Is this as good as it seems?

[Boatgypsy]

Where have you been for the last 20 years? I assure you that there is no unburned fuel passing out of the exhaust of a modern electronically managed engine, only combustion products which really have no further energy to yield...

 

I'm not sure my whereabouts for the last 20 years have any bearing, but when was the zero emission fossil fuel engine invented? Did I miss it? Granted, modern engines are significantly better in terms of emissions, but that is largely achieved by the use of catalytic converters which in effect further combust the exhaust products, producing nothing but heat in the cat. If you believe that engines no longer emit unburnt fuel, perhaps you'd like to try taking a few good breaths from the tailpipe of your car. Sure, there's no complicated hydrocarbons like petrol or diesel coming out, but there is still carbon monoxide.

 

Interestingly, only one of the two oxides of carbon, doesn't support combustion and it is for this reason that carbon dioxide is used in fire extinguishers. Carbon monoxide does support combustion and burns with a pale blue flame. 2 CO (g) + O2 (g) = 2 CO2 (g)

 

Before natural gas became available, domestic gas supplies were coal gas, aka carbon monoxide - so, no unburned fuel coming out of a modern engine then.

 

This is as has been said a perpetual motion machine, it MUST take more energy to electrolyse water than can be recovered from recombining it or the engine could run on one of these, drive a generator to electrolyse the water from it's own exhaust and recombust it. Constant energy from a single fill of water. Snake oil.

 

I think you have failed to understand the point that I was making. Yes of course the energy used to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen would be greater than the energy ever recovered from an engine running on said gases alone. However, my understanding of this system is that a very small amount of HHO (hydrogen and oxygen mix) is produced which, when mixed with standard fuel vapour, creates the conditions for a more efficient combustion of the fuel - how would that be a perpetual motion machine?

 

As I had already said in my post I'm not taken in by any "snake oil" claims, but this is clearly not an instance of a machine which uses water as it's primary fuel. To dismiss this out of hand is as bad as claiming a turbo would not work because all it does is pump air into an engine!

 

Have you got any empirical evidence that adding hydrogen (a rather combustible gas) and oxygen (fundamentally essential for combustion) to the fuel/air mix of an engine would not improve total combustion?

 

There are far more obvious objections to this system - such as how would you prevent the water being frozen in a cold environment, or how you would produce enough HHO without knackering your alternator.

[mayalld]

I'm not sure my whereabouts for the last 20 years have any bearing, but when was the zero emission fossil fuel engine invented? Did I miss it? Granted, modern engines are significantly better in terms of emissions, but that is largely achieved by the use of catalytic converters which in effect further combust the exhaust products, producing nothing but heat in the cat. If you believe that engines no longer emit unburnt fuel, perhaps you'd like to try taking a few good breaths from the tailpipe of your car. Sure, there's no complicated hydrocarbons like petrol or diesel coming out, but there is still carbon monoxide.

 

Interestingly, only one of the two oxides of carbon, doesn't support combustion and it is for this reason that carbon dioxide is used in fire extinguishers. Carbon monoxide does support combustion and burns with a pale blue flame. 2 CO (g) + O2 (g) = 2 CO2 (g)

 

Before natural gas became available, domestic gas supplies were coal gas, aka carbon monoxide - so, no unburned fuel coming out of a modern engine then.

 

Whilst Coal Gas contained about 10% CO, it was the methane and hydrogen that were the main calorific components

 

I think you have failed to understand the point that I was making. Yes of course the energy used to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen would be greater than the energy ever recovered from an engine running on said gases alone. However, my understanding of this system is that a very small amount of HHO (hydrogen and oxygen mix) is produced which, when mixed with standard fuel vapour, creates the conditions for a more efficient combustion of the fuel - how would that be a perpetual motion machine?

 

As I had already said in my post I'm not taken in by any "snake oil" claims, but this is clearly not an instance of a machine which uses water as it's primary fuel. To dismiss this out of hand is as bad as claiming a turbo would not work because all it does is pump air into an engine!

 

Have you got any empirical evidence that adding hydrogen (a rather combustible gas) and oxygen (fundamentally essential for combustion) to the fuel/air mix of an engine would not improve total combustion?

 

There are far more obvious objections to this system - such as how would you prevent the water being frozen in a cold environment, or how you would produce enough HHO without knackering your alternator.

 

Exhaust gases are already pretty thin on residual calorific value, and this isn't going to extract enough extra to even account for the loses in the hydrogen generator.

