The latest “scientific breakthrough” scam — water gas 88

The gullibility of the scientifically challenged media and buying public never ceases to amaze. Spurred perhaps by sharply higher gasoline prices, backyard inventors and shady promoters are pushing the latest wonder technology, “HHO gas,” otherwise known as water gas, Brown’s gas or Klein’s gas.

For a tidy investment of a few hundred dollars, one can adapt a car to run on HHO, or for a few thousand, one can buy a device to produce HHO at home for transportation or for welding. Cars apparently can run for miles on mere puffs of HHO, and torches can burn holes in seconds through most metals.

I would encourage anyone buying such devices to first watch videos of the Graf Hindenburg accident in 1937 or the Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, to get an idea of the Promethean power of HHO gas.

Wait, 1937? Isn’t HHO supposed to be a new technology? you ask. Nope. In fact, the principles behind the production of HHO have been known and used for close to 200 years. If you were lucky, you might have even made some in middle school science class.

If you run electric current through water, you break water down into its constituent parts, hydrogen and oxygen, both gases at standard temperature (20 C) and pressure (1 atmosphere). Very little current is required; a 6-volt lantern battery does the trick nicely, although quite slowly.electrolysis

The science class experiment generally involves upending two test tubes over the positive and negative electrodes submerged in the water. Hydrogen collects over one electrode, and oxygen over the other one. (Hydrogen ions are positively charged; oxygen ions negatively.) Since there are twice as many H atoms in water as O atoms, the volume of the hydrogen (H2) gas is twice that of the oxygen (O2) gas.

Frequently the experiment also involves pulling the H2 test tube out of the water and placing a burning wooden splint near its mouth to ignite the H2, producing a characteristic whooping sound and some water vapor that condenses on the glass tube.

Placing a glowing wooden splint into the O2 tube will result in the splint bursting into flame, as the oxygen-rich environment accelerates the combustion process.

As well as being less dense than air, hydrogen is a highly flammable gas. H2 mixed in air is a “weaker” form of HHO gas, since air is a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. A spark or a flame will immediately ignite any H2 around by providing just enough energy for the H2 and O2 present to recombine into water.Hindenburg

Test tube amounts of H2 produce whooping noises. An airship the size of the Hindenburg (at right) can produce a much more dramatic effect, as it did on the fateful day in 1937 when the airship burst into flame as it came in for a landing.

Mixing pure H2 and pure O2 increases both the temperature and the speed of the reaction, which is the key to HHO’s success as a welding gas, automobile fuel, and rocket propellant.

The space shuttles use “HHO” in their main engines. At launch, each shuttle is attached to a huge external fuel tank containing cryogenic vessels filled with liquid H2 and liquid O2. Igniting the H2/O2 mix produces a lot of thrust for the money, and the byproduct is just water.Challenger

The downside is the explosive danger of a pure H2/O2 mix, as the Challenger accident so tragically demonstrated. Flames from a leaky solid-rocket booster on that day burned a hole through the external fuel tank, which then exploded just minutes after launch (at left), killing the seven astronauts on board.

So, I would I think twice about running around town with a tank of HHO in the trunk of my car, or producing HHO in my basement for storage. Gasoline is safe and stable in comparison.

HHO gas is not the cure-all that its promoters say it is. Sure, it is a clean-burning fuel. It can be an effective welding gas. And cars can in fact burn HHO either mixed with gasoline vapor or by itself. But HHO gas will not end our dependence on foreign oil or substantially reduce pollution, no matter what anyone says.

You need electricity to produce HHO. To produce large quantities of HHO is a reasonable time, say a few hours, you need a lot of current, which does not come cheap. Your power company supplies current to your home and office by burning, for most communities, fossil fuels like coal or oil. If you’re drawing a lot current to fill your bomb-like container of HHO gas, the power company has to burn more oil or coal to supply the electricity. You can’t get something from nothing.

Now, if the power company used hydroelectric generators or a nuclear power plant to provide the current, you might be able to justify pulling all those amperes to electrolyze your water into HHO. You are still gong to have to pay the light bill, though, so the economics of producing HHO at home might not be any better than just filling up at the local gas station for $3 a gallon.

In short, dear reader, caveat emptor. HHO gas is a scam. It is not a miracle technology or a cure for our gasoline dependence. At best, it is a deception, a way for clever promoters to make money, and endanger the unwary consumer.

Possibly Related Posts:

88 thoughts on “The latest “scientific breakthrough” scam — water gas

  1. Reply ROBERT MACELVAIN Jul 16,2006 5:55 pm


    Otherwise, start watching for headlines that are more optimistic, such as these:


    Albert Einstein provided the perfect scientific answer to Global Warming in 1905 with his paradigm, mass-to-energy equation, which is the key to unlocking all of the clean, cheap, environmentally friendly energy the inhabitants of Earth will ever need, without any pollution or waste stream, and with no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse emissions.

    Even the super-powerful Energy Cartel will be unable to prevent millions of individuals around the World from freely switching to this abundant and everlasting Einsteinian cornucopia of “home-made energy,” which will automatically reestablish Mother Nature as the exclusive controller of climate change.

  2. Reply eljefe Jul 19,2006 4:57 pm

    Isn’t this called “fusion?” AFAIK, there is no viable fusion powerplant in operation anywhere yet. Have you been able to extract useful energy from your device, and is the amount of this energy markedly greater than the amount of energy put into it?

    Your device, from what I can tell, looks like a variation of a “cold fusion” apparatus. As you are probably aware, the first announcement of “cold fusion” in 1989 by two Utah researchers turned out to be premature. No one was able to replicate their results. Research continues in some places, but no one has provided hard evidence that cold fusion actually occurs.

    So, I’m skeptical of your claims. Good luck with your patent application, however.

  3. Reply jeremy Jan 18,2008 3:17 pm

    ok so why is everyone who seems to pioneer in this old technology, one example (stan meyer) seem to either be paid of or killed, i think theres more to this technology then big oil companies want us to know about, conspericy or not it makes me wonder…..

  4. Reply wheatdogg Jan 19,2008 5:59 pm

    What’s your point? That there is a conspiracy by Big Oil to kill the developers of these technologies? Hogwash. I don’t know if you have paid attention, but Big Oil knows that their gravy train has a finite lifetime. We will run out of oil, whether it’s in 50 years or 150 years, and they know it. So the smart oil companies are investing in other technologies. Small scale projects run by garage mechanics by HHO are the least of their worries.

    Besides, as I try to explain here, HHO is not going to solve our energy crisis. Sure, you can run a car on a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas, but to get those gases you have to run electricity through water. Where’s the energy savings? You might as well by a hybrid or wait until electric and fuel-cell cars are viable. Without proper precautions, running a car on hydrogen + oxygen is dangerous, too. One stray spark or flame and BLOOEY! — no car, no driver.

    Cars run on gasoline and diesel because these liquid fuels are relatively safe to carry on board. Even LNG is safe, if you keep the tank away from potential collision spots. I would not want to be anywhere near an HHO-powered car.

  5. Reply M. Canoy Feb 21,2008 11:18 am

    You are right, well mostly. The fact is that no process where energy
    is changed from one form to another can result in a net gain. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)When we view something and think we see a net gain it only means we aren’t seeing the whole picture (or are deluding ourselves, something humans are expert at); unfortunately all this allows us to keep our heads in the sand a little longer.

    Ciao youall

  6. Pingback: is hho a scam

  7. Reply Bruce Simpson May 30,2008 6:27 pm

    Congratulations for speaking up and pointing out how much of a scam this whole “run your car on water” HHO scam really is.

    I’ve also written an article on the fraud that is HHO and it’s online at

    In an attempt to show people just how ludicrous it is, I came up with some very simple math to prove it. That proof is at

    But isn’t it amazing how many people think that *they* have broken the first law of thermodynamics with a jam-jar, a few bits of wire and some water. I guess PT Barnum *was* right.

  8. Reply Jerry L. Casebolt Jun 8,2008 11:19 pm

    I get real frustrated with the experts/critics/naysayers who “have all the answers”, when in reality they don’t even know the question. For the record, Hydrogen fuel enhancement was first researched by the Jet Propulsion Labs of the California Institute of Technology in 1974. John Houseman and D.J. Cerini investigated the use of hydrogen technology showing interesting results in emissions and gas mileage. The S. Korean government has mandated that over 100,000 transport trucks be fitted with HHO generators to cut down on pollution. The U. S. Department of Energy lists an HHO generator manufacturer on its website. Another manufacturer has its application in with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). And, the provincial Canadian government is funding the hydrogen fuel injection units that will be placed in the school buses to increase fuel mileage.

    Feel free to e-mail at and I’ll send you about 150 more SPECIFIC references.

    Jerry L. Casebolt

  9. Reply Kenneth Hudson Jun 17,2008 9:44 pm

    After seeing a hho welder in operation how can you say that this tech is a scam. Electrolysis is on demand and not stored. Perfectly safe. It uses very little electricity to make hho on a car from what I understand. This is going to be way big!

