1. Education

Discuss in my forum

Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.

Can You Really Run Your Car on Water?

By June 4, 2010

Follow me on:

Since I posted instructions for making biodiesel, I've received a lot of emails from readers reminding me that many cars (including mine) run on gas, not diesel, and asking about options for gas-powered vehicles. In particular, I've gotten a lot of questions about whether it is true that you can run your car on water. My answer: yes... and no.

How to Run Your Car on Water

If your car burns gasoline, it won't burn water per se. However, water (H2O) can be electrolyzed to form HHO or Brown's gas. The HHO is added to the engine's intake, where it mixes with the fuel (gas or diesel), ideally leading it to burn more efficiently, which should cause it to produce less emissions. Your vehicle is still using its normal fuel so you will still be buying gas or diesel. The reaction simply allows the fuel to be enriched with hydrogen. The hydrogen isn't in a situation where it could be explosive, so safety isn't a problem. Your engine shouldn't be harmed by the addition of HHO, but...

It's Not So Simple

I don't want to discourage anyone from trying the conversion, but I would advise taking the advertising with at least a couple of grains of salt. When I read the ads for converter kits or instructions for doing the conversion yourself, I don't see a lot of talk about the tradeoffs involved in doing the conversion. How much are you going to spend making the conversion? It looks like you can make a converter for about $100 if you are mechanically inclined, or you could spend a couple thousand dollars it you purchase a converter and have it installed for you. How much is the fuel efficiency actually increased? A lot of different numbers are tossed around; it probably depends on your specific vehicle. A gallon of gas might go further when you supplement it with Brown's gas, but water doesn't spontaneously split itself into its component elements. The electrolysis reaction requires energy from your car's electrical system, so you are using the battery or making your engine work a bit harder to perform the conversion. The hydrogen that is produced by the reaction is used to enhance your fuel efficiency, but oxygen also is produced. I wonder whether the oxygen sensor in a modern car would interpret the readings such that it would cause more fuel to be delivered to the fuel-air mixture, thereby decreasing efficiency and increasing emissions. While HHO can burn more cleanly than gasoline, that does not necessarily mean a car using enriched fuel would produce less emissions. If the water converter is highly effective, it seems to me that enterprising mechanics would be offering to convert cars for people, who would be lining up to increase their fuel efficiency. I haven't seen that.

The Bottom Line

Can you make a fuel from water that you can use in your car? Yes. Will the conversion increase your fuel efficiency and save you money? Maybe. If you know what you are doing, probably yes.

If you have done the conversion and have personal experience to share, I'd love to hear from you, or you can post a comment so others can read what you have to say.


June 26, 2008 at 4:08 pm
(1) dave says:

yes it works I have converted my 91 g20 and it runs great and saves me money everytime i drive it see for your self http://saveonall.info/

June 28, 2008 at 8:56 am
(2) Bluey Quilty, MA says:

YULE BROWN & the GM Monaro conversion, 1977

IN 1977 or thereabouts, Bulgarian Australian inventor, Yule Brown was covered in a press article in a Sydney suburb, with a recent GM Holden Monaro coupe – a solid 6 cylinder sports car after the American manner. HE claimed to have converted it to electrlyse water into HHO for ignition in the conventional GM 6 piston engine. Australian Parliament’s Hansards record shows that he was said to have driven 4,000 – from Sydney to Perth and back – on one tank of water.

It is time this matter was settled absolutely, for if it proves feasible, it will eliminate 50% of the fuel emission problem and leave us with conventially-sized vehicles which have become the conveyor of civilization.

Australia is a clear example of a nation which cannot now survive without economical private vehicles. I am keen to encourage the Minister for the Environment to foster research into a conversion for all conventional engines.

Had Yule Brown succeeded, the water shortage we have now may not have been a problem. But the time is now right, with the evanescance of petroleum. As it is, a successful HHO conversion may need to be restricted to SEA WATER, owing to the environmental reality: that as the air warms, the rainwater in the rivers is less and less; but the poles melt, and as the poles melt, the seas rise. So… use of sea water seems essential.

-Bluey Quilty,
HHO conversion Campaigner

June 30, 2008 at 11:45 pm
(3) Malconian says:

I’ve heard this method works with the older carburetor engines.

Modern cars with fuel injection engines have a manifold absolute pressure [MAP] sensor which works with the ECU (electronic control unit) of the car to supply the correct amount of fuel. Adding HHO mixture will throw the computer off and force it to overcompensate with more fuel.

If you want to fit a fuel injection engine with a Browns gas electrolyzer, you will also have to build a MAP converter. It’s a bit more involved for the average person to do alone.


July 1, 2008 at 10:37 am
(4) Hugo Vogel says:

Consider the following :

1. Water electrolysis uses electric energy.
2. Electric energy must first be produced by the car engines alternator, which has an overall efficiency of about 30% at best, compared to the energy content of gas.
3. The efficiency of electrolysis itself ist at best by about 60 – 70 %
4. So, the total efficiency is about 20%, much less than the efficiency of the combustion process in the engine.
5. Since it is impossibel to produce more energy by burning the HHO than it was needed to produce the HHO, the additional heat energy in the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine can not even compensate for the additional energy neededd to produce the HHO.

March 25, 2011 at 12:14 am
(5) Jim says:

I think this fails to take into consideration that you are only putting very tiny amounts of browns gas into the system, thus yielding far better combustion at a fairly tiny cost.