 

It simply won't work

[Scotty]

This is my favourite free energy system:

 

[WotEver]

Nahhh... this is my favourite:

 

Water drives a wheel, drives a generator, drives a pump for the water... hey, and 100W left over to light up a lamp too.

 

It's totally genuine

 

Tony

[Nine of Hearts]

Nahhh... this is my favourite:

 

Water drives a wheel, drives a generator, drives a pump for the water... hey, and 100W left over to light up a lamp too.

 

It's totally genuine

 

Tony

 

Amazing! Scientists and philosophers have been struggling for years with that concept and some crazy redneck has just knocked one up in his garage. Just goes to show that all the brains in the world are no match for a well equipped shed.

[Albion]

I'm not sure my whereabouts for the last 20 years have any bearing, but when was the zero emission fossil fuel engine invented? Did I miss it? Granted, modern engines are significantly better in terms of emissions, but that is largely achieved by the use of catalytic converters which in effect further combust the exhaust products, producing nothing but heat in the cat. If you believe that engines no longer emit unburnt fuel, perhaps you'd like to try taking a few good breaths from the tailpipe of your car. Sure, there's no complicated hydrocarbons like petrol or diesel coming out, but there is still carbon monoxide.

snipped

 

Sorry Sir Nibble but I have to agree with Boatgypsy in this case. There are always some Hydrocarbons emitted from the combustion engine process (even fuel lodged in top land of the piston rings doesn't combust cleanly and so hyrocarbons are formed etc), that's why HC is one of the gaseous emission regulations that modern vehicles have to comply with before they can be certified for sale, among others like CO, CO2, NOx etc. It's been 5 years since I worked in European OBD legislation and emissions with Jaguar cars but things haven't moved on much further. A catalytic converter works (among other conversions) by oxidising the Hydrocarbons emitted (at high temperature) to convert them to water and Carbon Dioxide (HC+O2= H2O+CO2, put simply). It is actually ironic that, although CO2 is a greenhouse gas ever stricter emissions legislation has forced vehicle manufacturers to fit catalytic converters which increase the amount of CO2 produced (but reduce other harmful emissions of course). You can easily see the water produced if you are following a catalytic equipped petrol car because they will be dripping water from the tailpipe as they idle in front of you in the traffic queue.

 

Common rail diesel engines are often required to have Catalysed Diesel Particulate Filters (CDPF) fitted to reduce particulate emissions. These work by allowing the soot to build up in the CDPF over a period of time and then, after a few thousand miles and when all the speed, engine temperature and back pressure across the CDPF conditions are right, they create an after-burn in the CDPF by injecting pulses of fuel (and piezo injectors can inject up to 5 times per injection event they are that fast) very late in the combustion process. This unburnt hydrocarbon travels into the CDPF and causes a massive heat increase (after-burn) such that the soot is burnt off in one big (dirtyish) burn. Taken on average though, the clean miles plus the occasional dirty burn is cleaner than burning slightly dirty all time. That's why I object to Gordon Brown's continuing 3p per litre diesel fuel surcharge that he introduced years ago as a particulate emissions levy on diesels; despite the advances in technology they never removed the diesel levy.......what a surprise

Roger

Edited August 19, 2010 by Albion

[Sir Nibble]

Sorry Sir Nibble but I have to agree with Boatgypsy in this case. There are always some Hydrocarbons emitted from the combustion engine process (even fuel lodged in top land of the piston rings doesn't combust cleanly and so hyrocarbons are formed etc), that's why HC is one of the gaseous emission regulations that modern vehicles have to comply with before they can be certified for sale, among others like CO, CO2, NOx etc. It's been 5 years since I worked in European OBD legislation and emissions with Jaguar cars but things haven't moved on much further. A catalytic converter works (among other conversions) by oxidising the Hydrocarbons emitted (at high temperature) to convert them to water and Carbon Dioxide (HC+O2= H2O+CO2, put simply). It is actually ironic that, although CO2 is a greenhouse gas ever stricter emissions legislation has forced vehicle manufacturers to fit catalytic converters which increase the amount of CO2 produced (but reduce other harmful emissions of course). You can easily see the water produced if you are following a catalytic equipped petrol car because they will be dripping water from the tailpipe as they idle in front of you in the traffic queue.

