is this dealt with in existing designs? Can an engine be designed with different materials, possibly alloyed to be increasingly corrosion resistant? Noah Seidman (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There may or may not be something to electrolyzers for hydrogen fuel enhancement, but these frauds are destroying all shreds of potential and credibility. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What makes things so difficult is distinguishing the obvious marketing fraud, from the fact that engines can be modified to be more efficient. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There should be no doubt that it is fraudulent to make a complex electrical and mechanical vehicle modification look simple. The cons actually say "do it yourself". Noah Seidman (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. I agree that it's possible (in theory) to make a gasoline engine that uses water injection to improve fuel economy. I strongly DISAGREE that there will ever be an "upgrade kit" for existing cars to allow them to genuinely take advantage of water or hydrogen injection.
HFI research by legitimate automotive experts requires that they solve the corrosion problem. There are certainly ways to do that - you can have ceramic cylinder liners - some kind of corrosion resistant exhaust - some means to either purge water from the engine oil or some way to lubricate the engine without oil - using some kind of water-based lubricant instead. These things are possible - but they aren't going to be retrofittable to your car! When new cars come with a water tank as well as a gas tank - you'll know that the technology actually works.
The water may flash into steam at the moment of ignition - but remember that cars use water as a coolant. This maintains the temperature of the engine block BELOW the boiling point of water. What's more, the initial high temperatures of the burning gasoline are when the pressures are also at the maximum. As the piston starts moving towards the bottom of the cylinder, the volume increases and the pressure decreases. On the exhaust stroke, the exhaust valve opens the way out to the exhaust pipe - so the pressure drops rapidly to regular air pressure. This dramatic drop in pressure decreases the temperatures still further. The gasses that come out of your car exhaust are merely warm - they aren't hot enough to scald you - so you KNOW that by the time the gasses leave the exhaust pipe, the water MUST have recondensed into liquid - so there will be hot water. If the steam remains gaseous in your cylinder, it'll be able to leak around the piston rings and into the oil pan. There it will certainly condense back into liquid water. Now you have water in your motor oil. There is no way for the water to get back out of the oil - so it builds up and up and up until you change your oil. This is a VERY BAD THING. Modern cars can go for 20,000 miles without an oil change. This water is churned into the oil by the thrashing around and circulation around the engine just as if it were in a very powerful blender. This results in the oil emulsifying into a white gooey foamy substance that has almost zero lubrication ability. Now your engine parts are rubbing metal-on-metal - and the consequences for engine life are pretty obvious.
SteveBaker (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Clear points thoroughly expressed. Were basically on the same page. "In theory" means it can be engineered, but there are sooooo many considerations, which most likely causes economic inviability. Noah Seidman (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What we should add

We should say clearly that oxyhydrogen is not fuel, its an energy carrier. This is obviously for the exact same reasons as hydrogen. Noah Seidman (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not true though. Igniting a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen DOES liberate energy - therefore it IS a fuel. The second and third stages of the Apollo moon rockets were fuelled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen - at the moment of ignition those were combined into "oxyhydrogen". We can't say that it isn't a fuel - that's just WRONG.
The problem is that (a) you can't make this fuel from water without using a lot more energy than you get back and (b) the people who are claiming that you can add one of these to your car and gain benefits from doing so are clearly defrauding the public for multiple reasons:
  1. If they are claiming that the improvement is due to the slowing of burning gasoline then:
    • They don't need to electrolyse the water - a simple water sprayer will produce an equivalent result.
    • Even if oxyhydrogen was somehow better than pure water at promoting more complete burning of gasoline, the improvements cannot possibly be more than a few percent because the fraction of unburned gasoline in car exhaust is VERY tiny - it's required to be that small by law - so we know that if your car is passing emissions laws then you aren't going to get more than maybe a fraction of one percent improvement. It would take decades of use of one of these machines to pay for it's initial cost.
    • The damage that water that's formed from reacting hydrogen with oxygen does to your engine is gonna cost you vastly more than you'll ever save. It's going to shorten the life of your engine and your exhaust by quite a bit - but it may be a year or more before you really notice - and then maybe you won't think to associate the damage with the oxyhydrogen injector? It may be a long time before the law suits start.
  2. If they are claiming that the hydrogen is a fuel then:
    • The machines they sell are only able to produce an utterly pathetic amount of hydrogen. Elsewhere I've calculated that to run a typical 25mpg car on hydrogen and to be able to drive it at 30mph, you'd have to produce nine liters of oxyhydrogen PER SECOND. If they claim to double your fuel efficiency then they have to be able to produce 4.5 liters of gas per second at 30mph, at least twice that at 60mph - and probably twice that again at 70 to 80mph highway speeds. You'd also need a water tank about two and a half times the size of your gas tank! These guys sell you water containers that are maybe one liter in capacity!
    • We know that the electrical energy required to produce usable amounts of hydrogen is considerably less than you get back from burning it as a fuel - so your battery will run down faster than you can recharge it. The laws of thermodynamics GUARANTEE that this is the case.
  3. In both cases, the car's software would need to be adjusted because injecting oxygen and hydrogen into the inlet manifold fools the oxygen sensor and that's gonna totally mess up the fuel economy of your car - without rewriting your car's software, things can only get worse if these devices actually produced enough gas to make any kind of practical difference.
So, yes - selling oxyhydrogen generators to the general public is without any doubt a complete scam. But that doesn't give us the right to lie about the properties of oxygen/hydrogen mixtures within this article.
SteveBaker (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all your points. In addition flame velocity is an important consideration. Energy released past the critical crank angle is a waste, therefore faster burning fuel will successfully create more useful pressure; hydrogen addition increases the burn rate of gasoline releasing more energy before the critical crank angle. Overall it is clear that there are pros and cons, and sometimes insurmountable design considerations.
You mentioned re-writing the ECU's code; a replacement tunable ECU can be marketed to increase gas mileage, focusing the engine on economy instead of power. Forcing the engine to operate in an increasingly efficiency RPM region will increase gas mileage, which is the ultimate goal of a CVT transmission. This can be achieved to a limited degree by modifying the shift points of an automatic transmission. A dyno shop selling custom ECUs could definitely market increasing gas mileage without being fraudulent.
Nuff said for now. Run your car on water = scam. DIY hydrogen fuel enhancement = manipulative and deceitful, therefore = scam. Noah Seidman (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that one of the biggest promoters of the hydrogen fuel enhancement concept (me and my website), calling these websites scams, will help distinguish fact from fraud, what can be engineered from what is impossible, and what is reasonable marketing from blatant manipulation. Noah Seidman (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see the results of a hydrogen enhancement system (lets say run off a tank of hydrogen) would be over a couple thousand miles. That would be a useful test. Perhaps also do some analysis of the emissions. Maybe some dyno runs before and after to get an idea of the performance gains or losses? What sort of tests have you run as part of your consulting business?I recognize they couldnt be used as sources for the article, I'm just curious. Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've worked with propane, and coal, but no experimentation of academic quality. My clients never wanted to pony up the bucks for the laboratories. To be brief the results were an increase in temperature output, but this is basically useless to say without accurate measurements of fuel and electricity consumed. I always felt there is more potential for fuel enhancement in residential furnaces, and boilers rather than automotive. I have some nice data from competitors done in laboratories, but nothing published academically. I have not consulted for automotive fuel enhancement; well some telephone consultations, but nothing more. Heres the data from first propane experiment I did almost 5 years ago [23] (I was boiling water well above sea level where the BP was 190 Fahrenheit). It had a control which creates a comparative baseline, but the experiment was no where near academic quality. The experiment was the thing that actually got me interested in the concept of fuel enhancement; the reaction the propane had when the oxyhydrogen was introduced was fascinating. I would imagine a comparable effect would be achieved by introducing pure oxygen but the hydrogen contributes energy in the flame, among other theorized chemical effects (possibly a catalyst reducing the activation energy of hydrocarbon combustion; ehh its just a theory nothing more). Although if it is catalyzing the hydrocarbon, and being consumed this would be a synergistic effect being that by definition catalysts are not consumed. This can be tested in a bomb calorimeter, but I contacted Intertek, a premier coal testing company, and they said they cannot test gaseous fuels; hence a dead end. I guess a custom bomb calorimeter can be made to ASTM standards for around 50 grand, but I'm no where near that caliber.
I like pitching the idea of a steam reformer used to enhance a boiler. I think this would work well in an apartment and corporate buildings. This may actually prove viable for regular homes, but this obviously would require the manufacturing of compact steam reformers.
My website kinda gives the impression that I've been in the business a long time. Bare in mind I'm only 25 and just graduated a couples of years ago. On a side note I do all my own website work :) Noah Seidman (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear I am just responding to a question, so this info is purely a digression. I have been editing various Wikipedia articles for years, and have learned how to be relatively NPOV and work constructive with others. My main goal with the consulting is to share information that I have learned in school, and in my extracurricular endeavors. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Patents as sources

I don't think we should use patents as a reliable source for anything other than the fact that a patent exists. The U.S. Patent Office in particular does not build, test, certify, or otherwise demonstrate that an idea works. They simply take the inventor's documentation and certify that the idea is original. Therefore, we should not treat any information contained within a patent as a reliable source. Indeed, the number and variety of bullshit patents is both astounding and amusing. I'm adding this recommendation here because parts of this article's content is sourced only to the text of a patent application - and as noted above - this information simply isn't reliable. A fun example of this would be the patent for a parachute helmet. The patent describes a parachute like device attached to a helmet that can be used to safely lower people from high buildings in the event of a fire. Yes, it would be fair to say in an article that such a patent exists and even that it was a proposed use for a parachute. But no, it would be ridiculous to use this patent application to suggest that helmet parachutes actually work. Rklawton (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy of Atomic hydrogen welding to a helmet parachute is not applicable. Atomic hydrogen welding is an industry technique not invented by Brown. Since Brown's design used an electric arc its a logical consequence that atomic hydrogen welding is pertinent. Maybe an inline see also is applicable. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There are really TWO meaningful things you can reference with a patent. The first is (as you say) that it is self-proof - ie proof that a patent was indeed issued...but the second is that it's reasonable to say that the author of the patent makes claims within the patent. So if Mr X writes a patent that says "it's possible to do Y" - then we can say "Mr X claimed that it was possible to do Y" - and back up that statement with the patent. Of course it would be dangerous to say that "Mr X believed that it was possible to do Y" - because he might have deliberately lied in the patent application. We certainly can't say "It is possible to do Y" - because there are enormous numbers of patents for things that quite plainly don't work. SteveBaker (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

As you can see from User:Nseidm1's user page, he consults for "Water Fuel LLC" - which is a company that deals with Hydrogen Fuel enhancement systems. I was therefore horrified to discover that he had deleted the following text from this article:

"Because the energy required to split water exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency. However, the input energy (and therefore the additional load on the alternator, which is driven at low effieciency by the engine) is very small (typically 100 watts for an engine rated at 150,000 watts). Therefore, the reduction in efficiency is not measurable."