  10. Pingback: Water for Fuel? -

  11. Reply wheatdogg Jun 19,2008 12:33 pm

    Funny how this post lay dormant for ages, then all of sudden ($4+ gas prices maybe?) it gets an influx of commentary.

    Let me reiterate my main points here.

    Yes, HHO gas (also known more scientifically as a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases, H2 + O2) is a successful fuel and welding gas. No argument.

    There are safety issues to consider when storing any amount of H2 + O2. Ideally, the component gases should be kept in separate vessels, since the mixture is potentially explosive. Having H2 around plain air is none too safe either, since it is highly flammable. Having O2 around creates some danger, too, since pure oxygen is a great accelerant.

    In automobile use, yes, “HHO” is usually created on demand, by using electricity from the car’s generating system to electrolyze water stored on board, then piping the resulting gases to the intake system. There is still a danger of the mixture combusting before it reaches the cylinders, as there is with gasoline + air (think car fires here). If home mechanic is not careful, any “HHO” passing by a hot engine component could explode. H2 and O2 love each other very much, being on opposite sides of the periodic table. It doesn’t take much to nudge them into combining into water, explosively.

    Finally, TANSTAAFL. It may seem like you’re getting something from nothing, extracting energy from water to run your car, but in order to obtain that stored energy you had to use some of your car’s energy output to break apart the water molecules. All you have done is divert some electrical energy from charging your battery or running the radio into energy to move the car, in a very roundabout way. That electrical energy comes from the engine! Your car uses fuel (gasoline most likely) to rotate the alternator to keep the battery charged and run the electricals, and therefore electrolyze the water. Not much of a net energy gain there.

    Hydrogen is not a cure-all. Whether it be HHO technology or hydrogen fuel cells, somewhere somehow you have to have the energy available to electrolyze water to obtain the H2 gas. Right now that energy mostly comes from fossil fuels, gasoline, oil, natural gas or coal. If the aim of all this HHO/hydrogen fuel mania is to “free” us from fossil fuels, right now it ain’t working.

  12. Reply Justin Jun 21,2008 12:54 am

    You think that its a zero effect just because the current is coming from the battery which is being charged by the alternator? That’s just silly, your Alternator is going to run regardless because you started the car. The fact is, the alternator can recharge the battery quicker than the battery can discharge itself. Your not causing extra energy to spent from the engine because the alternator is run by the engine belt which is constantly turning! So you are losing energy to alternator anyway, in the HHO Gas situation you merely making the alternator more efficient by having it charge and power more car devices off of the same inevitable rotation via the belt and RPM. System works just fine as long as you are not drawing more power than the alternator can recharge.

  13. Reply wheatdogg Jun 21,2008 4:08 pm

    Sure, the alternator rotates whenever the engine does, but the alternator does not always do work, that is, charge the battery. Typically, the alt does a lot of work right after you have started the engine, since the starter motor draws quite a bit of current from the battery. So, the engine has to work the hardest just after you start the engine, because the electrical energy from the alt has to come from somewhere.

    If you have a lot of electrical devices running at once (lights, blower motor, stereo, inverter, etc.), they draw current and thus energy from the battery. The alt serves to keep the battery fully charged, and that electrical energy comes from the rotation of the engine, which has to work a little bit harder to provide it. RPMs drop a little, so the driver has to give the engine a bit more fuel to maintain the RPMs. In other words, running all that electrical stuff burns fuel.

    Air conditioning compressors also put a load on the engine. If you listen carefully to your engine, whenever the AC compressor kicks in, the engine slows down a bit. If you have a small car as I do, the effect is more noticeable than if your car has a big V8.

    You cannot make the alternator “more efficient” by burning HHO. That efficiency is in the design of the alternator (probably in the 90% range, as a guess). Nor can you make the engine significantly more efficient by burning HHO. That mechanical efficiency is in the 30% range, since all internal combustion engines — no matter what fuel they burn — inevitably produce heat, which has to dissipated into the environment or the engine becomes a useless lump of metal.

    Maybe you can increase your mileage with HHO by some percentage, but my point still is that the energy required to separate H2 and O2 from water has to come from somewhere. If you’re using the engine to produce that energy, you are not getting something from nothing. You are just diverting some of the engine’s energy (probably not a lot, I’ll grant) to electrolyze the water and then recovering some of that energy by burning the resulting gas mixture.

    I would be a lot more convinced if I could see a car that runs totally off HHO, with no other fuel present. Even then, if it is an internal combustion engine its efficiency is going to be less than 50%, because of the heat problem.

  14. Reply Sean Jun 27,2008 6:00 am

    Nice blog you have here. I found an interesting article here that some may want to read

    This may be the way to go.

  15. Reply Daniel Jul 13,2008 9:28 am

    I think Wheat-dogg makes some lucid points here and puts the whole “run your car on water” into its fundamental scientific perspective. As well as point out the potential dangers of installing such a system. However, he does seem to miss the point of all of this in relation to energy. This issue is not so much about how much energy is used to produce the HHO. Particularly, in a car where the electrical system which has already been paid for by the vehicle’s owner is doing the work.

    The issue is about a much cheaper source of energy than petrol. Especially, when you consider how much tax is included in the price of 1 litre of petrol (AU$1.70). The next thing the populace is going to be slugged with eventually even the U.S. is another tax with a ‘green’ title. Something like Carbon Emissions Levy. This will be applied not only to fuels but all goods & services based on the carbon footprint of those goods & services. For petrol probably in the vicinity of an additional 10%.

    The issue then is really one of economics, politics and to a lesser extent for most of us an environmental issue. The whole issue of spiralling petrol prices on the economy is very complex. It effects not only domestic transportation, but freight, manufacturing and industry as well. This has a net add on effect to prices for all consumables. As such we are all effected economically, so when we are next at the ballot box, the votes will be swinging to the party with most relief in this department, rightly or wrongly.

    The way I see it then, is as Wheat-dogg has confirmed HHO can be an effective welding gas. And cars can in fact burn HHO either mixed with gasoline vapour or by itself. Therefore it’s not a scam in or of itself. Therefore for me there remains a few pertinent questions to be answered.
    1. Can it be made relatively safe to use? It appears so!
    2. Does it have any detrimental effects to the vehicle engine and if so can those effects be mitigated?
    3. Can you realistically achieve a minimum reduction in petrol consumption of say 25%.

    If the answer to all of these questions is yes and can be substantiated, then I reckon it has to be worth a try. It would reduce fuel costs and consumption by somewhere in the order of 25%. It would as a by product have a positive environmental impact that cannot be denied. Remember the HHO gas is helping to run that alternator now, not just petrol. That is using less fossil fuels means less carbon into the atmosphere, less pollution and greenhouse gasses. It would also mean reducing the tax we pay on fuel and carbon emissions levy when it arrives. At least on petrol anyway.

    With China, India and the U.S. consuming the vast amounts of oil they are, I would not expect the price of petrol to reduce significantly if at all. But if I could reduce my petrol costs by using less and not having to change my transport methods and usage. That has to be beneficial. Petrol AU$1.70/litre vs. Water $0.85/kilolitre. It really is a no brainer if the others questions stack up.

  16. Reply radarman Jul 15,2008 8:29 pm

    There are some technical terms to show how HHO can be used as a fuel “suppliment”, and by using it as that, mileage increases can be seen.

    Lets explore them:

    Its a know scientific fact that you cant get more energy out of something than you put in. For example, a 1.5v battery cannot produce more than 1.5v.

    Correct? Good.

    Same goes for anything.

    Energy cannot be created or destroyed, however, it CAN be converted from one form to another, ie, from chemical to mechanical, to kinectic.(as an automobile


    The automobile takes the stored energy in the form of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, etc and converts that stored energy to mechanical energy via the engine.
    Part of that mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy via the alternator, and part of that energy is converted to kinectic energy via the

    transmission to move the car forward, and part of that energy is converted to heat (wasted energy).

    So, the stored energy potential in a tank of gas is converted to several other forms of energy to move your car.

    This is an automobile in its energy form.

    Now the automobiles alternator(generator) doesnt just charge the battery, it produces all the electricity to run the car and all electronics contained. For

    example, you can start your car, and completly remove the battery and the engine will still run until it runs out of fuel.
    (I dont recommend this though; todays cars electronics are very sensitive and *could* be damaged.)

    The battery’s job is to start the car, and run lights and other stuff only if the engine is not running. Your battery will die if you leave your lights on

    after your turn your engine off, but it will not die while the car is running with the lights on.

    Now the alternator only produces what the car and its electronics demand at any given moment. It is CAPABLE of producing in the range of 80A on some vehicles

    and heavy duty ones can produce up to 120A. Putting an extra load on the alternator by running an HHO generator @ 20A will have almost NO negative effect of

    reduced gas mileage. Have you noticed any decrease in mileage just because you run with your headlights on? They draw 20-30A when on. The air conditioner

    doesnt draw power from the alternator. It creates “drag” on the engine by engaging a mechanical clutch connected to a pump. Yes, the ac compressor is just a

    pump, it siphons mechanical enery, not electrical. Only the fan that blows the air out of your ducts draws any electrical energy. Try this. Start your car.

