So sayeth Popular Mechanics: HHO systems do not work
by Sebastian Blanco on Mar 30th 2009 at 7:54AM 
We've had our share of posts on on-board hydrogen-generating engines over the past few years, and I'm sure there will be many more. The truth is that water engine hype will always need to confront reality from time to time. When it does, the results are not pretty. Coast To Coast AM wasn't fooled, neither was Popular Mechanics. We weren't either. But, because this particular hydra has a lot (a lot) of heads, Popular Mechanics has partnered with Dateline NBC and an EPA-certified lab to bust the myth once again that burning the hydrogen in water in your engine will triple your MPG.
The details are over on Popular Mechanics, and you should head over there to read the whole thing, but the short version is that PM senior automotive editor Mike Allen has done his homework, and none of the HHO systems work as advertised. None. We'll crib just one piece of math from Allen's article: onboard hydrogen systems change much less than one percent of the air needed in the combustion process to hydrogen. And that means that it doesn't boost your MPG by 300 percent. PM and NBC spent over $1,800 to prove that HHO systems don't work. You can just read the article.
[Source: Popular Mechanics]
Photo by kseast. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
BoneHeadOtto 9:10AM (3/30/2009)
post from gorr in 3...2...1
Reply
Bobby 9:10AM (4/19/2009)
Because most of you are way to young and forgot your history, let me remind you about HYDROGEN. It burns !! One of the first BOMBS was a hydrogen bomb !! So listen carefully as I tell you this. I have a HHO SYSTEM that I built from stainless parts and it works!! I do not use anything but the HHO GEN I built for my 94 camaro. I tested and tested and tested it many times and I am now getting 25/26 mpg in city and 37/38 mpg on hwy !!! You also want to talk about how much it pulls on alternator? LMAO HA HA I have only a 15 amp fuse in the power line and in over 8 months it has NOT blown.. I also used a amp meter and it was using less that 4 amps!!! So all the OIL COMPANYS and PM and any other name company that is being paid by the OIL COMPANYS need to get their fact stright!! Also I read one were they was saying triple milage?? I have never ever seen any HHO builder ever claim that. So just remember>> Hyodrogen bomb was the first!! And no it does not take a lot to split H20.. You fools can believe what you want, I myself have proven to myself that it WORKS!!! I also have built and installed many on cars for people and they also will tell you it WORKS!! Wow look we talk on phones without wires. How many put that down? The phone companys did! But look we have it.
BoneHeadOtto 10:10AM (4/19/2009)
LMOA! That was a funny post. I myself have concluded it was funny because myself laughed at yourself. :)
Hydrogen does indeed burn, no one refutes that.
BTW the hydrogen bomb was not one of the first but one of the last mega bombs. And it did NOT burn the hydrogen. The Hindenburgh burned hydrogen. The hydrogen bomb performs fusion on the Hydrogen which is far more difficult than the fision from an Atom bomb. I should know. I built one myself and have proven to myself that it works for myself
swaan 9:35AM (3/30/2009)
This Popular Mechanics article seems useless. If you want to find ways how something doesn't work then you will definately come up with such results! The article itself is very vague and doesn't mention many details.
True, there is so much misinformation on the internet that finding valuable technologies is hard. I truly agree that much of the HHO thats being sold it utter crap.
Still, I haven't seen any debates where both the HHO wizards and the debunkers have a say.
Until then, anything is possible. Besides, why would people spend time on this open source technology for such a long time, where is the motivation if you're doing it for free?
No points for HHO. No points for Popular Mechanics.
Reply
PeterG 9:47AM (3/30/2009)
This is one lamentable by product of the internet. It tends to lend credibility to crackpot ideas and theories that would die a quick death in a less connected world. Because now the previously isolated crackpots can get together and then they feed on each other and might even drag in some passing sheep.
Sad that we even have to waste time on this pseudo-science nonsense.
Reply
Kumar 10:32AM (3/30/2009)
Were you detailing this pseudo science, or the recent unfounded hysteria over vaccinations? ;)
Lou Grinzo 2:14PM (3/30/2009)
swaan: You want a debate? It's going on right now, in a loose sense of the word, in the form of attempts to independently reproduce the results.
I'm sure there are many people in the world who would LOVE to see something like HHO work but don't believe it will and won't until they have reliable evidence that it does. This is exactly as it should be. (And I'm in that category.)
As far as having a "debate", in the more conventional usage of the word, which I think is what you intended, that's something I couldn't care less about. Data from real world tests matter. Economics matters (i.e. a working solution that's far too expensive to be widely used is of no interest). Debates? Not so much.