Regardless of whether this statement is true or false - referenced or not - it is strictly against Wikipedia's Conflict of interest rules for someone who is intimately involved with companies that produce these systems to be deleting criticism of them. This is not the first time I have complained to him about this kind of behavior.

Wikipedia MUST retain independence from commercial interests. Nsdeim1 must immediately cease editing ALL articles that relate to his business interests. If he cannot be trusted to do so voluntarily - then I will agressively seek intervention from the Wikipedia admins.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, according to WP:COI if a NPOV is maintained WP:COI is not a justifiable means of preventing a user from editing an article. Also my reversion was consistent with the consensus to discuss distinct material in the respective article. You may claim WP:COI, but you cannot use it to justify the reversion of an edit by an anonymous user, to a state that was clearly reached by consensus. I strongly urge you to bring up this matter on the COI noticeboard to gain a third party perspective. It is your obligation to do so to preserve the neutrality of the article. It is my intention to claim my edit is NPOV using consensus as my reasoning, which you obviously know will stand because my reversion was to an edit made by an editor other than myself. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is taking place on User_talk:Nseidm1#Conflict_of_Interest_concerns. Mion (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation need tags ?

This is nonsense Steve, the section is unsourced and full of BS. I have added lots of citation need tags to the section and now I'm going to make the wild suggestion we find sources for it. Burning oxyhydrogen in the engine has oxygen as it's exhaust product. This means there is additional oxygen available for the conventional combustion. There is no doubt this makes for a cleaner burn.
Engineers have known for years that adding hydrogen to fuel makes an engine run cleaner. "The trick was figuring out how to produce hydrogen quickly and compactly on board" Daniel Cohn states.[3]
MIT's microplasmatron is a fuel converter used on a vehicle to transform gasoline or other hydrocarbons with an electrically conducting plasma to accelerate reactions that generate hydrogen rich gas to be used in the engine.[4]
For example US Patent 1,630,048 claims: "The light and therefore easily inflammable hydrocarbons are first by the ignition means provided on the engine and thus provide the heat required for igniting the heavy hydrocarbons contained in the mixture."[5].
There woudn't be a point to this if the oxygen didn't help.
Could you please return to assuming good faith now? Gdewilde (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What about we just copy some bits from the page about Hydrogen fuel enhancement and stick {{main|Hydrogen fuel enhancement}} above it? We shouldn't have to lump together a real technology and an urban legend into one section. The page should not be needlessly rude to people. Negative toned opinion works obviously needs sources more than anything. Gdewilde (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We could, but in addition to it's use in hydrogen fuel enhancement, oxyhydrogen (whether the proponents have called it that or something else like HHO) has also been implicated in alleged water fuelled cars like, Stan Meyers, the Sri Lankan guys, etc. Yilloslime (t) 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey look more bullshit? You are going to source those claims or they will be removed. No consensus here.
has also been implicated in alleged water fuelled cars like, Stan Meyers, the Sri Lankan guys, etc.
Oxyhydrogen gas is often hate speeched by government thugs, corporate interests and other partisan hackers. They go out of their way to debunk the tech using remote viewing, Intellectual dishonesty, Linguistic imperialism, pseudoskepticim and of course Journalism creating a sort of religious cult of denialists.
See also: Free energy suppression.
I didn't need sources right? That was what you suggested was it not? lol Gdewilde (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Consensus

Consensus was reached a while back about the automotive section of this article. Material was going to be dealt with on the corresponding article page, but incorrect synthesis has crept back into this article. Since the most credible source is now the US DOT and NASA the potential for increasing engine efficiency should become the staus quo of the article, I do not see how it can be claimed a decrease in efficiency is possible except in fraudulent technology peddled on the internet. What we should do is properly distinguish obvious fraud from fundamental science, which the new popular science article is capable of. The popsci article states that the addition of hydrogen alone has no effect, which forms the basis for rampant frauds on the internet. Also in the popsci article is a statement saying that modification of the ECU's fuel MAPS is required in order to achieve an increase in gas mileage.

There are three article that should form the foundation for the automotive section, and the introduction to hydrogen fuel enhancement. I really don't see, even considering my COI, how the credibility of the US DOT, NASA and Popsci can be argued against.

Noah Seidman (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say go for it? The references look more then good enough. Also look below, lots of interesting papers there. You deleted a bunch of lies that got reverted by lack of improvement. Anything would be better then what we have currently.
Gdewilde (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen induction SAE Research and articles SAE world wide.

A complete list of articles including subjects herein needing citaitons and validation may be found at SAE websit, the following is a search on keyword "Hydrogen: there:[24]

Jay E. Gell

ASE Master Tech and Paralegal. Kings Mountain NC. jayegell_01@yahoo.com et. al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.97.158 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ US patent 6,689,259, Dennis Klein, "Mixed gas generator", issued 2004-2-10 
  2. ^ J. M. Calo (November 3, 2006). "Comments on "A new gaseous and combustible form of water," by R.M. Santilli (Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2006: 31(9), 1113–1128)". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (32): p. 1309–1312. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.11.004
  3. ^ Discoverymagazine MIT Plasmatron
  4. ^ MIT Plasmatron
  5. ^ US 1630048 


More references

Brown's gas and HHO gas are notable topics independently of oxyhydrogen, and we definitely should have articles dedicated to them alone. We tried to write articles that debunked all the bogus claims ("sublimating tungsten") and magical gases a while back, but I was lynch-mobbed as a promoter (which I am obviously not) and the articles were deleted by biased admins, despite most users agreeing we should keep them. So we've already gathered a lot of info and references that could be used to write a good article, but it will just be nominated for deletion again if created, and if not carefully worded will not survive the bandwagon of people who haven't actually read the articles.

If anyone else wants to try, the latest versions are still available here: [25] and [26] and lists of references already formatted are available here and here.

I don't understand what's happened to Wikipedia, that articles like this get deleted as "hoaxes". Do these people think we're legitimizing the topics by debunking them? It makes no sense. Now when someone searches the web for HHO gas or Brown's gas, they get garbage about running cars on water and nothing questioning the veracity of these claims. When they search for "Aetherometry" or "Electric Universe", they get nothing but biased websites devoted to these topics, with no neutral Wikipedia article to debunk them. I don't understand the "skeptics" who think this is a good thing. By deleting these Wikipedia articles, you're ensuring that the masses stay misled and uneducated. — Omegatron (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should have separate articles on things that are simply different names for the exact same stuff. AND we shouldn't be writing articles about non-notable subjects. So if you need to improve this article to say things about "HHO gas" then whatever you say must apply equally to Oxyhydrogen because it's the same stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a good example of an appropriate merge. However, we need brief sections in this article that address these various names for the reasons stated above. Rklawton (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Big deletions by OMCV

I've just reverted some vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxyhydrogen&diff=269923536&oldid=268399109

It is noted above the subjects should really have their own article but (the user states:) those articles are always deleted. Deleting them from this page seems to spawn from this same effort. I'm not interested in debating wp:own fetishes. I'm just putting it on the record here. 84.104.135.86 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly 84.104.135.86, you are an experienced Wikipedia editor please identify your previous accounts. If you do not identify your previous accounts it will be necessary to treat your account as a suspected sockpuppet and begin the necessary inquiries.
Where and what user has stated that articles are always deleted concerning these "subjects". "Aquygen" and "Brown's gas" are not discussed since it has been impossible to balance perspective promoted by scam artists and mainstream science. I would rather accurately describe "Aquygen" and "Brown's gas" as the basis of scams but consensus was that it was best to drop them than wage edit wars over the subject. That's why they were removed and that's why I'm removing them again.--OMCV (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to create sections on these topics and base them on reliable sources in order to educate the public. We can protect the article if necessary, and we can block the scammers as needed. If we can manage to publish images of Mohammad, we can certainly manage to expose fraud. Rklawton (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
OMCV - you seem like someone who might be best suited for digging up the appropriate resources and putting together a short paragraph with the origin, flaws, and exploitations associated with these "names". If you're up to it, give it a go on the talk page and we'll see if we can sort out a consensus. Rklawton (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think many editors can supply the mainstream science. I have no doubt your own efforts would be very respectable. The problems begins with applying known science to the scams. Interpreting the the scams in the scientific frame of reference is an act of synthesis and thus not permitted by policy. So we are forced to find public denunciations of the scams, these are few and far between. The social mores of science dictate scientists should work on research that progress our knowledge. Scientist should not waste their time telling cranks that they are full of it unless science as a field is threatened. If I ever get one of the handful of book on scam science I might be able to supply the references. As with all controversial subject there is usually significant wiki-lawyering on this subject.--OMCV (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
84.104.135.86 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly banned user Gaby de wilde (talk · contribs)/Go-here.nl (talk · contribs) as the IP address geolocates to the Netherlands and the user has clearly edited wikipedia before. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gaby de wilde and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Gdewilde. Yilloslime (t) 07:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the subheading "Automotive" to "Fringe Theories"

On the basis the that is what it contains. Meyers work is a notable hoax more so than a notable automotive use. Petecarney (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a "Fringe theories" section in other articles? It sounds pretty POV. On the other hand, we're talking about putting cons, frauds, bad "science", etc here, so maybe some sort of label along these lines would be useful. The short of it is - it would be nice if readers could look up some key terms of some fraud someone's trying to pull on them and get the straight scoop. Rklawton (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts better to get rid of the automotive section entirely Petecarney (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Difficult to say. Where would be the best place to go into detail about the various alleged scams? Here? The water-fuelled car article? The hydrogen fuel enhancement article? — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxyhyrdo used for welding?