    Turn on your lights. No RPM change. Now turn on the wipers. Still no change. Turn on the radio. No change. Turn on the fan(not the AC, just the fan). Again

    no change in engine load that would require the engine to work harder. Turn on every electrical thing in your car and all you are doing is drawing on a

    RESERVE of electrical energy already being produced by the alternator.

    OK, on to the next point.

    An HHO generator “mostly” draws 20A (yes, some do draw more, others less) but from what I’ve seen the average is 20A. This 20A draw on the alternator is

    almost like turning on your headlights, fan and radio at once.

    Now the 20A that the generator is using will produce varying amounts of HHO, some claiming up to 4 Litres per minute. Lets be reasonalble and call it more

    like it really is and say *most* will produce only about 1.5 ltrs/min. Thats 1500ml/min. Divide that by 60sec. and you get a rate of 25ml/sec.

    Electrical energy is measured by WATTS. To get watts, you multiply the Amps by the volts, ie, the alternator is wired to output around 13 to 14 volts.

    so the mathematical equation for this is 20A x 14v = 280Watts. Thats the energy output of the *standard* HHO generator. Lets be generous by saying that the

    cell will be 90% efficient, losing only 10% in heat. Yes they do heat up.

    But really, how efficient is an HHO Cell.

    there is a formula, and that formula is this:

    MMW = ML per minute per watt

    ml per min / Watts = MMW

    Let take a *standard* cell and run the numbers.

    1500 ml / 280w = 5.35714285714(MMW)

    Now we have a solid number ( this is for you math geeks, like me ). We can round it out to 5.4 MMW

    Now we have to calculate amount of air/fuel that the engine uses. Most modern cars ( 1996 to present) has a preset Air/Fuel ratio programmed into their

    computers. That is 14.7 parts of air to 1 part of fuel. 14.7:1

    To figure out how much air/fuel per minute the engine uses, use this formula:

    RPM x Engine displacement. I’ll use mine. A 2.2L engine that idles at 600 RPM. So 2.2 x 600 = 1320 litres of a/f per minute. In seconds that is this number:
    2.2 x (600/60) = 22 litres of a/f mix per second. then divide that number by 4 (cylinders) = 5.5L a/f mix. Breaking it down more: 5.5l(or 5500ml) / 14.7(air

    to fuel ratio) = 374.5ml of air and 1ml of gas for a total of 375.5ml total a/f mix.

    Now take your ml/min and break it down to ml/sec: 1500/60=25ml/sec

    We now have our math worked out.

    So we have in our (one) combustion chamber 25ml of HHO and 375ml of a/f mix

    Will these numbers help burn the a/f mix more efficiently? Probably. With the addition of an electronic fuel injection device, and the more effiecient burn

    of the a/f mix, i can see the potential increase in mpg.


    Lets look at the electronic fuel injection device:

    The concept is that a more effiecient burn in the cylinder will result in less unburned gas passing thru the exhaust. The exhaust system has a sensor in it

    to measure the amount of oxygen in the exhaust stream and compare it to the ambient(outside) air. There will always be a difference in the two and that

    difference causes the 02 sensor to generate a voltage that ranges from 0.1v to 1.0v. That voltage is sent to the computer to be compared to a set value. The

    computer then uses that voltage to adjust the fuel injectors “injector pulse width” ( the time the injector stay open) and try to maintain a 14.7:1 a/f


    Since the 02 content is constantly changing due to varying conditions ( driver demand ), the 02 sensor generates a varying voltage: the higher the voltage

    the computer sees that as a “rich” condition, meaning less 0xygen and too much gas, so it leans out the mix. On the other end of the scale, the computer

    interprets the low voltage as a “lean” condition and it adjusts the injector pulse width to put more gas into the mix.

    The Efie adds voltage to the existing voltage the 02 sensor generated and sends the total to the computer, in effect, fooling the computer into see a “rich”

    condition, so the computer “leans” out the fuel mix by shortening the injector pulse width.

    So now you have a “leaner” air/fuel ratio in the cylinder. For example, the normal idle will bring in 375 ml a/f mix/sec but with the computer leaning out

    the mix, that number drops. The HHO now has a better chance to increase the burn characteristics of the a/f mix.

    So this suggest the mpg WILL increase.

    How much? It will vary greatly due to so many factors. Altitude, load(weight), speed, and driver demand.

    But the net effect would seem to substantiate an mpg increase.

    So there you have it in very technical terms as to why I think this is a viable thing to explore.

  17. Reply nui015590122 Sep 16,2008 12:04 pm

    Has anyone tried other kit?
    this is not spam but i want many people to see other’s has review many sites like water4gas,runyourcaronwater etc.
    Is it really a scam? if you don’t satisfy you can asked for more pain
    You can truly get better mileage…… Check out many sites;

  18. Pingback: Run Your Car on Water Scam

  19. Reply SpeedTrap47 Sep 19,2008 9:56 pm

    NO ones been killed
    All the patents are public knowledge available to ANYONE
    Patents are in force for 20 YEARS
    If no one can make money from it THAT should give you a CLUE

  20. Reply SpeedTrap47 Sep 19,2008 10:01 pm

    This is so wrong I wouldn’t quit my day job if I were you

    Now the alternator only produces what the car and its electronics demand at any given moment. It is CAPABLE of producing in the range of 80A on some vehicles and heavy duty ones can produce up to 120A. Putting an extra load on the alternator by running an HHO generator @ 20A will have almost NO negative effect of reduced gas mileage. Have you noticed any decrease in mileage just because you run with your headlights on? They draw 20-30A when on. The air conditioner doesnt draw power from the alternator. It creates “drag” on the engine by engaging a mechanical clutch connected to a pump. Yes, the ac compressor is just a pump, it siphons mechanical enery, not electrical. Only the fan that blows the air out of your ducts draws any electrical energy. Try this. Start your car. Turn on your lights. No RPM change. Now turn on the wipers. Still no change. Turn on the radio. No change. Turn on the fan(not the AC, just the fan). Again

    no change in engine load that would require the engine to work harder. Turn on every electrical thing in your car and all you are doing is drawing on a

    RESERVE of electrical energy already being produced by the alternator.

  21. Reply SpeedTrap47 Sep 19,2008 10:06 pm

    “After seeing a hho welder in operation how can you say that this tech is a scam. Electrolysis is on demand and not stored. Perfectly safe. It uses very little electricity to make hho on a car from what I understand. This is going to be way big!”

    BECAUSE it actually produces a CRAPPY brittle weld

  22. Reply eljefe Sep 21,2008 3:11 am

    My point, SpeedTrap47, is you can’t get something for nothing. Sure, running your lights has a negligible effect on your RPMs. The alternator-battery combination provides plenty of power to run all the electrics without slowing the engine down hardly at all. But, the energy to light the lights, etc., has to come ultimately from the engine and its fuel supply. The alternator produces no power unless it’s rotating. The pulley system provides enough mechanical advantage that turning the alternator is a piece of cake for the engine, as you point out. Still, the energy required to do that work comes from the engine burning fuel.

    Ditto creating your hydrogen to squirt into the combustion mixture. That energy ultimately comes from the engine. Now I confess I do not know the answer to this question: is the energy loss offset by an increase in gas mileage? In other words, if the engine needs to burn a little bit more fuel to electrolyse the water, in the end does the car actually go farther on a gallon of gas? At this point, I am not entirely convinced that using hydrogen (or “HHO,” which is the actual topic of this post) makes that dramatic a difference in mileage. There are plenty of scams out there, and my post was to caution people expecting HHO or hydrogen to be some sort of miracle “free” energy source. TANSTAAFL.

    For my money, I’d switch to a diesel car and burn used vegetable frying oil. That seems to be a more reliable, and safer, technology than messing around with hydrogen and oxygen mixtures.

  23. Reply Jeff Sep 22,2008 12:10 am

    I can see all the angles being discussed. My question is, if HHO gas is in the chamber making it burn the gas that is being injected more completely, isnt the O2 sensor see a leaner exhaust and case more fuel to be injected? There are also plans and devices sold to “trick” the the computer in a vehical by working with the O2 sensor to prevent the extra gas being injected. The real question is: wha are the effects on the valves and the plugs from the engine being ran lean because of the burn off of more gas in the cylinder?

  24. Reply Allen Oct 5,2008 10:52 pm

    I am a professional car mechanic and had installed three different HHO Cell for my customers.
    Cars that run gas (HHO or Natural Gas) has cleaner piston and cylinder comparing to cars that run petro! And easier to service when it comes to TUNE UPS!

  25. Reply eljefe Oct 8,2008 9:14 am

    Allen makes a good point here. One drawback to burning liquid fuel is the carbon deposits left behind. You know, all those Amoco ads touting their cleaner burning gas are not all snake oil. LNG cars have practically no carbon buildup, since the gas burns more completely than vaporized gasoline or diesel. (Gas and vapor are not the same thing, folks.) A car running solely on hydrogen or “HHO” would have no carbon buildup, since there’s no carbon to begin with.