Reply
gorr 10:58AM (3/30/2009)
This is just a cry help. All they say is save us with a miracle or we destroy everything.
Reply
jharlan 11:20AM (3/30/2009)
It takes more energy to split water than you can get back out of burning the hydrogen. Once the reality of that little bit of chemistry and physics, you won't get taken in by these perpetual motion schemes.
After all, if it worked, we would be buying it from BMW!
Reply
Chris M 9:44PM (3/30/2009)
Well, theoretically, it might give a modest boost to fuel economy, but only by reducing power and performance. Feeding that bulky electrolyser gas into the air intake, it displaces some of the air, leaving less air to burn the fuel (petrol or diesel), so the fuel input must be reduced to prevent an excessively rich air/fuel mix. Voila! improved fuel economy, but nowhere near as much as claimed - if they gave real figures, nobody would buy it.
But since the electrolyzer gas has much less energy than the fuel/air mixture it displaces, the power and performance are greatly reduced.
Not very practical, it would be cheaper to just go light on the accelerator, and more efficient to use a smaller engine.
harlanx6 11:53PM (3/30/2009)
Doesn't the electrolyser use electricity? Where does the electricity come from? The system can't be creating energy out of nothing, can it? If it uses battery or alternator power, it is using energy to make hydrogen. I have been told there really is no free lunch, although I know you understand it better than I do, Chris.
gorr 11:37AM (3/31/2009)
Quote 'The system can't be creating energy out of nothing, can it '. It don't create energy from nothing, you call water nothing. It create energy by exploding into the cylinder. Don't call water nothing. It pocess mass so it's energy, it's just that we must slightly modified this mass before injecting it into the cylinder and after use it become water again contrary to 100% of the other fuels that don't return to their original form after use like gasoline that become toxic gas after use and don't go back to liquid gasoline after use. Water + electricity+ explosion into cylinder, then water again.
It's in the bible where mosus have said many time and i repeat to separate the water molecule in 2 to have free energy in cars and trucks and ships and trains and airplanes.and electrical generation machines.
harlanx6 11:54AM (3/31/2009)
Whaaaaaaat? Come on Gorr, you can't really believe that crap?
uppili 11:58AM (3/31/2009)
@Jharlan
Spot on! The laws of thermodynamics seems to irrelevant to the supporters of certain p[et theories!!
Chris M 5:31PM (4/02/2009)
Harlanx6, of course the electrolyser uses electricity, and that additional power demand causes a drag on the alternator, reducing power even more. But it turns out that those devices doesn't really draw all that much power, and the energy from burning the H2/O2 gas produced is insignificant. There are much better ways to improve fuel economy.
As for Gorr, he's off in a fantasy land where anything is believable. Too bad the rest of us have to reside in Reality World.
nikescar 11:53AM (3/30/2009)
This HHO idea is actually just your basic "free-energy" kookery? Imagine my surprise!
Reply
CNCMike 1:54PM (3/30/2009)
Neil Young will be running one of the many Hydorgen generators in the extended range electric Continental in the X-prize. That should give us a real world test and a real world answer once and for all.
Reply
Nathan Loiselle 6:48PM (4/01/2009)
I know that systems onboard that convert the water moisture in the air into hydrogen are crocks. And systems that convert an onboard tank of water are as well. Any person with high school chemistry knows that it takes more energy to destroy water than to create it.
However the University of Waterloo (that's where RIM and Blackberry came from) created a successful GM SUV hydrogen powered car that ran at a fuel efficiency twice that of a gasoline version of the same make and model. The downside was that you had to refuel twice as often and the system was very noisy. So hydrogen is a viable option if you can pull it out of it's suspending medium easily and at low energy. But water (or more accurately oxygen) is not an easy or low energy suspending medium.
Reply
Ron Moses 8:56AM (4/06/2009)
You can build a hydrogen generator for your vehicle for $200.00 or less.
You must remember one basic thing that many builders and installers overlook.
The reason the unit works during testing but not later is that all of the hydrogen
has been removed from the water. You must change the water! I would change the water every 175 miles.
Reply
Brian 2:02PM (6/11/2009)
You have to change the water? The hydrogen has been removed from the water? That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard! if you remove the hydrogen from water all you have left is Oxygen......NO LIQUID LEFT. Then there is whatever you used as an electrolyte, by this time is would be acidic, and cause damage to you engine