Where is the SOURCE for this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Electrolysis system

I have nominated Electrolysis system for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrolysis system. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I thought folks here might be interested in this.OMCV (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of ICE fuel conversion

I have nominated ICE fuel conversion for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICE fuel conversion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I thought folks here might be interested in this. Mion (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Alternative ICE fuel generator

I have nominated ICE fuel conversion for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative ICE fuel generator. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I thought folks here might be interested in this. Mion (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer diagram

I noticed that this diagram had been removed but then reverted recently, which drew my attention to it. My thoughts are that it doesn't add any significant information and it the article is better of without it. Petecarney (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I’ve removed it again. If somebody would like to re-add it, it would be nice to discuss it here first. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagreed. It is an illustration of the topic. An illustration does not need to add "significant" information. It is ...er... illustration. Of course, in this case it is one mouse click away, but I see no harm which warrants deletion. Please explain why you think the article is better without it, since gthe person who added it obviously thought otherwise. Please notice also, that when deleting something that was in the article for some time, the burden of proof is yours. Otherwise we will have a big trouble from people deleting everything on a whim. - Altenmann >t 00:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless I see an argumented answer soon, I consider the matter closed. - Altenmann >t 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Altenmann here. Stanley Meyer is attempted refuted elsewhere, he is part of a world wide attention to his patent, his patent is really significant for the production of "HHO", Hydroxide and to the discussion on new energy sources and the research on how to produce significant amounts of fuel in the future.Nunamiut (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to jump in and argue that it is likely the most efficient way to convert water to oxyhydrogen gas which does not occur naturally in abundance. Is that not reason enough to put it in the Oxyhydrogen article? Futurebeast (talk) 11:57, 01 Feb. 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. Nothing Meyer did was "real", he was a convicted fraud who pretty much faked the whole thing and was dragged through the courts for his trouble. We have reliable sources for all of those facts. Many people here don't believe those source - but that's their problem, not Wikipedia's. We have pretty solid policies about that stuff that are supposed to inform our editing choices. What matters here is whether the illustration adds anything to the text. I believe it would have value in an article about Meyers himself - but not here. Since nothing that Meyer did was good science - his contribution to knowledge about oxygen/hydrogen gas mixtures is essentially zero - and whatever he did is a mere historical footnote here. Hence that image doesn't add anything to the discussion of Oxyhydrogen - and therefore, it does not belong here. SteveBaker (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Parahydrogen and orthohydrogen

Perhaps article links to parahydrogen and orthohydrogen should be made ? Also, I'm wondering whether the booster noted at http://www.wam-a-bam.com/hydrockickbank.html?hop=raptor235 actually mixes the para/orthohydrogen with conventional fuel or (ie use it intermittenly instead) See also: http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/science-technology/diy-convert-your-car-to-use-hydrogen-today/ KVDP (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated. Rklawton (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fraud

I think the fact that Oxyhydrogen has been associated with one or more frauds has been established - and that the fringe science and fraud are inextricably tied together. Rklawton (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not fraud, jury still out

Nowhere I found HHO tied to Fraud. I looked in Google and in Bing. I only found discussions about "scams" in some blogs where immediately after the definition of scam, there was a discussion of people who did not find it a scam...so it seems that the jury is still out. The prominent article talking about scam is the one by "The Missile Man" Bruce Simpson. He runs Aardwork Daily, a on line news and blog. Bruce Simpson is described as activist, no academic credentials were found, no publications on peer-reviewed journals. He hardly qualifies as an authority and a judge on scams.

To prove that the jury is still out I add another article appeared in Dec. 2010 that shows that there is ongoing discussion about HHO and fuel economy. This article is positive, but I am sure there will be others with a different view. That is why: unless you have a proof that fraud was the result of a court decision, the word FRAUD needs to be removed from the headings of the discvussions since it is highly misleading and libelous and damaging to living persons and ongoing business. It is the only place where word fraud appears in a Google Search. Wikipedia needs to update. See this and other references in IJHE

Verderosso (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2010, Pages 12930-12935 Asian Hydrogen Energy Conference 2009Verderosso (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Globedweller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globedweller (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Try harder. Try searching for Dingle, Meyers, Edirisinghe, HHO and fraud in various combinations. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tried very hard. Thanks.Still cannot find any definitive fraud conviction of HHO. You are talking now about HHO. Only found several articles in peer -reviewed journals either in favor or against. Fraud is a libelous word and needs a very clear and verifiable reference, not a blog or someone's opinion. Globedweller Preceding unsigned comment added by Globedweller (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

oh. you must have a different version of google than me. Did you try www.google.com? I certainly see investigation and convictions of those folks... I also see plenty of people associating those people with HHO. I guess if HHO were a person, or even a term that was used in industry, I guess we would have to be careful about speaking about her. In this case, its pretty safe to say that its associated with schemes and fraud. Unless your maiden name is HHO... in which case Ms. HHO, I apologize for speaking ill of you. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

HHO is a trademark associated with several persons and a company. Therefore if you do not see HHO associated with Fraud, you should not generalize, or at least, you have to specify. This article is so imprecise and so limited that gives a Wikipedia a bad name, as described in Wikipedia Criticism. In regard to this post by Guyonthesubway I hope someone notices the many violations like insulting, demeaning, provoking. Pal, there are two possibilities:1) my questions anger you so much that lead you to break all the rules of Wikipedia. In this case, a person unable to manage his/her anger should not be editing since anger is hardly associated with objectivity.2) you are trying to provoke me so I write something stupid and the Administrators shut me up and remove my privileges. It's not going to happen. So, you better make sure that you follow Wikipedia rules.You are hinting at a Conflict of Interest Violation. This is your imagination. It was pointed out to you by several administrators that , as long as the factual information is based on citations and not propaganda, it is allowed to editors having more knowledge because closer to a topic to contribute to the Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, who tells me that you do not have an ulterior motive for insulting me and write fraud all over? By the way, check your grammar so verbs and possessives are not confused. It 's not fit for an encyclopedia.I am trying very hard to write correctly to respect the redears. if I make mistakes, , apologies and let me know. I am eager to learn.Globedweller (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)GlobedwellerGlobedweller (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think you're another in a long line of HHO believers that stop by here every so often. But let's play the game. Do you have a good source that says that HHO is a trademark associated with anyone? thanks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait I take that back. You're that darn 'Cox' guy again aren't you? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
OK - I think you just crossed an unacceptable line there. You accuse Guyonthesubway of poor writing - yet what you just wrote is probably the most ungrammatical, poorly spelled and incorrectly punctuated thing I've seen on this discussion page - ever! I don't care that you write poorly on this discussion page - so long as I can understand what you're writing, that's OK. But it most certainly isn't fine to complain about what someone else wrote here...PARTICULARLY if your own standards of English writing are terrible.
Also, HHO may have been trademarked - I don't care. Many common words are: "Windows", for example is a trademark of Microsoft corp - but that doesn't prevent anyone from using the word to describe wooden frames with bits of glass inside. In any case, HHO it wouldn't stand up as a valid trademark in any dispute because it's clearly a generic term. (Just as "Jello" was invalidated as a trademark for flavored gelatin). It's actually just H2O written out a bit weirdly...water, in other words. You can't trademark a chemical symbol. So let's forget that part.
If you have specific issues with the article, then let's discuss them. It does no good to fling generalized complaints at the editors here without going into some detail about your concerns. We can't say "Oh look - you're right - it's 43.6% imprecise! Let's just move the 'precision' slider in our text editor two clicks to the right to fix that." You have to tell us exactly what you think is imprecise - and if it's in any way controversial, you'll need to back that up with some kind of material evidence. Which sentence is imprecise and why? In the case of things for which we've found reliable sources - you'll have to find a better source to replace the one we've chosen...on that is more precise perhaps. But for controversial facts - your sources have to pass the "reliable source" threshold required by Wikipedia guidelines - with special reference to the fact that HHO is a "fringe science" topic and therefore demands unusually solid sources - some random website won't cut it.
I've worked with Guyonthesubway over enough time and enough different articles to know that he isn't an irrational or otherwise nasty person. If he's genuinely gone over the top it's because someone provoked him to the breaking point - and that would be squarely your own fault. However, I don't see evidence of behavior here that's at all "insulting, demeaning, provoking"...a little sarcastic perhaps - but that's just typical of Wikipedia discussions.
In fact, he's exactly right. I just tried to find evidence of fraud in the HHO business and it took me exactly two tries and 18 seconds (I stop-watched it) on Google to find: http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/3695-the-water4gas-scam-hho-scam - which discusses specific court action against someone pushing HHO machines, and explains that the guy in question has been convicted of fraud in the past too. I typed "HHO fraud judge" into the Google search bar to find what a judge might have said about fraud relating to HHO - and that was the very first hit...there were many more.
We cannot be held at fault just because you don't have the search-engine skills to find this stuff. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"...just because you couldn't find it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Guyonthesubway is right - this stuff is exceedingly easy to find by those who bother to look with even the simplest of Google searches.
I am often highly suspicious of people who come here with wild enthusiasm for HHO. The reason is that the "technology" involved cannot possibly, by any means, come close to doing what it claims. That's just scientific fact. People who buy these things are inevitably disappointed and disillusioned. So who comes out batting so strongly for this crazy idea? It can't be people who bought the things and got amazing MPG improvements because that's plainly impossible - these things have been tested enough times by enough respectable organizations to know for sure that they don't work. The only people who claim that they work (knowing that they don't) are the people selling them...and those people are certainly in severe conflict of interest here.
I don't know who told you that we welcome COI editors...our WP:COI guideline plainly says: "COI editing is strongly discouraged."...you can't get much clearer than that! People who have a COI are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia only under the most careful of circumstances. Again, to quote WP:COI: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.". So editors with a conflict of interest should be extremely open about who they are and what they do - and typically they should restrict themselves to discussing the article rather than directly editing it. So if you are a manufacturer or a reseller of "HHO equipment" then you really need to be up-front about that. If you don't reveal any "interest" that you have in this - and we subsequently find out that you lied to us (and trust me, we'll check!) - then you'll get in trouble and will almost certainly get kicked off of the site...possibly for life.
In case you think that I may have some kind of special interest here, let me plainly expose what I do: I'm a computer graphics engineer who writes computer games and simulations. I used to run the web site for a car club called "Mini owners of Texas" - and had (past tense) a small interest in keeping our members abreast of automotive matters. See...no COI!
It's not a matter of who has expertise...expertise counts for very little in Wikipedia because we are restricted to using "reliable sources". So the "expertise" of people who sell these contraptions is worth precisely nothing here...and the risk, however small, that they might say push their agenda is tremendous. People who are dishonest enough to sell about $2.00 worth of wires and tubes, a jam jar and a couple of bolts to unsuspecting motorists for $99 are plenty dishonest enough to lie, cheat and fake their way through this kind of debate in order to try to suppress the appearance of rational, scientifically-backed referenced material on a public reference work such as ours. Their biggest fear is that their lying, cheating, downright nasty businesses will be exposed to the world.
Make no mistake - HHO "theory" falls firmly into what Wikipedia calls "fringe science" or "pseudoscience" - and that means that we do not go around saying that it works without some pretty amazingly solid evidence to prove it...by which we mean peer-reviewed scientific papers published in respectable journals. Since no such things exist...nor are ever likely to...we are required by the rules of this site to say that it doesn't work - and to report when companies are found guilty of defrauding the public by claiming that they do work. If you come here expecting an article in praise of HHO to somehow emerge from your efforts - you are sadly mistaken. This is an encyclopedia and we take that role very seriously.
SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I checked. There are exactly two trademarks containing "HHO" - and both of them fall squarely on the fraud side of the equation (water for fuel). Thus there's little risk of harming "legitimate" trademark owners - there simply aren't any at present. Rklawton (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fraud is a big word

I think you should cite some cases. Fraud to consumers is established by the court and has a very specific definition. Before using the word fraud, we need to use a notable reference not only some blogs or articles by Car Magazines using anecdotical examples. These various gases are sold also for metal cutting and in the work of metal and glass in general. Wikipedia is hurting businesses and persons by using the word fraud here as it comes up in google searches for Oxyhydrogen in Wikipedia and also for HHO . Globedweller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globedweller (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has five sections under "Applications" - the first four list the legitimate applications you describe and others. The fifth section lists fraudulent claims associated with this term. The fact that Google turns up the Oxyhydrogen article when users search for HHO rather than the HHO article and then associates it with fraud by pulling its summary information from the fraud subsection rather than information from the article's main section is unfortunate and entirely beyond our control. Bing, by the way, turns up the HHO article on searches for HHO and takes its summary from the article's main section. Google probably gets this otherwise unexpected result due the large number of websites containing the term HHO that link specifically to the fraud section. The reason for this, of course, is obvious. Rklawton (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Google over Bing, again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
(Liked) Rklawton (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange essay

