HHO generator

>>1193458
Normally if i ask that kind of thing some dude shows up and says something along the line of:
>just google it
>we re not your personal stuff researcher

I have no clue what HHO is and would appreciate if you gave me a quick rundown yourself.

File: IMG_20170614_181357.jpg (4MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4160x3120px

btw this is my first wetcell prototype i created.

next one im going to:
> bead/sand blast
> thinner plates
>now there is running 3volts between the plates i heard that it should me 2.2V is that true?

What is a HHO generator:
it turns water(H20) into 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom by using electricity. hydrogen is a gas that is a great fuel for making:
>combustion engines way more efficient
>could be used as a burner for welding etc.
>making hydrogen and oxygen for many other applications you may need.

>>1193463
>>combustion engines way more efficient
no it doesnt

File: anigif_enhanced-buzz-30262-1381319925-14.gif (246KB, 440x248px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 440x248px

>>1193463
>combustion engines way more efficient
INCORRECT!

>>1193463
>2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom

Learn chemistry before spouting this bullshit, everyone using the term HHO is a retard.

>>1193463
>>combustion engines way more efficient

That is a weird way of saying less efficient and likely to damage a modern engine.

The only useful thing is running a torch, even then any oxyacetylene torch is better.

>>1193516
I did an in-depth bit of research into HHO torches vs oxyacetylene torches in respect to cost of maintenance/buying fuel. Sourcing the plates for the HHO then replacing them cost more than just leasing the oxyacetylene tanks and refueling them. Evidently stainless steel plates costs a shit load and don't really last all that long due to high amp, heat, and amazing corrosion during the process.

I'd only make one if I needed one for a very specific use.

>>1193545
i have too mutch unlimmeted stainless steel

youtuber 'carsandwater' made an HHO generator with 2 spark arrests out of plastic cutting boards, metal sheets, and rubber sheets for fairly cheap except for the power supply.

Its dangerous as fuck because it makes hydrogen and oxygen, it burns hot as balls, and uses a shitload of electricity.

Seriously, even the guy that made his HHO generator admits its quite dangerous and its only use is melting, or in most cases, burning small amounts of material because of how hot it is.

>>1193556
Then go for it. If I ever find an appliance like a fridge that's stainless steel and being tossed out, I'll make one from the cover. Otherwise, it isn't worth it for me.

>>1193558
Yeah, you need to make your system so that there's no large areas of gas in any one place in the system (which means high amps instead of low amps and slow build up/storage). It is wicked explosive. Just lighting some of the bubbles while removing rust via electrolysis is quite amazing.

>>1193564
Here's his rebuild, cleaning, and general overview of the components of the generator. If you don't have an actual use for one other than burning some shit, I wouldn't recommend making one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fl4t3_PWGg

>>1193514
>everyone using the term HHO is a retard
Noticed. Can't understand even basic chemistry but always claim how the gas industry doesn't want you to know about this "hack".

>>1193591
>>1193514
HHO is a 2:1 mixture of "oxyhydrogen". The "HHO" part refers to the ratios.

I made one when i was a kid. It's blew up when the gas ignited internally.

>>1193516
oxy-propane is pretty decent

brazing temperatures are easy to get with a medical oxygen concentrator + bbq propane tank + victor torch set

>>1193471
>>1193509

Basically. It is a great way to convert snake oil into money though.

Or time and money into frustration.

Seen more than a handful of people who bought into the scam.

If they are lucky, it just slowly murders their battery and alternator.

>>1193685
Its the same idea as running nitrous oxide, albeit in very small quantities, or simply running a pure O2 bottle with a slow stream for "higher mileage".

>>1193697
>O2 bottle with a slow stream for "higher mileage

>car starts dumping more fuel into the cylinder to offset how lean the engine is now running
>you now have worse mileage just putting along

>>1193699
Inject after the O2 sensor, it runs leaner, either closer or under the stoichiometric ratio, more power, but greater wear.

