A prospective customer emailed me a while back and
asked if I had seen the Myth Busters program that busted the myth of
on-board electrolyzers. My response follows:
have not seen the Myth Busters episode but I also have absolutely no
confidence in those peons. If they tested a hydrogen generator
ALONE I would not expect them to get any mileage increase, regardless of
what 10 other companies will tell you. Hydrogen Boost is a system,
not just a hydrogen generator. The whole system is required to get any
decent mileage gain. I would assume the "myth" that was
tested is the claims of all the companies that sell just a hydrogen
generator. I would agree with the myth busters if they say that
"An onboard hydrogen generator ALONE will not increase mileage as
claimed by these companies."
said it for the 5th time today and probably for the 1500th time since
2000, "A hydrogen generator ALONE WILL NOT give
big mileage gains." To
understand why please see www.hydrogen-boost.com/complete.html
for details and explanation.
have seen a 10% drop in mileage when I have lost operation of the
hydrogen generator, like when a fuse burned out or it ran out of water,
or when the hose was out of place.
the "Myth" was: "These on board electrolyzers
don't make explosive gas (hydrogen and oxygen or Brown's
gas)" then I would have to direct you to the video clip on our
home page of three explosions, one in a zip lock bag, one in a soda
bottle, and one in the hydrogen generator itself.
While we are on the subject of Myth Busters I would
like to do a little myth busting myself.
I have answered the same questions too many times to not write a
newsletter on a few myths. We’ll
address the following:
Can you run a car on hydrogen alone from an on-board electrolyzer? Can you run two or three electrolyzers to run the car on hydrogen alone? Can you run a car on water?
Here is an email answer I gave to a question about the
The only experience I have with HydroStar
is to read their web sites. I have picked out at least four reasons
they are FOS (full of s--t).
1. You cannot run a normal gasoline vehicle on hydrogen without at
least controlling the ignition timing so that it is no sooner than a few
degrees before TDC (top dead center). The timing of a gasoline
engine is before top dead center by a big amount. Hydrogen ignites
too fast to allow this. It would cause the engine
to attempt to turn backwards if the ignition timing was not greatly
2. It takes hundreds of liters of hydrogen gas per minute just to
idle a car engine, thousands of liters of hydrogen gas per minute to
accelerate the car. Have you ever tried to separate a large amount
of gas from a small amount of liquid in a short amount of time? Yes
you have, when you opened a shaken bottle of soda. What happened
when you tried to separate about two liters of carbon dioxide gas from
one liter of liquid in about one second?
It threw all the liquid out of the bottle, didn't it? Now imagine
getting 1000 liters of hydrogen gas out of the small container called the
HydroStar in one minute (let me do the math for
you; that would be 17 liters of gas per SECOND coming out of that one
liter container). And what's even worse is that its
got to come out of that little tiny space between those stainless steel
pipes. That would mean it would be coming out from between those
pipes like a fire hose, but without taking the water with it? I don't
3. Parahydrogen and orthohydrogen
are not vastly different in energy content nor
burn rate. The main difference between para
and ortho is that one will remain a liquid
below the boiling point of hydrogen (cryogenic temperature) while the
other form will spontaneously become a gas without reaching the boiling
point. Look up parahydrogen
and orthohydrogen in any textbook or on the
internet and you will find this to be true. Only false science
wizards claim this false property of one form having vastly more
combustion energy than the other.
4. If these guys had a real plan for free energy they wouldn't sell
it for $45, they would sell it for $45 billion.
Don't get snookered,
Here is an answer to another email by another
prospective customer concerning the recent video that aired on CNN and
The video is deceiving. It said that the car
engine could be run completely on HHO (Brown's gas), which is true if the
gas is produced by a huge electrolyzer pluged into the wall, but the gas cannot be is stored
in a pressurized container and taken in the car. And the car cannot
be run on the gas being made on the fly in the car. Of course they
don't say that because they want you to
believe their electrolyzer is some miraculous
invention, which it is not. If
they told the whole truth people would understand that its
just an electrolyzer like all the others, and
they wouldn't be getting all the attention. Just like a couple
years ago when Xogen was getting wide spread
attention when they claimed they were producing over-unity quantities of
gas with their pulsing electronic controller. That too proved in
the end to be false interpretation of their simple electrolyzer.
In fact they had the same efficiency as normal steady DC
electrolysis. Same thing goes for Kline. In fact I am so
unimpressed with Kline's patent, I am surprised
it was issued. Patents are
supposed to be for "NEW" ideas. His patent drawings look
almost like carbon copies of the previously published and marketed Hyzor technology electrolyzer
plans from George Wiseman of Eagle Research. I doubt Kline's patent
would ever stand up in court if someone copied his design and pointed
out the Hyzor plans to the judge.
Will pulsed DC current produce more gas than steady DC
I have seen many claims of over-unity gas production by people
using pulsing DC but so far they have all proven to be misunderstandings
of unity gas production. Until someone can show over-unity gas
production I am not interested in wasting any more of my time chasing
after a golden goose.
Xogen claimed over unity, they were only 75% efficient.
George Wiseman claimed over-unity.