Here is an essay that has been making the rounds of HHO websites. http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/Eckman_-_Plasma_Orbital_Expansion_of_the_Electrons_in_Water.pdf . It has a superficial appearance of being "scientific" but when read carefully, it appears to contain a lot of comments that would require further substantiation and other parts that seem to be, well, just plain gibberish. I now think it is perhaps even an intentional fraud. It is supposedly the work of an undergraduate student at Idaho State University. They imply that an analysis of brown's gas was performed using a "gas spectrometer". That would lead one to suppose that one of the very expensive GCMS systems at ISU was used for this work. However, it seems like the so-called Rydberg clusters would be pulled apart upon passing through a gas chromatography column. (Entropy7 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

It's clearly B.S - firstly, let's look where it was "published": "PROCEEDINGS of the NPA" - a Google search on those words turns up just one actual reference to this supposed journal. It turns out that the NPA is the "Natural Philosophy Alliance" (http://www.worldnpa.org), they say of themselves: "...we do specialize on certain topics, and broadly share certain evaluations. The great majority of us are intensely critical of special relativity, general relativity, big bang theory, and Copenhagen quantum physics. Revision and/or replacement of Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics is a common theme. Most of us accept some type of an electromagnetic aether". In short, this is a bunch of nut-jobs. So we may neglect the seemingly formal appearance of this paper - it hasn't been published in any kind of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. The paper itself is written in a very amateurish fashion (when did you last see a formal, published scientific paper begin with the words: "George Wiseman defines Brown’s Gas (I agree with this definition) as..."! Scientific papers are supposed to be written in a dispassionate way - reference to what the author agrees or disagrees with is highly inappropriate.
In the introduction to his article, he claims that brown's gas flames burn at a temperature of 130C - when in fact, they are only self-sustaining above 570C and generally burn at around 2000C. There is so much misinformation in just the first page that it's too much to list here. His "references" either don't support what he's saying they support - or are from other unacceptable sources ("The Apologia Educational Ministry"?!?).
The author is a 24 year old undergraduate student. As such, he has no qualifications whatever. His previous work was at the Desert Research Institute (DRI) Weather Research Lab - hardly hard-core physics - and he is doing his first degree studies in "Nuclear Engineering" - the list of courses provided in that degree program can be seen here - and I see only "engineering physics" - not the kind of hard-core theoretical physics programs that would suggest that Mr Eckman has been taught anything that would remotely qualify him to write this kind of paper.
This is premium grade bullshit - written by a kid with no qualifications...a fact that is conveniently ignored by everyone who quotes him. The paper doesn't rise to the level acceptable to Wikipedia as a reference.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, so the essay gets deleted and the user pointed to this talk page section any time it happens to appear in our article - except, possibly, as an example of the sort of pseudo "research" commonly accepted by Brown's Gas cranks. Rklawton (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep. The article could really only be used as a reference to the fact of its' own existence. SteveBaker (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

At least now, when somebody googles, "Plasma Orbital Expansion of the Electrons in Water" by Chris Eckman, this entry will hopefully appear pretty high up on the search results. (Entropy7 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Safe Working Pressure of Oxyhydrogen

I have read in an article regarding HHO that an explosion occured when the gas was pressurised have you any figures regarding what this pressure is that causes this event and whether this pressure is constant?81.159.72.132 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen gas are exceedingly unstable - it takes very little to set off explosive combustion at ambient pressures. Pressurizing them could only make matters worse. It's exceedingly dangerous to store hydrogen and oxygen mixtures in any significant qualities - let alone pressurizing them! As our article on hydrogen says, at the "right" concentration in air - even just the energy of sunlight can be enough to set it off. Hydrogen mixed with pure oxygen has got to be even worse. Hence, there is no "safe" working pressure for these mixtures of H2 and O2. I have no idea at what pressure there would be "spontaneous" ignition - but any modest energy input will cause ignition at standard temp & pressure - so there is no "safe" level...zero, I guess! SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
and do remember that Hydrogen gas will wreck steel. Cracks + gas leaks + spark... no good. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
...and not just steel either. Nickel and titanium are especially susceptible. Worse still, the cracking of these metals continues after the hydrogen source is removed - which is a significant issue if you're planning to do welding using it. Hydrogen embrittlement covers many of the hazards. Pipework may need special seals because both oxygen (in unusually high concentrations) and hydrogen can react with polymers and natural rubber seals. SteveBaker (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Welding??

http://www.metalartistforum.com/maf/index.php?/topic/6028-oxy-hydrogen-welding/

Please do not promote FRAUD. Oxyhydrogen can not weld or do it well. Low specific energy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs)

As a blog, this is not a WP:RS, and even so it does not support your statement. I reverted your change to the article, feel free to discuss here. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
We already have a reliable source that shows definitively that oxyhydrogen welding is not only possible - but actually used in industry - albeit in small, specialist niche applications and only when joining low melting point metals. You can read the relevant sections of our source online at Google books: HERE. The biggest problem is that the flame is completely transparent - and that is often fixed by mixing a trace amount of some other gas (such as acetylene) to give it some luminosity.
Because we have a reasonably reliable source saying that oxyhydrogen is indeed used for welding - you're going to need a better reliable source to show that it's not...assuming you still believe that statement after you've read the source I'm referring to. SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Oxyhydrogen is NOT used for welding anywhere. If it is then say where. Where is your 'PROOF'. Pure lies and myths. Even talking facts and science with you quacks is a waste of time. Hydrogen has low specific energy density. DUH.
I think there is sufficient evidence. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't even know what the heck you're talking about with "low specific energy density" either. You are confusing two entirely separate terms: The "specific energy" (energy per unit mass) of hydrogen is 143MJ/kg - nearly three times as high as (for example) Propane which is at just 49MJ/kg. But the "energy density" (energy per unit volume) is much worse. See Energy density for a full set of comparisons. However, it's unclear that either of these measures has much importance when it comes to welding - where the temperature of the flame is the big issue. SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

The claims of oxyhydrogen being used in mainstream welding is unfounded.

oh stop. this is addressed already above. Move on. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
...and if you just stop ranting for a while and actually read the article, you'll see that we never say it's "mainstream". We make it pretty clear that it's only used in niche applications. SteveBaker (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You're alluding it's welding like in acetylene welding. It's not. Quit deceiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that not one other editor here agrees with you. We clearly have some pretty good references on our side - which is Wikipedia's gold standard for what makes it into articles and what doesn't. You've made claims of a scientific nature (your "specific energy density" thing) which simply don't stand up when we look up the data from other articles. We're not going to let you change the article just because you say it should be so without some convincing evidence. We have a bunch of books that say that you're flat out wrong, there are many companies (some, very respectable) who sell oxyhydrogen welding equipment. You are claiming that this is an "NPOV" issue - but neutrality in Wikipedia means expressing what is stated in reliable sources fairly when they contradict each other. When (as in this case) all of the reliable source material that we can find says the exact same thing - then the Neutral Point Of View is to report accurately what they say.
The only hint of a reference that you've given us is this one - and it seems to me that:
  • KPotter says "I use hydrogen for welding platinum" -- so here is someone saying that they do, actually, for real, weld platinum using hydrogen. This doesn't support your claim, it flat out contradicts it.
  • PTsideshow says "The short answer is NO not worth the expense or effort, It is still mainly used for cutting and some brazing and soldering....The biggest reason in industry is the cost effectiveness of the gas compared to acetylene." -- he's not saying that it's not done, only that it's a bad idea for the person who posted the question. That last sentence implies that "industry" does use it because it's more "cost effective" compared to acetylene. So this doesn't back up your claim either.
But it doesn't really matter because that is a blog/forum - and those are absolutely not acceptable as references for Wikipedia articles because they contain casual statements by people who cannot generally be verified as experts in the field.
So the one piece of actual evidence that you've actually presented to us is (a) unacceptable as a reference and (b) contradicts your claim and backs up ours!
Seriously: You need to drop this crusade. If you are so convinced that you're right that you can't bring yourself drop it - then you need to hit the books and find some reliable sources (like books on welding techniques) that conclusively back up what you're saying. If/when you find that evidence then please do come back and show us where to look. I absolutely promise you that if you can show me reliable sources that prove that you're right - then I'll personally help you to get that point across in the article. I only want to see truth in Wikipedia - and I certainly have no axe to grind here.
Simply repeatedly restating your claim that the article is wrong without any kind of evidence whatever is just annoying. It's also quite utterly pointless. Be assured that I and the other editors here are only going to revert what you write in the article on the entirely reasonable grounds that there is no evidence whatever for the truth of what you say.
SteveBaker (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And where is the PROOF? Where is oxyhydrogen used for welding. Don't show some vague book no one has read. That is not a source. You are probably another scam artist and con selling oxyhydrogen machines. Oxyhydrogen is a fraud. Just because there are some unreputable moderators in numbers doesn't mean they are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking at your history, you know the rules just fine. You're just trolling. Folks, don't feed the troll. Unless he can find some PROOF for his position, ignore and revert. Until then 'some vague book' wins over your hot air. Thanks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

HHO used for metal sculptures

I just returned from France and I met two well known European artists : Nicola Zamboni and Sara Bolzani. They exhibited on the lawn of a castle 50 life size sculptures of horses, knights and women. These were all made of metal and all soldered, or welded or call it as you wish using oxyhydrogen or HHO. They showed me a small portable machine they purchased in Europe under a USA license. This machine generates this gas that they use indoors, on site and on demand to put together their impressive sculptures. They call it HHO machine. Check out their web site. Am I feeding the troll ? ~~Verderosso~~

Possibly. We believe you - the article says that it happens. Our troll denies this. It's easy to see these things on sale - even by reputable welding companies, there are lots of references to them in welding books. "HHO" is really a nonsense name though. The gas is a simple mixture of H2 and O2, containing twice as many hydrogen molecules as oxygen. When burned together you get heat and water vapor/steam and a totally transparent flame that's difficult (but not impossible) to see - and hence to weld with. There is nothing particularly magical or amazing about the stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Who said that it is magical? These 2 sculptors just said that it works for them, it is a small portable unit they can use indoors. Where is the scam? I like HHO, it is easier than OXYHYDROGEN and people are free to call their stuff as they wish...the word is out there, it is used and Wikipedia reports it. ~~Verderosso~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verderosso (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is actually the big problem - plenty of people do in fact claim it's something (essentially) magical. They don't say "magical" - but their claims would require a fairly rich grade of magic for them to be true! They claim that you can use some horribly expensive device (typically comprising a glass jar and two nails) to convert water into HHO gas - which can then be burned to release vastly more energy than the electricity it took to make it. This is clearly bullshit - but that doesn't even slow these people down.
You can make good, old-fashioned hydrogen/oxygen mixtures ("oxyhydrogen") with something that simple - but it costs you a lot more electrical energy to do so than you can possibly get back when you burn it...and that's something you can't engineer your way out of because the laws of thermodynamics are...well...laws.
Type "HHO gas" into Google and read the first dozen pages and you'll see what I mean about the people who use that term to describe a simple hydrogen/oxygen mix. Alternatively, look back through the archives of this very talk page and you'll see plenty of highly deluded individuals making indefensible claims.
But welding, yeah - it's a somewhat niche thing. It's not widely used - but it definitely is used. To be honest, calling it "HHO" is generally bad form precisely because the term was invented by the fraudsters and scam artists - and when you use the term around people who know what they are talking about, you will likely be written off as some variety of con man or a deluded victim of same. So if I were you, I'd stick to "oxyhydrogen" or, better still "an oxygen/hydrogen mixture". SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