Similarly, even if it uses more fuel, you spend less time accelerating and if you economize, get better mileage. Ceterus Paribus, if you drive a car in colorado 1 mile up versus at sea level, you'll get better mileage at sea level (where more oxygen in the air is.

>>1193699
>car dumps more fuel with less throttle body opening
>fuel readout is fooled to read higher mileage
>no advantage is achived

>>1193703
Or you just tweak your chip to run leaner
. Wtf do you think an o2 sensor is for?

>>1193721
Tuners can cost several hundred dollars. An average DIYer could run an O2 bottle with a hose for less than $40.

Also, not every car has an applicable tuner programmer, nor does every car have an OBD2 port or computer to alter.

>>1193703
Pretty sure the O2 sensor is in the exhaust.

>>1193737
There are multiple O2 sensors, including the mass airflow sensor and O2 sensor on the intake.

>>1193752
>O2 sensor on the intake
On what vehicle?

>>1193697

Except a bottle of N2O is not introducing a significant drain on the electrical system in the process.

>>1193752
>There are multiple O2 sensors
Yes, the one just 'upstream' of the catalytic and the one 'downstream' - both on the exhaust.
>>1193752
>including the mass airflow sensor
It doesn't sense the oxygen percentage, just the air.
>>1193752
>O2 sensor on the intake
Which models of cars have this?

>>1193752

I just had to get a 20-year-old Dodge Dakota to pass emissions a few months ago.

There are, indeed, two O2 sensors. One just after the exhaust manifold, to provide feedback to the engine computer, and one after the catalytic converter, to comply with emissions requirements. On my grandmother's car, there's four sensors, again, all somewhere on the exhaust piping.


All cars are like this. There is no reason to put one before the engine. Why? Because the oxygen content of atmosphere is almost exactly the same no matter where you are.

>>1193697
>O2 bottle with a slow stream
no. sanity check time.

>a 2 liter engine chuggin' along at 1500rpm pumps 1500 liters of air per minute
>(because it's a 4stroke and only inhales every other revolution)
>that's 25 liters of air per second
>air is 20% oxygen
>the engine is already pumping 5 liters of oxygen per second

slow fucking stream lol. meme bubbles BTFO.

>what is HHO
another tinfoil free energy scam machine
In my country I find these retards every twenty paces, reinventing XVIIIth century crap like rocket stove mass heater and claiming it produces fire from water
take a pipe and club yourself OP, you'll make the world a better place

>>1193458
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ByetxSbIxk

This is my Torch.

It's okay for cutting really thin steel, and small brazing or large soldering jobs. For the size of flame it produces a huge amount of heat which can be localized to a very small area.

The flame is too small to melt anything substantial for casting - you might make rings or small jewelry.

It's too oxidizing to weld with, although you can get some success just melting stuff (like Copper Wire) together.

It'd probably be fine for jewelry work, but the set up is as impractical as fuck taking up an entire table.

Still though, I cost me barely anything, runs on water and that flame sure is fun to play with.

>>1193721
>just tweak your chip
it really sounds like you know your shit

I heard you can make your computer run faster too using the same method.

>>1194171
He isnt wrong, you can go into your cars firmware and adjust the long term fuel trims to make it run leaner. Though this is pretty bad for the engine and will also lead to worse mileage

File: EEgifts.jpg (206KB, 693x1200px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 693x1200px

I'm not OP and try not be retarded but am only a little retarded

Could I use an "HHO" machine for feeding a tank that in turn feeds a combustion based heat gun? how could i store the hydrogen safely and under at least enough pressure to go down a short line to a combustion chamber? would ambient air in the chamber be enough for transmitting the heat of combustion?

the intent is for light soldering and warping plastic

>>1193599
yeah but its still wrong because it's H2 and O2 in a 2:1 ratio, not HHO

File: 142844026989.jpg (58KB, 553x548px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 553x548px

>>1193471
>>1193509
>>1193514
>>1193516

4 posters, saying the same thing, all not offering any supporting evidence or information. You all are the embodiment of 4chan. You all are the 4 chans.