 

Common rail diesel engines are often required to have Catalysed Diesel Particulate Filters (CDPF) fitted to reduce particulate emissions. These work by allowing the soot to build up in the CDPF over a period of time and then, after a few thousand miles and when all the speed, engine temperature and back pressure across the CDPF conditions are right, they create an after-burn in the CDPF by injecting pulses of fuel (and piezo injectors can inject up to 5 times per injection event they are that fast) very late in the combustion process. This unburnt hydrocarbon travels into the CDPF and causes a massive heat increase (after-burn) such that the soot is burnt off in one big (dirtyish) burn. Taken on average though, the clean miles plus the occasional dirty burn is cleaner than burning slightly dirty all time. That's why I object to Gordon Brown's continuing 3p per litre diesel fuel surcharge that he introduced years ago as a particulate emissions levy on diesels; despite the advances in technology they never removed the diesel levy.......what a surprise

Roger

Lordy, please don't apologise for a well argued post.

Yes, the small amount of unburned fuel you mention certainly exists but my point was that unlike the days of carbs there isn't a load of it wasted. The product in question claims to improve the volumetric efficiency of the engine. Well done, I have to open the throttle to improve the volumetric efficiency of my car. Volumetric (pumping) efficiency has a massive bearing upon power, but not economy. To improve economy you need to improve thermal efficiency or replace some of the fuel with a supplementary fuel like hydrogen, which brings us back to electrolysing water V recombining it.

How COULD this work?

Oxygen from the water added to the cylinder. That would mean it's possible to burn more fuel and gain power, chemical supercharging like a nitrous injection system. No economy gains.

Hydrogen from the water added to the cylinder. That would require more oxygen to burn it or less fuel injected, given the modification to the lambda sensor circuit that seems the most likely, still runs into the more power to get the hydrogen than is gained problem.

Hydrogen and oxygen added to the cylinder. The proportions, H2O are chemically correct and it will burn nicely but once again it takes more power to split the water than is gained from burning it.

Snake oil.

[Albion]

Lordy, please don't apologise for a well argued post.

Yes, the small amount of unburned fuel you mention certainly exists but my point was that unlike the days of carbs there isn't a load of it wasted. The product in question claims to improve the volumetric efficiency of the engine. Well done, I have to open the throttle to improve the volumetric efficiency of my car. Volumetric (pumping) efficiency has a massive bearing upon power, but not economy. To improve economy you need to improve thermal efficiency or replace some of the fuel with a supplementary fuel like hydrogen, which brings us back to electrolysing water V recombining it.

How COULD this work?

Oxygen from the water added to the cylinder. That would mean it's possible to burn more fuel and gain power, chemical supercharging like a nitrous injection system. No economy gains.

Hydrogen from the water added to the cylinder. That would require more oxygen to burn it or less fuel injected, given the modification to the lambda sensor circuit that seems the most likely, still runs into the more power to get the hydrogen than is gained problem.

Hydrogen and oxygen added to the cylinder. The proportions, H2O are chemically correct and it will burn nicely but once again it takes more power to split the water than is gained from burning it.

Snake oil.

 

Apology; it was only that I didn't want to upset a respected poster on electrical matters in case I ever needed your advice in that field

You are quite correct about the difference between carbs and fuel injection and then, even better, engine management, but if you want to see real Hydrocarbon emissions see an early Wankel rotary engine in a Mazda.........they even had to have a specially high MOT limit for HC to get them through an MOT test.

Pumping efficiency does have some effect on economy as it contributes to the increased economy of diesels (which have no throttle butterfly) compared to petrols (which do) but I make no claim that it is the sole source of a diesels increased economy of course.

 

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I was in no way supporting this snake oil product. If it was that good why wouldn't vehicle manufacturers have thought of it by now? Having worked with vehicles all my life and spent a significant time in product development on the OBD/emissions side I can say, without a shadow of doubt, that a manufacturer would have thought of it by now. If you take this product to its logical conclusion by making it bigger, once you could get the engine started, you could run a spark ignition engine on water alone............yeah right!

Roger

[Nine of Hearts]

...

Snake oil.

 

There's been a lot of that mentioned on this thread, but no-one has mentioned the benefits of burning it as a fuel. We have determined that this "hydrogen generator" is poppycock, but snake oil? It's a renewable providing you have enough snakes...

[WotEver]

There's been a lot of that mentioned on this thread, but no-one has mentioned the benefits of burning it as a fuel. We have determined that this "hydrogen generator" is poppycock, but snake oil? It's a renewable providing you have enough snakes...

Well, Australia has a mouse problem, snakes eat mice...

 

I see an Aussie business opportunity forming...

 

Tony

[FadeToScarlet]

There's been a lot of that mentioned on this thread, but no-one has mentioned the benefits of burning it as a fuel. We have determined that this "hydrogen generator" is poppycock, but snake oil? It's a renewable providing you have enough snakes...

 

I've heard of someone who runs his RN on a patent mix of old engine oil, chip fat, and snake oil!

[dor]

I can see where boatgypsy is coming from in this, but I think you have to consider the relative volumes of combustibles. Yes, it is feasible that introducing some hydrogen might create a hotter combustion and so increase the burn of the fuel, but really, the number of hydrogen molecules added is a tiny, tiny fraction compared to the amount of fuel and will make no perceptible difference to the burn. Compare the tiny bubbles that would be generated by electrolysis compared to the number of litres of fuel/air mixture going through every minute. And the few molecules of oxygen added are going to make little difference to the 21% already present in the air.

 

It adds a pseudo-scientific twist to the whole affair, but if you look at the numbers, it is snake oil, pure and simple, designed to relive the gullible from their cash.

[ChrisPy]

........ it is snake oil, pure and simple, designed to relive the gullible from their cash.

so the acid test is, has anyone bought it? if so then works because it's a proven success, innit?

[Tony Brooks]

I can see where boatgypsy is coming from in this, but I think you have to consider the relative volumes of combustibles. Yes, it is feasible that introducing some hydrogen might create a hotter combustion and so increase the burn of the fuel, but really, the number of hydrogen molecules added is a tiny, tiny fraction compared to the amount of fuel and will make no perceptible difference to the burn. Compare the tiny bubbles that would be generated by electrolysis compared to the number of litres of fuel/air mixture going through every minute. And the few molecules of oxygen added are going to make little difference to the 21% already present in the air.

 

It adds a pseudo-scientific twist to the whole affair, but if you look at the numbers, it is snake oil, pure and simple, designed to relive the gullible from their cash.

 

 

 

Try this for size.

 

When I was messing about with electrolysis to water to entertain my friends I found the higher the voltage applied the hotter the water became. Now that pipe that supposedly carries the hydrogen & oxygen would just as readily carry steam.

 

If the pipe ended on the engine side of the butterfly on a petrol engine the manifold depression would lower the pressure on the water and thus its boiling point so during overrun it is possible the water may actually boil.

 

As soon as the steam hits the mixture cooled by the evaporation of the petrol it will condense to water droplets which will then pass into the cylinder - and what normally follows overrun? A big right foot dumped on the pedal so we have droplets of water in the manifold and on the manifold surface ready top be drawn into the cylinder.

 

The droplets will turn into a much larger volume of steam during combustion thus increasing the pressure on the piston and as a bonus the heat required to turn the water droplets to steam will lower the maximum cylinder temperature thus reducing the formation of NOX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note the smileys!

[ChrisPy]

... er, so we've just invented a new generation of stanley steamers ?

Edited August 19, 2010 by ChrisPy

[Sir Nibble]

There's been a lot of that mentioned on this thread, but no-one has mentioned the benefits of burning it as a fuel. We have determined that this "hydrogen generator" is poppycock, but snake oil? It's a renewable providing you have enough snakes...

tcha! What a thickie eh. Everyone knows you can't burn snake oil, it's what stops snakes squeaking.

[Timleech]

... er, so we've just invented a new generation of stanley steamers ?

 

No, but water injection has been around since the year dot, tried by everyone from Bolinders to Saabs. It has advantages but not usually worth the hassle. This could be seen as a form of water injection, in atomic rather than molecular form

 

I agree that the amounts produced by this device are probably too small to be significant, though.

 

Tim

Edited August 19, 2010 by Timleech

[Boatgypsy]

Well, at the risk of being shouted at again by people who "clearly know better", I'm prepared to share the results of having an open mind with you all again.

 

From the outset let me make it clear that I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR DEVICE IN ANY WAY. But, I am sufficiently interested in new ideas to ask questions and look for answers.

 

Most of those on here who have immediately rejected this idea have done so on the basis that it breaks the physical laws on the conservation of energy. Well, no it doesn't! Why? Because it in no way suggests that the hydrogen produced by electrolysis forms a significant part of the fuel. Yes, the direct thermal energy created by burning hydrogen is less than that required to hydrolyse it in the first place.

 

I must admit I was wrong in initially assuming that the claimed fuel savings must come from burning more of the fuel. Apparently it doesn't, although that may be a side benefit. There has been a lot of research done on this by reputable agencies such as JPL and UMIST, and the upshot of that is the theory that monatomic hydrogen can act as a combustion catalyst when mixed with a hydrocarbon fuel.

 

The way it does this is by improving the thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine.

 

An average internal combustion engine is about 25% efficient. In other words only 25% of the stored energy in the hydrocarbon fuel ends up as kinetic energy - the rest being lost as heat and sound. The main reason for this is the way that the compressed air/fuel mixture burns. In both diesel and petrol engines the fuel burns from the point of ignition and a flame front travels throughout the body of fuel, very quickly, but slowly enough that much of the heat released by burning is transmitted to the surrounding steelwork before it can become kinetic energy to move the piston. Some of the fuel, which is made up of complex hydrocarbons does not have enough time to fully break down to water and carbon dioxide - the desired products of complete combustion - hence the emissions of nitrous oxides, toluene, xylene, butylene, carbon monoxide, molecular carbon etc, etc.

 

The theory goes that HHO gas, which is produced by electrolysis, when combined with the mixture of fuel and air, burns at a very much faster rate and much hotter than fuel and air alone. This fast and hot burn, in turn, results in a much faster and hotter burn of all the available fuel. The fast, hot burn does not burn with a flame front because of the virtually instantaneous atomic change of HHO into H20, which is dissipated throughout the fuel charge. More of the fuel is completely combusted to water and CO2. The energy that converts from thermal energy into kinetic energy is greater because combustion happens faster, resulting in the engine running cooler. Less energy becomes dissipated heat, more energy becomes kinetic. More power output from the engine, which can either be used as more power, or as greater efficiency.

 

This theory has been well documented since the 70's. The big problem is that no-one has yet developed a commercial and reliable system. You can bet that with fuel prices and concerns over pollution more money and effort will be put into trying to do so.

 

Ten or fifteen years ago I was telling people that I had found ways to run a diesel engine on vegetable oil - no one, and I mean NO ONE, believed me. Plenty told me it just wasn't possible - that it would ruin an engine in a short time, but I'm still running my car, boat and generator on used vegetable oil, and strangely it's hard to get veg oil now cos everyone is doing it.

[Gibbo]

I must admit I was wrong in initially assuming that the claimed fuel savings must come from burning more of the fuel. Apparently it doesn't, although that may be a side benefit. There has been a lot of research done on this by reputable agencies such as JPL and UMIST, and the upshot of that is the theory that monatomic hydrogen can act as a combustion catalyst when mixed with a hydrocarbon fuel.

 

Then don't you find it rather odd that neither have published any results?

 

I don't.

 

The theory goes that HHO gas, which is produced by electrolysis, when combined with the mixture of fuel and air, burns at a very much faster rate and much hotter than fuel and air alone.

 

It actually burns at a much lower temperature.

 

Ten or fifteen years ago I was telling people that I had found ways to run a diesel engine on vegetable oil - no one, and I mean NO ONE, believed me. Plenty told me it just wasn't possible - that it would ruin an engine in a short time, but I'm still running my car, boat and generator on used vegetable oil, and strangely it's hard to get veg oil now cos everyone is doing it.

 

Perhaps you should have asked Rudolf Diesel who ran his on peanut oil over 100 years ago.

 

Somehow I think people have known for quite some time that a diesel engine will run on more or less anything. I don't think you made any great discovery with that one.

[RLWP]

<snip>

Perhaps you should have asked Rudolf Diesel who ran his on peanut oil over 100 years ago.

 

Somehow I think people have known for quite some time that a diesel engine will run on more or less anything. I don't think you made any great discovery with that one.

 

Including coal dust

 

Richard

[carlt]

Having looked at the pictures on the website they all look very amateur. No pipe clips, cheap hose, with no re-inforcing.

At least they're not using coffee jars, any more.

[Boatgypsy]

Then don't you find it rather odd that neither have published any results?

 

I don't.

 

 

 

It actually burns at a much lower temperature.

 

Sorry Gibbo.

 

Assuming a constant pressure and a pure stoichiometric mixture:

Adiabatic flame temperature of hydrogen burning in air - 2210 c

Adiabatic flame temperature of gasoline burning in air - 1950 c

Adiabatic flame temperature of diesel burning in air - 1950 c

 

Perhaps you should have asked Rudolf Diesel who ran his on peanut oil over 100 years ago.

 

Somehow I think people have known for quite some time that a diesel engine will run on more or less anything. I don't think you made any great discovery with that one.

 

I know that I had made no great discovery and it was precisely because I knew that Diesel designed his first engines to run on vegetable oils that I began experimenting. My point was that there are always an awful lot of people around who find it hard to accept new ideas and are happy to refuse to accept that something is possible.

[Gibbo]

 

Sorry Gibbo.

 

Assuming a constant pressure and a pure stoichiometric mixture:

Adiabatic flame temperature of hydrogen burning in air - 2210 c

Adiabatic flame temperature of gasoline burning in air - 1950 c

Adiabatic flame temperature of diesel burning in air - 1950 c

 

 

1. Your temperature for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is wrong. It's much higher than that but............

2. How you gonna get a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen when it's in an atmosphere of petrol, air and part exhaust gases from the previous cycle?

 

Do you read many pseudoscience websites?

 

I know that I had made no great discovery and it was precisely because I knew that Diesel designed his first engines to run on vegetable oils that I began experimenting. My point was that there are always an awful lot of people around who find it hard to accept new ideas and are happy to refuse to accept that something is possible.

 

But you said.... "no one (and I mean NO ONE) believed me"

 

Daniel can you go back to the old one. This doesn't work

[Boatgypsy]

1. Your temperature for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is wrong. It's much higher than that but............

2. How you gonna get a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen when it's in an atmosphere of petrol, air and part exhaust gases from the previous cycle?

 

Do you read many pseudoscience websites?

 

 

 

But you said.... "no one (and I mean NO ONE) believed me"

 

Daniel can you go back to the old one. This doesn't work

I don't know - first I've got it too low, now I've got it too high. Perhaps you can give me the definitive answer? Oh, and for the sake of comparison assume 1 bar and pre ignition temp of 20 c.

 

Of course the actual flame temperature in an engine would be higher because it would not be at 1 bar and 20 c, but then I'm talking the theoretical adiabatic flame temp at constant pressure, which doesn't obtain in real life conditions in an engine. However, the relative comparisons of the flame temps of hydrogen and gasoline CAN be extrapolated into real life conditions - hydrogen won't suddenly burn cooler than petrol/diesel because it's in an engine.

 

The hydrogen and oxygen are already stoichiometric because they have been generated by electrolysis.

[Gibbo]

I don't know - first I've got it too low, now I've got it too high. Perhaps you can give me the definitive answer? Oh, and for the sake of comparison assume 1 bar and pre ignition temp of 20 c.

 

Of course the actual flame temperature in an engine would be higher because it would not be at 1 bar and 20 c, but then I'm talking the theoretical adiabatic flame temp at constant pressure, which doesn't obtain in real life conditions in an engine. However, the relative comparisons of the flame temps of hydrogen and gasoline CAN be extrapolated into real life conditions - hydrogen won't suddenly burn cooler than petrol/diesel because it's in an engine.

 

The hydrogen and oxygen are already stoichiometric because they have been generated by electrolysis.

 

Not making much progress here are we. I often find that when a "believer" of pseudoscience is involved. It's more like a religion.

 

"The hydrogen and oxygen are already stoichiometric because they have been generated by electrolysis"

 

They would be, if they were on their own in a sealed container. But they are not on their own, they are thrown into a mixture of other gases. Some combustible, some not. The combustible ones are not in a stoichiometric mixture. Surely you can understand that if you throw a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen into an atmosphere containing other combustible gases and an oxidizer the fact that the hydrogen and oxygen start off stoichiometric when on their own is completely and utterly irrelevant. Throw them into the other mixture, and now they are not. This isn't hard to grasp surely?

 

Here's the way pseudoscience scams work.

 

1. Some bullshit is invented by a scam artist who throws lots of "sciencey" words into it. A scientific sounding explanation of its MO is put forward.

 

2. Lots of gullible people believe in it. Some invest, some spend their money on the product.

 

3. The "real" scientific world, consisting of some of the cleverest people on the planet, then debunks it.

 

4. The scam artist then changes his explanation of how it works and makes claims that the scientific world, consisting of some of the cleverest people on the planet, doesn't know what it's talking about.

 

5. "Believers" come forward with the same old tired arguments that "Science doesn't understand everything" and that some of the greatest discoveries have been made by untrained, unqualified, lone "garage" scientists (they haven't, it's just a lovely myth for the "believers").

 

6. The "believers" then spout the usual "Nothing is impossible", "Only a fool dismisses things out of hand" and their favourite "There's no such thing as a wrong opinion". All of which are complete tripe.

 

The fact is, this is a scam. Those people who completely dfismiss it out of hand are not ignorant. They are simply clever enough to instantly spot the bullshit without giving it a second though.