HHO gas

This article came up in a search for HHO gas, but the word isn't even in the article. How am I supposed to find out whether this stuff is legit or not? I guess I'll just go with the first google search result and assume that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.226 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to erase the Fringe Science edits, when the section is clearly labeled as Fringe Science. Furthermore, second paragraph of Fringe Science makes no implication of free energy, and has been demonstrated on Mythbusters. It is clear whoever is deleting this section a) does not own a service manual to his vehicle, and b) has never replaced his own PCV valve, and c) has never watched Mythbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.102.0.76 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Even the fringe science sections need to be sourced. At any rate, the fact that a car generates electricity is irrelevant. It takes gas to power the engine which powers the generator - so there's energy lost not gained. Sure, we could put solar panels on the roof to generate a bit of current, but then we'd be talking about solar powered cars and not oxyhydrogen. It would be stupid to use a solar panel on a vehicle to split water since we could use the current directly and waste less energy by eliminating the conversion process, so it's pointless to include it here. The only reason to split water would be to store solar energy for later use. If we did that, then we'd be talking about hydrogen powered cars (as per Mythbusters) rather than oxyhydrogen. Absolutely no one in their right mind proposes storing oxyhydrogen in a vehicle - which would explode like a very large bomb in a serious accident. Storing pure hydrogen would be much safer - but that's not the subject of this article.
Keep in mind that, several cranks (or con-artists) have proposed using "oxyhydrogen" as a fuel or fuel additive - and we've seen a long history of their abusing this article (editing and taking screen shots) to promote their crank ideas (or scams). And numerous editors are vigilant about eliminating this abuse as soon as it occurs.
If you have other ideas or concerns, please feel free to discuss them right here on the talk page. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I built an electrolysis cell with electrodes 2.5" x 4" x 0.008" tin plates spaced 0.25" apart. <The rest of the comment removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.220.116 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend, I appreciate your interest in editing wikipedia. However please keep in mind that article talk pages are intended for discussion of article content. They are not blogs or discussion boards, and not intended for posting various personal observations and opinions. Your post was deleted, since it did not seem to be aimed at the improvement of the article, and reading it would only take the time of other wikipedians. If I am mistaken about the intention of your post, please state clearly your suggestion how to improve the article. - Altenmann >t 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Aloha everyone, Since this is my first ever contribution to Wikipedia I would ask for some leniency if I make any mistakes. I just spent the last hour reading the TOU and other rules regarding editing and posting upon discussion boards, and I will do my best to stay within the lines.

My post is in response to the above comments regarding oxyhydrogen used as a fuel additive. There seems to be an astounding amount of inaccurate claims based towards this technology, and I would like to add some neutral information to the discussion.

<REMOVED OFF-TOPIC NONSENSE> SteveBaker (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Jal Lee'Mon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jal Lee'Mon (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your post here is unwelcome because you're trying to preach to us about HHO gas. This discussion board is not for doing that - it's for saying things like "I've found a new book about HHO gas and it's [here]"...or "This article is too long" - debates about the article - not debates about HHO gas. Your continual efforts to peddle this utter pseudoscientific nonsense is called "trolling" - and we have rules about that. So please stop trying to tell us your pet theories - we really aren't interested in them. Most of us here have more than enough scientific knowledge to shoot GIGANTIC holes in your flimsy arguments - but we aren't doing that here because this is not the place for those kinds of debate. So, I have removed the section of your post that does that and left the remainder so that you can see what is OK and what's not. If you really have to get this off of your chest, you may do so once on my talk page User talk:SteveBaker and I will take an honest shot at putting you straight on the underlying science. Any further posts of this kind here (or anywhere else for that matter) will be removed on sight...is that clear? SteveBaker (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

HHO generators for increasing gas mileage proponents

Would it bother anyone if we simply indef blocked these proponents on sight on the theory that they're either scammers, trolls, or socks of banned accounts? Precedent exists - the U.S. Patent Office requires anyone filing for a "free energy" device (aka "perpetual motion machine") to first provide a model that has worked non-stop for one year. It's the only such invention category with this requirement. They did this to cut back on the volume ridiculous applications. Likewise, I think it would be nice to see a similar reduction in silliness here. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, gotta object on principle per WP:AGF. I think we need to assume that these are posts from someone who is simply confused. I am fine with removing posts that do not propose specific changes to the article, and warning and eventually blocking repeat posters, and blocking socks that try to evade a block or get around the 3RR however. VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It certainly wouldn't bother me intellectually - but it might be a tough sell in the context of current Wikipedia rules & guidelines. Also, most (but not all) HHO scammers fall short of claiming perpetual motion. SteveBaker (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I bow to the consensus. Rklawton (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm wary of blocking on sight - I think it would be a little too harsh at this point - but it might be appropriate if things get worse. Shouldn't take too long to revert a comment (if it's bad enough to need reverting) and leave a couple of sentences on their talkpage pointing out what Talk:Oxyhydrogen is for and inviting sources rather than copypasta. If that doesn't help, then block them by all means.
I notice that we had a little surge of pro-HHO edits recently; has this article been pointed out by somebody elsewhere on the internet? bobrayner (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
More likely it is just the work of a single person. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right. Well, we'll see what tomorrow brings... bobrayner (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It'll be 24 hours at least. WideAwake has been indef blocked as a sock, and the master account has been blocked for a day.

It seems to me that this topic is still as hot as it was when I was a young man forty years ago. I see the points of both arguments, but as with many "fringe" ideas both parties seem to be incapable of actually accepting any part of the opposing side. ( Is there a Wiki-name for simply bickering back and forth without actually offering substantial material to the article? ) For instance, the names people are calling one another on this discussion board are childish. I would be deeply offended if you called me a quack. Perhaps, instead of blind argument, there should be allowed a open DEBATE about this subject. A sharing of information that each side actually takes to heart and does a little of their own research on. I myself am a glass artist of two decades, and I have been using a number of oxyhydrogen torches for my work, as the gas burns cleaner than any other. Other torches dirty the glass a dull ash color, whereas "HHO" ( a silly name if you ask me, very misleading ) does not. I would fall under one of the unique "niches" I am sure, but I can vouch that this invention, one that is over a 100 years old, works quite well. Also, I do know one sculptor that uses oxyhydrogen to do her metal work. As for the claims that it can increase the efficiency of fossil fuels within a modern combustion engine, well, there are the obvious scams and then there are the "HHO" companies that are getting multi million dollar investments from respectable corporations. Not to mention the respected .coms ( Amazon, EBay, EC21, etc ) that allow the sale of oxyhydrogen generators and who's user reviews are all in the high marks. These sites have strict policies about scams and do not tolerate them. Why would there be many years of recorded sales on all of them them?

All I am saying is each side should take a moment to look at their opposing view points. The pro side should read some of common articles out there like http://ehsmanager.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-it-real-or-is-it-matthies-x.html or http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=42476 and the con side should look at some things such as this http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=1046 or http://allhho.com/. There are thousands of other articles for both sides, and what I am pointing out is that is would seem neither side here on Wikipedia has spent much time researching their arguments.

And just to throw it out here, as a concerned business owner myself, there are a number of businesses who's copy written name has HHO in it, and many of them have nothing to do with oxyhydrogen gas. This being just the first one that came up on my Google search. http://hhomanufacturing.com/index.php?p=1_4_About

I would hope the main characters of the above "argument" can sit peacefully and maturely at a table and share their points of view to an open audience. That is what Wikipedia is about is it not? A sharing of wisdom/information/ideas to an open community? < A Peaceful Old Man > — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that HHO is a bad name - and we carefully avoid using it thoughout most of the article. So let's stick with this article's title and call is "Oxyhydrogen" - which (while still a little misleading) doesn't carry the pseudo-scientific overtones of "HHO" (which reads like a chemical formula - but isn't).
Most people here agree that oxyhydrogen has some niche uses in the kinds of application that you describe. Oxyhydrogen generators for welding and other 'torches' are perfectly reasonable devices that we assume, work pretty much as advertised. For these things we need to have a straightforward, informative article with nothing too controversial. I believe we have that - but we can certainly discuss issues on the welding/glass-heating/jewellery side of things. Aside from perhaps one person here, we all agree on this. That one person has some severe "issues" with Oxyhydrogen for welding and has studiously ignored the really solid "reliable sources" for Oxyhydrogen welding - and does not appear to wish to talk with people such as yourself who actually use this equipment. But apart from that one outlier (who will be ignored and reverted as needed), we agree about what should be written here.
However, there is the another side to the coin. A mixture of outright scam artists who sell crazy devices that claim to make cars more fuel efficient - and a number of scientifically ignorant "free energy" types who claim that "HHO generators" violate the laws of thermodynamics and can (essentially) produce perpetual motion. The first category of people will often abuse Wikipedia in an effort to boost the credibility of their fraudulent activities - and that cannot be tolerated. Many of them are in violation of our "conflict of interest" rules (WP:COI) and should not be editing this article at all - for them, negotiation over content is neither necessary nor appropriate for Wikipedia's independence. For the second category of editors, Wikipedia has specific guidelines about how to deal with "Fringe theories" (WP:FRINGE) and we have a strong resistance to promoting pseudo-scientific ideas as truth. Under such circumstances we are required to write strictly what can be backed by reliable sources from mainstream science. This isn't a matter of balancing the views of two communities with equal standing. Wikipedia requires us to take the mainstream scientific viewpoint - as defined by reliable sources. Those of use who support the mainstream scientific viewpoint are literally are not allowed to make compromises with the pseudo-science proponents.
Even if we took your proposal and sat down at the negotiation table and worked out some compromise words - we wouldn't be able to put those words into the article because they would not be backed by mainstream scientific journals and other acceptable sources. Wikipedia doesn't allow us to write compromise words unless they can be sourced reliably - and the reliable sources are unanimous in saying that oxyhydrogen is not useful for improving car MPG and that the Laws of Thermodynamics still hold true.
Thus this is not a question of negotiation and sharing points of view. We have rules and we're going to stick to them - and that will, without doubt, upset those people who seek to abuse Wikipedia for their own gains - or to push "quack" science in the face of solid experimental and theoretical evidence. We don't need to negotiate with those people and compromise is pointless. The decision on how to handle these kinds of issue has been made at the highest levels of Wikipedia decision-making - and we will simply follow those guidelines in writing this encyclopedia.
SteveBaker (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Steve, as you have renewed my faith that there is a strong foundation of logic and consensus within the Wikipedian leadership. I love Wikipedia, and have observed a great deal of articles and edits, discussion boards and open forums here for years. As a natural and educated philosopher I have found a haven within the "free" culture of information, many of which hold Wiki within there name ( Wikileaks, etc ) But my faith has slipped a little regarding Wikipedia, as I have watched petty arguments dominate many of the discussion pages here. It saddens me that there are very unbalanced points of views on many subjects within this encyclopedia. In fact, it was a search of "neutral" that lead me to this page regarding oxyhydrogen. Serendipitous considering I myself use this technology on an almost daily basis. So, I would like to add my vote to the side of imbalance and partial information regarding "HHO generators for increasing gas mileage proponents", and can only pray that the information is not deleted out of prejudice. The vast majority of editors here are firmly against the idea, and understandably. But I would place a fair bet that some of the information provided upon this subject has been deleted out of prejudice rather than an actual lack of validity. I myself am impartial when it comes to the automotive uses of this technology, but as the argument is very lopsided here I will chose the side of the "yes it works" group to add some weight to the scales. My first source will be N.A.S.A. My second source will be The U.S Department of Transportation. After that I will offer links to three respected media groups who have covered this topic on public television. ( All of this information took me less then an hour to find by the way, and it does not include studies being conducted by respectable educational institutions such as ITT Tech. )

