# Electrolysis, making "brown gas" to add mileage in your car...



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I didn't want to take over the other thread but felt it was important to get this information out.

What does it cost and what do your get out of it?
OK, the reality of it is:
You have a container that is filled with water (and an electrolyte).
Let's say it holds a quart of water (1.75 Lbs) and it lasts you through a tank of gas.
You burn 15 gallons of gas (90 Lbs) and 1260 Lbs of air (14:1 air to fuel ratio).
In addition to that you burn your 1.75 Lbs of HHO.
So you are getting 1.75 Lbs of "new fuel/air to supplement your 1350 pounds of fuel and air from the gasoline. 0.13% or 13 ten-thousandths of your total fuel usage is obtained from the HHO system. IF you got 100% power from the HHO it would only increase your mileage by less than 1% (0.97%). If you get (as I do) 21MPG a 1% increase would only be 21.21 MPG.
The actual physics goes like this:
It takes 12VDC at 20 amps to make the HHO generator work. That is 240 watts consumed. Since there is a 10% loss in the alternator and regulator that means that you have to produce 267 watts to get the 240 watts through the generator (if it is 100% efficient (which it isn't). The engine has to use .358 HP to generate the 267 watts but there are losses in the belt drive to the alternator so it actually takes .397 HP to drive the alternator. It takes about 11 HP to go 30 mph (in a 3300 lb car - not taking into account rolling resistance or air resistance) so when you add the HHO it now takes 11.397 hp to do the same speed. Of that 11.397 HP the HHO is only producing .0148 HP (0.13%) if the converter is operating at 100% (which it doesn't)
It is physically impossible to get an increase in MPG from the HHO generator.
What can happen is the same thing that happened when people installed fuel line heater assemblies on their cars and the old alcohol and water "injection systems" on their cars the last time fuel prices went up. You pay more attention to how you drive your car and that is where the increased fuel economy comes from. You can do more to get better mileage by installing a vacuum gauge on your car and watch it while you drive. If you try to keep the vacuum above 10 inches of mercury your mileage will increase - a lot! Keep your tires inflated so that you just have a full tread in contact with the pavement. Get your distributor re-curved to speed up and limit your mechanical advance to 10 degrees (starting at 1300 rpm and complete at 2500 crank RPM) and run 14 degrees initial advance. Get the vacuum advance tuned so that it starts at 12" Hg and completely tops out at 16 crankshaft degrees by 16" Hg. Make sure your warm air intake valve is functioning and that your choke is set to the minimum needed for your climate. All of this will increase your economy without sacrificing a lot of power. 

No matter how you figure it, your car uses more power to run the electrolysis than you can get out of the hydrogen/oxygen mixture when burned.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Bingo you get the prize your last line says it all . And such is the result of all of the tricks they come up with.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

You're right about paying more attention to your driving getting better mileage. When I was a kid I was inspired after reading a book on the subject, and decided to try it. Kept the windows closed, no air conditioning, got into the upper gears as fast as possible, shoe off for a better feel of the accelerator, pumped the tires way up, heck I even waxed the car for less air resistance. Drifted up to all the stoplights to maintain momentum, never exceeded 40 MPH, and a lot of things I've forgotten. Bottom line: I got a little over 50 miles per gallon in a stock 1962 fiat, door to door over state roads, with an elevation gain of about 2000 feet.

Anyone can do this, it just isn't much fun to drive that way. Maybe a little unsafe, too.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Great post Paul.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Thanks,
It's not the first time I have written on this topic but it is unusual to have people actually read and understand it. It reinforces my faith in humanity as a whole.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I'll assume this was directed at me.
I can't speak to actual gains I experienced, because I had a catastrophic failure of my system due to heat generation at a contact point. My fault, didn't solder.
I didn't pursue it further after that. (the wife didn't like the cost of experimentation)
What I can speak to is what others have experienced. There are far too many claim of gains for it to be called unanimously impossible.
Your belief that they all drove differently is assumption, and unfortunately, not provable.
I will also point out, your assumption of amperage draw is not universal.
Amperage draw will be highly variable depending on distance between plates, concentration of electrolyte in the water, and many other factors.
Many who build these devices keep this in mind, and attempt to keep amperage draw low, as this builds heat, and can also cause the system to enter a runaway state where amperage continues to climb. Pulse width modulators have been installed to mitigate this in most systems with this problem.

There is even tested evidence of this type of system working.
Pepsi started using a "hydrogen-injection" system in some of their trucks. Dynamic Announces Pepsi Packing Jetstar(TM) "Second Event" - Bloomberg
Independent testing of this "Jetstar" system was conducted: Dynamic Fuel Systems Inc. - Company announces results of - Bloomberg
They found fuel economy was improved by 7%.
Pepsi seemed to like the system for its pollution reducing qualities as well, but there *WAS* a proven increase to fuel economy.