July 3, 2008 at 12:08 pm
(6) Mark Gray says:

Assume it all works and we use OCEAN water to produce energy for cars, boats, and homes for many billions of people world wide. RESULTS: Massive increase of water vapor worldwide 24/7 (clouds = total overcast and increased massive amounts of rain thus a cooler surface on earth = snow = ice age). Also, ocean levels will drop as water is moved from them and into the atmosphere as water vapor. If you have to desalinate the ocean water first then it takes even more energy thus pollution for this conversion process AND the salinity of the oceans is increased thus having an adverse effect on all ocean plants and life therein. It is a nice idea but ALL solutions create NEW problems so count the cost of any solution first and solve the new problems it creates BEFORE you create another worldwide disaster. Even a wind generator changes weather conditions as it absorbs the wind energy, large hot concrete cities create dryer conditions to their east etc… A few of anything may not be enough to make a noticeable change but many of anything often has the ability or effect of devastating even an entire planet and in a very short period of time.
Thats my 2 cents adn I am sticking to it… :-)

November 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm
(7) timmah says:

Considering we’re putting billions of tons of carbon into the air as it is, I’d say clean H20 would be a fair trade-off. On the other hand, we would be putting far less moisture in the air than raising the entire planet’s temperature would. Also, the process of electrolysis works far more efficiently with salt-water so the ocean water would not need to be desalinated, only filtered somewhat. Also the water removed from the ocean would not simply remain in the air as clouds or fog; neither would it just sit on land. It would return to the ocean as non-polluted runoff. I’m positive that using ocean water as a 100% clean combustion agent would not hurt the economy even a little. Compare that to burning oil pumped from the ground… then shipped by ships burning diesel to refineries using coal and nuclear power to refine it… then shipped thousands of miles around the country by trucks and trains burning gas to get it there…. you get my meaning.

July 3, 2008 at 1:35 pm
(8) Mark Gray says:

OOOps, I should have offered a better solution VS just highlighting the problem so here it is: BTW the water conversion system uses electricity to convert the water which means a larger alternator on your car which burns more gas to power and lost efficiency at every step so just storing and using the electricity is more efficient. Also, driving better and a clean air filter with a tuned up car can increase millage by 30% alone, add a more aerodynamic car VS a box like car in the mix and get 50% more MPG. Anyway, the solution that I came up with about 15 yrs ago and contacted Scripps Institute about (gave them the information for free): In brief: take a large plastic soda bottle and cut the bottom off. Take off the cap and place it right side up into a pail of water. Move it up and down and you will create compressed air on the down stroke and do not discount the vacuumed on the up stroke. Now envision an upside funnel or even roof top upside down V shaped structures in the ocean’s surf line. Now you can create compressed air, a safe storable energy, with ocean surf. Use it to pump ocean water uphill into a man made lake (storage unit) and when released back into the ocean through a hydro electric dam you will generate electricity whenever you want it. Also, some new cars run on compressed air engines,,, check that one out. Remember that about 80% of the worlds population live near water like the oceans. The only real reactive result is that beach erosion will be reduced as some of the damaging energy is taken out of the surf waves before they hit the beaches. Do you have any idea how much energy is in just one small ocean or lake wave? Ocean surf is more constant than solar or wind energy systems and can even be increased with proper underwater structures (grading or rock walls etc…). So there is a solution that creates no real new problems, is totally non polluting except for the pollution generated in fabricating the facilities AND keeps the environment intact better than any other so called renewable energy. Even solar panels create a lot of pollution and take a lot of energy to create. Some panels give back less energy than they take to create when all factors are considered. There it is and for free to all. Do research compressed air engines and cars. :-) :-) :-) I may not be the smartest cookie in the box but I am very good at the one thing I can do well, my one talent :-)

July 9, 2008 at 10:04 am
(9) Dave says:

This is more a question than a comment or even useful experience. Making an assumption that what is said is true and given how long the information has been available, why hasn’t this “trick” been made known and actually used by the vast majority of the driving public? It would seem to me that folks would be driving their new cars off the lot, go home and immediately install one these devices. Is there a reasonable answer to this question?

July 10, 2008 at 3:06 am
(10) Anthony says:

The answer for Dave is simple and comes as a quote from Yull Brown “Everyone wins, except the greedy energy tycoons” says Yull, “Right now they are waisting big dollars on Gasoline manufacturing. They have refused to listen to my invention-because money gets in the way”. There are lots of ‘Free Energy’ devices that have been made from my Browns Gas”
Simply put the technology has been with held so oil companies and car makers can extract huge profits from us the consumer.
Yull Brown was actually taking credit for discoveries made by Michael Faraday, 1791-1867 who was an Engish Chemist and physicst who contributed to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry. Michael Faraday inventor of the electric motor and the faraday principle used lately by those shake to charge flashlights. Faraday also discovered the laws of electrolysis and popularised terminology such as anode, cathode, electrode, and ion. Yull Brown simply found a contemporary use for Faradays HHO gas discovery.

For Hugo and Mark the energy used to produce electrolysis is only 1.5 volts per cell which is very little drain on the electical system. The average alternator produces around 14-15 volts to recharge the battery form starting the car. Once the battery is recharged the car itself is only using about 8-9 volts for computers, radio,fans and continuing the engines ignition system. So there is a surplus of electrcity of aproximately 6-7 volts so you could have a 4 cell electrolyser system running without taxing the elctrical system at all. Also the gas produced is HHO or brown gas which burns hotter then gasoline and has greater explosive force which increases the combustion of gasoline in the cylinder therefore increasing power and reducing emisions buy consuming the unburned gas that would normaly be released into the enviornment by the exhaust system.

July 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm
(11) SteveC says:

If the water is turned to gas (HHO) and then back to water (H2O) as I have heard it does, how does this affect the internal engine parts.

What is the worst case scenario or downside of this “run car on water” technology/invention/process?

July 15, 2008 at 5:49 pm
(12) Dan says:

To the author: I was just doing some online research about this very topic and found systems for just a few hundred dollars called a Hydro Super 2. I was astonished to find many websites, blogs, Youtube, and online forums for this topic and when I visited the website for the Hydro Super 2 they directed me to resellers and some of them actually are partnering with mechanics to perform installations. I am betting that you have not actually seen one of these systems in action. I encourage you to take a closer look. I have been learning a lot and have started to experiment with the best known methods of creating and using HHO. In the quest for information I have seen many versions of this technology and although some maybe primitive and not suitable for the long haul, the principles seem very sound. I have yet to see a single article, experiment, or demonstration with this equipment that will disprove the process of making or using HHO. Seems funny that most would either except or reject with no real basis in fact. Check it out and let me know if you find the same thing.

July 16, 2008 at 2:52 am
(13) Shang says:

this is for mark gray:

not tryin to be a but or anything but ocean water would be best for the process because it takes a electrolizer like SALT for the electrol. to take place. Alot of people are using baking soda and drain openers that contain the electrolizer. Salt acts like a electrolizer. The us navy uses sea water to get the o2 for the subs to stay under for weeks at a time. in which the process is electrolosis from sea water and nothing added to it. also steam quickly convertes back to water due to the atmospheric temp not being high enough to keep the steam in a steam state.