>>1194213
m8 why would dumping hydrogen into your engine make it run better

its less energetic to burn than gasoline no matter how much you add, and the volume youd get straight off an electrolysis machine would not add any significant boost like a tank of N2O does

File: ....jpg (22KB, 447x444px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 447x444px

>>1194217
I never said that dumpng hydrogen into an engine would make it run better m8.

I said "4 posters, saying the same thing, all not offering any supporting evidence or information. You all are the embodiment of 4chan. You all are the 4 chans."

I was busting the balls of the faggots who spew their opinion without backing it with supporting evidence or being in any way useful to anyone. Their posts are literal shitposts.

Why stainless steel and not something like graphite?

>>1194220
the burden of proof is on the original claimant, in >>1193463

File: 1869-03.jpg (129KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1200x900px

>>1194200
no. your plan is dangerous, inefficient and unneccesary.

you need a normal hot air rework station, the kind that plugs into the wall.

>>1194238
i have never bought a soldering iron that didnt immediately break and as such no longer trust any such commercially produced station that is in my price range

>>1194239
nobody can help you.

>>1194245
fuel cells are not at all the same as HHO machines; just admit you dont know shit about anything dude

File: 1488474137820.jpg (145KB, 780x761px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 780x761px

>>1194247
I never claimed I knew shit about anything dude.

Neck yourself homosexual.

>>1194171
>>>1193721
>>just tweak your chip
>it really sounds like you know your shit
>I heard you can make your computer run faster too using the same method.
Terrible counter example, computers can be overclocked fairly easily.
t. /g/entooman

>>1194239
Your price range is what, $5?

>>1194239
hahahahaha

>>1193458
Unless you're making an electric-powered hydrogen torch, there is no reason to make an "HHO" generator. It won't make your car run faster, and if you try to store the mixed gases you're going to have a really bad time.

>>1194200
If you want your PCB covered in boiling water, then sure.

>>1194225
Much easier to get high surface area with stainless. If you use high-quality stainless and not melted down knives and forks then you might be able to make it last some time. Though you might not want to use sulphuric acid as your electrolyte, sodium sulphate looks innocent enough. Carbon probably doesn't conduct enough full stop, these things usually use a bunch of current.

>>1194362
Oxyhydrogen torches can get hot enough to melt tungsten, but how many watts would it take to get that much gas directly out of a water splitter?

>>1194460
>how many watts would it take to get that much gas directly out of a water splitter?
More than it would take to run a TIG torch capable of melting the same amount of tungsten.

>>1194200
OP you're seriously going to try to fill a container full of MIXED HHO gas, and push it out a nozzle to burn like a flame thrower? You're building a bomb dumbass. Light a container of HHO on fire and see if it burns in a controllable, slow flame. It wont. It'll go POP.

>>1194362
ONE other reason to make hydrogen gas might be to actually run an internal combustion engine off it completely, which is totally possible and has been done for a long time. It usually requires certain engine attributes and tuning though since it burns hotter than gas, uses a different injection system, and can engine knock at lower pressures. They make natural gas injectors that can be modified for use with hydrogen, that's where I'm going to start. UnitedNuclear.com was coming out with a kit for this but I guess it failed because the deuterium lithium hydride salt they wanted to use is banned (because it's also used in nukes...)

You could go buy some hydride tanks and a natural gas injection system and build a hydrogen engine right now if you wanted to, it's known to work. But hydride expensive and so is making hydrogen gas, unless you have excess solar wattage and replace your gasoline use completely.

Also hydride tanks are totally safe, and don't release hydrogen at a significant rate unless heated (they have internal heating elements and insulation). So if you broke one open the hydride pellets would just fall out along with a little burst of hydrogen, the rest would stay trapped in the pellets.

>>1194498
If that's true then why do they sell electric powered hydrogen cutting torches? I'm sure it's not just to appease hippies, it's because it's more efficient in some way on some timeline.