If you wish to question these facts, I can't hope to debate it. You'll have to take it up with them.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Damnit PaulS,

I was just composing a post that was exactly like yours but you beat me to it. Age before Beauty I guess!

Seriously, thanks...it was very good info.:encouragement:


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Kauboy,
The thread was not aimed at you but your post initiated my review of the subject as it refers to the automotive HHO generators and plans for the same units. 
There are products that use "similar" technology that have become an acceptable expense in their use. There are large plants that use commercial power to generate Hydrogen and oxygen for torches and burners in areas where natural gas and acetylene would be cost prohibitive to ship in and use. In some industries the extremely hot flame of hydrogen along with its purity are needed and thus makes up for the cost.

Do you have any information on how the "Jet Star System" generates its Hydrogen? Do you know what the costs are? 
Here again the system uses 1/2 gallon of (specially treated) water for every 2500 to 4000 miles of operation. 4.15 pounds of water for every 2509 to 4083 pounds of diesel. The difference is that the "Jet Star System" uses independent power to operate. The power is not generated by the engine. The gases are also pressurized and fed into the engine under pressure. That way the unique combustion characteristics of the diesel engine get cleaner burn both from the higher density of hydrogen but also by using the super-heated steam that forms during combustion which cleans the exhaust. The point of the system is to reduce the emissions of the diesel engine and the added "fuel economy" is not measured against the operating expenses of the delivery system. If we computed the cost of the system itself and the patented "specially treated water" it would cost more per mile than the mileage results show.

Here is the warranty of the "Jet Star System":


> The Jetstar™ does not void any existing warranties related to the truck i.e. engine, transmission etc.
> 
> 1. For a Period of two (2) years from the orginal installation date, the Jetstar™ is warranted as a consumer
> product to the original consumer purchaser.
> ...


And here is their safety statement:



> SAFETY
> 
> NUMEROUS SAFETY FEATURES are built into the Jetstar™ system:
> • A two way solenoid deactivates immediately on shutdown, clearing all hydrogen from the system.
> ...


I added the bold to highlight the statement about the level of hydrogen.

This is the free market working at its best. They sell you the product, They charge you for the installation, they sell you the jet fuel (special water), and they charge you to train your mechanics to install and uninstall the systems. This is the best money making scheme I have ever heard of. It would be akin to GM selling you a car that was required to burn GM provided fuel and voided your warranty if it was worked on by anyone but Mr. Goodwrench.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Kauboy,
> The thread was not aimed at you but your post initiated my review of the subject as it refers to the automotive HHO generators and plans for the same units.
> There are products that use "similar" technology that have become an acceptable expense in their use. There are large plants that use commercial power to generate Hydrogen and oxygen for torches and burners in areas where natural gas and acetylene would be cost prohibitive to ship in and use. In some industries the extremely hot flame of hydrogen along with its purity are needed and thus makes up for the cost.
> 
> ...


The portion you emphasized with bold lettering is a major point of concern to anyone doing this.
Nobody wants a large quantity of hydrogen being stored on board. As noted, the gas is highly explosive, so only what is necessary for combustion by the engine should be produced by the generator.
It was not stated to imply that the system does not generate a large amount of hydrogen, but rather that it does not have a holding tank for excess.
The next line confirms this:
"_All the hydrogen being generated is consumed by your engine."_

As for the "specially treated" water, it's just an electrolyte solution. They just don't want to give away their specific "recipe", I guess.

If you think legit companies are being fooled into this without doing their own due diligence, you're mistaken.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I want to clarify something on this topic. I don't claim that these systems generate more than they require, nor that they can be self-sustaining. I simply like the technology, and think with more innovation it could lead to big benefits in many areas. I imagine systems that would run off renewable sources of energy, like solar or wind, reducing *some* of the cost in both monetary and energy waste. You've already touched on other areas where the technology is beneficial, and with more interest and experimentation, it could extend into other areas.
I just like to see all of these technologies as options to competition. I'm not blind to the physics of it, but many studies have shown results and I'm not one to assume they are all tainted by the same biases or inaccuracies. I guess I'm more inclined to be an optimist when it comes to technologies that interest me. I want to see how they progress. Healthy skepticism is good, but it shouldn't cause us to discount everything. The guy who pioneered horizontal drilling was laughed out of the industry and nearly lost every dime to his name. Now he's the father of an energy boom so big, it will rock the global economy like we've not seen in decades. He was optimistic when all others discounted him entirely. He kept his optimism, and it paid off.
Even if these car systems never go anywhere, the tech they will kickstart could be amazing. We just don't know yet.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

the tech is cool, but you do know that they have the tech to get really impressive mileage and have mastered it -the oil and auto companies just will never put it out.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Medic33 said:


> the tech is cool, but you do know that they have the tech to get really impressive mileage and have mastered it -the oil and auto companies just will never put it out.