July 17, 2008 at 2:24 am
(14) Emilya Davis says:

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

July 18, 2008 at 1:15 pm
(15) Bob strict9 says:

I read that Popular Mechanics is going to do a test on this. GREAT! I know we all don’t like having to pay so much money for fuel, but I hope that doesn’t make us vulnerable for frauds. It’s amazing the old clips of newstories of almost energy-less systems and perpetual motion machines. Don’t let that be us!

July 19, 2008 at 6:45 am
(16) Sam says:

Hi Emilya,

i use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact,
very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800
gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly
increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save
money.I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us
i really recommend it to everybody, it’s a nice ebook where you can find
the instructions on how to do it! take a look

July 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm
(17) tripleii says:

Folks. This is a huge scam. Despite the pseudoscience in some posts above and the “big oil cartels”, if this worked (it doesn’t), with so many thousands of people pushing this on the web, it would be widespread. Your mileage will do down. This is the ultimate “free lunch” which purports to productize the perpetual motion machine.

Making sure your tire pressure is perfect, driving 3 mph slower and just driving easier will save you many many times the cost of implementing this scam.

Emilya, think about it, 1 quart of water, over many a few months intermixed with what, 300+ gallons of gas over that time, it’s a scam. Take the $100 you might spend on this and take your husband to a nice dinner.


March 21, 2011 at 1:13 pm
(18) George says:

BULL. This is no scam. We are basiaclly enslaved to the energy giants.

Read the many patents out there and the details. This has been done since the 1800′s.

The bottom line. It would free billions of people from poverty, and provide nearly free energy for all.

The biggest hoax is that water IS NOT A FUEL. THAT’S THE LIE.

: )

June 3, 2011 at 9:31 am
(19) Lanthanum says:

Water does not have enough intrinsic energy to make it a useful energetic compound. Water is almost always the product of combustion, not the reactant.

July 21, 2008 at 9:09 pm
(20) slarty says:

Ive been reading a lot on doing conversions but i think that a Ebook i found gave more useful and practical advice on this matter. With out ay adjustment or capitol outlays on engine mods. Check it out,

July 25, 2008 at 5:08 am
(21) zee says:

I did manage to see about 10-12 of these car’s in action…turned on and running at 6242 Woodley Ave, CA (between Burbank Ave and Victory Blvd…Woodley Park) where every Saturday cars running with HHO kits are displayed and demonstrated.

You can also get a mechanic to do an installation (though these installations are not done at the park)….most drivers admitted to a substantial increase ranging from 15% to 40%…..I also saw one car where the driver said that after the initial fuel efficiency increase it went back to the way it was (though he hadn’t installed any O2 extenders or MAP overrides).

The only way for me to know this really works is to have one installed and drive it and see how it works for me…as for the kit’s they are fairly easy to make and install…the only challenge is in getting the MAP sensor overrides or the O2 extenders installed which require a bit more technical knowhow….

Furthermore at this park I also saw several additional devices(add-ons) which some mechanic’s there informed me weren’t required…Overall I saw some really simple easy and very practical kits installed and functioning in cars….

Car’s ranged from V4′s to V8′s….older car’s and almost brand new cars…cheap to expensive….As far I can tell It really works though I cannot say for certain that you do get a substantial increase in fuel efficiency…

Then Again this observation was only over a period of say about 2 hours….The only way for anyone to definitely know for a fact and know more is to go to this park and check these cars out and maybe to get these installed….I hope this information was helpful

I do plan to do get this installed in my car soon and when I do I will update with more information….

Zee – Las Vegas,NV

August 4, 2008 at 11:32 am
(22) Pete says:


Is the #1 rated site for learning how to convert your car to running on water.

August 4, 2008 at 8:56 pm
(23) Joe says:

Snake oil……the whole thing reeks of it. Wouldn’t be surprised if the peddlers of the product claim they can fix baldness and faded paint at the same time…..”Just rub it in, but wait there’s more free knives and a emergency flare if you order today…don’t let this opportunity pass….bla bla bla!”

Give me some proof….and not that guy/gal that gets paid to say “works for me!!!!”.

August 6, 2008 at 1:32 pm
(24) TK says:

Guys, believe it or not; it does work on my 1992 bmer 7 series and I got 33% increase in mileage, engine runs a lot more smoother and quieter. I’ve been experimenting on my car for a month and seems like the engine is getting healthier.

You are sceptical just like me, but I tested it out. Man, it’s unbelievable. I don’t want to get into any argument and I do appreciate all the questions raised and those are very good questions/doubts indeed. The fact is, only those who tried it out could tell you the benefits of hydrofuel.


August 8, 2008 at 8:31 pm
(25) Walks-in-Storms says:

Perhaps nothing concerning the topic is more interesting than the people who say hydrogen converters won’t work (and all the rest). Friends and I built one of these in 1972 (when all the gas stations were closed). I installed mine on a Chevrolet Monza V-8, with the result that when I had tinkered with it during a trip it went from 16 mpg to 24 (or so – it’s been a long time). I got distracted by business then, but my step-daughter drove the car for years without trouble.

A friend of mine at the time also installed this set-up on local police cars with the result that they more than doubled their mileage. It happpens that I’m in the process of doing it all again, delayed by some components I’ve ordered and haven’t arrived.

An airline captain friend of mine tells me that a scientist friend of his says hydrogen will damage the engine of a car (something like the idea’s detractors here, I guess). I’m not a chemist, but I can do the molecular and ionic formulas, and I can’t imagine how that could be.

Would anyone care to explain how hydrogen might damage an automobile engine? Technically, please – the chemistry.

August 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm
(26) Bob says:

I made one and useing it. My 97 mercury it does work I am getting 50% more miles out of my car on the highway.