    That said, we are far from having a national hydrogen infrastructure that would enable a hydrogen-burning car to travel much further than southern California, and I have yet to read or hear of anyone who has driven an HHO car cross-country solely on the gas mixture. If someone has, then let me know.

  26. Reply Barry Oct 13,2008 7:41 pm

    There is only one explanation for this phenomenon that made sense to me….if it is true!

    The claim by some HHO enthusiasts is that HHO allows a more efficient burn and the extra enegy comes not from some mysterious new law of physics but from unburned fuel that would in a unmodified Automobile not be converted to usable energy, ie. it goes out the tail pipe.

  27. Reply Philip Sadler Oct 19,2008 10:29 pm

    As a physicist, I can say that the HHO claims are hogwash that only enrich the devious and fleecs the ignorant. What is being claimed here is that using electrical energy derived from a car’s alternator, one can electrolyze water into HHO and then burn it. What those interested in this method do not understand is that it takes a huge amount of electricty to make HHO; the engine must work harder, i.e. use more gasoline to make HHO. The HHO burning produces less energy than the gasoline that was used to make it. Think of it t his way: why can’t you use an electric motor to power an electric generator that will power the electric motor and get perpetual motion? It is because there are losses at each stage of the process. Just because one cannot see the electrical energy and one can see gasoline does not mean that splitting H2O into HHO is free. It is a question of thermodynamics, not a question of how hot HHO burns. Scams like this are a tax on the scientifically illiterate. Anyone who thinks that they are getting better mileage is making a mistake in long division. Save your $$$ and get a more efficient car.

  28. Reply Dean Victor PhD Nov 2,2008 2:09 pm

    Water to energy

    What everyone seems to forget when quoting thermal theory is that the H2O-HHO process is not creating energy, but using an existing source…water. Just as gasoline is converted to heat in a gasoline engine using less than 5 amp@12VDC, H2O is converted to HHO at 50amps@12VDC resulting in 3 ltrs/min of HHO which is injected into the engine as a supplement, not a primary source. I have a 2007 Dodge 3500 with a Commings 5.9 diesel engine that averaged 16.7 mpg over a 6 tank (100 gal)of fuel. After installing the fuel cell the Dodge and doing nothing more,it now average 24.2 mpg. You can do all the chalk board and theoretic mental masterbation you want, but the proof is in actual application.

  29. Reply Lew Jan 23,2009 1:04 pm

    Any internal combustion engine is a very poor way to supply energy to run a vehicle. All of these engines develope power at various rates of RPM. Therefore the internal combustion engine is very wasteful. I beleive what is happening here is energy that would simply go out the tail pipe as waste heat is being recaptured by the alternator and stored in the temporary form of the so-called HHO which is simply a two to one mixture of Hydrogen to Oxygen. When injected or co-burned the oxygen is enriching the fuel/air mix producing more heat and therefore better combustion. The hydrogen, also being a fuel, helps to better utilize the fuel by probably increassing the combustion chamber temperature. The only caveat is whether the engine can withstand the higher combustion temperatures over a long period of time. Look at the Prious car. All that car is doing is recovering wasted energy already there. The hydrid uses an electric motor which is efficient at all speeds until the batteries run down to 50 %. Then the computer decides if and when it is most efficient to turn on the internal combustion engine. Therfore using the engine thoughout its most efficient speeds. When on the highway the MPG drop to the actual efficiency of the engine since you are running hot straight and normal.

  30. Reply mikflo Mar 17,2009 2:31 pm

    It is funny how this argument surfaces every time the price of fuel goes up. I have seen this in the 70’s embargo era, then we did not have the internet and a lot of people were taken by “Run your car on water” schemes. Now we have the internet and the hoax is exposed but it seems a large amount of folks are still falling for the something for nothing swindle. My back ground is in engineering, we test, retest and test again when we invent or re-invent. The way you can tell that the “Increase your mileage on HHO” is a scam is there are no tests out there. I have not seen one curve produce and witnessed, showing before and after test curves on an engine before and after running an HHO device. You see a lot of claims but no proof. GM just might go bankrupt, but if HHO really worked like the people clamed it did, GM could add one of these devices on every single vehicle and have a full fleet, trucks and all that would instantly comply with the CAFÉ standards and out sell all the manufactures in no time at all. There will always be snake oil sales men out there and there will always be people out there that will be easy to be pried free on their hard earned money.

  31. Reply LSP Mar 23,2009 1:37 pm

    I oversee a fleet of approximately 2,400 vehicles. As a government entity, we are very interested in saving taxpayer dollars. I have read all of these blogs along with doing some non-scientific research of this “HHO” technology. I agree with Mikflo on this topic. I challenge any HHO generator manufacturer to prove to me that their product works. I am contacted everyday by vendors that want to test their products in my fleet to prove to me that their products work. Once they can show me that their product works, then they will have the endorsement of my agency and sell many more of their units. I contacted 2 manufacturers of HHO generators and neither of them were willing to put their product on one of my cars to prove that it worked. I agreed to purchase their product AFTER I could validate their MPG savings claims, but I was denied. Both manufacturers told me that I would have to purchase their product on their word only!
    Please e-mail me at if you can put an HHO generator on one of my cars and prove to me that this technology, in its current form, works.
    I admit that I am skeptical, but hopeful that someone will respond to my challenge!

  32. Reply TSix Apr 29,2009 12:41 pm

    Hi All,
    Not sure if this is being followed any more or not but here’s my take. You can’t add 2+2 and get 6. Energy taken from battery has to be replaced by the engine at a cost in gas mileage. The true breakthrough is coming, but not from a these HHO scamming dingbats. There have been recent breakthroughs by folks at MIT in the field of cheap water to HHO conversion. This will enable folks to use SOLAR to do the splitting at home, and store the H and O at home to power their entire lives. NO MORE POWER GRID. You store solar energy captured during the day as HHO, and use a fuel cell to power home during the night. This new breakthrough from MIT allows more O2 capture than was previously achieved by any HHO system. They say an entire house and a car could be powered on 5 liters of water a day, and with a smaller solar array than are currently being used just to power the house alone, and only during daylight hours. This new catalyst discovered “almost accidentally” by MIT scientists is FAR more efficient than platinum and FAR FAR cheaper. Its main ingredients are cobalt and phosphate, two of the most abundant substances on the earth. THIS IS REAL SCIENCE. Check out the press release from MIT here: You can’t turn your old gas guzzling car or truck into a HHO hybrid folks! Unless you want to spend $$$ to drop the guts from a modern hydrogen fuel cell car into it. IT’S A SCAM. This tech from MIT is not. It’s not fully understood yet but its working. Daniel G. Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT is behind this. This is not magic claims of power from nowhere! It’s just storage of power from the sun. More efficient solar collection and storage is coming up fast. In 10 to 20 years we may all have hydrogen storage in our basements along with fuel cell to use it at night. BE PATIENT FOLKS!! AND DON’T WASTE YOUR MONEY ON CRAP!!!

  33. Reply eljefe May 19,2009 12:51 am

    Joe, turn off CAPS LOCK unless you want to look like you are yelling at us. If you are yelling, then calm down, for god’s sake.

    I would love to see proof that your car got a 73% improvement … in what? If it’s gas mileage, then you want me to believe that a car that was getting, say, 30 mpg can now get 52 mpg?

    Then, another question: when do these high-grade kits start paying for themselves? Titanium plates and special coatings are not cheap, after all.

    For the record, only one Shuttle was destroyed by a H2 + O2 explosion, the Challenger. The other fatal accident (Columbia) happened on re-entry, because of damaged heat tiles.

    HHO (or, more scientifically, a mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gases) is NOT FREE. (I am yelling, on purpose.) This point I and others keep repeating, but to deaf ears apparently. It takes energy to separate the H2 from the O in water, and that energy has to come from somewhere. If you have a tank of hydrogen in your car (danger, Will Robinson!), then you had to pay the electrical company to get that hydrogen. If you’re making in the car, then energy has to come from the car’s own fuel. So, again you’re still paying money to create the gas. It may be cheaper than gasoline, but it is not free!

    If you have a system on your car that really works as well as you say, then contact LSP (#31) and talk to him. He’s willing to test it for his fleet. If he says it works as well as you say, then I will write about it.

  34. Reply jOE May 18,2009 8:06 pm


  35. Reply David May 22,2009 2:35 pm

    I agree with all of Eljefe’s arguments concerning the something-for-nothing myth about water cars (although some things, like solar power for example, really do provide energy for nothing, but that’s beside the subject).

    I would like to examine the Economical arguments presented by proponents of water power. Now, I may not be a physicist, but I do know one thing about Economics in general; it is a study of the management of resources. Thermodynamics, therefore, plays a role in the pricing of fuel. If it’s less efficient to use a car’s battery to break up water into a combustible mixture only to burn it for mechanical energy, as opposed to just burning gasoline for mechanical energy off the tap, then it will be necessarily more expensive to run such a car overall. Likewise, if it turns out that it is more efficient to do the former process, then it should be cheaper to run. At least, it should be, if we lived in a truly free-market.

