Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.

[TinselKoala]

Can someone enlighten me please, what is so special about HHO, isn't it just two lots of hydrogen gas mixed with one lot of oxygen by volume?

Oxygen and hydrogen both exist normally as diatomic molecules, H₂ and O₂.  This is what you get bubbling up from the electrodes in any normal electrolysis cell.
All normal gases at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) occupy 22.4 liters per mole of gas. One mole of water H₂O weighs 18 grams, of which 16 grams are oxygen and 2 grams are hydrogen. So you get one-half mole of O₂ (one mole of O₂ is 32 grams) and one mole of H₂, per mole of water electrolyzed. This means you should be getting  11.2 + 22.4 = 33.6 liters of gas at STP per mole of water. However, "HHO" implies two moles of monoatomic hydrogen plus one mole of monoatomic oxygen per mole of water. So this means you should be getting 3 x 22.4 liters = 67.2 liters of "HHO" gas at STP, per mole (18 grams) of water electrolyzed.  As far as I am aware, nobody has ever actually proven, by gas volume measurements, that such a thing as "HHO" gas actually exists as a product of electrolysis at all.
Of course, maybe amongst its other magical properties, "HHO" gas also violates the combined Boyle-Charles universal gas law.

[Paul-R]

As far as I am aware, ... nobody has proven ...  that such a thing as "HHO" gas actually exists as a product of electrolysis at all.

Some ridiculous chancer tried to sue (I believe it was Bob Boyce) for calling the products of his electrolysis (strictly speaking, water fracturing) hydroxy gas. They reckoned they had ownership of the word "hydroxy" despite the fact that it has been used as the label for an ionic radical since Victorian times (along with "hydroxyl"). And so it was mandated that everyone call the gas HHO.

The trouble with these fruit bats is that they can have pots of money to spend in court.

[tinman]

Can someone enlighten me please, what is so special about HHO, isn't it just two lots of hydrogen gas mixed with one lot of oxygen by volume?

What other fuel do you know of that turns back into it's raw state when burnt.
What other ash from burnt fuel can be refined to become that fuel again-over and over.

All you have to do now is find a way to create the HHO for less energy than you get from burning it.

Holly sh-t,i just had a braingasm.

[Paul-R]

Can someone enlighten me please, what is so special about HHO, isn't it just two lots of hydrogen gas mixed with one lot of oxygen by volume?

TK's words are right on the money. But it should be added that HHO is what you get from electrolysis or water fracturing of most types. It comes in EXACT stoichiometric proportions and is therefore explosive and difficult to store and handle. It burns with a flame front which travels supersonically and the bang or crack can damage or puncture ear drums. It is best generated and used at the same time, preferably being pumped straight into a combustion engine to produce improved performance. Do not underestimate the hazards.

[markdansie]

Having spent several years working with and testing for a variety of companies making automotive HHO products I submit the following. All up we used some of the best labs in the world and hundreds of thousands of dollars
The following results are based on research with diesel engines. You can expect more with gasoline because of the difference in the  nature of combustion. The following conclusions are not specific and more like a generalization after analysis of thousands of on road studies, and engine lab testing results[/font][/size]
Before proceeding I have never found a HHO device that could run an engine in a closed loop arrangement (Water for Fuel) without an additional fuel source. In every instance they turned out to be scams or would not allow testing .[/font][/size]TestingIt should be noted that engine lab tests often yield different results to on road tests. There are several reasons for this.
1. The human Element. In the lab the is removed. On road tests using a double blind method often netted better than 15% improvements when the driver thought he had the system turned on and it was not functional. We had the reverse where no improvement was recorded when it was turned on and they we led to believe it was turned off[/font][/size]
2. The extra power meant that taller gears could be used up hills, this is not reflected in lab engine tests but was recorded in Dyno tests.[/font][/size]
3. Using a smog meter from a smog shop did not compare with results of using instrumentation available n the labs. Often they were out by 70% or more especially measuring NOx[/font][/size]
4. Traffic and weather can distort results with road tests and are removed in lab conditions.[/font][/size]
5. Long term road tests run over several months proved to provide the most reliable results, especially when the same driver and route was used.[/font][/size]
6. In at least one engine lab test we actually took over all the functions of the ECM so no other variable could come into play. Many of the setting were set and did not vary.[/font][/size]
The HHO devices tested over many years ranged form simple backyard plastic devices to professionally well built and engineered units costing many thousands of dollars. The main difference was the efficiency of production of gas and the quality of the gas. Typically a well built unit consumed around 150 watts of electricity to produce 1 liter per minute of HHO. Some of the bad ones took over 400 watts. The less efficient ones ran at much higher temperatures.[/font][/size]
Many units also through poor design allowed a lot of water vapor to be transported with the gas...this was not a problem unless it contained KOH in high concentrations which then corroded engines.[/font][/size]