August 27, 2008 at 8:03 am
(27) Gene says:

Warm Greetings to all,

Just wanted to say that HHO is not a fuel energy source. It’s more of an fuel modifying additive when introduced in an on-demand application for vehicles. I’ve done extensive information research and installed several units now. In a nutshell, your carburetor and fuel injectors break up gasoline into tiny droplets that comprise a fine mist with a particular air/fuel ratio that’s fed into your engine cylinders. The larger droplets typically ignite but don’t burn completely because the gasoline in their interior is not exposed to oxygen (no oxygen, no combustion). With enough time the reaction would reach the interior and consume the entire droplet. But typically, flame initiation and propagation is a surface, droplet to droplet phenomena and modern internal combustion engines are designed and timed to draw energy from flame front propagation. In other words engines don’t wait for the entire droplet to “cook”. This means the fuel on the interior of the droplet is simply wasted as part of the exhaust.

HHO Effects -
When HHO is introduced into your cylinder, it does several things. First, when ignited, it continues the droplet break-up process by crushing and further fragmenting larger fuel droplets. This exposes more fuel surface area to oxygen. The added fuel surface area effectively changes the air/fuel ratio (makes it richer) because more (fragmented) fuel is now available for combustion. Simultaneously, HHO ignites all the fuel quickly. Since it has a very high combustion velocity (CV) and it is more or less evenly dispersed throughout the cylinder, the previous (relatively slow) droplet to droplet flame propagation process effectively disappears and HHO forces all the fuel to ignite virtually at once (yes it’s that fast and violent). It acts very similarly to an explosive primer charge. This means more fuel burns in a shorter amount of time, delivering more kinetic energy to each piston. The bottom line is HHO does it’s job by modifying your car’s fuel, rather than acting as car fuel. As long as there are over-sized droplets for it to act on, additional amounts of HHO will be beneficial. And yes, there are timing implications.

Higher concentrations of HHO cool engine operation because after combustion HHO contracts dramatically thereby immediately driving cylinder and exhaust gas temperatures downward. That’s why there are no reports of molten pistons or vaporized heads. It’s a pretty interesting set of physical interactions.

So, no, your car does not run on water. It doesn’t even run on HHO.

The droplet fragmentation phenomena and its effects have been pretty well known and studied for years by researchers in Canada and the JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) here in the states and all over the world. I’m a little surprised by the confusion because the information is freely available and fully documented. In fact, as soon as I get time I’ll scan the hardcopy extracts I have to my site for viewing.

Full disclosure: I do recommend some plans that I’ve reviewed and or used.


Meanwhile, here is some research info. you can find online:

In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the Birmingham, of University Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing>, demonstrated the advantages of “Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming.” The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions. Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association states the “Use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities and conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions” and that “Using hydrogen as a combustion stimulant it is possible for other fuels to meet future requirements for lower exhaust emissions in California and an increasing number of additional states. Relatively small amounts of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce exhaust emissions.”


A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded: The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency A recent study at the University of Calgary by G.A. Karim on the effect of adding hydrogen to a methane-fuelled engine says … The addition of some hydrogen to the methane, speeds up the rates of initiation and subsequent propagation of flames over the whole combustible mixture range, including for very fast flowing mixtures. This enhancement of flame initiation and subsequent flame propagation, reduces the Ignition delay and combustion period in both spark ignition and compression ignition engines which should lead to noticeable improvements in the combustion process and performance What happens inside the combustion chamber is still only a guess. In an earlier explanation I suggested that the extremely rapid flame speed of the added hydrogen oxygen interspersed through the main fuel air mix, gives the whole mix a much faster flame rate. Dr. Brant Peppley, Hydrogen Systems Group, Royal Military College, Kingston, has convinced me that insufficient hydrogen is produced to have much effect by just burning it. He feel’s that the faster burn is most likely due to the presence of nascent (atomic) hydrogen and nascent oxygen, which initiate a chain reaction. I now completely agree. Electrolysis produces “nascent” hydrogen, and oxygen, which may or may not reach the engine as nascent. It is more probable that high temperature in the combustion chamber breaks down the oxygen and hydrogen molecules into free radicals (i.e. nascent). The chain reaction initiated by those free radicals will cause a simultaneous ignition of all the primary fuel. As it all ignites at once, no flame front can exist and without it there is no pressure wave to create knock The results of tests at Corrections Canada’s, Bowden Alberta Institution and other independent tests reinforce the belief that combustion is significantly accelerated. They found with the HGS on, unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO, in the exhaust were either eliminated or drastically reduced and at the same R.P.M. the engine produced more torque from less fuel. Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18% From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.

May 5, 2011 at 2:45 am
(28) Rahul choudhary says:

My two main questions are
1. Could it will be possible to run the Automobile completely on electolysis ?
2. wouldn’t the production of water at high temprature will detoriate the life of the Combustion engine??

September 5, 2008 at 11:17 am
(29) Panopses says:

Hello again…

Haven’t quite decided how to integrate the information mentioned above on my website, but decided that’s no reason for you guys to have to wait until I figure things out. Here are some links that should be of interest:

Sort of a survey of hydrogen fuel technologies (including fractional injection)–

1977 NASA Study -

Here’s a basic study chronology -
Here’s more info. on what other organizations are doing with hydrogen:

General reading on the subject for those who are interested:

Application of Hydrogen Assisted Lean Operation to Natural Gas-Fueled Reciprocating Engines (HALO)

Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: Hydrogen-Fueled Mercedes Sprinter Van Operating Summary – January 2003

Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: High-Percentage Hydrogen/CNG Blend, Ford F-150 — Operating Summary

Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: Low-Percentage Hydrogen/CNG Blend, Ford F-150 — Operating Summary

Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: Dodge Ram Wagon Van – Hydrogen/CNG Operations Summary – January 2003

Optimized hydrogen piston engines

Fuel-cycle energy and emissions impacts of tripled fuel economy vehicles

Solar powered hydrogen generating facility and hydrogen powered vehicle fleet. Final technical report, August 11, 1994–January 6, 1997

SunLine Transit Agency, Hydrogen Powered Transit Buses: Preliminary Evaluation Results

Numerical modeling of hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines

Hydrogen-air mixing evaluation in reciprocating engines

Technology status of hydrogen road vehicles. IEA technical report from the IEA Agreement of the production and utilization of hydrogen

I’ve noticed that discussion has virtually disappeared. I hope that wasn’t due to my postings. Didn’t mean to be a budynski you guys. Just thought some solid info might help clarify things a bit. Please continue.