File: image006sm.jpg (68KB, 375x281px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 375x281px

>>1194625
forgot pic related. Too bad they didn't make an affordable kit, other companies sell hydride tanks for $3k for a tiny tank and theres almost no guidance on modifying natural gas injection systems for use with hydrogen, except for academic articles, no DIY'ers have tried this yet.

>>1194626
>it's because it's more efficient in some way on some timeline
Efficiency is not always a concern, and due to thermodynamics (imperfect efficiency at the electrolysis stage), an electrolysis-powered torch will never be more efficient at delivering heat than a TIG torch of equal input power. Oxy-hydrogen does have some advantages though. No electrical interference and a wide unfocused heat input (also reasons why oxy-acetylene has held on). Compared to acetylene, it burns cleaner (no smoke or soot, which can mess up sensitive equipment), and it can be run at higher operating pressure (underwater work). Electrolysis-powered units have the advantage of not needing pressurized dangerous gases, and thereby reduce safety concerns at the cost of expensive equipment and electrical demands.

It's kind of like air power tools. Efficiency is much lower than electric tools, but there are situational advantages that can make their use worthwhile.

>>1194460
>hot enough to melt tungsten

Tungsten Carbide maybe, max temperature is 2,800c.

Since when has melting Tungsten been important anyway, it's so tough it can be used as electrodes in an Arc furnace.

It isn't even normally melted down anyway:

"Because of tungsten's high melting point, it is not commercially feasible to cast tungsten ingots. Instead, powdered tungsten is mixed with small amounts of powdered nickel or other metals, and sintered."

So yeah, processing Tungsten is a tall order for anything.

>>1194628
With that much effort for little to no benefit, you might as well run propane injection or 100% propane (which has been done on diesels for a long time). But again, theres little to no benefit.

>>1194664
I thought the point of air tools is that they offer vastly more torque and are just objectively better at what they do, even if they're harder to lug around and use more power to run

Why not just use the HHO to make an slow-exploding H-bomb to use as fuel?

>>1194338
any more than $12 and i wince

>>1194622
the idea is more of a slow stream with a secondary tank fed through check valves for safety, but essentially yes, the concept is to make a torch except using hydrogen gotten from a generator instead of butane or w/e bought from the store

>>1193654
All true. Any US-made torch set has internal regulator parts compatible with LP and acetylene. I use both. I have plenty of owned oxygen cylinders but if I score a concentrator I'll add it to the fleet.

Victor and Smith are both outstanding. (ESAB has nearly ceased making torches and killed all their classic models after the Victor parent company bought them out, but you can still get tips.)

Hydrogen has been used in jewelry making for more than a century.

http://www.harrisproductsgroup.com/en/Expert-Advice/Articles/Oxy-Hydrogen.aspx

One reason hydrogen is avoided when welding steel is hydrogen embrittlement.

https://www.millerwelds.com/resources/article-library/the-hydrogen-problem
"HHO" zealots are impossible to argue with but industry and other serious people are thoroughly familiar with gas chemistry and have billions of dollars in fuel costs, yet hydrogen isn't a very popular fuel.

>>1194200
>the intent is for light soldering and warping plastic

I collect heat guns to scatter about my shops because they are insanely handy. They are cheap new and stoopid cheap at yard sales. I give five bucks for used ones.

>I thought the point of air tools is that they offer vastly more torque and are just objectively better at what they do,

They offer long run time without overheating. They are cheap, simple to maintain, pose no electrical hazard and air motors are easy to regulate.

They are not inherently more powerful, which is why most heavy duty angle grinders etc used by welders are electric. Air motors don't produce full torque at zero RPM unlike electric motors.

I have plenty of both. Horses for courses as the bongs say.

>>1194752
thats interesting about the air guns, and i must say that ive never seen a heat gun in person and even online they seem to run for exorbitant amounts of money for what appears to basically be an overpowered hair dryer

File: derp.jpg (110KB, 1008x667px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1008x667px

>>1194757
>even online they seem to run for exorbitant amounts of money
how do you feed yourself if £16.99 is 'exorbitant'? how did you even get on the internet?

