Water Energy.

With all the hype over hydrogen fuel cells (still not very feasible), Denny Klein has been silently developing a unique way to generate a gas called HHO. It has the benefits of burning hotter than hydrogen while maintaining the stability of water. At first he was just looking for a better way to weld but soon realized he’d developed an inexpensive and environmentally safe way to fuel just about everything.

He’s already working with the military and major auto manufacturers.

Here’s a link to his site


Email This Post
Tweet This Post 
Share This Post on Facebook

Neat stuff from the NeatoShop:

  1. ss
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 8:50 pm

    Sounds like snake oil to me.

  2. Mokuwai
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

    ss did you actually watch the video and the link? It’s already a patented working model. You can buy the welder on the site.

  3. Alex
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    This is bunkum (and a persistent suggested entry on Neatorama) :)

  4. Aleki
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    I was under the impression that you had to have a working model in order to receive a patent. I checked out this guys press clippings as well as his entire site and it seems to be legit. It wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong on something but it doesn’t appear so. Is there something that NASA, Daimler Chrysler, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin might have missed?

  5. ltmon
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 9:14 pm

    It’s an old (1940s?) method that never got efficient enough to make it mainstream. Search the interwebs for “Brown’s Gas” for some more information on the whys and hows of it all. The long and short: don’t get too excited about this just yet.

  6. Snappy
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    One can find a discussion about whether this is a scam or not here:

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56705

  7. name
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    This is nothing new. Look up brown’s gas,
    by Yull Brown, U.S. Patent 4081656, 1978

    You’ll find a lot of controversy.

    If it works or not, I suspect the lack of reference on the site is not accidental. The Jules Verne quote is enough to find brown’s gas.

    I also have to question the whole energy equation. How much electricity is needed? How was that electricity generated? It may burn clean, but it takes a greater amount of dirty fuel to create a smaller ammount of clean fuel?

  8. shawn bell
    Dec 13th, 2006 at 11:15 pm

    i heard about this a long time ago. I thought it had already been debunked?

  9. Alex
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 12:57 am

    Debunked over and over again – I’m afraid this comes up like clockwork every 10 years or so…

  10. dodgyd55
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 8:40 am

    if it worked
    1)he would of been offered a butt load of cash for the patents from oil companys, they would then burry this

    2)he would of been silenced before it was made overly puplic and this is the small fact this uses more power than it generates………so, so far this is good for welding things and not burning them

  11. Schwank
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 10:14 am

    I think the physics cops may have to charge these guys with breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

  12. Schwank
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 10:24 am

    This post is SO BAD you should take it down.

    This is 100% scam – the video where they says that having a tank full of hydrogen at 10,000 psi is like driving around with a hydrogen bomb!

    I think the physics cops may have to charge these guys with breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

  13. Bryan
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 11:22 am

    I generate plenty of “brown gas” whenever I eat lentils. I blame it on the dog.

  14. Rob
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 11:30 am

    How much energy does it take to create this stuff?
    This is BS. This stuff by all logical reasoning would take more energy to make that it would produce.

  15. Johannes K
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    A gas called HHO which has the stability of water? No wonder: HHO == H2O == Water.

  16. Carl Johnson
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    I was septic, so I buy a prototype last year, it is more efficient then I espected. Since this time, the research on this technolgie evolved and now, the energy generate rate is better than energy used rate by gaz. We see it changing.
    – To a better World, Carl Johnson

  17. Mokuwai
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    It says you have to plug into 220. So it’s not like you’re getting a free ride. I’ve done enough welding to know you can’t touch the end of a nozzle like that. Also I’ve never had oxy-acetylene work like that. If it’s a hoax then can anybody tell me what gas he’s using? I’m not saying it’s not a hoax, but the videos seem to be pretty convincing. Fox news and CNN both checked it out. At least there’s something to the welding part of it. The cars… I dunno.

  18. Chad
    Dec 14th, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    I would like to point out….

    from the cnn video his hho generator uses about 70 cents worth of electricity per hour while producing 1500 liters of the gas per hour.

    also from site (I like this)
    “The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.”