September 7, 2008 at 4:57 am
(30) Burty says:

Heres a idea for anyone wishing to save fuel and increase your mpg.
Scrap your fuel thirsty state side made tank of a car and purchase a enviromentally and efficient asian or european built car. Mind you if most americans lost 100 lbs they would save themselves 200 dollars a year in extra fuel costs

September 9, 2008 at 12:40 am
(31) paul says:

put it this way my electrolysis cell makes enough hho to run a 5 horse briggs and straton while getting its electricity from my car while running with the lights on. an experement. so the average car altinator requires 1.7 horse power to produce peek power. my cell is using about half of that 1.7hp to run completely a 5hp engine. it is my belief that the oil companies pay people to go on forums and make hho sound fruitless

September 9, 2008 at 9:17 pm
(32) Panopses says:

Hi Paul,

You mean your 5hp B&S engine uses no gasoline in any way? You just pipe HHO?

March 21, 2011 at 4:01 pm
(33) George says:

Paul, I believe you to be 100% correct ! There is an even better way to increase the efficiency of an electrolysis cell to run a car on demand. Faraday did not do this when laying down the law. Others have done this for years. It is not anything new. To clarify,, I am talking about running a car on 100% water and nothing else. I will not reveal this method for safety concerns…..but would love to help people get this info. out.

September 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm
(34) Jim says:

OK for all of you that say “HHO” will not,can not and does not work… Then why don’t you try telling all of us that think it does work why it’s such a concern to you to waste so much time online in all of the forms saying it doesn’t… What are you getting out of all this time wasted. I made my own kit not online for big$$$$$$ 30 dollars that it and it works. So the bottom line is who’s paying you to say what you say.

April 21, 2009 at 8:11 pm
(35) Tim says:

I get better mileage than all of you without any of the gimmicks. I ride my bike. Not only is it better for the environment, I’m healthy.

July 23, 2011 at 9:40 am
(36) Diet Dave says:

I second that Tim.

June 4, 2009 at 8:49 pm
(37) Stacey Spencer says:

I find this an interesting topic. Especially from hearing different perspectives on it, whether it can or can not work.

I am personally interested that it does, especially the car that runs on water only from manufacturers ‘Genepax’

July 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm
(38) jon says:

If you chemicaly brake down water and burn it. It can never be water again.

March 21, 2011 at 4:22 pm
(39) George says:

Jon, Hydrogen and Oxygen cannot be destroyed. When water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen and then combusted, the outcome is a big energy release before the hydrogen and oxygen recombines into guess what……WATER.

July 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm
(40) Ian Watson says:

Wait, the author has a PhD (presumably in chemistry) and is spouting this crap? Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry should know that these HHO (or “Brown’s Gas”) kits are a COMPLETE SCAM. Simple conservation of energy tells you that you can’t create energy. The energy to split the water has to come from your car battery, and the energy for that comes from your alternator, and the energy for that comes from your engine, and the energy from that comes from GASOLINE. Due to conservation of energy you will at best get back exactly what you put in. In the real world (with those damned less than 100% efficiencies) you will get less energy from the Brown’s Gas than you spent in gasoline to make it. DECREASED FUEL EFFICIENCY.

Ohhh, I see now. People have been debunking the whole “hydrogen powers your car” myth, so now they’ve switched tactics to suggest that these scam kits work by encouraging leaner fuel burning. Well, actually, they’re right. HOWEVER, it’s not because of any effects from the gas or the the oxygen or whatever, it’s because these kits modify the oxygen sensor or the car’s computer. So yes, you will see the car burn leaner fuel. However, the car was not designed to do this. Over time you will damage your engine and it’s going to cost you a lot more to repair it than the few bucks you saved in gas.

You really want to save gas money? By a bus pass or a bike.

March 21, 2011 at 4:33 pm
(41) George says:







April 27, 2011 at 8:10 pm
(42) Logical says:

There are many individuals running their car just on water?

I got an idea, put those cars in the garage, put them up on blocks, hook the driving wheels to a generator, and sell the electricity you produce to the electric company. If you had energy to drive a car, you certainly could use it instead to spin a generator.

The car engine produces heat, you can take that in the winter and heat your home for free since you normally would have to just dump that heat outside to the environment that the radiator normally would do.

Since matter can not be created or destroyed (at least not by me or you) the water you split, when you burn the H and O turns back into the exact same amount of water, so therefore this system does not really use up any water.

The money you get from the electric company you use to build more and more of these systems. A virtual goldmine!

There must be billionaires everywhere from doing this, and why would they want to sell me the plans to do this if they know how? What great folk they are that so many will sell us this incredible technology for only 90 dollars or so.

Anyway why do we even need coal, nature gas, nuclear and other fossil fuels, when we have a 100 percent clean energy like water that does not even get used up in the process? It confounds me that none of the engineers of this world can do the amazing thing that people can do in their garages.

Oh , the all caps stuff, you shouldn’t do that, it hurts your credibility on this amazing technology.

June 5, 2010 at 5:29 pm
(43) Ian Watson is stupid says:

Ian Watson, wow, you are a retard. Did you even read the article before making your stupid post? That amazing commentary you make in your whole paragraph there is exactly what she already said. I’m not even sure you’re good enough to comment on something like this. The author has a PhD, and you apparently can’t even read. Go back to Europe.

You want to save gas money? Allow people like Ian to die quickly, then take his.

June 7, 2010 at 3:32 pm
(44) Dave says:

How is using engine power to electrolyze water, and then injecting it into the fuel stream that much different from was using water injection?



June 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm
(45) Bill Horvath II says:
June 23, 2010 at 10:36 pm
(46) Water Engine says:

Converting your car to run on water is a great way to double your mileage, in the long run you will save a lot of money. If you would like more information please feel free to visit my page Water Car Blog
Run Auto With Water

July 6, 2010 at 10:05 pm
(47) Bluezy says:

Mythbusters did a show to challenge the HHO converter and other gadgets that claim to increase your mileage.
Spoiler: It was a bust.
The thing is the ones you see on YouTube with a believable good ol’ boy riggin’ up his F150 Truck with HHO kit has more components to show. There is the chamber that contains the water and receives the power for the electrolysis. Then the exhaust from that chamber is directed to another chamber tube that is called a bubbler that acts as flashback protection and a vapor chamber. From there a tube goes on to the intake. Then there kits that have multiple electrolysis chambers that are shown on these videos…
When you google HHO kits you get 1,160,000 hits. Oh mee oh my!