    But we don’t live in a free-market. Since we live in a system where taxes and subsidies have warping effects on free-market Economics, it may be the case that a less efficient car system may actually be more economical for the consumer. And if that’s the case, then water-cars may benefit the overall economy as people save more to improve factors of production and to spend on consumables (although chances are that water will shoot up the roof in value).

    Of course, the “benefit” is being able to avoid the debilitating and unfair tax policies to begin with. Overall though, the entire economy becomes less efficient when governments, intentionally or unintentionally, favor less efficient industries. There’s nothing green about that.

    Sorry for the rant, but I felt it was pertinent to bring this up.

  36. Reply pointman91 Jun 5,2009 11:31 am

    both sides have a valid argument and i believe the supporters point outways the doubts cast by this article. The article cites two major events that arose from accidents involving HHO gas, most notably the Hindenberg and the Space Shuttle Challenger. While these events where tragic it should be noted that they occured 49 years appart. Valid points but not a reason to discontinue its use. I can name two instances (chernoble and three mile island) where nuclear power plants had accidents but i don’t preach that nuclear power is worthless. As for gasoline it may not be as volatile but gasoline is by no means a stable compound. The very reason gasoline is used as a fuel is because it ignites easily. Another argument raised is that it takes electricity to create electrolysis and thus fosill fuels are used in the process when electricity is generated. This point is fickle at best, many other sources of producing energy exist and could easily be intergrated. over 20% of the power in the United States is produced by nuclear power. Wind, solar, and water-turbine power are also valid forms of energy. A truely sucessful investment is where the risk outways the reward. A clean burning fuel that may explode and kill you or an unclean burning fuel that….. may explode and kill you; i think HHO gas wins in my book. but thats just my opinion

  37. Reply eljefe Aug 23,2009 7:54 pm

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for HHO stations. Car makers are still in the electric/hybrid car phase. We’ll need charging stations and electrical outlets at parking meters (like they have in Alaska for block heaters) before we’ll get hydrogen (or HHO) stations.

    As for your turbine generator idea, I hope you realize that turbines suck fuel at a pretty high rate. Your HHO generation capacity will have to be correspondingly high, or your turbine will quit from lack of fuel. You’re still not getting something from nothing, like you seem to expect. Also, the high heat from the turbine combustion chamber and exhaust has to be kept far, far away from the hydrogen and oxygen supplies, or your prototype will literally go up in flames.

    Aside from these issues, why bother with HHO at all? Turbines can burn anything flammable: kerosene, gasoline, alcohol, propane, natural gas, probably even cleaned-up used cooking oil.

  38. Reply easygreasy2 Aug 23,2009 4:54 pm

    omg , why does everyone think hho should be used on cars, its kinda dumb. just wait till we got hho stations then itll b reality in da mean time , im working on using hho to power a turbine generator , and as it will produce megawatts and only require a couple thousand watts to power the electrolisys the returns are in the thousands of percent range, why hasnt anyone else produced one yet its old tech, mit made a gas to turbine engine they just arent smart enough to power it with hho, o well ill let u guys know when ill be selling these generators you can comfortably power your house on and get free heating for house and water as a byproduct, muhahahahahah eat that physicists im just a generator mechanic

  39. Reply Philip Sep 3,2009 6:36 am

    I see a lot of people dont realise that you cannot get something for nothing,and this applies to HHO
    Its a bit like perpetual motion.It just will not happen.A large 12v alternator say 100 watt requires about 1.5 hp at full load,which in turn requires more fuel its as simple as that.

  40. Reply clint Sep 11,2009 1:00 am

    isnt hho more flamable than gas or deisel thus makeing the engine more eficient. i dont belive alternators put that much of a drag on a motor probably no more than a engine drivin fan. this sounds like a battle like which is better turbo charger or supercharger sure do require more power i guess but with a intercooled system you can have a 55-60% in hp. your gona gain power from pure O that should offset the drag now you got 2 H’s for free. whats the ignition temp for O and H and do you think i would be safe to run it thru a turbocharger.

  41. Reply Simon Sep 14,2009 9:07 am

    There seem to be a lot of news feeds and demos of HHO / water powered cars on the market. Many seem to centre around using more efficient means of seperation. Technology is always growing, so it would be foolish to proclaim it’ll never happen. I’d say it’s more than likely.

    I’m curious though – there have been a number of people looking into this worldwide, and several have made reference to hitting dead ends with governments, and the world bank. Something about tax revenues from oil?

  42. Reply eljefe Sep 15,2009 2:30 am

    Clint —
    Turbos get pretty effin’ hot, so a seat of my pants answer would be, don’t run H2 and O2 through a turbo, unless you want an explosion. You can ignite hydrogen with just a match, and I know turbos get a lot hotter than that. And you don’t get 2H’s for free. TANSTAAFL

    Simon —
    There is also a lot of stuff on the Internet about making millions a year by just sitting at your computer an hour day. Last I heard, none of those people are millionaires. Given the problems the auto industry is having, it seems like they would snap up HHO systems like hotcakes so they can sell cars again. That is, if HHO systems really worked …

    Making electricity with a generator/alternator/DC permanent-magnet motor does take effort. Compare how easy it is to turn the stator with no load compared to full load. If you do have a “perpetual magnet motor,” I’d like to see it and any preliminary figures you’ve got. Are you really pumping out 30kW?

  43. Reply easygreasy2 Sep 15,2009 12:55 am

    my site is degenintdotcom

    the electrolyzer is powered by a magnet motor that doesnt require electromagnets that are pulsed , simply aligning the magnets correctly is all it takes and for those of u wanting to make a generator, tinker with an electric motor , hook it up to a light bulb and twist the motor by hand and watch the light bulb light as u turn it, all u gotta do is turn an electric motor to make electricity, the movement of the stator generates a magnetic field which is transferred to the field windings by inductance(just gotta b in proximity) and viola, the hz is tuned by the speed of the motor, can b geared with belts and pulleys. so a perpetual magnet motor drives my electrolyzer to power my 30kw Turbine Generator, runs 24hrs a day two moving parts, muahahahahahah its already in proof of concept and parts are being ordered.

  44. Reply easygreasy2 Sep 15,2009 3:43 am


    thats what pulleys are for the end result is a slower speed but more torque so even at full load it wont bog down, ever tried to take off in a car in 4th gear, well a lower gear works huh, same concept. and the magnet powers the electrolyzer so the load will not b much just 1000 watts or so it doesnt take very much hho to power a turbine mind u much less then gasoline, by seperating the electrolyzer from the output power of the genny the output power will b stable as all generators need to be

  45. Reply eljefe Dec 1,2009 1:42 am

    Well, Terry,

    You win the prize for the most insults in a single post. Do you think you can address the questions at hand without being a smart ass? For your information, I do have the science — I taught physics for 23 years. I know how cars work — I have worked on my own cars since high school. And I am in China because I fucking want to. What difference should it make to you, or anyone else, where I am? In fact, if the oil boys had me on a subsidy, I would probably be someplace else warmer right now.

    Now that I feel better getting all that off my chest, what about your figures? By efficiency do you mean fuel efficiency (mpg), or overall energy efficiency? — because they are not the same thing. We skeptics would like to see side-by-side comparisons of identical cars/trucks with and without HHO set ups. That’s a controlled experiment, and how science works, by the way. And since different people have different driving habits, such a test ideally would need to be done in a dyno under computer control. (Unless you can get the Stig to drive the test vehicles.) Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it. If you’ve got more data, then please provide details or links.

    And for the love of God, when will people get it through their heads that you cannot create energy from nothing? Somewhere, somehow you have to find some energy to electrolyze the water. That was one of my original points, and basic science.

  46. Reply Terry Nov 30,2009 11:26 pm

    Radar is right, so is Jeremy and a couple of others, however, “eljefe” you need more science and less negativity. I assume you are the dogg? I know why you are teaching in China. You don’t know much about cars and how they work either. If you know so much, why don’t you know how things work?????
    The system works when set up correctly with the right electronics and will increase the efficiency of a diesel by 40 to 50%. Tested, and fact. I guess the oil boys have you on some kind of subsidy.

  47. Reply Phil Dec 1,2009 2:14 am

    Yes eljefe,
    I totally agree,Theres no such thing as a free lunch.If there was we would have perpetual motion.And that is not possible.

  48. Reply Juroteh Jan 15,2010 4:54 pm

    Well the author gives two dramatic examples of what happens when hydrogen explodes. Why would this make the exploration of creating a viable energy source from HHO gas a “scam”.

  49. Reply Patrick Feb 2,2010 3:43 am

    I’ve read both sides of the argument. I see compelling statements from both sides. However from the skeptics side, you cannot judge based on math – you have to TEST it.

    Is a 20 amp “strain” on a vehicles alternator to produce some HHO gas REALLY going to yield a statistical “wash” in the end? If that were so, then as another poster pointed out, running the headlights, the blower, the stereo and any other electrical items in the car since they are NOT giving back, SHOULD cause my millage to diminish significantly. So I find it curious why I don’t see a noticeable loss of mileage when I drive at night?