Don't put salt in your HHO mixture

>>1194626
Because it can work like a oxyacetylene cutting torch; turn off the hydrogen and blast away.

>>1194625
>UnitedNuclear.com was coming out with a kit for this but I guess it failed because the deuterium lithium hydride salt they wanted to use is banned (because it's also used in nukes...)
You're an idiot. There is no reason to use deuterium in a fuel cell or internal combustion engine.

>>1195047
There is if the plan is to grab the investment money and claim failure due to laws.

>>1193459
It's a device that performs electrolysis on water. HHO is short for hydrogen, hydrogen, oxygen.

>>1193463
It does not make your engine more efficient. You use electricity generated by the alternator to spilt water molecules which actually wastes energy but you see higher fuel efficiency because you ignore basic physics.

I'm not sure if it's been said because the thread got annoying to sift through, but here's the basics of how/why and HHO generator doesn't work:

the idea behind an HHO generator is that it replaces a significant amount of the oxygen in the intake with hydrogen, when hydrogen combusts it releases more energy then oxygen. so in theory you can reduce your fuel consumption by having you intake gas mixture more combustible then regular oxygen. unfortunately there are several reasons why it does not work, both financially and scientifically. the first is that modern cars don't give two shits about what your intake gasses are, the best you'll get is a little bit of ignition retarding because the knock sensor detects a "ping" in the cylinder from the extra combustion forces. sadly that bit of timing/fuel change isn't sufficient to increase gas mileage and may actually make it worse. beyond that, in order to generate enough hydrogen to make significant gains you would need to hemorrhage so much power from your alternator/battery that they would be killed regularly, alternatively, beefing up your alternator could help, but then the additional power needed to turn it will almost suck any gain created by the hydrogen. this is because any physical load put on the engine will reduce gas mileage(alternator, a/c compressor. power steering, etc). beyond these issues with physics and finance, there's the very real problem the wear it will generate on your engine, those kinds of explosive forces aren't meant to go through the engine, in an engine you want ignition/combustion not detonation/explosion.

>>1196314
>when hydrogen combusts it releases more energy then oxygen
Oxygen is an oxidiser, hydrogen and petrol are fuels. You can't replace one for another, you need both to burn. If your engine already has the stoichiometric ratio of oxygen to petrol, then adding hydrogen to replace some oxygen will starve the engine of oxygen, and you'll be shooting flames out the exhaust. Typically engines run less air than stoichiometrically required to keep the engine from running so hot, so replacing some of that sparse oxygen with hydrogen will in no way improve its combustion.

And even in an ideal situation, you can't make your engine more efficient by turning some of the energy it produces into hydrogen and pumping that back into the engine, that would imply over-unity. At least not any more efficient than a tuning of the fuel-air mixture could make.

>>1196314
>when hydrogen combusts it releases more energy then oxygen
Stopped reading there. Don't even care if it's bait or copypasta.

>>1196331
>Don't even care if it's bait or copypasta.
neither - it's, ig no ray mus

>>1194728
>air tools is that they offer vastly more torque
???

>>1196381
It's somewhat true, but air does have to get up to speed. Electric motors have incredible stalled torque, while a spun-up turbine can really put a hammer on. Depends on what you want it for, but there's a reason they use compressed-air rattleguns at the pits.

>>1196328
>to keep the engine from running so hot
Running a reducing fuel ratio is better for the longevity of engines made of non-passivating metals. An oxidizing flame would tend to oxidize the engine with the hot oxygen floating around. This situation can be reversed for metals that form a passivating oxide layer. Oxygen balance is a major consideration for rocket engines that operate under ridiculous parameters.

>>1196381
A well-designed air tool will probably be smaller and lighter than an equivalent electric tool of equal power, and the motor itself will probably operate at a lower RPM and higher torque, with either a smaller gear reduction or direct drive. Output torque naturally depends on gearing regardless of motor kind.