March 28, 2011 at 7:51 pm
(48) dbray says:

Hi Bluezy… as Abraham Lincoln once said, don’t believe everything you read on the internet.. and certainly, swallowing everything on ‘mythbusters’ as being the gospel truth is equally vapid… these guys ‘busted’ the idea that the moon landing video was phoney… which they did by basically focusing on only one aspect of it… they are just more lickspittle for the uberich…whether they are aware of it or not… I am suggesting that if you are serious about researching anything, it is in your interest to go a lot farther than a popular television show.

September 30, 2010 at 9:04 am
(49) Tony says:

To run a car on water is amazing in itself. Many people are starting to look to this type of technology to save money!

November 5, 2010 at 10:18 pm
(50) darkness says:


November 15, 2010 at 5:26 pm
(51) ghandorf says:

an in nijia , a guy is claiming to do a demonstration and a lecture on how to install the hho kit at 15000k is it real or a may scam pls i need advice

May 27, 2011 at 11:18 am
(52) tharindu says:

I need more information. plz send to me

September 25, 2011 at 12:27 pm
(53) reason why no one gets it says:

I see everyone saying how does it produce energy if the same amount of water that goes in comes out!! WAIT wouldnt that mean the cars a perpetual machine!! thats why thats not whats happening, think of it this way when water is split you loose the oxygen and have some hydrogen left, when this is burnt it reacts with oxygen to release energy seeing as nearly no fuel is 100% efficient some of the hydrogen will not burn be released through the exhuast pipe come in contact with oxygen and form water!!

December 8, 2011 at 1:14 am
(54) Pete B says:

i have spent a lot of time working with HHO or hydroxy generators. The process of electrolysis to separate the water molecule H2O into HH+O has been around a very long time and most school science labs have demonstrated that to students.
I’ve been playing with all kinds of them, some good, some completely rubbish. Some are even downright dangerous and scary!
Producing enough hydroxy for an engine is not technically that hard and requires surprisingly less energy than some might think. As nearly all of these have a water chamber that acts as a safety device, the gas also carries a small amount of water vapour. Firstly, the ‘flame-front’ of the fuel burn is pretty much eliminated as if the fuel were a much higher octane and secondly, the albeit small amount of water vapour expands far more than dry air. In engines that have been tested with just hydrogen and air, backfiring is a major issue but the presence of the water vapour provides just enough cooling to eliminate that problem.
The increased efficiency produces more torque, it is actually chemically certain that the addition of even small amounts of hydroxy will extend the range and efficiency of any engine. The difference is particularly noticeable in diesel engines.
To those who seem to think that water is not not capable of such properties, you cannot live without water, your brain functions will deteriorate fast.
Hence simply dismissing this as a power source is scientifically pretty naive.
Yes I got paid to test the theories, some work, some are scams but you are reading this on the internet. That is using fibre-optic cables with couplers assembled using HHO generators, because they were and still are the cheapest, most efficient flames to do the job.
There was a time that people were burned at the stake for suggesting the world might not be flat, we have come a long way since then. Cerne seems to have gashed a hole in Einstein’s theories,.. what next?

February 18, 2012 at 6:13 am
(55) thomas.w says:

wouldn’t your car be more likely to blow up

June 13, 2012 at 4:57 am
(56) Barry Pascoe says:

I have spent a lot of money to investigate these claims, I decided to instal on an old naturally aspirated 1989 Nissan diesel GQ wagon.
I first run the vehicle on a “Dynometer” to gain a baseline.
At first it recorded an overall loss of power from original condition of 5% (due to the millage of 785,000 miles)
I then installed two units I had designed myself and returned to the Dynometer, apart from a slight improvement on toque figures, little effect was first observed, but on returning 3 weeks later the engine was almost back to original power.
The first units were adding “Browns Gas” to the engine, and I feel that the “Browns Gas” was returning to the water state and this created “Steam” and so improved the torque because it slowed down the burn and increased the length of time of expansion which would account for the increase in torque.
This would also account for some return to performance by cleaning out carbon from the engine internals.
I went back to the drawing board and redesigned the two units.
Now I can report an actual increase of 12 kW of power as well as well as 10 Nm of torque, no big deal except the exhaust is a very respectable 49+% less toxic.
The realistic figures for fuel on my vehicle (Big Tyres, Roof Rack, Bull Bar, Winch,) is a regular 22.6mpg (Aust) (Imperial gallons.)
Without the units I return 16.4 mpg. under similar conditions.
This has taken into consideration the fact that the Alternator is working harder to “Crack the Water” and that effort is included.
I do have a new concept to increase the output and I will be testing that later this year.
Barry Pascoe.

July 9, 2012 at 11:31 am
(57) vky says:

i can do it ..

August 8, 2012 at 8:29 pm


August 18, 2012 at 2:55 am
(59) water4octane says:
August 30, 2012 at 9:22 am
(60) ali says:

Pakistani motor mechanic has discovered a water kit name Agha waqar which is surprising thing you can see his work on youtube as Agha waqar water kit .Can you please check his work and tell is this possible or fraud plzz give an expert opinion?????

August 31, 2012 at 4:26 pm
(61) water damage repair south salt lake says:

This web site definitely has all the info I wanted concerning this subject
and didn’t know who to ask.

October 23, 2012 at 5:48 am
(62) HHO Plus says:

HHO Plus is a company that offers fuel economy with their HHO kits for your car at a very attractive price.

October 24, 2012 at 8:59 pm
(63) Gaga says:

1 gallon of water goes in, electrolysis splits it, hydrogen burns and is recombined with oxygen, are we left with 1 gallon of water?