    To the nay-sayers beating the “something for nothing” and “run your car on water scam” drums to death… This is NOT “something for nothing”. The HHO mixture is a gasoline fuel SUPPLEMENT – not a REPLACEMENT. HHO is an extremely volatile mixture – that we can agree on. Guess what? So is an air-gasoline fuel mixture. The HHO system is “safe” from the point that it is produced on demand. There are no storage tanks of HHO – just H2O. I understand the concern about “flashback” ignition into the system, but most of the system designs I’ve seen employ flashback valves to prevent this from being a problem.

    To the nay sayers saying “if this worked, why hasn’t the auto industry latched on to it”. I have a simple answer. Because an HHO system requires regular MAINTENANCE every week! From THIS perspective the statement “you can’t get something for nothing” applies. The water reserviour requires topping off every few hundred miles. You have to mix electrolyte solution (can’t use just plain tap water), you have to clean the system from corrosion, if you’re in an area where the temperature dips below freezing at least a few days out of the year (read 95% of the continental USA) your going to have problems when your HHO cell freezes. THE AVERAGE JOE CAN BARELY BE BOTHERED TO CHECK HIS OIL WHEN HE FILLS UP; RELYING INSTEAD ON “SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE” AND “IDIOT LIGHT” INDICATORS!! Yes – I DO believe a system such as this can yield a significant improvement in MPG, but the system has to be MAINTAINED and tuned to work correctly, and thats just too much work for Joe Average to bother with. So the HHO generator is relegated to the tinkerers workshop.

    So in closing to the cynics – put up or shut up. Don’t quote me math (X cant = Y because Z nullifies both). Do the TESTING YOURSELF and SHOW me it can’t work. Because you’re out numbered by the workshop tinkerers who are saying it DOES work.

  50. Reply greggory Feb 8,2010 12:33 am

    this man is what is called ignorint (not in a bad way) in a way that is used to say someone who doesn’t quite know all the facts of something so you need to do your reserch.

  51. Reply Smarterthan^ Feb 14,2010 5:23 pm

    First off, when you call someone ignortant make sure you atleast spell it correctly. 2nd, you and all the others who think that an alternator with an increased load will burn more fuel are the idiots. So what y’all believe is that a car with subwoofers will burn more fuel because they draw more amps. An alternator is most newer vehicles have between 80-110 amp output, meaning a constant it produces the same amout of amps, ex 90 amps @ 1,500 rpm. So if you have nothing on in the car (no radio, ac/heater, lights) it’s still going to produce those amps! The same if you have all of that on! Meaning an alternator doesn’t create amps on demand, it creates a set amount used or not. It can’t create more if it’s at it’s max, so by running a HHO gen. it uses the unused amps like when you have all the excessories off you have an excess. Meaning if your alt. is already at it’s max it will not work efficiently and it will rob amps from the battery resulting in a dead battery. But all along leaving NO effect on fuel economy!

  52. Reply Phil Feb 15,2010 2:33 am

    For some reason a lot of people dont understand energy.Even if an alternator can produce 100 amps it will only supply the demand on it.As the load increases so the alternator compensates for it,As it requires more power to turn it more fuel is consumed.Try hooking up a fuel flo meter then watch it change as you turn on lights .radio etc.It needs to be an accurate meter.This will prove exactly what is happening.I use a meter on lots of applications especially marine motors where fuel consumption can be vital.

  53. Reply Smarterthan^ Feb 15,2010 6:50 pm

    Of course man… but what you and everyone else believe is that by running 10-20 amps off of the alternator it’s going to take off 5 mpg which is not going to happen. If that was the case my friend who has the same kind of vehicle would get 12 mpg because he has an amp with 2 subs. his truck gets the same fuel economy as mine (within reason of course)… maybe if you want to break out decimal places there maybe a difference.

  54. Reply Smarterthan^ Feb 15,2010 7:04 pm

    Well I know I didn’t make myself exactly clear, I do have a HHO gen. nor do I know someone that has used one so I could see the results first hand. They “claim” 20-30 % or more increase, if it creates a 1-2 mpg load increase due to the alt drag that will still increase mpg. The question is how efficient are the generators, also have to add in the cost of building and maintenance on it. Will all that still outweigh the price?? I don’t know

  55. Reply mickey Feb 15,2010 10:59 pm

    The radarman seemed to me to be one of the most interesting views.
    The biggest problem I see is that you may only be able to operate this system in warm weather. Adding another chemical for antifreeze may change everything.
    The maintenance seems to be a minor issue as I check my oil alot.
    It seems like it converts water to HHO on demand and with a different programmble chip, the engine should adapt to the air fuel mixture and prevent preignition.
    If someone has a case history of an injury, I would like to know about it. It seems safe as it is made on demand. I won’t buy it until I know it is safe and effective.
    I am not a technician or scholar, but common sense tells me to hold off and gather a little more data.

  56. Reply captlaw Mar 30,2010 12:09 pm

    I have enjoyed all of the commentary and insight, both positive and negative.

    I have done some research by conversing with 5 installer/distributors that have installed thousands of HHO generation systems for some large companies and individuals. The one installer in Colorado outfitted a fleet of 850 delivery trucks for a multi-billion dollar company with HHO Generators.

    I have personally been invited to observe the installation of these HHO Generators by an installer in Indiana.

    These installers were very helpful and were direct with me about the benefits of a properly installed system and detriments that could arise if the system is not installed properly.

    I have a 2008 Buick Lucerne V-8 with a 150amp alternator, so power consumption is a non-issue. Even with all systems running, air conditioner included, the engine is barely affected. Attaching a 30amp device probably won’t make that much difference.

    The on-board computer seems accurate concerning gas mileage calculations, so tracking mileage gains with an optional HHO Generator should be easy. But, the computer could malfunction, so I will also track it manually.

    The more I hear and read that it is a waste of time, a scam or impossible to get good results, the more I want to try it and observe the results for myself. If inventors listened to every negative comment given to them, I don’t know where this country, USA, would be right now.

    I am going to build an HHO Generator and install it and observe the results.

    Being the optimist that I am, the best that can happen:

    The Lucerne’s gas mileage actually increases and I save fuel as the installers and statistics claim using this supplement to my gasoline.

    The worst that could happen:

    A damaged valve, a warped cylinder head, a thrown connecting rod or a hole burned through multiple pistons or a combination of all of the above or worse. Ouch! Here comes the engine replacement and the wisdom to never do this again.

    But, I have to try it and then based on the results, I will side with whomever. I spend almost $300.00 every 4 weeks on fuel, so bring on the savings!

  57. Reply tonytesla May 12,2010 7:21 pm

    Edison electrocuted a full grown elephant with the same kind of reasoning in this article. The author obviously has no knowledge of this technology.HHO has huge potential if volumes can be made in time with consumption with a higher power factor.30 amps is still far too high.

  58. Reply Phil May 15,2010 1:45 am

    I wonder how many of the amatuer engineers have blown them selves up and never to be heard of again.As long as they are the sole occupant of the vehicle then good luck to them I say .I have built a lot of lpg heaters which I thought were safe ,until one day BOOM BLEW A HOLE IN THE WORKSHOP CEILING! so you never know whats around the corner.

  59. Reply JOhn L Jun 29,2010 2:11 am

    Ok if we don’t take a chance or explore our possibilities then we will cease to exist. If there was no one to hold the key when the lightning hit then we would not have know what the results would have been. So here we are in the land of the free and HOME OF THE BRAVE and that is how we Progress through life and make strides that benefit us all. If no one died in war then I guess War would be ok. If we make no mistake then we have no gains. and have learned nothing. So it just seems to be all american to give this a chance to grow, it will keep us free regardless, and I solute the brave that have come here to fight.

  60. Reply Joe Average Jul 30,2010 3:14 pm

    All these “free energy” devices require electricity from the alternator. Putting a big electrical load on the alternator requires HP because of the alternator drag. If we had carburetors on our cars we’d notice RPM drop caused by a large load being connected to the vehicle’s 12V power system b/c old carb setups didn’t compensate for these drags put on the engine.

    They DID have a solenoid or vacuum servo that would push the carb open a little to compensate for the air conditioner compressor. The compressor would kick on due to an a/c pressure switch and it would instruct the solenoid to kick in as well to bump the carb up a hundred or two RPMs. The end result would be an engine that idled at the same speeds whether the compressor was on or off. This was important so idling automatic transmission cars didn’t try to surge forward while the driver was waiting in stopped traffic while the compressor cycled on and off.

    Today when we put a big load on an engine – especially a small engine – the fuel injection adds rpms (gasoline) by opening the throttle body a little to compensate. Roll the power steering from lock to lock and you’ll witness the RPMs surge up and down a little as the fuel injection copes with the additional and changing load put on the idling engine. Many of the smaller engined cars I have worked on have a wire that connects the fuel injection computer to a pressure switch on the power steering pump.