I have no proof of this, but I've heard many rumors.
My favorite is when a company hosts a competition to design a more efficient engine and the winner always gets their design bought up by some manufacturer, and they never let it see the light of day again. Sadly, money talks... too loudly sometimes.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

PaulS said:


> I didn't want to take over the other thread but felt it was important to get this information out.
> 
> What does it cost and what do your get out of it?
> OK, the reality of it is:
> ...


You should know better. Methanol injection kits aren't used to increase fuEl economy, they are used to lower intake Temps and thereby increase horsepower.

The physics are colder air and fuel are more dense so more (quantity) fits in less (volume) more air and fuel makes greater compression, which produces more power.

It's like a minor boost to vehicles that already have forced induction systems.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> You're right about paying more attention to your driving getting better mileage. When I was a kid I was inspired after reading a book on the subject, and decided to try it. Kept the windows closed, no air conditioning, got into the upper gears as fast as possible, shoe off for a better feel of the accelerator, pumped the tires way up, heck I even waxed the car for less air resistance. Drifted up to all the stoplights to maintain momentum, never exceeded 40 MPH, and a lot of things I've forgotten. Bottom line: I got a little over 50 miles per gallon in a stock 1962 fiat, door to door over state roads, with an elevation gain of about 2000 feet.
> 
> Anyone can do this, it just isn't much fun to drive that way. Maybe a little unsafe, too.


most cars, especially later models, 70s and newer, are designed to get optimal gas mileage at 50-55 mph.
Below 50 miles per hour the effect of having your windows down is negligible. 
Above 50 mph the effect of your AC is negligible.

Increased tire pressure or decreased tire pressure do not improve gas mileage. I know you are thinking the less tire on the road, the less resistance, but also the less traction, and the time spent spinning tires will steal back the gas you saved. I'm not talking about burning out, I'm talking about micro slips and slides that you won't even detect.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> I'll assume this was directed at me.
> I can't speak to actual gains I experienced, because I had a catastrophic failure of my system due to heat generation at a contact point. My fault, didn't solder.
> I didn't pursue it further after that. (the wife didn't like the cost of experimentation)
> What I can speak to is what others have experienced. There are far too many claim of gains for it to be called unanimously impossible.
> ...


The difference between two of the same motors can be huge. For a motor rated for 200hp and 30mpg (arbitrary numbers) actual varience could be 180hp/34mpg to 210hp/28mpg. Or 180/28 and 210/34


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

PaulS said:


> Kauboy,
> The thread was not aimed at you but your post initiated my review of the subject as it refers to the automotive HHO generators and plans for the same units.
> There are products that use "similar" technology that have become an acceptable expense in their use. There are large plants that use commercial power to generate Hydrogen and oxygen for torches and burners in areas where natural gas and acetylene would be cost prohibitive to ship in and use. In some industries the extremely hot flame of hydrogen along with its purity are needed and thus makes up for the cost.
> 
> ...


I'm going to agree with Kauboy on this. No significant amount is referring to the lack of quantity stored, and the inability of the system to "go hindenburgh"


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

OK, I will remind folks that the ratio of HHO to whatever fuel you use is still between .18% (.0018) per pound of fuel and .11% (.0011) per pound of fuel.
Further these units are sold to eliminate carbon tax costs not better fuel economy. The companies involve don't want to pay carbon taxes so the cost of the units is worth it to them.
Any fuel consumption improvements are considered secondary to the tax advantage.

I know that the "Jet fuel" is just water and an electrolyte but the point is that you have to use the manufacturers product in order to comply with the warranty and claim the credit for carbon tax credits. It is a great way to make money - even better than the strategy used by Gates and Microsoft. I would like to invest in the company for no other reason than their marketing.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Double post - sorry.

There is no delete function, is there a reason for that?


----------



## azrancher (Dec 14, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Double post - sorry.
> There is no delete function, is there a reason for that?


Yes it's so we can make fun of you...

*Rancher*


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

It's nice to have friends....

You guys don't need a reason to make fun of me, my tells me I'm a "funny man" all the time and I grew up in a big family (8 brothers and 3 sisters).


----------



## azrancher (Dec 14, 2014)

PaulS said:


> It's nice to have friends....
> You guys don't need a reason to make fun of me, my tells me I'm a "funny man" all the time and I grew up in a big family (8 brothers and 3 sisters).


And we're good friends...

I remember my first wife, there are only 2 that are lucky enough to be call a wife... we were in college and she had this book, economics I think, called TANSTAAFL, being an engineer student I had to ask her what that ment.

*T*here *A*in't *N*o *S*uch *T*hing *A*s *A* *F*ree *L*unch

*Rancher*


----------