November 12, 2012 at 6:34 pm
(64) Mr. Slaughter says:

I will be doing a high school science fair project about engines. My goal is to make an engine run that is more resourceful and earth friendly than engines in the modern world. If I could get help or reccomendations it would help. You could email me at- tekarislaughter@gmail.com

January 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm
(65) magic says:

your article is about right. you have a healthy dose of reserve towards the topic, but you dont reject or deny its existence or results, like many mainstream faculties or mechanics do. i drive the car with brown gas generator on board for 36 kmiles now, and it does work. does it work as good as many claim it does, not necesserily, although it`s hard to judge it based just on experience with one car. on the other hand, cars are not that different from one another, so if you have it configured correctly, you will be getting some range of savings, typically 10-20%, which i consider pretty good, considering reasonable investment, and if you do it yourself. but let`s talk numbers and details here: if you have a vehicle with computerized engine management (so pretty much all of them nowadays), on top of your generator, you need to fool the computer somehow, so it would accept lean mixture of air and gasoline, which by factory settings it won`t. the simplest way to do it is to tap into one of the sensors, and install simple circuitry, that will change the electrical value of impulse going back to computer. this setting works pretty good for me, additional advantage is that you can set your power as you want it. you can set it for maximum savings, just like i did, if you wanna have some more fun with it however, and you willing to sacrifice couple of mpgs, then so it be! my 2003 ford focus routinely gets 500-550 miles out of 13,5 galon tank all around, i do drive very deffensively thou, so do the math. on factory settings, no matter what i was doing, i could not go past 400-450.

February 16, 2013 at 5:46 pm
(66) John says:

While the theory that the energy consumed by the alternator has to boosted and therefore increases the work load of the engine, and increases the fuel needed to produce the extra energy, there are a lot of aftermarket companies that offer electric water pumps, and other parts that can be maintained electrically to reduce the work load of a motor that was previously belt driven. It is a shame that something this valued must be so quickly dismissed. Nothing comes without trial and error. And I’m no scientist or doctor, but I do know that water evaporates, water vapors collect in the atmosphere, and when the concentration is too great, it falls back to earth as rain. So then, how do you figure we would drain our oceans? Global warming is melting our ice caps, and you are worried about the temperature of the planet dropping? What mankind has done to this planet in the last few hundred years is disgraceful. We have been clumsy and dirty, and left our filthy footprints all over mother nature’s face. The truth is we have abused our planet, and taken it for granted, and now it’s time to put on our big boy pants and fix it. How is sitting neutral and continuing on our current path going to help? If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Instead of saying why it won’t work, say, well how can we change it to where it will work? We are HUMANS, we claim to be INTELLIGENT, so let’s prove it. Lets save ourselves from ourselves.

March 1, 2013 at 10:22 am
(67) Joyce says:

all i wanted to know if how it would work…….

April 15, 2013 at 5:27 am
(68) himanshu sing says:

when we start the car then the main work of fuel.in the fuel use as water convert as hho

July 5, 2013 at 5:30 am
(69) coach says:

@ gaga : yes it’s should be same amount of water.
Otherwise, is this process safe for the battery

August 5, 2013 at 2:05 am
(70) Pete says:

Introducing HHO to the engine (if enough for it to notice) would actually signal the 02 sensor that there is a lean condition and would pump more fuel. This means that to see any improvment in MPG would require illegal tampering with federal emmision sensors to set the mixture lean. This can damage valves and pistons. Not so sure it is worth risking an engine to test a device that has never been officially proven to save fuel.

Now what the HHO proponents claim is that adding the HHO helps the fuel burn more efficiently. What they fail to mention is modern engines burn virtually 100% efficient from the factory. Raw fuel dumped into the catalytic convertor would cause a fire. There is only a small percentage of hydrocarbons (measured in parts per million) that enter the cat and are converted to reduce emmisions. Any raw fuel dumped in would indicate a serious problem with the engine. As far as “thermal efficincy” HHO can not help that…only a re design of the engine since all that energy is wasted in heat/friction.

So in the worst case let’s say the vehicle is running 97% fuel burn efficient. That would mean in all logic and science the best it could improve anything would be 3%. But..then there are energy conversion and efficiency losses. Remember there is NO free or extra energy in the alternator..that is a myth created by idiots who know nothing about a charging system. ANY and ALL electronics running off the alternator will increase the magnetic field and cause drag hence using more fuel. There is no way around that which is why I strongly feel based on experience, physics, science and logic that these work. They are gimmics, hoxes and scams. That is why you will NEVER see a legit scientific dyno test or EPA test that proves they can save fuel.

August 19, 2013 at 1:01 am
(71) Jimmy says:

I see this as fee-sable, I am a mechanic and if I had the money and resources I believe I could make it a reality for all! I thought up an air powered engine back in the ’80′s but people in the position to help me produce it thought I was nuts and called it a perpetual motion design! It is not perpetual motion if you know you will have to stop every so often and re-pressurize your air supply every so often, well now some one else got it going. Just cause I was a teen with no PHD. someone else got the patent! With water, two combustible gasses combined why couldn’t it work according to the skeptics? We need them though to ask the hard questions. I have 2 questions I;d like to throw in there though. If the water tank were stored at the rear of the car and the lines feeding the intake were running along the exhaust system to heat it into steam, would it not make it easier to make combustible? Also in EFI systems the MAP sensor is in the intake so if it were fed directly to the intake manifold would the 3 sensors in the exhaust actually compensate the comp. into telling the EFI to inject less fuel because the system appears to be running more efficient thus saving fuel? I may be wrong but it sounds reasonable to me, tell me what you think!

September 25, 2013 at 1:45 am
(72) Chris says:

There is absolutely no harm in testing this for yourself, as long as you can retard your ignition system TDC (top dead center) if you intend on introducing a large amount of HHO into your combustion chamber. It is relatively safe to add these systems to your vehicle as long as your HHO inlet tube is before your air-filter. You can build one for yourself out of garage scraps and spare time.
I don’t understand the outrage and opposition some people have against this fun and potentially money saving experiment.
I do recommend if you want to add a hho generator to your vehicle in order to save money, start with a vehicle that does not meter fuel quantity based off of o2 sensor readings. Get a carburated vehicle.
Bear in mind that water by itself is not good for an engine cumbustion chamber, and water is not a good thing in a crankcase.