    More drag on the engine and the engine computer idles the engine faster so the rpms don’t dip too far. Turn on the a/c and the same thing happens – this time the engine is compensating for the a/c compressor, interior fan(s), and radiator fan(s). Turn on the lights and heater and put your foot on the brake pedal so the brake lights illuminate and the engine’s idle won’t dip thanks to the fuel injection computer but there is a greater load on the alternator and thus the vehicle’s engine.

    I won’t explain every detail of an alternator here but look it up on “How Stuff Works” and you’ll see that basically the added electrical load causes the alternator to add more power to it’s field coils causing the magnetic fields in the field windings and stator windings to interact more. Basically these magnetic fields are electro-magnets working against each other. The more power you need, the stronger these fields interact, the more HP is required to turn the alternator, and the more fuel is required to turn that alternator.

    I would be hard pressed to believe that the multiple amps demanded of the alternator by an HHO generator wouldn’t nix out any efficiencies created by burning the HHO in the engine. The average small vehicle engine is consuming 200 or more cubic feet of air running down the road and I doubt the HHO generators produce anywhere near the quantity of HHO to make any real difference.

    Personally I’d have to see proof that showed a vehicle that normally traveled 300 miles between fill ups went some significantly longer distance like 450 miles between fill-ups on a regular basis.

    Want HUGE MPG increases? Learn some of the hypermile techniques and apply them to a hybrid like the Honda Insight or Toyota Prius or VW turbo diesel. A friend recently reported he and his wife got 48 mpg in their Jetta Sportwagon TDI on the interstate with the a/c on the whole way driving normally.

    The only difference I am seeing between these HHO generators is how neatly they are put together and packaged.

  61. Reply randy Sep 24,2010 8:12 pm

    I learned a few new things in this blog, but I dissagree that it is a scam. Scam denotes promising something for nothing. I feel these people think they are on to something, they just aren’t aware of HHO’s dangers.

  62. Reply Craig Spitler Dec 16,2010 1:42 am

    I have skeptically watched friends install these aftermarket devices. Surprisingly they have reported 10 to 20% improvements in mileage, which is nothing to sniff at! My own background is in physics, and at first I could not understand how increasing the electrical HP demand on the motor could result in improved mileage, but after much research I think I have the answer: it’s called fuel hybridization. What’s at work is increasing the burn efficiency in the combustion chamber. Gasoline is a long carbon chain that burns readily, but not so completely in the time it has to do its job. By introducing hydrogen gas, it facilitates a faster and cleaner burn during the power stroke, which results in increased engine efficiency. Some people forego the messy HHO generator and inject propane instead, which also increases the burn efficiency, although not as much as hydrogen would. I was talking with an older gentleman, that told me how in the old days, they would “spike” diesel water pumps on the farm with a trickle of propane, to double the run time. He thought that was just common knowledge…

    Good luck guys! …and yes I’m planning an installation on my truck too.

  63. Reply Ted Sharp Jan 6,2011 4:18 am

    This old engineer agrees with physicist Mr. Craig Spitler who has it right. The Hydrogen flame front velocity within the combustion chamber of an IC engine is sveral thousand times that of its vaporized petrochemical based fuel. Accordingly, the intermixed Hydrogen acts as an accelerant of the total flame front throughout the cylinder causing more complete / efficient combustion of the petrochemical fuel. The Hydrogen does not of itself contribute a practical increase in energy release in the combustion cycle. However, it has been demonstrated Hydrogen can be used by itself as an IC engine fuel, but in far greater volume ( hence cost )than when used only as an accelerant. In summary, Hydrogen is not a cost effective substitute for petrochemical fuels, but it is a cost effective way to increase fuel efficiency of IC engines. An increase in gasoline and Diesel engine fuel efficiency in the order of 20% to 40% has been, and is daily being, demomstrated in practical applications.

  64. Reply Robert Lombardo Feb 9,2011 8:31 am

    Thank you Ted Sharp for a clear simple explanation that most will understand.
    Unfortunately the article will not be revised nor is it likely that a more accurate one will be made and widely distributed.
    This is a fairly simple idea, if widely implemented would make a bid dent in the rates carbon emissions.
    It would make a dent in petro profits also thus is not likely to happen in my life time.
    I hope that cars are not designed to prevent installation of such devices in the future.

  65. Reply James robbins May 7,2011 10:05 am

    what is not figured is the amount of hydrogen added to the engine you are not getting an increase in fuel economy you are simply adding more uncalculated fuel to the mix

  66. Reply Jeff May 9,2011 10:47 pm

    Theory and fact are 2 very separate ideals. In theory, this may or may not work. The fact is no one here has tried it. Now consider separating theory and fact. I have made a cell that produces enough HHO to run a single cylinder generator for about 3 minutes before dying. The results suggested that the cell design did not produce enough hydrogen to sustain the generator, in other words the hydrogen was too thin to keep the generator running. My results did prove that the generator is capable of running independently from fossil fuel via on-demand HHO. That, my friends, is fact. Still don’t believe me? Do your homework and try it.

  67. Reply eljefe May 13,2011 2:41 pm

    Actually, Jeff, several commenters here have tried it, with varying results. It seems gasoline and diesel fuel consumption is reduced, giving better gas mileage, but as James Robbins notes, those figures don’t typically include the amount of hydrogen used.

    Jeff, what scale cell and generator did you have? I think it would be tough for a DIYer to (for example) produce enough hydrogen to run a portable 5kW generator for very long.

    And back to my original point, which was TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as free lunch. Hydrogen is not a miracle fuel. It’s just very plentiful as a component of water. Separating it from oxygen requires an energy expenditure, and that energy has to come from somewhere: either your car’s engine or from an electric utility. And safe storage is another critical issue. Electrolysis makes it easy to produce hydrogen, but what do you with the surplus? One static spark (scuffing your feet on the floor or taking off a sweater on a dry day) or an open flame (a pilot or a lighter) and BOOM! All the hard work for nothing.

  68. Reply Jeff May 14,2011 2:17 am

    I used two 11 plate cells, 2.5″ in diameter of exposed surface area, and 3/16″ apart. I had to use about a tablespoon of gasoline to get it started. 12Vdc, I did have a crude PWM but it didnt produce enough hydrogen. The generator is a honda 600W 1-cylinder generator that I pulled the gas tank off of.
    I am making another cell that will be bigger and more condensed. I will also be making an automated pwm, so it will be producing the optimum amount of hydrogen under any load. The problem I have is I have no way of determining how much is too much or too little if I run off of HHO alone. Any ideas? and if any who read this knows what a good frequency is I would appreciate the info and where you got it.

    I guess I didnt read that part of people having tried it. I just now see where it says ‘older comments’

  69. Reply Spirit76 Jul 4,2011 11:37 pm

    I like everyone else would love to save money and the environment so I’ve been doing research on these HHO system. There are more than a few testimonials out there stating improved mileage and the theory of adding fuel (Hydrogen and Oxygen) to the mixture makes sense. However,I wanted to see a demonstration of the flammability of the output of these HHO’s…and I found one. The gases produced definitely had the explosive characteristics of hydrogen. All of the systems I saw pro ported to produce 1 liter of gas/min. Is that a significant amount of fuel? I don’t know. Then I wondered if that would affect the programming of the vehicles standard chip…and from what I’ve found it does. These HHO systems require a new chip. There are many performance enhancing chips out there that increase HP and mileage, but their affect on the engine is in question. To satisfy my skepticism I’d like to see if the HHO system will significantly increase the mpg on a vehicle that is already using a performance enhancing chip. You can purchase the chips for usually under $100 so how much improvement does adding HHO give you? Most of these systems installed are over $1000. And will you have the engine stressing characteristics the performance chips supposively have? I like everything else I ask, “If its that great why isn’t everyone using it?”

  70. Reply Wayne Jul 7,2011 8:10 am

    The thinking is that you will:

    1) Use the output from the vehicle’s battery charging system (the alternator) to crack water into hho.

    2) Burn the hho in the engine driving the alternator and…

    3) Produce enough power (from the alternator) to not only replace the hho consumed, but to propel the vehicle with the crankshaft output??

    Folks, you better be careful that you don’t get this thing started and have a run-away situation that you just won’t be able to stop.

  71. Reply eljefe Jul 7,2011 4:33 pm


    It can’t possibly run away. You’re assuming some kind of perpetual motion will happen, but physically it’s impossible. There are always energy losses, mostly because of heat and friction.

    My thought exactly. If HHO really is the next wonder fuel system, and if it’s really so easy to implement, why aren’t more people using it? If the MPG gains really were that stupendous, and someone could document them accurately, it seems people would be beating a path to his or her door.

  72. Reply Joe Average Jul 8,2011 3:22 am

    1 liter per min? A performance four cylinder car can flow up to ~285 CFM at wide open throttle. That means even a grocery getter might flow 150 CFM. What does that mean? 1 liter per min is about 0.035 CFM. Not exactly alot of hydrogen in the mix.

    I suggest that someone measure how much energy it requires to produce the 1 liter per min and then try to figure out how much HP that requires of the engine to spin the alternator and make that much electricity. Another test worth doing – see if you can get an old lawn mower engine to spin an alternator and produce hydrogen enough to run the lawn mower. Start it on gasoline and once warmed up, turn the gasoline off and allow it to run on hydrogen only. How long does it run?