Here, a government funded research project filed by John F. Cassidy of N.A.S.A clearly states that the use of hydrogen and oxygen as an additive to conventionally fueled combustion engines does indeed increase fuel economy and lower emissions. The read is long, but for a lonely retired man it was quite satisfying. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

As the title of the original NASA document seems to have been blacked out, here is an unadulterated copy from a third party source. http://www.h2-hydrogen.com/NASA%20ReportEMISSIONS%20AND%20TOTAL%20ENERGY%20CONSUMPTION%20OF%20A%20MULTICYLINDER%20PISTON%20ENGINE%20RUNNING%20ON%20GASOLINE%20AND%20A%20HYDROGEN-GASOLINE%20MIXTURE.pdf (please forgive the long links as I have not yet figured out how to shorten them)

I will remove the report from the D.O.T and replace it with this link instead. Again, from our own government, and this time from the original source. Though this study is primarily upon natural gas engines, it does not take a scientist to know that the application of HALO, as this article calls it, can be used with fossil fuels as well. So, for the sake of relevency, this scientific report can be used in conjunction with HHO generators for increasing gas mileage. Here is a direct quote from this report. "Fractional hydrogen substitution in spark ignited engines burning natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or 'gasoline has been investigated by a number of researchers and have been demonstrated to offer a number of advantages, primarily as a result of increased laminar flame speeds. The primary advantage, as noted above, is the ability to offer stable combustion at much higher A/F ratio, with associated substantial reductions in engine NOx emissions. Our own engine modeling predictions show that 90% NOx emission reductions from the 0.4 g/bhp-hr BACT levels noted above will be easily achievable. In fact, we expect to operate the engine at an overall equivalence ration of less than or equal to 0.5, which according to our modeling results will adequately lower engine NOx emissions." http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/885936-5UDKxt/885936.pdf

And my final contributions to this discussion will be mainstream media coverage. Though they are currently broadcast through YouTube, they are unadulterated copies of past stories. These are directly related to this page's topic as they refer to use of oxyhydrogen generators within every day vehicles to increase gas mileage.

Channel 9 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHVgnWp2CXw&feature=player_embedded#at=28 CBS : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjgOUV-21Vw&feature=player_embedded WYFF Channel 4 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=176h_I51Kgk&feature=player_embedded

I do not wish to open a can of worms here. I only feel, as a member of academia, that this page needs a much more balanced point of view. I hope that other editors agree.

Thank you for you time. A Peaceful Old Man 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs)

NASA publishes NASA documents, so find the NASA link and not www.h2-hydro-gen.com which exists entirely to scam consumers. Second, NASA (if the document is genuine) didn't use an on-board hydrogen generator to conduct its tests. The tests promoted in the document used a methanol reformer and it used bottled hydrogen - and the only results they found was that the lean operating range increased and emissions were cleaner. The document, if authentic, also debunks the conspiracy theory that some force is out there suppressing this technology. Oh, and the research was conducted in 1977. Given the improvements made to engines over the last thirty-four years, it's highly irrelevant today. Rklawton (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
So here is the problem, these three so-called "references" are trotted out by all the evil scammers - and are mentioned so often that I know them very well indeed. Let's look at the NASA article. I mean, let's get daring and actually read the darned thing:
  • It is an article about running gasoline engines on a mix of gasoline and hydrogen. Not "HHO", not "Oxyhydrogen" - just hydrogen. Fed from either a cylinder of hydrogen gas or some fancy methane reformer gizmo. Not from electrolysis of water done under the hood of the car using the car battery as the voltage source. Hence the article is completely and utterly inapplicable.
  • It can improve the performance of the engine. What engine? Hmmm - well, the article was written in May 1977 - so should you happen to have a 34 year old engine - then maybe there is something to be learned here. But car engines running just the same old gasoline built in the 2000's does twice the MPG than one from the 1970's.
  • The test engine was a 7.4 liter high compression engine. Can you name one production car that has an engine that size?
  • "Minimum energy consumption did not change" - which means that while he extracted energy from the hydrogen, he didn't get out more than he put in. We know there are cars that run pure 100% hydrogen out there - BMW have made many of them. But are these "free energy"? Can we count them as infinite-mpg machines because they use zero gallons of gas per mile? Hell no!
  • Running an engine with a more lean mixture is a known way to improve MPG - hydrogen or no hydrogen. There is a software patch for my MINI Cooper'S that does that and improves MPG by about 5% - but sadly, it also destroys the engine in short order - which is why the guys who designed the car didn't lean it out to that degree out of the factory.
OK - so that much we learn from the abstract on the very first page. I'm not going to go into the rest of the document and explain the dozens and dozens of other things that invalidate it...but three things stand out for me:
  • He talks at length about "ignition delay" and carefully explains that the reason for this phenomenon is no understood. Well, that was true in the 1970's - but these days, the effect is extremely well studied and controlled by that fancy electronic ignition system and the sophisticated computer that controls it.
  • The amazing claims for emissions improvement would produce an engine that would be illegally high polluting to put into a modern car - here in Texas, it would not pass the mandated emissions standards for a car made less than 25 years ago!
  • In which 3rd party, peer reviewed journal was it published? None? Oh dear - inadmissible to Wikipedia for a science-based article.
So much for the NASA study. Useless, obsolete, off-topic, quite utterly irrelevant to HHO/Oxyhydrogen.
OK - how about the DOT report?
  • It's a document about safety...not about energy savings.
  • It's about heavy commercial vehicles...not cars and light trucks.
  • The entire document has just one paragraph about using hydrogen in conjunction with gasoline...it says that they did some limited laboratory testing on a beat up old diesel truck engine under some really limited conditions. No additional data is provided - this is no better than anecdotal reports. The results are not remotely rigorous enough to qualify as a scientific test.
Again, useless, off-topic, irrelevant.
TV news? On a slow news day, they'll show anything. Heck they have been taken in by every other "Water fuelled car" scam from Meyers to Genepax. Please I won't even dignify then by tearing them to shreds - it's like kicking a kitten. Besides, as I'm sure you must know - they do not constitute reliable sources - so we couldn't use them if they were gold-plated perfect truth.
So, I conclude that all of your references are quite utterly useless. I further conclude that if you had actually read any of the ones with the long words in them then you wouldn't have suggested them to us. Your choice of documents is further proof that you have simply trotted out the same lame references that the scammers use.
SteveBaker (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

is Forgive me. To my perceptions those seemed quite legitimate for the basis of discussion (only), and I will edit the links to come directly from the source instead of through a third party. As you and Rklawton have made your opposition blatantly clear, I will leave it to time and the addition of other points of view to broaden this discussion. Other than shooting holes through my offerings, neither of you have done anything to deny that when you add oxygen and hydrogen ( from any source ) to an old or modern combustion engine that uses gasoline ( for the sake of an American application ) it will increase the efficiency of said engine. I mean, really, if there are hundreds of thousands of testimonies ( yes, invalid sources, I know ) from people who are not trying to sell you anything, then why is this not taken seriously? Are all of those people just duped and delusional? Is it possible for so many people all around the world who claim they are using this technology successfully ( even the Mayor of the town mentioned in one of those news stories ) to just be suckers out from the punch? And yes, I can name a number of vehicles today that are comparable to that old Cadillac. A Hummer for instance? And I am quite vexed that you accused me of not even reading the articles I provided. You should make your point with a little more maturity if you wish to be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how an article about hydrogen in a 7.4 liter 1977 vintage engine which claims no energy savings whatever - or an article about how to safely store hydrogen in a car are in any way remotely relevant to the question of whether hydrolysis of water using car battery will have any measurable impact on the performance of a modern automobile! If you read them - what made you think they mattered? The "hundreds of thousands of testimonies" are likely a combination of "the placebo effect" and the proven (in a court of law) fact that the people selling these systems are frauds. Does it not occur to you that someone who'll sell a jam jar, two bolts and some tubing for $99 - and who has been convicted of fraudulant sales of such things might not...just maybe...fake those testimonies? Too right we can't trust them!
Even if they were all real testimonies - just look at how many people believe that magnet therapy will cure arthritis or that bottles of plain water will cure just about anything (homeopathy) or that the positions of planets can predict the future (astrology) or that aliens have visited the earth...or a million other delusional crazinesses. Yes! It's very possible that people are taken in by this.
We are writing an encyclopedia - and these kinds of explanations are only too credible. They are the entire reason we don't allow Original Research and require proper, peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals before we'll accept evidence in favor of "fringe theories". So it doesn't matter how many thousands of idiots have made wild claims...their "testimony" is worth absolutely nothing here.
(And by the way - the largest engine ever put into a production Hummvee was the 6.5l V8 turbo and I'm fairly sure that the last over 7 liter Cadillac stopped production back in the late 1970's when the NASA article was written)...so no, you can't name a production car with an engine that big.
Look - there is NO Wikipedia-acceptable evidence that this nonsense works. There is, on the other hand, solid evidence that it doesn't. So...what do you seriously expect us to write here?
SteveBaker (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I simply wish to see both sides of the argument offered an even place here. If there is no evidence that this works then why would the United States government ( amongst the Chinese, Icelandic, Australian and French government ) be waisting money and time furthering the research? How can I get the report I listed above "peer reviewed" enough so that the positive side of the argument can be given some light? We get that you are against this technology, but how about the scientists and politicians that believe it works? Is their research and contribution to this subject a mute point simply because you and one other person here will not budge in your opinion? You ask me what I want you to write here? Honesty. Open minded and non biased honesty. A jar with two nails is a child's toy compared to the electrolysis machines Iceland is installing in their fuel stations. I hear the U.S military is utilizing platinum for their electrolysis machines. All for hydrogen production, and most for the use as an additive to combustion engines. The technology is out there my friend, and it is being accepted by the world. It is too bad that Wikipedia is failing to acknowledge the easily found proof that it does in fact work. I thank you Steve, you have turned a non biased observer into a passionate supporter of a technology that is desperately needed in todays world. After my research I think I am going to have one of these machines installed in my car. A Peaceful Old Man 01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs)