November 6, 2013 at 7:06 am
(73) Neil says:

I have been researching this subject for years now, there are some great kits out there now, the one I like has to do with Stan Meyers from the USA, he was killed, poisoned, they got rid of him because he discovered how to run a car on water completely, instead of using 12volts and high amps to convert, his system uses very high voltages, low amps 250 Milli amps and at different frequencies to make hydrogen to run your car on and this is done at the injector not in a container with a generator the guy is an absolute genius. I have posted some you tube links to him and another project trying to replicate Stans results called project Icarus.

December 8, 2013 at 3:39 pm
(74) milo is awesome says:

this is meep awesome important!!!

December 15, 2013 at 10:32 pm
(75) Jimmy says:

You know, I’ve read as many comments as I could take! I think this is worth researching further regardless of the negative comments using late hippie college big words to make people sound smart. I am a mechanic now disabled so too poor to do any real experimenting, so I wont be the savior! But remember people water is H2O, two parts hydrogen one part oxygen both combustible and more efficient together! I’m not a scientist so I cannot tell you the ratio the two would burn the best but if you just need more air, you have an intake system. How about someone try the separation process by pumping the water thru a metal line along the exhaust system if salt water when it starts to turn to steam have an accessible collection box that you can clean out every so often and process your own sea salt for your dinner table? Start there, maybe one day someone will make the leap to converting our cars back to carburation running on propane or hydrogen cell long enough to heat the exhaust system where then it converts to the sea water fuel tank instead of fossil fuels! someone commented that all the water vapor may throw us into another ice age, If you haven’t noticed all our ice is melting into the seas which when gone the temp differences in the oceans will slow down the ocean currents and heat up the air sending the earth back into a prehistoric state and some scientists believe another ice age, to which the comment was concerned about to begin with. So, This could still be a solution if one of you out there figure it out, PLEASE do not sell the rest of us out for quick buck from the oil industry, you’ll get rich enough selling to the public maybe more so! By the way there are some really good comments in here as well, even if they are off track!

December 25, 2013 at 12:10 pm
(76) Bernie says:

Is it illegal to install something like that one your car? Because I’ve been told it is.

January 5, 2014 at 5:23 am
(77) Mohammad says:

Yes i have made my hho generator and saving about 30% fuel and 60% emission reduction and 25% engine power increase and few degree centigrade engine temperature decrease as well.

January 28, 2014 at 4:35 am
(78) kids play says:

yes I can…but until than I want to burn some cars

March 12, 2014 at 5:29 am
(79) John B says:

Wow! Lots of misunderstandings here.

1. The proponents of HHO are NOT (or SHOULD NOT) be stating that HHO as they are producing it from the alternator is a fuel. It is a burn modifier. See Gene’s post #28 (extremely thoughtful and well done — thanks Gene!)

2. The amounts of water used for burn modification (NOT as fuel — but as a anti-detonation and burn front modifier) will never use up any critical amount of water, change the level in any lake or affect any ocean, nor affect any weather pattern any more than flushing your toilet will. Tiny amounts of water are separated by electrolysis, which uses some electrical energy that was derived from the fuel the car burns to make the alternator turn. This water is electrolyzed into one oxygen molecule and two hydrogen molecules. This gas is fed to the (pre air flow sensor intake tube on fuel injected vehicles) intake on the vehicle and mixes with inlet air to the fuel mixing system (carb, fuel injectors, diesel injectors, etc) This gas does not provide any real increase in power by being burned itself. It does change the way the fuel mix burns, over what time it burns, and hence the impulse delivered to the piston. Because the burn in the cylinder does not proceed as a wave front anymore, and ignites apparently all at once, as JPL showed, the engine does not knock, even at higher relative compression ratios.


March 12, 2014 at 5:31 am
(80) John B says:


(I admit, it could stretch your head bolts or studs over time, and cause head gasket failure, but we aren’t sure yet) The formation of water likely benefits the engine just like water injection. That means that these engines are probably benefiting from the simple well known thermodynamics of higher compression leading to higher mileage and lower exhaust gas temperatures leading to more work done in the combustion chamber of the engine. Remember, the compression is probably instantaneously higher, then drops off suddenly, and the temperature of combustion is higher, and drops off suddenly, and the water vapor cools the exhaust stream. Remember, they figured out water injection raised economy and horsepower way back in WWII for fighter and bomber engines.
3. If you don’t believe this, see what Mazda is doing with the SKYACTIV-G engine, and I quote from Larry Carly’s Article in “Underhood Service” –

“A SKYACTIV-G engine is pretty similar to any other engine. It has an aluminum block and cylinder head, with a pair of chain-driven overhead cams. There are four pistons, 16 valves (four per cylinder) and one platinum spark plug per cylinder with a coil-on-plug ignition ­system. Nothing unusual here. However, the pistons are domed like a performance piston to raise compression, and have a small cup in the top similar to a diesel piston. The cup acts like a mini-combustion chamber and allows the flame front to spread quickly when fuel is injected directly into this recessed cup in the top of each piston. The cup allows faster combustion and shortens the time any unburned air/fuel mixture in the rest of the cylinder is exposed to high temperatures, thus reducing the risk of detonation.”

March 12, 2014 at 5:32 am
(81) John B says:


So here is my point. Mazda engineers figured out how to get up to 38 MPG out of a 2.5 liter engine in a compact sedan and make 185hp BY DOING WHAT??? Raising the local compression in the cylinder and allowing the flame front to spread quickly….. and the faster combustion shortens the time any unburned air/fuel mix in the rest of the cylinder is exposed to high temperatures, thus reducing the risk of detonation.

There are sound thermodynamic principles for why tinkerers in their garages are seeing some improvement (Sorry, all you tinkerers, no insult intended — I have to say that tinkerers as a group are where the real progress is made — a la Wright Brothers) in gas mileage and power.

What we need to do is get Engineers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory to investigate HHO systems as a fuel burn modifier, and a natural resource extender. That is until Solar and Wind power generates true green hydrogen that you put in your car, and a kilogram of it makes the 11,400 cubic liters of hydrogen gas that it takes to run your car 66 kilometers as the sole green fuel.

Think about what is really going on, then explain it with factual science. If you post on you-tube, show your mileage numbers over months and dyno testing numbers. Otherwise we are all contributing to the confusion, not the facts, on HHO, and what it can do, and cannot do.


Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
Top Related Searches

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.