high current voltage regulator?

Well I wouldn't advise trying to modify 30A MX066 PWM DC Motor Speed Controller.

I have been using a PWM that is supposedly rated at 12/24 volts and 30 amps but it burns up at about 15-20 amps.

If you have the output set to ~2V then the speed controller will be dissipating a lot of heat (oh the waste). For experimentation purposes you could try forced air cooling of the heatsinks, try mounting the controller in a rechangular box with two big 12V computer fans (one at each end). The other option is to buy a bigger speed controller.

Also, how have you been monitoring your current? You really need to use a meter capable of measuring RMS current.

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

Easy to forget this point and it REALLY makes a mess of any test results (as MANY a backyard tinkerer has found).

Hi Dan,

First answer - do NOT use a single cell - add 4 or 5 neutral or "floater" plates between the Pos and the Neg plates ( no wired contact )

or if you really have to do it - look at spiral.pdf ( I think on Watercar group files ) and see how he used a relay to double his current capacity. It sounds like you could just use 2 pwm's with that mod and have it work - Mumble mumble ??!??

Mileage gain may be REDUCED if you have too much hydroxy - try cutting back to 1/2 LPM and see if your mileage goes up - Increase it till mileage goes down - backup a bit - etc

My 460 ford went from 7.5 to 10 with chemical additives and to 13 with Hydroxy added.

The OLD vehicles respond well to 2 to 6 LPM - ( pre computer control )

Email me off list for a phone number if you want some more conversation.

( Yes - the hybrid engine will get 60 MPG in a big truck :)

rcb

Dear rcbondsr

I think you have pointed out correctly, that such devices are not PWM controlled but voltage controlled and current trip is only safety mechanism.

Hence, adding many such cells of 2V each in series 2V x 6 = 12V power source.

As PWM does not decrease voltage and hence lots of energy goes into heat.

Hey,

If heating all that water is just wasting energy why put water in the radiator. Just run dry and your mileage might increase for a while.

As for your PWM if it is frying perhaps you simply don't know what is fairly obvious, i.e., you are running it over its rated load.

j.

Thank you Jack J. I appreciate your outstanding insight. I do know the problem I am trying to find a solution and that is why I am trying to find a better PWM or high current reducer/regulater.

Its funny how many lectures you can get from engineers and tech reps yet not one can answer the simple question of how do you simply and somewhat cheaply bring 14 volts down to 2 volts and safely run 30 amps through the components you are doing it with. Even the high paid electronic boeing reps at work give me the deer in the head lights look.

Maybe I gave too much info to be taken seriously. Oh well, fuck it.

Thank you Jack of all trades, It has been a while since you helped keep my feet on the ground with the HAFC thread. I think I am done here but if you have an answer to my riddle, I'd appreciate a message. Even though you dont agree with this stuff, I do sincerely appreciate YOUR input. You too RC.

Thanks, Dan

Hmmm- thought of using 6x 2v lead acid cells- charged in series with 12-14v, use 1 for purpose- can alternate in turn- these are available for alternative life style power generation & use- usually coupled up at say 48v to run inverter(240v here). Certainly there are circuits to drop 14v to 2v at 30 amps- prob is energy wasted as heat. In old days, car etc batts had external straps linking each 2v cell- was easy to use any voltage wanted- could still drill into modern day sealed batt conn- would have to use lead connectors(brass, copper, steel corrode thru rapidly)- lotsa luck in your fruitless mission!.(in my humble opinion).

I think you are on the right track with your PWM speed controller for this specific test application. The other option really is to build one, but this is really a job for someone who has access to the equipment and can put together and test the circuit. In this case the best bet is the emerging market for switch-mode power supplies for very low voltage (3.3V and below) logic, such as the new range of computer processors and microchips. Efficient high-current low-voltage supplies are possible (and many controller chips and circuits are available from the leading microchip manufacturers) but you may have problems finding PWM controller chips that are not surface mount devices due to the fact that the target market for these is almost exclusively SMD. You may be able to find a supplier of these type of pre-built switch mode power supplies, but I am not aware of any off the top of my head. Others may know.