>>1196577
That makes sense; from what I hear they can do full-aluminium alloy cylinders now, without steel inserts. Not sure how long that has been around for, though. I guess pumping an iron engine full of nitrous oxide can be bad for its longevity.

>>1194782
ive never seen a heat gun that goes for 12 of any currency. i have legit never ever seen that anywhere except for aliexpress and why would i trust aliexpress

File: qlLXvdT.png (137KB, 772x439px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 772x439px

>>1197345
Heres one from harbor freight for $12.99.

Do you only shop at snapon and starrett?

>>1197351
don't forget the 20% off coupon

>>1196377
>ig no ray mus
Too bad there's no cure for this STD.

>>1197359
$10.39 +tax! What a fuckin deal!

>>1197345
the world is gonna roll you.

>>1196328
yeah, I fucked my wording, but I'm still technically right since oxygen does not release energy(even though it does in the form of latent energy from heat, but that's a whole other thing)

>>1196331
>>1196377
>>1196381
oh no, I miswrote one thing, my god, I must be completely retarded. but wait, where's you're lengthy explanation of why it doesn't work? oh, right, you came here to shit post.

>>1198020
If you're referring to O2 having no enthalpy of formation I guess you're technically right as far as doing the calculations go, but I'm not sure you can argue that "this energy came from the octane molecule, not from the oxygen molecule". H2 also has no enthalpy of formation, so I'm not really getting your point.

>>1196314
>I'm not sure if it's been said because the thread got annoying to sift through, but here's the basics of how/why and HHO generator doesn't work:
>It takes energy to generate the HHO.
>You can't get all of the energy back from the process
>Conversion is net loss of energy
ftfy
>>1198021
>lengthy explanation of why it doesn't work?
That's why you are retarded - you think it needs a lengthy explanation.

>>1194220
That which is asserted without evidence... ect.

>>1198162
I think the idea is that the mixture of gasses in the combustion chamber would be more efficient if replaced with HHO/hydroxy gas, even including the extra energy wasted on generating the gas. In practice, this will only happen if you have a particularly shitty air-fuel ratio, and the problem would be fixed far more reliably and efficiently by adjusting the air-fuel ratio. Unless you have a car so horribly made that it comes with a terrible air-fuel ratio programmed into it, and getting it's chip reprogrammed would cost more than the extra petrol costs+construction of the HHO generator for some significant time. Not that anyone would buy that car in the first place.

>>1193514
Your point being that is it makes 2 H2 molecules and 1 O2 molecule for every 2 water molecules?

>>1193545
You can make the plates last a lot longer if you use the correct amount of power and the right salts/bases and steel rated for use in these situations.
This does mean you will need large setups for large amount of gas.

Also its pretty stupid to mix the 2 together, a setup that produces both oxygen and hydrogen with a separate output would be a lot better.
I looked into this in the past and its just not worth it. Maybe if you want to be working with glass but that about the only think i can think of to make this worth it.

>>1200315
Typically the automotive application use a mixture of the gases anyway, and having the anode and cathode plates being able to intersect pretty much halves the volume the generator takes up. I don't know why they use the mixture though, surely one or the other would be better, but that just leads back to the fuel-air ratio argument.

>>1200313
My point is that more than half of "HHO" generator builders don't even know that. Also it's really retarded to not separate the H2 and O2 before the mixing it in the burner. Instead making oxyhydrogen by mixing H2 and O2 in the generator itself, and transporting that shit trough tubes from the generator to the burner is really asking to get hurt very badly. Using it in public should be punishable as you're just putting people in danger for no reason.

>>1193458
Protip: Don't listen to anyone who calls it "HHO." It's called a hydrolysis cell.

Not one to argue about semantics, but the term "HHO" has become synonymous with those ridiculous devices that claim to give you better gas mileage based on logic that's on the same level of retarded as perpetual motion machines.

>>1201511
Mixing the gasses from their production means the hydrolysis cell can be more than half the volume, and the placebo effect is just as strong.