Water and Electricity DO mix.

**Axeman** · May 05, 2008, 04:36 PM

Wow, this is so crazy!

**eventhorizen** · May 05, 2008, 05:06 PM

Read about the story from someone other than FOX News and it turns out to be a complete fraud.

What a surprise.

**H_man** · May 05, 2008, 05:09 PM

This seems too good to be true. How much electricity is used to make that, and how is it possible to use a mere 4 oz. of water for a 100 mile trip? I have no idea how this apparently defies the laws of thermodynamics. I am mystified.

**LSJ** · May 05, 2008, 06:45 PM

It is a lie!

HHO is impossible.
The only possible setup would be H-H=O
But since when can hydrogen have three bonds?
If this were real, he'd have won an internationally recognized prize in chemistry/physics.

**H_man** · May 05, 2008, 06:59 PM

@DarkProphet

Indeed, but since when did Fox ever take science seriously?

**Simetrical** · May 05, 2008, 08:14 PM

A lot of what he's saying is true. Some is misleading, and none is novel. What he discusses is basically the use of hydrogen gas as a fuel. This is nothing special. I have no doubt that the blowtorch he showcases is, in fact, completely legit, using water plus electricity to create a flame exactly as claimed. The claim about a car going 100 miles on four ounces of hydrogen seems improbable, but even if it's true, it's nothing special: this is just the hydrogen-powered car that everyone has been talking about for years. He fails to mention that you still have to electrolyze the water, using power probably generated by fossil fuels; in no case is the water itself a fuel source, only (effectively) a battery. Any chemical process that begins with water and ends with water cannot produce energy; it can only consume it.

For more info, you can read the Wikipedia article on oxyhydrogen.

Originally Posted by DarkProphet

It is a lie!

HHO is impossible.
The only possible setup would be H-H=O
But since when can hydrogen have three bonds?
If this were real, he'd have won an internationally recognized prize in chemistry/physics.

The substance is not a molecular compound. It's a homogeneous mixture of two parts hydrogen gas to one part oxygen gas (by moles).

**LSJ** · May 05, 2008, 09:28 PM

They said he turned H2O into "HHO gas", which implies its a molecule, so its a bad mistake on their part then.

Its like saying NaCl when you mean one part pure sodium, one part chlorine gas. But its FOX, so I'm not surprised.

**Simetrical** · May 06, 2008, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by DarkProphet

They said he turned H2O into "HHO gas", which implies its a molecule, so its a bad mistake on their part then.

Its like saying NaCl when you mean one part pure sodium, one part chlorine gas. But its FOX, so I'm not surprised.

The name "HHO gas" is apparently Klein's name for it, not FOX's.

**Banned** · May 06, 2008, 02:26 AM

I think what he's referring to is an electrochemical cell consisting of hydrogen on the anode side (as oxidant) and oxygen on the cathode side (as reductant). But obtaining energy directly from water simply isn't possible. You need to separate the components of water before you can make use of hydrogen and oxygen to generate power, and this can only be possible by the process of electrolysis which entails breaking down the molecules of water using electric current. However, as the energy required for electrolysis would be equal to the energy produced by the use of platinum as catalyst in the reaction occurring in the hydrogen fuel cell, there's no doubt that you would definitely be spending on fuel regardless of everything, as electrolysis itself requires energy in the form of electric current. If it were possible to use less energy than produced by the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, it would be against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed, and the total amount of energy and matter in the system remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. But there have been similar concepts hypothesized by people in the past that violate this law. These were just claims, though. One such example is Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell.

**Ulf** · May 05, 2008, 09:56 PM

I've got it, they drove a regular internal combustion engine car 100 miles and the driver drank 4 ounces of water to stay hydrated.

seems plausible.

**Flogger** · May 06, 2008, 10:42 AM

Uh, if it's hotter than the surface of the Sun, shouldn't it be a much brighter colour?

**Simetrical** · May 06, 2008, 11:11 AM

Extremely bright colors don't carry over into videos. Quite possibly it is a brighter color. Have you ever looked at a blowtorch? It's like looking into the Sun: it hurts, you can damage your eyes. That's why welders wear welding masks. But it would be fairly stupid design if your computer monitor displayed colors so bright they hurt your eyes.

It's true that he looks directly at the flame with unshielded eyes, though. Not sure how that could work. Also, if the flame were that bright, it would probably appear white on the camera, even if it emitted more blue light than anything else. Hydrogen has a very low burning point, compared to the temperature of the Sun, so it does seem a little dodgy.

It doesn't seem that much of any common man-made process tends to approach the temperature of the Sun's surface, in fact. The temperature of the Sun is well above the boiling point of iron: you wouldn't just fuse a hole in that piece of scrap metal, it would drip to the floor if you held it there for a bit. Apparently dicyanoacetylene burns at close to the Sun's temperature, but I'm not sure it's burned much. The Wikipedia article Orders of magnitude (temperature) is instructive.

I would suspect that if any part of the flame is at the temperature of the Sun, it's only a very small part or it's only at that temperature very briefly.