Your real references only refer to adding hydrogen to gasoline, not HHO, HOH, OHH, or HOHO. Nothing whatsoever that belongs in this article. There's also nothing that suggests that the technology of adding hydrogen improves gas mileage, but even a negative statement, actually about HHO, might belong in this article. I don't know what the local TV news reports say, even if they were certified as coming from that news station, but they wouldn't be usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep - exactly. There is no doubt that hydrogen powered cars are a good thing - it's not simple to do because of things like embrittlement, degradation of seals and such, water getting into the oil pan and the whole issue of how to store enough of the stuff safely. But there are practical (albeit experimental) cars out there that run on hydrogen only. However, that's a million miles from the crazy idea that sticking a 12v electrolysis unit under the hood of a gasoline/diesel powered car will get you improved gasoline milage...THAT is just flat out crazy - and buying one will simply line the pockets of some evil scammer. You want honesty...we're giving you honesty. But we've had more than enough people coming through here who worked for these companies - so far, not a single usable reference that actually addresses the question has been provided. Not a single one. JHartuPar is just another in a long line of people who have claimed to have solid evidence - all of which which falls apart the very moment someone actually reads what those references actually say. SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the primary production of HHO generators was H2 with O2 being the lesser of the gases present from electrolysis production (a 2 to 1 ratio). The addition of O2 was to me a irrelevant as that would simply add to the 02 being pulled in through the air intake, much like a turbo charger increases the O2 concentration. Whereas hydrogen is completely absent from an engine unless added. I see now, based upon this, how my contributions do not in fact follow this pages topic and apologize for the infringement. Please feel free to remove my edits as you see fit. Perhaps instead the information I provided could be placed under the title "HHO used in the reduction of emissions when used with combustion engines". Still a worth while technology if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not asking you. We require reliable sources. SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


W.R.T. the good reviews these products get on sites like eBay, my opinion is that it’s because the vast majority of people who buy these things are amateurs and “true believers”, people unable or unwilling to understand that these products don’t work as claimed.
W.R.T. the fact that these businesses are allowed to even operate on e-commerce sites like eBay… As far as I can tell, it’s because they don’t actually have rules against selling snake oil. Such rules would be difficult to enforce fairly, even with the employment of experts to tell apart scams from genuinely innovative products. The scams they can easily enforce rules against are unfair business practices, like hidden shipping costs and fraudulent bidding. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 13:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You can buy dowsing rods, chakra healing crystals, and homeopathic pills on ebay. This does not mean that the basic principles of physics and medicine need to be rewritten; it just means that some people on the internet are gullible. bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep. The problem with almost all review sites is that the reviews are very often written by the person selling the product. About a year or so ago there was a study of 200 randomly chosen books on Amazon.com - and 30% of the reviews turned out to be by the author, the publisher or friends and relatives of the author. The more worrying figure is that close to 50% of the favorable reviews were by those people. That's for books - mostly written by people we'd imagine to be generally honest. For reviews of highly dubious things like mpg enhancement equipment for cars and homeopathy, we have to believe that FAR more than 50% of the favorable reviews are faked just because the sellers of these systems are so often lying, cheating fraudsters. SteveBaker (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a shame, so many people just trying to rip others off. This old man remembers a time when honesty and honor were foundations for trade. But alas, times do change. I thank you friends for turning this into more of a "discussion" rather than an argument. This was my primary goal, and the fact that no more "pro-siders" have joined the conversation only adds to the point that this may perhaps be fraud. Regardless, there have been enough indisputable facts within this subject to push me into a new line of observations and research, something that I have been lacking as of late. I did have a very interesting conversation with a colleague of mine, currently a professor of chemistry, and he had quite a bit to add. It would seem that this "fringe" technology is growing in awareness amongst fellow academians (a made up word, but I like it). He stated, quite clearly, that the addition of hydrogen to many of the fuels used today does in fact increase the "efficiency" of the fuels complete burn, regardless of what engine the fuel is burned in. So, though the current models being pushed today may be false and misleading, the idea of increasing the fuel economy (something I would pray everyone wants, with gas prices reaching $5 a gallon once again) by adding hydrogen to the air/fuel mix of a vehicle is not only viable, but completely within our current range of technology. It will be interesting to come back to this conversation when "HHO" or some other derivative does in fact prove to be true and functional. My thanks friends, my brain has something new to chew on and I am dusting off my workshop as we speak to further my own experimentations. "May truth guide our minds, not arrogance" A Peaceful Old Man 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but there is a reason reliable sources are required. Above, you said:
  1. "much like a turbo charger increases the O2 concentration"
  2. "hydrogen is completely absent from an engine unless added"
Comments like this tell me (at least) that you don't understand the basic chemistry and mechanics behind the engines you want to "help". Some facts for you:
  1. A turbo-supercharger does not "increase the O2 concentration". It feeds the fuel mixture into the engine under pressure, so the engine burns more of it. More fuel mixture means more power. More oxygen, on the other hand, just means a lean mixture that either won't ignite, detonates, or burns too hot.
  2. Hydrogen is not "completely absent" from the engine. It's in the fuel. Why do you think they call gasoline a "hydrocarbon fuel"?
I can recommend some good books on chemistry and mechanics, if you can't find them yourself. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you UncleBubba, for catching that. I am really not used to these digital conversations, where your words can be misplaced easily. This is why I have more of a fondness for one on one personal debates. What I meant by saying "increase the O2 concentration" was in reference to how turbo/super chargers are rated by their perspective increase of PSI. And yes, I am not a mechanic, though I have worked on my own vehicles from time to time. It was my understanding that by increasing the PSI you were increasing the amount of air molecules that were being injected into an engine at every cycle. Higher PSI to me translated as higher concentrations. And when I was speaking of the lack of hydrogen being added to an engine I was talking about the lack of additional, or supplemental, hydrogen. Not the hydrogen of the fuel already in the engine. As this discusion is about "adding" more hydrogen ( or oxyhydrogen in this case ) to engines to increase the burn efficiency of the existing hydrocarbon chain. ( which is well documented as being largely inefficient on its own ). I will be much more careful with how I word myself from now on. A Peaceful Old Man 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs)

Again, this is why we demand references.
To prove my point, let's do some basic science: Strictly speaking, it is theoretically true that adding hydrogen and oxygen to gasoline and then burning the result will release more energy than burning gasoline alone. That's not because of any special cleverness about interaction between the hydrogen and the gasoline - it's because, if you put more fuel in (and hydrogen is a fuel), you get more energy out. However, there are two vitally important practical caveats:
  1. Does the generation of hydrogen by electrolysis of water using some electrical source produce more chemical energy than the electrical energy it consumes? The answer is a categorical "No!". Furthermore: When you burn the hydrogen you get, do you recoup the energy you put into the electrolysis cell from the battery?...and again "No!" is the only possible scientific answer. Both answers are determined by the laws of thermodynamics - as I'm sure your academician will confirm.
  2. What quantity of hydrogen can be produced by an electrolysis cell powered by a 12 volt car battery at the kinds of amperage that will avoid draining the battery faster than a car's alternator can recharge it? Again, this is easy to answer - you know that a typical car alternator can produce perhaps 600 watts of electrical energy (50 amps at 12 volts) - which will produce no more than 300 watts of "hydrogen energy" because electrolysis cannot be more than ~50% efficient (it heats up the water and other parts of the apparatus - and thereby wastes electrical energy). Let's hope you don't need to turn the headlamps on! A small, modern car engine produces around 100 horsepower - which is about 75,000 watts...so at best, with all possible electrical energy being pushed into electrolysing water, you get 0.8% of additional energy. This is actually a VASTLY optimistic estimate - the real number is more like 0.05% - which is too little to measure). HOWEVER, in order to do that, your alternator will be harder to turn than it ordinarily would be...which will consume more like 5% of the energy produced by your engine. So, you don't win, you lose.
These facts mean that you can only possibly claim that introducing the hydrogen into the gasoline somehow results in the gasoline being more completely burned. This sounds kinda-sorta plausible - and raises another question: How much of the gasoline in your engine goes unburned? - we need to know that because you can't get more than 100% combustion - right? If this magical HHO generator improves mpg by 40% by burning gasoline more completely - then in a regular car engine, there must be at least 40% of the fuel going unburned.
Well, modern US emissions control laws require that the engine itself produce less than 24kg of unburned hydrocarbons per cubic meter of fuel (that's a weird way of stating it!). Gasoline has a density of 0.77kg/l - so the maximum allowed amount of unburned hydrocarbons is about 1.8% of the fuel you burn. So on the most polluting engine allowed by law, even if magical HHO enhancement works 100% perfectly...such that not one single molecule of gasoline goes unburned...then you'd get less than 2% improvement in MPG. At $3 a gallon, and at a typical $100 cost for the equipment, you'll only break even after burning 1650 gallons of gas. If your car does 30mpg, you'll have to drive for 50,000 miles to break even...however, it would be exceedingly naive to believe you'd get anything remotely like that - if this thing works at all, you'll never get your money back before the car falls apart.
The reality is even worse than that. I've seen one of these $100 "HHO generators" in a neighbors' car - the bubbles form 'languidly' - I doubt that it's producing 1cc of hydrogen/oxygen mixture per second - he can drive 100 miles and not need to top up the jam jar with water - so we know for 100% sure that it's not producing a useful (or even measurable) amount of anything! But even if you could somehow pump enough Oxyhydrogen into the cylinders of your car to make any kind of measurable difference, the additional oxygen would surely confuse the oxygen sensor and make it read much higher - and result in more gasoline being injected into the engine - which would dramatically worsen your fuel consumption.
So it is true to say, at the most abstract level, that adding hydrogen to gasoline will increase the energy produced versus gasoline alone. But at any kind of practical level - it's primo-grade bullshit.
Now - it would certainly be useful to put this kind of explanation into the article and simply eviscerate the bozo's who sell this kind of snake-oil. However, we don't do that because...
WE NEED RELIABLE SOURCES
So when you accuse us of bias and refusing to allow the other side of the story into the article - please recall how much of the scientific side of the story is also barred from the article.
SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The information you just provided was far superior to anything else I have seen here on this page Steve, including my own additions. It also opens up a large venue of both pessimistic and optimistic possibilities. So, if I was to add a more powerful alternator to my vehicle ( as I once helped do to a police cruiser to compensate for the large amount of addition electronics ) where the amperage produced was increased without taking any additional energy from the engine, then feasibly there could be a positive gain created by the "HHO" device. Let us take the most advanced version of these electrolysis devices that are offered all over the world market. The one I am looking at is made of platinum plated stainless steel ( the platinum seems to be a much more reactive catalytic surface than steel and there is no production of chromium hexavalent ) and we were to use an optimal percentage of the needed electrolyzer ( in this instance it seems the most highly praised by the users of this tech is KOH, or lye as it is known by the soap making industry ) to produce at 30 amps ( modified by a pulse width modulator, and regulated by a 30 amp relay ) roughly 3 liters per minute of oxyhydrogen fuel. From my understanding and as I have seen first person with my own HHO glass torch, this can be raised to upwards of ten liters a minute with larger cells ( such as the HHO devices that truckers here in the U.S swear by ) without exceeding 30 amps. I am not a chemist or mathematician, but I can still confidently deduce that without taking any more energy from the engine then the original alternator would have ( in fact leaving some left to charge the battery ), and producing..lets just say three liters a minute of oxyhydrogen...that the energy gains once added to the fossil fuel would outweigh the energy lost. We are not talking perpetual motion, nor laughing in the face of thermo dynamics. This seems more to me like a "supply and demand" situation that could easily be produced with a little tinkering. Now, again, I am only playing this side because I would like other readers of this article to have as diverse yet accurate representation of what is still theoretical and also still not fully embraced by the scientific community as pure fraud. Snake salesman aside (something any intelligent consumer should be able to avoid with a little work) there appears to me, and many others, enough truth to this story for there to be further discussion. Perhaps even the addition of reliable and accepted sources of information on the side of this technology? Who knows. There will always be two sides to everything, this is human nature. But since I have always had a soft spot for ideas not widely accepted by the census, such as George Cantor's infinity theory, I will stay the course. This is finally shaping into a discussion...though I wish I was not the only one on my side of the room. Anyone care to join me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to drive an alternator with an extra load pumping out 30 amps, but without requiring the engine to do any additional work? In that case, why not just use the alternator to drive an electric motor which feeds more rotational energy back into the engine, in an infinite loop? bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is the concept behind many of the hybrid vehicles out today, including the Prius. There is even a car that harvests the energy created by the break system and coverts it to electricity to then further the power cell of the vehicle. But that is outside the topic here. What I would like to know is if a larger alternator would be able to produce the needed energy for an HHO electrolysis device without draining more energy from the engine than it provides. A Peaceful Old Man 22:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs)

