Talk:HHO Gas

Hoax?

I couldn't find any reference to an "HHO gas", apart from the company claiming they make it. I'm a chemistry students, and I've never heard of this. The article claims it's "A polymer of water", but acording to the description it sounds like an isomer. The article on water makes no mention of isomeric forms either. okedem 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not A Hoax

I did find some info on this somewhere (i dont remember where, sry about that) and ur right about it being an isomer, jus wrote the wrong word -sorry about that too

Found My Source

I found that site i was talking about

The site you listed is not a scientific website. I meant an actual, serious, source (like a article in a scientific journal). This site's claims are unbased and sometimes just plain preposterous, like this one:

"As the gas flame hits cold metal, you instantly see water vapor condensing on the surface, followed by the pooling and dripping of water. (This author has witnessed this first-hand). When collected, the water exhibits amazing characteristics. In some (many) instances, it takes on the properties of what it is exposed to -- not in a physical reproduction, but in essence. The ramifications of this aspect alone could be nearly as revolutionary as Xerox. Think chemistry, cosmetics, medicine, herbology, essential oils, etc. Now you can get the magical properties of your favorite substance mass produced for a tiny fraction of the cost. This facet deserves extensive research and development."

This claim has no scientific grounds, and sounds about as credible as Homeopathy.

I could find no evidence that there even exists an isomer of water, and no mention of this "HHO gas" at all, apart from this company's website, and sites reporting about their claims. okedem 06:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He has a patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=dennis.INNM.&s2=Klein.INNM.&OS=IN/dennis+AND+IN/Klein&RS=IN/dennis+AND+IN/Klein

What about that video that has been circulating around the Internet? For example: [1] Julyo 02:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Also [2] Julyo 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of these videos, but, to be frank, they're crap. They provide no evidence or data on this "HHO Gas". The claims made there are very improbable. To make it clear - you can't get energy from water. You can use electricity to split water to hydrogen and oxygen molecules (NOT atoms) - H2, O2, and then burn them in some fashion to get energy, but you still need to invest more energy in splitting the water (no engine is 100% efficient). Except for the car thing, which doesn't seem very credible (He says it can run exclusively on water, but oh so conviently it's currently a water/gas hybrid, so it can't really be tested).

The burner seems like a simple Hydrogen/Oxygen thing, nothing special here. The problem is mainly with the claim of a new substance, "HHO Gas". There's been no evidence to support it. okedem 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Links, sorta psuedo-intellectual but the best there is.

http://www.watertorch.com/whatis/whatis1.html http://www.watertorch.com/faq/faq1.html

wwhttp://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/whatis.html

Well, they just prove my point: "Eagle-Research Inc. defines Brown's Gas (BG) as:

The total mixture of gasses that evolve by electrolyzing water in an electrolyzer specifically designed NOT to separate the gasses. The BG mixture consists of diatomic hydrogen, monatomic hydrogen, diatomic oxygen, monatomic oxygen, water vapor and electrically expanded water." (my bold)

They give no proof for the existence of monoatomic hydrogen of oxygen, and it's highly unlikely to find them in this form in gas phase.

And even worse:

"Q. If you want to neutralize radioactive waste, then:

A. Brown's Gas is the answer to the largest problem the nuclear industry faces today!"

What does this have to do with radioactive waste?! How will a good gas torch do anything for radioactive waste? This is absurd! okedem 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out the links on Yull Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yull_Brown#External_links, he's the inventor of the gas that's proper name is Brown's Gas not HHO gas. The gas is supposedly made up of 36 isomers and allotropes, and the claims are much less than those up on other websites - also note that Eagle-Research is classed as promotional for its research as it's owned by a company that sells it. Also all those claims are possible if what they describe as true, burning in open air it should have a low BTU output as it's a gas with low density but as soon as you push it up against anything you increase the reaction rate dramatically which pushes up the BTU. Imploding would also be possible, this is (AFAIK) what happens when balloons are filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas although the reaction causes an explosion afterwards due to thermal heating. Finally Brown's Gas doesn't claim to be a free-energy and claims none of the radioactive waste treatment or anything else which is purported by other sources, it is apparently just another way of making H2-O2 gas through electrolysis and requires more energy to make than it creates. However if factually correct it would be a serious competitor for hydrogen fuel cells, which also require more energy in than they get out but this is negated by the fact solar powered cars don't work well and nuclear powered cars would make most people die of fear.--83.100.248.24 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article?

I noticed that this talk page is months older than the article, which is now 1 day old, meaning that the article was likely deleted and recreated. In addition, this is an iffy topic. Not sure what to do with this. --Xyzzyplugh 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the source was Aquygen. [3] You can go to the website and find the scientific articles, press releases and other information. My long research was completely disregarded because people felt it was a hoax. The article was deleted after only being up for less than 24 hours. Rules state that an article can only be deleted after 5 days. I will be recreating the article again and again until evidence is shown directly to people that it is not a hoax. I dont care if I am banned. I only report factual information as it is known. boyohio02 23:22 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot provide credible sources for these claims (peer-reviewed journal articles, for instance), they constitute "original research", and cannot be reported here - see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia can only report what reputible sources say on the topic, not what a company claims.

Quite frankly, these claims seem absurd, and I find the evidence lacking. A claim of 20-30% improvement in gas efficiency? How, exactly? The site doesn't even mention what the HHO producing device uses for energy. The only external reference I could find in the site was to news reports on Fox and CNN - not very impressive... okedem 05:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoax is actually a Scam

"HHO" is not merely a hoax; it is a con game, and the con artists are using Wikipedia to promote their scam. Take a look at this site (scroll about one screen down, to the screenshot of Wikipedia).

HHO should not "redirect" to "Oxyhydrogen" (nor should "HHO gas", or "HHO Gas"), because there is no such chemical terminology as HHO. Water is referred to as "H₂O, or sometimes even as HOH (reflecting the chemical nature of water, with the O joining two hydrogens), but never referred to as HHO. The only reason people would refers to water as HHO is with the intent to deceive people.

This Wiki redirect is being used to steal money from people; it should be removed and then protected so that the con artists do not put it back up. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)