Stanley Meyer claimed
over-unity, which got all this hoopla about pulsing started, but at least
Meyer's claim was supposedly with high voltage. Check out what happened to Stan at
these links: http://www.waterfuelcell.org/moreinfo.html and http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/c310437cd1cee1e7
video I watched of Stanley Meyer’s great pulsed DC electrolysis
demonstration showed no great amount of gas production. Sure it
fogged the water up with tiny bubbles but that's not a lot of gas
production. Same thing goes for the Xogen
video. You can tell by watching
the top of the water level. If it doesn't expand by a large amount,
all the fogged water doesn't amount to a lot of gas. Show me a gas
production of two liters per minute in a one liter container and I'll
show you an overflowing container unless it was only half full to start
with. Kind of like a shaken soda bottle when it is opened.
Don't be fooled by videos and claims. To make lots of hydrogen out
of water, you still have to get it out of the water and that is still the
process of bubbles coming to the top and popping. No hydrogen
generator does that faster than ours in a smaller space that ours with
less electrical power than ours.
far as running a car on hydrogen from an on-board electrolyzer
let us do some calculations: A
proper air to fuel mixture by volume for hydrogen combustion would be
about 3:1. That means that ¼ of
the space in the cylinder must be hydrogen and ¾ must be air. Taking a 4 liter 4 stroke engine at
1000 RPM you would have 2000 liters per minute going through the
engine. At 4000 RPM you would have
8000 liters going through the engine and 2000 liters of that would be
hydrogen. So to run the car you’d
need a hydrogen production rate of about 2000 liters per minute. There are about 36 liters in one cubic
feet of space. If you divide 36
into 2000 you would have to have about 56 cubit feet of space inside a
properly designed electrolyzer in order to
supply enough hydrogen to run the car.
That’s if you had the energy on board to split the water into hydrogen and
oxygen. Actually you’d have to
have 84 cubic feet because the oxygen gas would have to come out of the
water as well as the hydrogen. So
if you could properly design an electrolyzer
the size of the entire back seat and storage area of an SUV, you might be
able to get the gases out of the water without sucking water into the
engine. But then there is the
problem of the energy required to electrolyze the water, but I guess some
people seem to think that pulsing the electrical power will do that
miracle. So a general rule of
thumb would be the statement I typically say to most people who ask this
question. “To run the car on
hydrogen produced by an on-board electrolyzer,
the electrolyzer would have to be bigger than
Conclusion: Myths Busted. Nobody has proven over-unity hydrogen
production yet. To have an onboard
electrolyzer producing the fuel to run a car,
the electrolyzer would have to be bigger than
the car. Nobody has proven to me
to run a car on water yet. Pulsing
DC is no golden goose.
Now if you visit the Water Fuel Museum you’ll see a
car that supposedly ran on water, but it didn’t run on hydrogen produced
from water on-board. Herman
Anderson, the builder of the car explained that he produced a nuclear
reaction in his standing wave electrolyzer, and
used radiolysis with soft x-ray radiation as well pulsed DC at 14 volts
intermittently with 70,000 volts, to collapse hydrogen into Deuterium an
essential component of nuclear fusion.
Then the produced Deuterium charged gas was mixed with a fine
mist/cloud of water in the combustion chamber and “ignited” by the
spark. There may have been a
release of nuclear energy in a fusion reaction in the combustion chamber. This may have produced nuclear energy
to run the car but it didn’t run the car on combusted hydrogen produced
Another sign of a water car myth is when plans for
conversion of a car to run on water spouts off about having to change to
stainless steel valves and stainless steel exhaust system. This is a sign of ignorance on the part
of the author or the scam plans. A
gasoline powered internal combustion engine already has lots of water in
the exhaust because it burns hydro-carbons containing hydrogen and carbon. More than half of the exhaust products of burning gasoline is water vapor, and the
other part is Carbon dioxide. So
if you see plans to run a car on water and it says you should change to
stainless steel exhaust and valves, you know the idiot who wrote the
plans knows nothing about chemistry.
Note that those plans also have very small “reactors” to change
the water to hydrogen and oxygen.
Refer to the discussion above about the size of rector you would
need even if you could carry the energy required to split the water.
Addendum January 2008: The following is a part of a post on
Yahoo group Water4gas by the most famous guy (Since Stanley Meyer) in the
Run-a-car-on-water movement who has claimed to develop a method to run a
vehicle on water only. I think the
truth speaks for itself.
From: Paul <Paul@ZigourasRacing.com>
Subject: Re: [Water4Gas] ECM's (electronic control modules) by Paul Zigouras
Date: Oct 7, 2007 6:18 PM
Getting a motor to run
on HHO gas is very easy; anyone can do that. Getting it to run without
killing the battery is what's almost impossible. We've never seen any system that can run an engine with power
to spare, other than Meyer's. Even our best system showed a net
loss at the end, and would not run forever. You can't run a V8 on just 20% overunity, which is the most we've ever gotten out of
HHO gas. You can't even run it on 200% overunity.
You'll need at least 300% or more OU to get any usable power out of a
standard chevy V8 engine (and that's assuming
the engine is 30% efficient and the alternator is at least 80%
efficient). And those numbers are a strech,
because older equipment is not quite as efficient as that.
Apparently even Paul believed in the myth of
Stanley Meyer who was convicted of fraud
over this whole water car charade.