First thing that comes to mind is a DC to DC converter. Try linear technology for some apps or like minded silicone suppliers. 14V to 2V at that current shouldn't be a problem.

A simple buck regulator will do the trick. pretty easy to build or purchase. 2V out may not be a readily available off the shelf configuration but you can find adjustable regulators. 30A is a pretty stiff current so I would probably just build one. Takes a switching regulator control, a power MOSFET (two for synchronous rectification - recommended at your levels), an inductor and some capacitors. I assume you do not need ultra clean power since you are just running a heating element. You can find many switching regulator controllers and design tool at Texas Inst, National Semi, etc...

Your design should be pretty simple and low cost.

Good luck

Before it is rectified the alternator puts out alternating current. You can greatly increase the efficiency of the system with a transformer/transformers to bring the voltage down to closer to the the 2 volt you need and use a a smaller alternator and not have all that heat to heat up the water and burn up regulators.

Then you can use much smaller regulators to do the job. different If you are using more than one cell a transformer with multiple taps for 3 or 4 volt could be made. Just keep all the grounds of the cells isolated as the voltage from the tap are additive o other.

Good luck

Gordon

Perhaps one way around your problem would be to make up a 7-cell electrolyser, with the cells connnected in series. Then you would not need to choke your power supply down with a buck converter. If the overall concept of electrolysis and feeding the gas into the engine actually does work to decrease petrol consumption, then surely producing 7 times as much gas will result in even greater petrol savings? I, for one, would be most interested to see any energy balance calculations that you have done, since there must surely be a point where if you can produce enough gas, you could do away with the petrol entirely?

I'll second this approach. Connecting cells in series would be the simplest approach. Changing plate area will then control gas production (and amperage drawn). Keeping things simple is always better than making them complicated.

If you have not already, watch a few of the You Tube videos on oxyhydrogen explosions, to give you respect for the possibilities. Have fun, and don't store any of the oxyhydrogen, and make sure all connections are secure and spark-free.

It seems to me that allowing the hydrogen and oxygen to mix straight out of the electrolyser is an unnecessary shortcut that only adds to the risk of an explosive mishap. In the electrolyser, the hydrogen and oxygen are produced at separate electrodes. It is simple enough, surely, to configure the cell(s) so that the hydrogen and the oxygen are collected and piped separately?

You didn't mention anything about the filtering inductor after the PWM stage. Without it, your PWM is giving pulses of full voltage that are much higher than your cell voltage threshold. This will translates into large current pulses damaging the transistors. Use a large DC inductor to smooth out the current and your PWM controller is more likely to survive.

Good luck.

Perhaps using smaller cells and running them in series is the answer.The simple fact is that each cell will produce less gas but that all the cells working in unsion will give you the desired effect with no desernable loss in wasted energy such as heat or boiling the cell which reduces it's efficency.John W

If you want to get 2volts from your 14volt alternator you could pick up the AC (3phase) before the rectifier and wind a suitable transformer to give the required output. The problem you may come across is the forward biased voltage drop will be at least 0.6 volts to turn the diodes on.

Because the Automotive alternator is a 3 phase high frequency seperately excited (normally star connected) synchronous machine with a full wave diode bridge attached, all sorts of fun and games can be had with them.

Enjoy.

I think you should use MOSFET circuits with low ON resistance. Adding a temperature sensor and using it for power shutdown is not a bad idea. Make sure your wiring is meant for high current having only milli ohms resistance.

I too am having a issue with my pwm mxo33. As an electrician I know a few things that most people dont about electricity. You want to reduce amps...up your voltage. double your voltage and reduce your amps by half. I have done some reading on hydrogen fracturing using electralisis. First thing and most important is it is the voltage that pulls the hydrogen free. So running at 2volts you are defeating your purpose. amps are a result of resistance. Amps causes heat. In turn your water boils or you fry your controller. I have been looking for a step-up transformer from 12 to 24 volts. The mxo33 and 66 both are capable of switching via the jumper. Thereby reducing your amps by half. overheating and frieing is solved.

Ps people need to get over the sore subject of hydrgen as fuel. It has been proven to be better for an ICE (internal combustion engine) its byproduct is water, which means no soot in your engine, which means your oil lasts longer, which means you dont have to change your oil as often!

All and all its better for the air.

Welcome Kirk

Have a look thru previous discussions here on CR4 regarding electrolysed hydrogen as a fuel and the problems with low energy conversion efficiency that will always ensure that you get far less energy out than you put in. This is especially the case when trying to use gasoline to electrolyse water to get hydrogen.

Also see previous CR4 posts and threads regarding water electrolysis scams. Beware the scam overunity websites and their claims.

It's been discussed to death numerous times by myself and others.

HMM Have you built a generator and tested it yourself? I have, and so has a couple other people that I know, and get anywhere from 6 to 12 mpg better fuel milage. I have yet to master this by far, but I am doing my reading and research and my own testing. So there is noone that is is going to tell me differnt than what I have seen and done with my own to eyes. I am not trying to be rude here nor arrogant. I am definatly open to ideas and there usually is always a better way to do things.

Some of the more recent posts on CR4 on the subject also include explanations on percieved gains obtained as well as details on how to perform accurate comparison tests with and without an on-board electrolyser. Accurate testing has always been difficult, especially for cars where so many variables exist that must be taken inrto consideration.

I cannot find the specific thread but I think DanH started it. It was on the HHAC or PICC scam.

ASA Notes from 1977 EMISSIONS AND TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF A MULTICYLINDER PISTON ENGINE RUNNING ON GASOLINE AND A HYDROGEN-GASOLINE MIXTURE

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

Thanks for the link rcbondsr, I had a quick look and its nice to get some real research posted on the subject rather than links to fake or hopelessly wrong data on scam and backyard inventer websites.

Makes for good reading, but is not actually discussing hydrogen by water electrolysis, but rather the more efficient (?) methonal steam reformation using (among other things) waste exhaust heat (rather than burning extra fuel powering a water electrolyser to create small amounts of hydrogen to add to vaste amounts of fuel).

The conclusions were nothing new. You need a high enough amount of Hydrogen to add to the fuel-air mixture to make a difference (by high I mean more than the few bubbles you can extract from a water electrolyser), and it didn't really matter if the Hydrogen was generated onboard or stored in bottles (as long as the onboard source did not further load the engine).

If anyone is REALLY interested in this sort of research (which people seem to be) then perhaps they should start another new thread on it and try and build on the NASA article (actual real research and results). With advances in hydrogen generation and gas price increases since 1977, it may now be an economical alternative hybrid fuel system for existing engines.

Seriously, I know it is a bit harder to understand and difficult to implement than the other electrolysed water-to-hydrogen hydrogen-gasolene system scams, but you may actually be able to get a REAL and USEFUL energy saving result out of it (rather than wasting everyones time kicking this dead horse uphill).

Jack, you are partly correct.

Down about page 13 it discusses the effect of hydrogen on flame speed.

My testing indicates it is noticeable in some systems much lower that you think.

emissions are affected starting about 1/2 Liter/Minute --dramatically

And some cars show Mileage improvement there also.

Many cars show Mileage improvement from 1 lpm upwards to 10 LPM -

One ford v8 went from 13 to 49 with 9 LPM added - ( 300 ci straight 6 - 1983 )

And some cars reduce emissions but also reduce Mileage dd!!!!

The interesting part is WHY the variation - I expect to answer that as soon am my prototype is running, because I have both variable volume and variable compression.

Where is the line that causes the change from only emission effects to performance/power effects. ??

Answers about February ( says the optimist )

Or - ( more likely ) More Questions :)

rcb

Scammers often refer to this test. The NASA test had to do with lean burn engines, not engines run at stoichiometric (as all recent spark ignition engines in automobiles are.) An engine running at stoichiometric does not benefit at all from hydrogen injection (nor from the injection of any other fuel, gaseous or liquid). University tests have demonstrated that injecting H2 into the air stream of a normal automotive engine reduces power. This is exactly as theory would predict, because the H2 displaces air, which reduces the available oxygen, which reduces the fuel that can be burned.

In later tests, it was found that ultra lean engines would misfire less when H2 was injected, but of course they would misfire less if additional gasoline was injected too – they were running too lean, obviously. There is no test that has found that injecting H2 into a normal, modern spark ignition engine improves performance.

But all these university and lab tests use H2 from a bottle, or reformed methane (already a high energy fuel). Making the H2 on board via electrolysis is a perpetual motion scheme, and an unusually poor one at that. For five ounces of fuel going into the engine to run the alternator harder, you get back only one ounce's equivalent in H2. Thus, the engine performance is reduced and fuel consumption goes up. However, these HHO scam units only use 100 watts or so, so the reduction in performance to an engine rated 100,000 watts or 200,000 watts is impossible to measure. A normal chassis dyno would be hard pressed to measure the drop in performance caused by these devices.

Popular Mechanics recently ran a test in which the actual injection pulse width was measured, which can get you within one percent. But even that accuracy is not enough to measure the drop in performance. They found no difference with the unit running or not, just as the chemistry, physics and measurement limitations would dictate. Incidentally, their "HHO" unit was more sophisticated than most production units, with cells in series to deal with the problem brought up by the original poster of this thread.

Funny that one of the commenters on the Popular Mechanics site mentioned the NASA test, but apparently never really read it.

Ken,

I keep getting that response from folks - however some of us have had a different experience. I do not care what others BELIEVE when I fill up my tank - only how much I spend.

Hydroxy reduces my cost per mile.

Not as much as some folks - here is a guy I do not want to swap fuel bills with.

He uses hydroxy and 10% gasoline in his road-trains. Paste below.

Quote.

i think that we have a fair idea as to what these deisals will take as we burn about 1400 to 1700 lts of diesal per trip each way
the trucks have an overall length of about 160 ft and roll along at a regulated 90 kmh or 120 - 140 when the cops aint around
we run 600 hp detroits with road ranger boxes with a joey box behind trucks are rated to 120 ton pull we haul fresh fruit and vedgies plus a bit of mining gear out and mining gear and broken tourist vehicles on the back trip return trips we are generaly lighter hence the lighter fuel use
we carry 1400 lts on the prime mover ( tractor ) and have a 2000 ltr belly tank on the lead trailer toatl fuel load of 3400 lts ( about 780 galls) this will do a single return trip my currant price for fuel is $1.80 a ltr or $8.10 a gallon or in simple terms i spend nearly $8000 a week on diesal in each of my 2 trucks that are working vehicles
with out fuel assisting items my fuel bill will jump $many thousands per week

i am happy to swap fuel bills with anyone

End Quote

The biggest problem I have seen is the variability - apparently identical systems that have different results. I have had identical ford vans ( 351 with c6 ) that got 2 mpg different results across 3 years. - but NO results ( except emissions ) !!??

As I said - I start building my prototype the end of September. Running about December ( if I have designed it correctly ) The variable volume control is the tricky part - and may take longer :)

The full up engineering facility will help answer several questions, and fuel mix is one of the tests we will be doing.

I expect to run on at least 35% hydroxy ( water ) - The xprize comittee says I will not be charged for water used in the engine !!

- oops - rambling.

My Experience is different than "Conventional Wisdom" - I grew up Plowing - what matters at the end of the day is how much I put in the tank.

My fillups have shrunk using hydroxy.

In my world - experience trumps theory AND belief.

Keep Testing

rcb

Here we go again- how can you make a true believer believe reality- you can't- they have to prove it for themselves- well go for it. May i suggest that you use critical testing procedures such as a 1 litre fuel container, run your tests over the same flat distance on the same day at the same load- you will be amazed at your ineptitude(in my humble opinion- been there- done it).

How about own a vehicle for 6 years, do all the maintenance yourself and know what kind of gas mileage it gets long before putting anything like a hydrogen generator on it. Is this enough testing??? Oh and it has over 200000 miles on it too. Is that a variable too? Oh and its a Toyota, Is that a variable too? Come on smart guys, I know its hard for you guys to separate yourself from your education, but seriously what is water? Its a raw fuel right? You cant dig up crude oil out of the ground and put it in the tank and go can you? What about Nitrous, Propane, Methane??? Do those burn? What about hydrogen? I know I don't quite have the book smarts that you guys do, but I sure have a lot of hands on with cars. I have been around cars and race-cars for 33 years, that has got to be good enough to know a couple things or two.

Kirk- I ain't a book smart pro but a self taught person- my car has 700,800kms on it - i know exactly what mpg to get- for a while I thought my home made electrolyser was giving improved mpg- not true when I ran critical tests- I was being fooled when using a certain amount of fuel in the tank to go a distance till the car stopped- out of fuel- but this varied as the slope of the road as to the pickup in the large flat tank!. As to water being a fuel, water is nothing more than hydrogen's ash!. UNTIL there is a breakthru in splitting hydrogen from it's ash. it takes far more energy thru electrolysis than can be got back by burning the hydrogen- end of story at this time!.

All I know is I fill up the tank as I always do, get my receipt, figure my mileage reset the trip meter. After about 6 years of that I know what kind of gas mileage my truck gets. It does vary between 18 and 20 mpg. But when I get 70-80 more miles to the tank there is something going on. My mileage goes to 24 to 26 mpg. Any ideas?

Water is H2O, 2 part Hydrogen 1 part Oxygen Through electrolysis with high voltage, which voltage is what separates the molecules not amperage. There are a lot of things going on that all need to work together to get better results. For example a motor that has a FLA of 30amps@115v, but you change a couple jumpers and now it runs 15amps@230v and does the same amount of work. Now that is saving 50% energy. Its the same with the power company, They carry 250,000 volts across town to a step down transformer, why? because there is less loss of energy, and to be able to supply the demand that wire is to carry. So with this in mind, you find a way to run high voltage and almost no amperage and get the same work, but the alternator in the vehicle never sees the load.

To my understanding of electricity, there is no free lunch- the product of volts & amps is Watts-ie Power which has to be paid for by energy consumption- the transport of ac at hi volts is to minimize losses in the transmission lines & also thinner lines can be used(less amps- higher volts- same power in Watts- less heat losses in transformers). As to why mpg varies- I found that petrol is definitely not all the same- thus the gains I thought due to hho were the different brands of petrol- I proved that BP was the worst, then Caltex, then Gull- the best for mpg was Shell- I would regularly go 20 km further on 25 litres- to overcome this disparity, I only used Gull to prove whether the electrolyser worked, bought at the same servo- the same amount- the same type of driving. With the electrolyser I would travel 335 km on 25 litres- since i threw it to the sh---T hse, i travel around 355 km using Gull.

Wrong, no energy saving. Power is Volts by amps. The only saving is in line losses which are I squared R. The saving is usually taken at installation by using smaller cable.

Neil,

My experience with SMALL measurement is - erratic at best. That is why I pay little attention to MPG untill I have at least 1000 miles ( 3 fillups ) and prefer 10 fillups.

Emissions change with small amounts - on some systems so does mileage - and sometimes erratically -

Some systems require ignition to be retarded ( closer to tc ) to see any improvement in mileage.

The variabillity is the puzzle I have little useful information on -

The big deal is Voltage - and low current flow - for good production.

I am still testing - trying to understand what is Really Happening.

rcb

You can argue all day long that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, but in fact, you will convince few here. You can also argue that lack of education and lack of knowledge re basic chemistry is a good thing, but you will convince very few here of that, too. Educated scientists and engineers are responsible for making sure that bridges don't collapse (and learn from experiences such as the Tacoma Narrows bridge), that planes don't fall out of the sky, and that the numerous safety features on modern cars work right.

Simply writing statements that are nonsensical does not make them reasonable or true. It is education (and self-education is good thing -- probably the best thing) that allows a person to discriminate between reality and what the scammers would like you to believe. You may find that to be sad, but it is true.

I know its hard for you guys to separate yourself from your education,

Why on earth would I want to separate myself from my education? It's what gives me some small understanding of reality.

You write, re water: Its a raw fuel, right? It is not, unless you consider the ashes from a fire "raw fuel". Water is the product of combustion of H2 and O2. Returning that combination to the original gases requires more energy than you can get out of burning the H2 and O2 again. It doesn't matter what method you use... that will always be the case. (It is the most basic chemistry, and to understand that, you'd need to open a chemistry book. There is no way around that, I'm afraid.) That's why water is not considered a fuel. Rather, it is an excellent fire extinguisher, and is used as a fire extinguisher more frequently than any other.

You cant dig up crude oil out of the ground and put it in the tank and go can you? This gets to the core of your misunderstanding. Crude oil will burn just as it comes out of the ground. Refining it is a simple matter of distillation to separate the components of oil for the intended use: diesel, gasoline, lubricating oil, etc. Because crude is already a fuel, the energy required to do the separation is very low (with gasoline having a well-to-pump efficiency of about 82%.)

For commercial production of H2, reforming of methane is used. That is because methane, otherwise known as natural gas, is a high energy fuel already, and separating out the H2 takes relatively little energy. Electrolysis, the separation of H2 from water (which is not a fuel) takes an amount of energy that is far too high to be commercially viable. So, for commercial producers, it is cheaper to buy methane (an excellent fuel in it own right) extract the H2 than to invest the energy into splitting water, which is very nearly free, relatively speaking. When electrolysis is used for lab purposes, it would be silly to consider water a significant raw material cost (where I live, municipal water is $.0025 per gallon). The significant cost is energy, and that cost is so high that H2 by electrolysis is not commercially viable.

What about Nitrous, Propane, Methane???

Nitrous is not a fuel in any sense of the word. It is a supplier of oxygen.

Methane burns extremely well just as it comes from the ground, because, unlike water, it is a fuel. Propane is also a fuel, unlike water.

Do those burn?

Nitrous does not. Propane does, Methane does. 2 out of 3 are fuels.

Is this enough testing???

It is not the amount of testing that matters, it is the quality of testing. You can teach yourself something about experimental design, or you can just make things up as you go. But don't expect anyone here to reject good science, because you have chosen to do so. One essential element of good experimentation and testing is to eliminate variables. So, the Popular Mechanics procedure, in which the unit is turned on, then off, then on, then off, eliminates many variables: driving style, wear and tear on the car, maintenance issues, malfunctions, etc, etc. We can reasonably say that, when the experiment is repeated several times over the course of a few minutes, that nothing else of consequence is changing with the car, other than the variable of interest, namely "HHO" vs no "HHO". Under such a test "HHO"* has no measurable effect.

There has been no valid dynamometer study using fuel flow measuring equipment that indicates that "HHO" injection (using onboard electrolysis) works as advertised by the scammers. Lab dyno tests are the "gold standard" because they eliminate virtually all of the extraneous variables and enable the tester to find out, in minutes, things that would take hours or days of track testing. Take some time and search the web, and try to find one.

There are Prius drivers who have recorded 32 mpg, and others who have recorded 58 mpg. The difference is not in the cars, which are held to very very close standards of uniformity by Toyota. (I don't have Toyota's standards at hand, but would guess that if an engine varies more than 1% from standard on a dyno runup, it is rejected.) The difference is in the way people drive the cars, where they drive them (up and down hills for example) weather, etc. The owners are not "lying." But if one owner has fuzzy dice installed on the mirror and gets 54 mpg, and the other owner does not, and gets 32 mpg, then is it the fuzzy dice that caused the difference?

As it happens fuzzy dice would be expected to degrade performance less than using an HHO generator would. But in both cases, the difference is too small to measure, as the Popular Mechanics test clearly illustrates.

My own testing, from long before you started hanging around race cars, indicated that my physics teacher was right re using the energy in gasoline to generate H2 and then using that H2 to help fuel the engine doing the generation. It is an attempt at perpetual motion, and a very bad one -- given the losses of the engine and the alternator, each ounce of gasoline wasted nets 1/5 (at very best) the energy content in H2.

No amount of lack of education will change that fact, but lack of education will certainly change the perception of facts. I'd encourage you to become educated in the physics and chemistry involved, if for no other reason than such education is reward in itself, and, by acquainting you with science, helps you to evaluate many other opportunities as they arise in your life.

That's only my perspective, though. There are loads of people who navigate life without much education and make decisions purely on irrational belief, and do just fine, apparently. As long as you did not have to pay for your "HHO" generator, what harm could there be in playing around with it? (Well, there is the explosion hazard, which is only partly reduced by a bubbler -- there are some impressive explosions of these devices on YouTube of the electrolyzer itself, caused by sparks within the electrolyzer.)

* I use "HHO" in quotes, because no such thing exists. The term "HHO" is intended to confuse the uneducated and gullible into believing that the combined gases from electrolysis, a mixture of H2 and O2, is really monatomic H and O: two separate H atoms,and one O atom. There is no support for this belief in reality.

Ken,

Long term averages ( MPG ) are REAL as is the difference in MY CHECKBOOK -

I like 10 fillups ( tankfulls ) as the best answer to " What did my change do "

My answers are slower, but more certain. Tank to tank changes are real, but hard to quantifiy.

Why do you assume that I can not tell the difference in my mileage accross 10 fillups or 3000 miles with REAL accuracy. ??

That is the one thing you keep saying that is foolish at best.

When I see water running down the steel from a water torch cutting 4 Inch thick steel I am sure that common pipe gas is an energy source.

Water is just a convenient way to carry those gasses around.

I do not understand the Variability in practice - but I see it in my tests.

I had identical Ford vans with 351 engines and rearends that got 2 mpg different ( 3 year average ) consistantly.

Why ?? We never figured it out.

Anyone keeping consistant records for several years knows what is going on -

Change one thing - wait 3000 plus miles - look at your average - THAT is real -

More that 30 % increase in MPG is REAL accross long ( 3000 + ) mile tests.

How about spending some of your great experience and skill helping TEST and figure out what the Dickens is REALLY happening, so we can make it work on ALL the cars.

That would be really useful -

rcb

Ken,

If the dyno is expected to reflect real experience, I think real experience ( over a long timeline ) should likewise reflect the dyno results.

Here is one sample of REAL experience. -- The checkbook Knows !! note the fuel costs in the first few paragraphs.

Quote

below is details of the 2 ford / mazda's that we run

we drove a mazda t3500 from perth to sunshine coast basicly empty >500kgs fuel cost $1930
trip took 3 days each way 4 cyl direct injection diesal with a 5 speed box behind body is a 4m long x 2,2m wide x 2,4 m high pantech

return trip with a smack attack added .... 12 volt 10 a cold 18a hot ...... fuel cost $1125 truck returned to perth loaded with 3500kg plus and no black smoke
the only mods done to truck whilst it was in my shop fiberglass wind scoop was replaced with an alloy propellor plate unit and it has 450 led lights fitted to it inc starburst on scoop invisable brake tail and indicators on read and a new alloy propellor plate step added to the rear ( lights look chrome when off red / amber when on ... its a bling thing )
return trip cruise was as coming on west to east trip 95 kmh but due to load no accurate fuel or speed/power testing done

booster did exactly as i said it would do , reduce fuel bill and in my mind as truck maintained cruise speed when full it also gained some power
no black smoke was detected in the air but it had a stack and i saw no reason to climb up

my mazda T4100 has a twinpack smackattack unit fitted running 10a cold 18amps hot @ 24volt i cruise at 120kmh all day loaded or not she is a stretched banana back tow truck i notice little differance between 1 tonne on the back or max legal of 4600KG on the back and as you all know we would never run with an overload
with 5t on the back and 3 t on the trailer i felt the hills a bit but 4 low was as far as i had to drop her too and i never went slower than 75 kmh on the highway and my cruise was 110 - 120 kmh

i will release pics of my 40 plate smack unit very soon , let me knock up another 10,000km or so in it so my numbers are very real

for those yanks who have google earth i live in buderim queensland australia and generaly do an over night trip to sydney New South Wales about once a week its a 2300km round trip trip takes 36 hours generaly
currant numbers are in high 30s low 40s% fuel savings mechanicly direct injection 6 cyl diesal 4.2 ltr 10 speed box 5 high / low
5 mtr steel tray alloy sides

lets all keep working along these lines

End Quote

Again - reality is on the road. - This is one example of many -

Those of us working on this see the results. Why does it vary, or not work on some vehicles ?? I hope to find part of that answer in the next few months.

Testing -

rcb

Oh no!!- another quote- undocumented- quite apart from the fact that diesel engines are involved, which I have not experimented with by adding the water vapour from a so called smack attack(run 18 amps at 12 or even 24 v & that is what you are adding to the engine)-fuel savings-UNBELIEVABLE!!. As to the accuracy of 24 hr drivers recollections, it is well known they take uppers to keep going- some even drink booze!-(shame!). All Ken & anyone else requires is scientific proof- evidence which can be repeated by peers- then we will get somewhere- until then you are living in a dream world, in my humble opinion.

I prefer 3000 miles of real driving - Much more reliable -

eptitude is such an interesting root - :)

rcb

Ken,

In the lean burn situation H2 would be expected to reduce misfiring due to the extemely low ignition energy and its wide explosive range. LEL is something like 4% and the UEL is like 98%. In a lean mix its flame sustaining benefit will appear disproportionate to the mass injected. The above combination of attributes make me want to have nothing to do with home made schemes.

In coal mine spontaneous combustion events evolved H2 is the gas to really worry about. Small concentrations take only a small amount of energy to ignite and that ignition ignites the methane which in turn ignites the coal dust. Hydrogen and acetylene are two gasses that need the utmost respect in handling for the same reasons, hydrogen has the additional property of invisible flame.

Properly constructed equipment is scary enough.

Hi Emjay,

In the lean burn situation H2 would be expected to reduce misfiring due to the extemely low ignition energy and its wide explosive range.

You are exactly right, and lab tests confirm this.

Of course, (so that anyone reading does not misunderstand) the amount of H2 generated by the HHO scam devices never gets remotely close to 4% ratio that would help to prevent misfire, and the engines on which these devices are installed are not running anywhere lean enough for lean misfire to be an issue. In at least one test, the benefit of H2 injection disappeared after the engine was at 85% of stoichiometric (whereas a standard closed loop engine of today never operates at less than 99%, and rarely less than 99.5%.)

Regarding home made schemes, YouTube is full of HHO devices blowing up. In this one, the "experimenters" seem to think that it was the "pressure" of the evolving gases that causes the explosion. As you can see, however, the explosion occurs just as the unit is switched on the second time, evidently from a spark from a loose connection within the electrolyzer cell itself. Most "manufactured" units are no better then the homemade devices. It took a certain amount of courage (?) on the part of the Popular Mechanics editor to ride with one of these units in the passenger compartment of his vehicle. At least his test proved that the units, (even a much-better-than-average one) have no measurable effect on fuel efficiency.