    I want this to work but i’m not seeing it yet.

  73. Reply Einstein Jul 13,2011 9:36 am

    Ok, I have to post here, to many people posting opinion and not facts. If you want to have facts you have to try it. Experiment.

    My friend and created a simple HHO generator, by connecting it to the intake manifold on his fuel injected blazer his gas mileage went from 18 mpg to 74 mpg. Monitoring the engine with a OBD we found that the computer automatically compensated the air / fuel mix to adjust for the more flammable (rich) HHO gas being sucked into the manifold.

    If you do not believe me that is you prerogative, however do not preach this can never work if you have never actually done the work.

  74. Reply Nera Mar 14,2012 12:04 am

    I would like to say that I am a bit confused in the whole matter.

    Is it true that some car batteries are charged in the same manner as the process of electrolysis of water? If so, can that be utilized to power up more production of the Hydrogen gas in the process?

    I think that even by doing this we are only recapturing all the energy that is used and reusing it again for the same purpose. I know that this process is not perpetual since there are no perfect systems in the world that are 100% efficient, but still I believe that this is a progress in reusing the energy that we put in.

    I am also wondering why vehicles don’t use back the power that was required to set them in motion, or why not store the power while hitting the breaks and making the car stop. Driving downhill can also be utilized to store back the energy the vehicle used to get uphill. (reminds me when I was a kid, when my dad drove with almost no gas and whenever there was a downhill road we would all cheer to get higher speed while the car is shut off, so we can overcome the next climb up the road)

    When a vehicle is made to be energy efficient then the requirement to fuel them would be brought to a minimum, or at that stage fuel powered vehicles can be replaced with electric vehicles that do not make pollution.

  75. Reply eljefe Mar 14,2012 11:23 am

    All cars’ batteries are charged by a process similar to electrolysis. When the battery charge is low, the alternator, which runs off the engine, sends current through the battery to “reverse” the chemical process that produces the battery’s current. Since there is water in the battery fluid (electrolyte), the charging process produces small amounts of H2 and O2. Those gases are why it is bad idea to smoke while working near a charging automobile battery.

    However, the alternator and battery are not designed to produce H2. That’s why there must be a different technology used for hydrogen generation.

    No, you cannot recapture ALL the energy used. There will always be energy “loss” through heat, etc. The alternator is not 100% efficient, for one thing. Friction tends to heat things up, and that heat energy is “lost” to the environment. Likewise, charging the battery also heats up the electrolyte, and that heat is also “lost.” As we have discussed above, the same energy losses are inherent to any H2 production system, or really any physical process.

    Electric vehicles can recover some of the power they use up when they are coasting or traveling downhill. Most DC electric motors can also serve as electric generators to recharge the EV’s batteries, but not all the way back. This process does not work for internal combustion engines, since there are no electric generators attached to the wheels. The alternator only charges the battery when the battery is low and the engine is working. (I guess you know the main purpose of the battery in an IC car is to start the engine and to help equalize the voltage provided to the car’s electrical system. A voltage regulator balances the battery’s and alternator’s outputs to maintain a 12-14 V potential.)

    Your dad (and many drivers of big rigs) was using the momentum of the car to carry it up the next hill, an entirely different, mechanical (not electrical) process. Because of frictional losses, no car or truck coasting down one hill can pass over the next hill of equal elevation without some help from the engine. So, some drivers speed up going down a hill, so they don’t need as much gas to top the next. Others coast down the hll, then engage the engine when the car starts to run “out of steam.”

    The typical IC car is only 30-40% efficient, meaning for every 100 Joules of energy put in, only 30-40 Joules are available to make the car go. EVs are more efficient (sorry, I don’t know the figure offhand), but their range is limited. Hybrids would fall in-between those values.

  76. Reply gus May 28,2012 10:29 am

    I will be installing a HHO Gen in my diesel van shortly.
    Having read all the for/against comments here is my reason.
    In British columbia we are required to test vehicles prior to renewing the plates.
    In a video recently it was shown (the actual document) that the HHO Gen.helped to reduce the emissions by something like 90%. If the installation of this device will produce those results I will be very happy………If I get a little better fuel economy and a cleaner engine……fantastic.
    Good enough reason?

  77. Reply Ray Jun 23,2012 1:25 am

    So it’s a scam??? Then you go and prove it’s real???? How mutch $$$ do you have rolled up in oil stocks?
    The writer of this article seems to be happy in the past, and wants everyone locked in it too, like his or her paycheck depends on it.

  78. Reply eljefe Jul 1,2012 8:32 pm

    Jeez, why does every True Believer automatically accuse anyone who doubts his True Belief of being in the pocket of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Whatever?

    For the record, Ray, I have no money in oil stocks, and a pitifully small amount in the stock market anyway. I’ve got no money riding on this article or its outcomes. I’m only trying to remind readers that HHO setups are not miracle workers, and to correct the statements that somehow HHO “creates” energy out of nowhere.

    Sure, some people have reported better mileage, as in, using less gasoline to go the same distance as before. I’ve yet to hear of anyone running his car solely on HHO, because, by my reckoning, it wouldn’t be physically possible to run the engine to provide electricity to produce enough hydrogen to run the engine, to produce the gas, to run the engine … The laws of thermodynamics get in the way.

    So, HHO users still have to use gasoline or diesel to run their rigs.

  79. Reply eljefe Jul 1,2012 8:33 pm

    Sure thing. When you’re finished with the install, tell us how it worked out.

  80. Reply Rob Wein Jul 2,2012 11:10 am

    Hi everyone;

    If you know how to make any car run off water I am looking for someone to do an installation. I have lots of money and would like to see this work. Also, if you know how to make a water fueled torch, would it also be possible to make a water powered boiler to heat greenhouses. If so, that would be a quick way to make yourself several millions. My family owns greenhouses and would be willing to fund this. Please contact me at if you are capable of doing this or know someone who is. Thanks!

  81. Reply John Jul 16,2012 11:58 pm

    I used to work for a company that wanted to get into the trace hydrogen injection market for large diesel trucks. We tried and tested all manner of HHO and PEM stack hydrogen devices. Seemed to be getting some improvement but then it would vanish or mileage would actually go down. As we were more and more aggravated by the lack of favorable results we kept improving the quality of our metrics. The more careful we were at measuring the fuel use the more elusive any gains became. We had several HHO manufacturers come in and they were not able to produce results either. On the road, in the dyno, and stationary gensets (all diesel) – we found nothing for 10 months. I was on board with the technology in the beginning but have become a nay-sayer due to the testing we have done. Some of the units looked like they were made in a 3rd grade craft class and some looked like they came from NASA but none worked. I have read the NASA paper on flame front speed and don’t believe there is enough concentration in the cylinder for this to be accurate – the low flammability limit for hydrogen is 4% and that would be a lot more than several liters per minute. Our hydrolyzers are fairly efficient at 6 kWH per cubic meter of hydrogen gas (about 16-17 liters per minute) and 60 amps @ 10 volts only produces 3-4 liters per minute of HHO gas (2-3.3 liters of H2). Running a unit to produce enough HHO to power a vehicle would be the size of a house and run on 480 power.

  82. Reply Charles Ware Aug 2,2015 9:31 am

    Part of the problem is that there is no good explanation as to why HHO works. That makes working systems hard to debug. It is in the same spot as LENR. My assessment of HHO found at: comes up with a definite maybe as to whether or not oxyhydrogen injection on Diesels actually works. There are a number of other monographs on the same site.

  83. Reply Omar Jan 24,2016 5:43 am

    Watch “HHO Gas Car – Police Force uses water instead of gas to fuel cars” on YouTube

    Watch “Honea Path SC Police Department using HHO” on YouTube

  84. Reply eljefe Jan 26,2016 9:28 pm

    Interesting. The first video is from 2012. Are they still using this system?

  85. Reply Omar Jan 28,2016 11:30 pm

    As far as I know, yes. It’s been a while messaging police stations about this. My local ones replied quickly with a thank you in facebook. I’d have to sift through messages to find their reply. You could try them through calling, facebook, or website. I would say natural lightning based electrolysis puts hydrogen in the atmosphere. It would have to strike from a water source.

  86. Reply Omar Jan 28,2016 11:31 pm

    I think, in the video, they said they will continue use of HHO.

  87. Reply eljefe Jan 29,2016 8:59 pm

    Lightning does not electrolyze water. Or I should say, if it did, the H and O would not stay separate very long, since they are both very reactive elements. Whatever hydrogen is in the atmosphere eventually leaks away into space, or combines with other elements. In other words, the amount of free hydrogen in the lower atmosphere, where lightning mostly occurs, is pretty small. Lightning does ionize atmospheric gases, and helps form ozone O3, though.

  88. Reply du lich tet 2017 Jan 5,2017 10:15 pm

    Electrolysis is on demand and not stored. Perfectly safe. It uses very little electricity to make hho on a car from what I understand

Leave a Reply




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :