To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: HHO explosion slowing down the burn speed of HHO to get compatible with gasoline  (Read 43399 times)

Offline d3adp00l

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
Stephan, I didn't mention anything about engine longevity, so I wonder why you did? Many common metals don't suffer from hydrogen enbrittlement, there plenty of info on the subject.

By trying to get a normal engine to run properly on hho, and actually realize the full potential of the fuel is like trying to break the speed of sound on land with a flathead engine design. You missed my point.

Heck, before I ran my engine, and then the generator, I don't remember anyone even begin able to even attempt to be able to answer the question of how much hho does it take to run an engine on hho. Someone had to know that info, but it sure wasn't public knowledge.

And the energy output of a conventional engine for a given amount of hho hasn't even been recorded by most of the people who are now working with engines.

Here is the fact running hho in a conventional engine will never self run, never ever, ever.

The engine will have to be at least 80% eff. to achieve a COP of greater than 1, well at least if you do the energy calcs properly thats the indication.

The process has to start somewhere, and it has, the point is to start with the proven and work on, not try to dumb down the fuel, (heck first define the fuel) but to work with the fuel and its properties.

Offline Les Banki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
"we need just one guy getting a HHO generator produce enough gas to run a generator
and have the generator output looped back to the HHO Generator to produce the HHO gas
in a selfrunning mode."


Here in Melbourne (Australia) it is common knowledge that we had/have such a guy who got his first car running on water, 30 years ago now and the second one (a large van) about 10 years ago, with the "government's" blessing, provided that he keeps his mouth shut!!!

Both cars are still running to this day.  (and he is still NOT talking!)

No, this is NOT a 'fairy tale' story.  I know Peter (his real name)  personally and have seen his first car about 15 years ago. 
He told us (yes, several people present in my workshop) the whole story himself.

(If you are interested, I will try to make time to write it down and post it.)

Yet, we have people right here who will tell you that: 
"Here is the fact running hho in a conventional engine will never self run, never ever, ever. "

This Forum, just like most Forums, is INFESTED with oh-so-educated 'know-alls', nay-sayers, skeptics, loud mouth amateur and professional, paid "debunkers" and general trouble makers.
Some of them are getting absolutely DESPERATE in their efforts to discredit!
I have a great respect for your patience with those posters.
Mind you, I have extremely 'thick skin' myself.
I DO NOT argue.
I make statements but ONLY about things I know for certain.

Sure, everyone is entitled to have an opinion and express it, without censorship.
However, if ALL readers could learn to IGNORE all the negativity and abuse and never responded, those posts would disappear very quickly!

Having monitored this Forum daily for something like 6 years, I could tell you heaps about a lot of the 'posters'.  (Keep in mind that I also studied psychology.)

Best regards,
Les Banki

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8122
    • free energy research
Hi Les,
many thanks for your support.
Yes please post the story of your friend Peter.
We will see how the new HHO cell that is developed by a German user will work out.
When we will build up a 133 plate cell driven directly from the 2 KW output of the generator to get about 2.4 Volts per 2 series plates, we will see, if the power output will be enough to generate enough HHO mixed with air to run the generator.

Offline d3adp00l

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
Les in one way I say your right, but in another I say your full of it.

First I don't care about fanatsy stories, of mythical people and ideas. So if there is something to what you said, guess what it doesn't matter a bit, why? Simple if it isn't being implimented it doesn't exist. So your buddy Peter is either a liar, a coward, or just imagining things.

You can say whatever you want about me, but guess what, I can PROVE myself can you?

Second, you are so fast to jump on the bandwagon that I am being negative, that you missed what I really said. You picked the one line that suited you and ran with it, instead of reading what I wrote in completion, and looking into what I have done in the field.

So long as you are promoting stuff that supposedly exists, and not working on what really exists you are hindering progress, and wasting peoples time in pursuits that are fruitless, because there is always some missing part or mystical thing that no one else can repeat but the inventor.

Stephan this place is filled with it. If you really want to push towards success, then reality needs to be accepted, explained and understood, so it can be built upon

I mean for God's sake look where this stuff was in mid 2006, virtually nothing was concrete and no real progress was made.

Now we understand down to a science, an electrolysis device and its attributes. If we are going to exceed what it can do right now, then we need to understand how and why it works in the first place.

so called educators who claim to know something are just as bad as so called devices that work but cant be replicated.

I am neither, I actually do it, and others can actually repeat it.

As the old saying goes, put up or shut up, on both sides of the fence

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
d3adp00l , you just said you could "prove yourself"... So please show how you intend to do so regarding your rude and uncalled-for reply to Mr. Banki's statements.

...We all know that you certainly cannot "prove" those derogatory and ad-hominem comments you made. 

You are giving us your opinion there; over things that your really have no personal knowledge of. "Opinion" is no excuse for slandering people who post here, just because you don't like what they say.

I wish you and many peeps here could understand the underlying importance of avoiding this "negative pole field" to the continued health of OU and other similar forums. WTH is the intent with that stuff anyway.. To brow-beat or disgust people into not posting?? Whether it is the intent or not, with many i have spoken to, it is certainly the result (... Disgust).   

As it happens Mr. Banki has related parts of this story before; in a published and well-known documentary on Free Energy suppressions; and i think we are lucky to have him post here... As many of us have seen this vid and have wanted to hear more about these particular incidents for a long time now.

So Mr. Banki, please disregard! And tell us more about this famous water car. Also if you can do so, please tell us about your deceased friend as well... So we may help honor him and his work.

Offline d3adp00l

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
Easy to prove my statement in regard to Les's reply to my statement, There is not proof of his claim, lack of proof and yet a claim makes my statement stand, until such time that he can counter my claim with proof of his.

You speak of ad hominem, well then first speak to Les which opened such discussion towards me. Which I did not respond to in such methods, I responded with the fact that I can prove what I know and have discovered.

I spoke to the effect of his rhetoric and not to his character, I did speak of the character or qualities of the individual he was quoting claims of.

I wish you would understand the amount of time and money people waste here following bogus claims, and not building on eachothers work.

If Les has talked about this "story" before, thats fine, but it is truely off topic, it is clear that in this case it is only an ad hominem display to counter my statement about a conventional gasoline engines being able to run on hho in a self running manner.

Because if I am in fact correct in my statement it makes his story untrue, and he takes that offensively.

Again you claim a negativity which is unfounded, the claim in and of itself is ad hominem for the simple fact that I was discussing a matter of fact and proof. The individual is one of those three, unless my claim can be legitamately refuted, which is a statement of fact, not an attack, as it was stated.

As far as free energy suppressions go, again you can only prove it has been suppressed by proving that a person invented, which would mean it would be repeatable, and could be re-invented now. There are many suppressions going on that can be proven, but those who do the suppressing can not stop something from being rediscovered, they are not able to stop physics from happening for you.

Les on the contrary gave his opinion to my statement, and then gave an unsupported claim of his oppinion on an invention which he has no understanding of. If he had an understanding of it he would be able to replicate it, since he has no understanding of it, he can not make any claims of its function which out it being opinion.

If he wants to tell us about this car, then please tell us how it works, or convey what he was told (and why he thinks its true) so that it might be replicated. And if replicated the originator of the concept may be given full credit for his work.

Short of that, its fanatasy, and that is not going to help anyone move forward.

Jib I ask you what direct knowledge of this subject do you have? What tests have you done? What can you claim and then prove?

What I have found is open for people to see on youtube, well at least some of it is, what I am currently working on is not yet, WHY? Because until I can prove it, demonstrate it, and have others be able to replicate it, it is a theory, which is not fact.

And there is your proof. Now would you like to talk about reality of hho, or would you like to hear a nice bed time story?

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Les in one way I say your right, but in another I say your full of it.

First I don't care about fanatsy stories, of mythical people and ideas. So if there is something to what you said, guess what it doesn't matter a bit, why? Simple if it isn't being implimented it doesn't exist. So your buddy Peter is either a liar, a coward, or just imagining things.

You can say whatever you want about me, but guess what, I can PROVE myself can you?


"Liar" and "Coward" are certainly "ad hominem" words , used for character assassination.

Reading over Les' previous statements, he was referring to people here generally, not to you specifically and personally: Therein lies the difference between his comments and yours.

It was up to you to take them personally, as you appeared to do  (prompting the over-the-top reply). As you appear to have taken mine personally as well. 

Please quote the words that i said to you that were "ad hominem" in nature... Since you can "prove yourself", i am sure this would be no problem for you to do.

... Yet your last set of comments did not give any proofs why you made the above "Liar" and "Coward" statements.  Because, as we all knew, you have no personal knowledge at all of the person you slandered. This is a "fact", not "opinion"... "Opinion is what you obviously based your derogatory and personal comments on.

The comments regarding hydroxy are meaningless here... It is not about that or even your disagreement with Mr. Banki... It is about you attacking someone with rude and uncalled for language and getting called on it.

If this was not your intent, as you seem to imply, then perhaps you should apologize to the recipient.

So what shall i prove to you then? That your comments were ill-advised? I will let the others here read it for themselves and judge ;)

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8122
    • free energy research

in your tests with your generator here:

how many watts of input power did you use to run this blue generator
in this idle mode ?

Did you try a load test with a light on the output of the generator
or simular 300 to 500 Watts load ?

Did you try to close the loop ?
What kind of generator is this ?

Many thanks.

Offline Les Banki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Hi Stefan,

It is not clear from your post if the 2.4V is across 2 series OR 2 parallel cells.
I assume you intend to run a series cell eletrolyzer directly from the mains, (220VAC in Germany), full wave rectified but DO NOT filter it!

For 220V you should have 110 cells for maximum efficiency.
(you should NOT exceed 2V per cell!)
And yes, the SERIES cells arrangement is the only way to go! 

Cells operating at voltages higher than, say, 2.5V, is a waste of time and effort.
Further, current density should be no higher than 30 - 40mA per square cm
Calculate plate sizes accordingly.

Also, distance between plates should be no more than 3mm and as EVEN as possible. 
SS 316L is the best material for the plates.

DO NOT  use chemicals to clean them and cross hatch them (by hand) with emery paper.
DO NOT touch by hand!  Use gloves.
(Same instructions as Bob Boyce has published repeatedly over the years.)

If all these points are observed, you WILL produce high quality hydroxy and you will only need 1 to 4% of hydroxy and 99 - 96% air.
You will have MORE THAN ENOUGH to run the engine AND have power left over!

Have fun!  You will enjoy the result!

Best regards,
Les Banki

Ps.  I wrote the above last night but could not post it since the server was down.

Today I am adding the following:

‘jibbguy’ – thank you for your support and understanding the psychological aspects.
However, in future, PLEASE IGNORE  all attacks.  DO NOT RESPOND!
Not only am I not offended, I find it amusing and entertaining and often these kind of posts give me a good laugh.  (I suppose I got a “weird” sense of humor!)

BTW, I phoned and old friend today.  He is Peter’ next door neighbor since Peter moved  a few years ago. (from Moorabbin, a suburb about 10 minutes drive from where I am).
He was telling me that Peter is still ‘at it’, at 77 years of age and of the many inventions since the water cars, etc.
Some of these inventions/discoveries are almost “out of this world”!
Further, he told me (for the first time), that he has not only read but physically holding it in his hand, a letter from the Queen, telling Peter that if he ever released his water car technology, there would be “dire consequences”!!

There is more to come…..
Stand by for a hell of a story….!

Offline d3adp00l

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
You missed the word either, and in fact you missed the direct quote from me by Les, so again your point fails. Further more if this man is holding world changing information out of fear, THAT IS COWARDICE in my book, that is not ad hominem that is an observation. Or he is a liar, which is a statement of fact or fiction.

You really need to learn what context and comprehension means.

Again I point you to the direct quote of me by Les, that is directed, not a general statement. It was masked along with a general state to enable pluasable deniability, thinnly veiled.

The proof is in the claim of having the information and not getting it out to the public, or not having the ability to get it out due to its lack of existance.

Furthermore again you need to learn context, my reference of proof, was to what I know in the area of  hho and how it contradicts the claims made, the difference is that I can prove what i know, and he can not, or will not.

You called out something you didnt read and understand.

I will not apologize since there is nothing to les to apologize for, I didnt call him anything, but a distraction.

As far as people reading the comments if they can not understand english in context then there is nothing I can do for them.

You stand corrected sir. End of story.

Back to hho,

Les it has been my observations that closer to 25 ma per sq cm is more eff, but a high threshold of 40 ma is acceptable, although the cell will heat up.
Also you need to specific the method of 4%, which method are you using.

As far as his threatening letter, that is all the more reason to do something about it.


idle can be achieved with as little as 4.5 LPM around 800 watts.

output of 400watts has been achieved with 2300watts input, 12.5LPM, since that was the max output of the cell at the time that was the upper limit.

More importantly it has been found, and replicated that a 20%hho to 80%normal air ratio is needed to  run the engine, any less than that and it is too lean to operate. This is by volume.

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
I have done some experiments today and it seems quite fine to add voltage in normal tap water without baking soda or salt. The water produce HHO, but the production is quite slow. I now spend about 40W power, 28V at approx 1.4A, and it produce about 1dl HHO in 5 minutes.

The air mix in HHO does seem to slow down burn time. If I try to light the gas very close to the bubbles in the bubler, the gas explodes very fast. If I move the lighter 1 - 2cm away, there is much duller bang - as it burns slower I guess.


Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Hi try this company if you want som good cells. There about as good as any I have seen plus ou can get their 25 litre a minute nits and string them together.
Kind Regards

Offline vrand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Hi try this company if you want som good cells. There about as good as any I have seen plus ou can get their 25 litre a minute nits and string them together.
Kind Regards

Nope, it is basically a heater unit that makes steam.  The series cells are NOT sealed from each other so the water/electrolyte flows around the neutral plates to the end plates. So no gases are produced by the "neutral center cells" in the "Supernova" 25LPM cell (claimed).

Also, NO REFUND or WARRANTY on the $999 price.  Buyer beware.


Offline CompuTutor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
A few years ago I saw a video from a guy, ( before youtube was born)
who had mixed with an aquarium airpump lots of air into a Y-hose together
with very little HHO coming from his small electrolyzer.

The flame which came out of his air and HHO mix hose was burning very slowly
and was not explosive at all.
It reminded me of the flame of just gasoline or a candle.

That is right Stefan,
when HHO (Actually an incorrect name...)
is matched 2:1 in proper stoichiometric ratio
it is has the fastest flame propagation of any gas.

At the moment of electrolysis it is stoichiometric,
but any and all stages after that it is unbalanced.

Even les unknowingly (by holding that jet just outside of the intake)
dilutes the ratio and greatly changes the burn rate.

If fact,
unless the engine ran closed loop from the cell
with no other input of air of any kind
it would no longer be a stoichiometric ratio.

However that is a stupid idea...

Look for the video of a small cox engine
run directly off of an electrolysis stack.

LOL, it turns white hot just before it seizes.
Takes just under twelve seconds or so...

Very impressive display of to hot / to fast.

If forcibly diluted with an airpump it does burn way slower.

and keep hydrogen peroxide far far away
unless you understand the resulting mix!

Fuel with to much oxidizer
and nitrogen also
slows burn rates,
plainly put,
air + HHO equals slower burn.

Add water mist and your way farther ahead
of the whole implosion loss issue,
try ultrasonic humidifier replacement boards.
They are all over eBay and elsewhere.

But either way,
the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is made
to run on a slower burning fuel.

A fuel that delivers force during a large portion
of the entire power stroke of the piston.

Hydrogen will never be adaptable to this.

using HHO to catalyze or ignite other mixtures
that wouldn't otherwise burn normally in an ICE
is an excellent use of it.

Like very lean mixtures from a fuel reformer (GEET),
or steam/mist of water from an external device.

Remember the ratio of water to vapour WILL
easily propel the piston through It's full stroke (Meyer).
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 04:19:44 AM by CompuTutor »

Offline chessnyt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
    • My YouTube Channel
This question is for whoever can field it:

Regarding engine operation; there are a lot of youtube videos (as well as other HHO site resources) that state that igniting HHO in the cylinder causes a suction (implosion) and therefore pulls or sucks on the piston and draws it towards the cylinder head.  Then there is also a lot of videos and the like that claim the ignition of HHO gases in an ICE cylinder causes the gas to explode and pushes the piston away from the cylinder head in the same way gasoline would.  Could someone please tell me which is the case?

Many thanks in advance,