    – Chinese Proverb

  19. Mokuwai
    Dec 15th, 2006 at 2:33 am

    Here’s something for all you brainiacs that don’t believe. Cornell University is currently testing the properties of HHO and has published a paper on their findings. It turns out that HHO is what they are referring to as a “magnacule” it doesn’t posses the same type of valence bond normal molecules do.

    I know it’s easy to dismiss things as a knee jerk reaction, however with a little due diligence you might be surprised what you’ll find from reputable sources (not Joe from Arkansas that knows nothing about thermodynamics or Physics).

    There were all kinds of “experts” that said it would be impossible to fly, that the world was flat, that the human body wasn’t capable of running a 4 minute mile, they even tried to have Edison committed.

    Try these links. One from a reputable science international journal and the other from Cornell University

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0112066

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4HVDJBT -1&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2006&_alid=508781395&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=searc h&_qd=1&_cdi=5729&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersi on=0&_userid=10&md5=84a6259a1ea8f2ccb8ed4d26a39eac82

  20. Aramax
    Dec 15th, 2006 at 6:17 am

    Hydrogen fuel cells… still not very feasible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_cell

    Is that a sock in your mouth?

  21. Solo
    Dec 15th, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    How can you trust fox news about anything after you see this piece? Bad journalism at its best.

    Sure, you can have a welder, that plugs in the wall and uses electricity (see, energy from electricity) and their special form of electrolysis (how special?) to make hydrogen and burn it. Note that the claim ‘barely warm to the touch’ is not substanciated by passing the flame over a hand. There’s nothing special in that one.

    Next scene, they talk about a car that runs on water. Nice try. Where do you plug it for the special electrolysis? 4 once for 100 miles? I don’t think so. Plus that engine looked like a plain old internal combustion engine.

    Really. Give it up. The ‘invention’ belongs to the land of trolls and fairies.

  22. Chad
    Dec 16th, 2006 at 11:34 am

    hey aramax you pretty much just stated that you didn’t pay any attention at all to the video or the link because….he isnt burning hydrogen OR storing it at ANY psi in ANY tank.

    and solo. if you paid attention to the link or the video clips contained on it you would have seen that all your questions are answered. like this one

    “Next scene, they talk about a car that runs on water. Nice try. Where do you plug it for the special electrolysis? 4 once for 100 miles? I don’t think so. Plus that engine looked like a plain old internal combustion engine.”

    solo, thats because it IS a plain ol’e combustion engine he SUPPLEMENTS the gasoline with direct hho injection to double his mpg (using 4 ounces of water) and he doesn’t need to plug it in because there is a modified alternator that outputs the voltage required for the electrolysis to take place.

    I’m repeatedly amazed at the constant ability for skeptics to ignore certain details and totally not pay any attention to the facts at hand but that sure as hell doesn’t stop them from spreading their message of ignorance for all the world to see!

    recap for the slow

    this isn’t burning hydrogen for energy….its not hydrogen its a different blend of hydrogen and oxygen being burned in a manner before the bond to turn them back into water takes place so your repeated attempts at linking to failed attempts of hydrogen energy is not only pointless but it just shows how ignorant you are.

  23. BlogBuster
    Jan 18th, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    This electrolysis process has been refined over 100+ years and ultimately scraped because it took more enrgy to restructure the h2o molecule than you could get from it. Klein’s model is the most efficient in terms of energy return. Harnessing the energy is the main problem. Modern Science still rejects the magnacule theory but this is the best evidence to support the claims of Italian physicist Rugerro Santilli. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli)


Keep track of the comments with Comment RSS

Don't Miss: New Stuff | Bestsellers | The Cute Store
                   Funny T-Shirts

Need a gift? Get unforgettable gifts for:
Geeks | Pranksters | Kids | Hipsters | Shutterbugs
Lijit Search
Old school? Bookmark us! RSS Feed Twitter Facebook Page