No, no and no (in that order). Please re-read what I wrote above which clearly proves that no matter WHAT you do, nothing of this kind can possibly work. I can't stop you from giving your spare cash to some evil scammer - but I beg you to donate it to Japan earthquake relief instead. Either way, your car won't consume any less gas - but in the latter case, the world will be a better place.
Hybrids work quite differently - but indeed that discussion is not relevant to Oxyhydrogen. We have already gone WAY beyond where we're supposed to go in a Wikipedia article discussion page. You are no longer discussing the content of the article and you're coming close to behaving as a troll - which would be A Bad Thing. If you carefully re-read what's already been written (especially my last post), you'll know all you ever need to know about HHO contraptions. Hence, this "discussion" is now over.
SteveBaker (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not my intention to be offensive here, but the fact that JHartuPar would wonder whether or not a larger alternator would produce more power without draining more energy from the engine indicates he's completely ignorant in the matters of electrical power generation. Even an rank amateur would know better. Please, JHartuPar, go away quietly, read, study, learn, build a small generator of your own; tinker, have fun, take a class or two, but whatever you do, don't waste your time here or your money with a so-called HHO generator for your vehicle. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assumptions upon my education are quite entertaining Rklawton. I would be curious to know if you too have a PhD? Doubtful. I do in fact know about electrical power generation. The simplest thing I can state for you is with a DC genset, engine speed and/or drive power can be adjusted and/or varied (automatically or manually) to efficiently produce the exact amount of energy required by a given load/application. With conventional AC generators, engine operation at speed is continuous, and power is also generated more, or less, continually -- whether or not this power is required by the system load (or used for any other purpose) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHartuPar (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC) This will be the last you will here from me, on this subject anyway. Over the last few days I have delved deeper into this subject than anything I have ever come across before. All thanks to a random search. Thank you Wikipedia, for in a roundabout way you have inspired me. And to you Steve, and Rklawton. Your opposition added the fuel needed to push as deeply as I did. It is too late Rklawton, for I am investing in this device sold by someone you cannot in any clear way call a fraud. This is proof enough for me, and I hope it will also show other believers that there is hope of this technology becoming mainstream. Goodbye everyone, and thank you for a most stimulating educational experience! A Peaceful Old Man 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a university out there that wants its Ph.D. back. And don't search the internet for "'ronn motors' + scam", you'll only be disappointed. Here's a fun link [27]Rklawton (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Cool! This is turning into a whole new spectator sport. A big chunk of JHartuPar's last post ("DC genset...any other purpose)") is copy/pasted verbatim from the Zena marine welding equipment web site. Does he understand what he writes? Is he seriously talking about using a mobile welding system generator in his car? (Intended to be driven for short periods of time from a large truck or boat engine that's not simultaneously moving the vehicle.) Putting one of those under the hood a car to drive an "HHO generator" and then driving the vehicle at highway speeds for any kind of distance would be a magnificent piece of folly! :-) Morbid curiosity makes me want to know what horrible fate befalls the car as a result! Will the engine start afterwards? Will it go more than 40mph with the generator eating maybe 20% of his horsepower? Will the belt snap before the engine overheats? Will it actually generate enough Hydrogen/Oxygen mixture to blow the hood off the car when it explodes? (You know that a perfect stochiometric oxygen/hydrogen mixture such as you'd get from electrolysis can be set off by as little as a beam of sunlight...right?) Fortunately, he's told us he won't be posting here again. Oh...and does he understand our rules about copyright violation? ...this at least we know the answer to. SteveBaker (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
One other thing we've learned, like HHO "enhancements", JHartuPar himself was a fraud. Ph.D. my ass. Rklawton (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily; it's entirely possible for people to get PhDs whilst writing pseudoscientific text which ignores the basic scientific principles of their chosen subject. bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Google for "life experience PhD" - 14.8 million ghits. Also, a PhD in Modern Dance is unlikely to inform much on automotive engineering. Unless one knows the subject and awarding establishment of a PhD, it has little to say about the knowledge of the recipient. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
JHartuPar seems oddly determined that we keep the link to Ronn motors' site - so I took a quick look. Their H2GO system costs $1000 and (they claim) saves between 15% and 33% of your gas consumption. If true then on a 30mpg car with $3/gal gasoline, it'll take between 30,000 and 60,000 miles of driving to recoup the cost of the thing...according to Ronn motors' own figures. They say that it holds less than 1 gallon of water and only has to be refilled every 5,000 miles (my guess is that this is probably about the rate that the water evaporates at the temperatures under the hood of a car). But let's ignore that minor quibble and let's suppose "less than one gallon" means "3.5 liters"...roughly. That's 3.5kg of water. Water is 8 parts oxygen to 1 part hydrogen (by weight) so after you've electrolysed all of the water, you get 390 grams of hydrogen to keep your car running more efficiently for over 5,000 miles! That's 78 milligrams per mile! At 60mph and 3,000 rpm, with a 4 cylinder engine, each discharge of the cylinder gets 6.5 micrograms of hydrogen and 52 micrograms of oxygen! On the plus side, JHartuPar definitely won't be needing a bigger alternator and doesn't need to worry about hydrogen embrittlement or explosions!
My new theory (which I really think Ronn should go with) is that this is homeopathy for cars...the more the hydrogen is diluted, the more powerful it becomes!
(This is really quite entertaining for a numbers-geek like me). SteveBaker (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: "My new theory" --- BEST talk page comment all year! Rklawton (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A simple question

I would ask anyone that thinks that fuel efficiency is unrelated to electrical load to explain this chart to me: [[28]]

Maybe alternators work differently?

Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - good chart! An alternator is just an AC generator (car "generators" are DC devices) - they work almost identically - the load is broadly similar and it goes up when your electrical demand increases (eg if you turn on your headlamps or if your battery needs charging) no matter whether you have an AC or DC gizmo.
If proof is demanded then this California Energy Commission study says that using daytime running lights (about a 160 Watt electrical load) adds between 0.5% and 1% to the gas consumption of a typical car...it mentions that a Swedish study came out with a number between 0.5% and 1.5%, an Austrian study said 1.6% and a Dutch study says 0.9%. So clearly, there is no "free electricity" coming out of a car alternator - not even enough to drive a couple of lightbulbs without measurably reducing your mpg.
So the math behind this scam can now be stated completely:
  • No amount of improvement to the burn efficiency of your gasoline can save more than 1.8% mpg on a US street-legal vehicle (because cars aren't allowed to have more than 1.8% unburned hydrocarbons in their exhaust - and you can't burn more than 100% of your gasoline!)
  • Adding the chemical energy from hydrogen into your cylinders can't help because (according to all of those studies) it takes ~1% of a typical 80kW engine's fuel to make 160 Watts for running lights - so adding 1% of your mpg gets you 16OW of electricity to put into your electrolyser (which can only be ~50% efficient) so you get out at best (platinum electrodes, whatever) 80W of chemical energy - which can only produce a maximum possible savings of 80W of chemical energy from your gasoline...which in an 80kWatt (100hp) engine is one part in one thousand of the total energy the engine produces. So 1% of fuel consumption produces at the very best 0.1% of gasoline savings by this mechanism.
With the best will in the world, the only savings you can possibly get from one of these contraptions is 1.8% from this supposed "cleaner burning" of gasoline - and no benefit whatever from additional chemical energy in the hydrogen - and even that 1.8% saving can only happen it can be managed with much less than 250W of energy going to the electrolyser.
Putting a bigger generator an/or a better electrolyser simply can't help because producing more hydrogen is (energy-wise) a direct loss - and no matter how much hydrogen you can make, you can't save more gas by cleaner burn than is already going unburned.
The cheapest of these machines cost ~$100 - which at the most optimistic possible 1.8% fuel savings and $4 a gallon will have to save 25 gallons of gas to pay for itself - which at a 1.8% savings will only happen after you've burned 1390 gallons of gas. If your car does 30mpg - the most optimistic assumption is that you'll have to drive at least 41,700 miles to pay for a $100 HHO gizmo. If you do what JHartuPa plans - with fancy platinum electrodes and a big-assed generator - then you'll have to drive the car maybe half a million miles just to break even! It is no surprise then that his approach is so completely laughable!
When you see that every single one of the web sites that are selling these machines claim between 10% improvement and 300% improvement (er...so you save three times as much gasoline as you buy...how does that work?) - mostly they claim around 40%. Since the best conceivable answer is 1.8% - and the most likely answer is 0% - there is no possible way that these people can simply have mis-measured their gas consumption or be making a small exaggeration. It can only be that they know that the savings are essentially zero.
Hence all people who sell or otherwise promote HHO generators can be shown to be lying, cheating, fraudulent scumbags. There is no denying the math.
QED.
SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxyhydrogen/Archive_1&oldid=551528272"