Author: joshr

No 
All ‘normal’ acetylene torch backfire arresters that I know of will not even slow down a BG backfire; that’s not what they are designed for.
They are designed to prevent oxygen and acetylene from mixing together in the fuel lines; which would happen if one or the other bottle has too low of pressure and the wrong gas would try to back-flow into it, thereby creating a combustable mixture in the oxygen or acetylene bottle.  
That type of ‘backfire’ arrester does nothing for fuel that is already mixed with oxygen.1. Most of them are just a check valve.  The BG backfire is traveling at speeds up to 6000 feet per second.  The backfire zips past the check valve before it can even move.  
2. Further, the BG backfire creates a vacuum behind it, which would further tend to hold the valve open; and finally;
3. Even if the valve was shut, the shock wave from the BG explosion can travel through the valve parts and ignite the BG on the other side of the valve.4. A few of them have a ‘screen’ (wire mesh) to quench a backfire.  The BG flame is so hot that it vaporizes the screen.There are inline backfire arresters that are reasonably reliable for BG (though they too will eventually fail and/or need maintenance).  I recommend having two inline, so when the first one fails, the second will catch the backfire; then move the second to the front and replace the second with a new (or refurbished) one.
The only totally reliable way to stop a BG (HHO) backfire is to use a bubbler, where the BG is separated into tiny bubbles that rise through water of at least 4 inches deep.  It the water isn’t deep enough, the backfire can go from bubble to bubble and thus go through the water.
 The best bubbler design is a tube in tube bubbler because it doesn’t rely on a check valve to prevent bubbler water from being sucked back into the electrolyzer when the electrolyzer has a lower pressure (from internal implosion or just cooling of hot gasses).

All Eagle-Research products are sold with a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee.
If you are dissatisfied for any reason, you can return the product(s), in resaleable condition, within 60 days (or longer if that is on the sales page) of receipt of the product(s) for a full refund of the product(s) purchase price.
Shipping and handling fees are non-refundable. Virtual Products are non-refundable after initial download.

To return a product, use the ‘contact page‘ eMail to inform us of
1. who you are,
2. order details (enough detail for us to find your order),
3. what you’d like to return and
We will send your Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) number and shipping instructions.
Please follow the instructions precisely to assure a smooth refund.

MMW is an acronym for MilliLiter(s) per Minute per Watt.
MMW is meant to measure the efficiency of any given electrolyzer technology; particularly electrolyzers designed for on-board vehicle use. The idea is to know the relationship of the volume of BG being produced (milli-liters) for each watt-minute of work (volume of electrical energy).
MMW came into the public domain (I haven’t tracked down the originator) during the explosion of on-board electrolyzer experimentation that happened during 2008. The originator popularized the measurement even though there was already (for decades) an electrolyzer efficiency standard in place and accepted worldwide by the scientific community.
The ‘official’ standard for electrolyzer efficiency is Watt-hour(s) per Liter (Wh/L). Watt-hours are a measurement of work, so this measurement gives the actual amount of electrical energy it took to make 1 liter of BG.
So, an on-board electrolyzer (like the Mighty Mite version of the HyZor technology) that measures 30 seconds to fill a 1,000 mL volume, using a steady 13.8 VDC and 8.5 ADC would calculate:
Given:
13.8 VDC * 8.5 ADC = 117.3 watts30 seconds to fill 1,000 mL = 120 liters/hr117.3 watts * 1 hr = 117.3 Wh
Results:
117.3 Wh / 120 L/hr = 0.9775 Wh/L (for Wh/L smaller is better)
2000 mL / 1 minute / 117.3 watts = 17.05 MMW (for MMW larger is better)
Here are some very good MMW spreadsheets you can download so you can know the efficiency of your experiments (click) (click).Here’s a nice simple online MMW calculator (click). 
The key factor you need to consider is properly taking measurements to assure an accurate result.
For ‘pretty good’ at home testing, we start with making a gas Volume Testing Apparatus (click)
My testing protocol is:1. Get the electrolyzer producing gas under the conditions that it will be tested (pressure, temperature, etc.)  You want ‘steady state’ conditions.
2. Note the amperage and the voltage at the time of the test.
3. Switch the output of the electrolyzer to the VTA; starting a stopwatch at that same instant.
4. Watch the volume markings on the VTA and stop the stopwatch at a chosen volume.
Now I have amperage, voltage, volume and time.  Simply calculate for Wh/L and/or MMW.Here’s a nice simple online MMW calculator (click).
NOTE: For highest accuracy make sure the liquid level inside the bottle is even with the liquid level outside the bottle.
This VTA only works when testing at ‘steady state’ pressure, because if the electrolyzer loses pressure as it is tested, you’ll get a false volume as the ‘stored’ gas expands to ambient pressure.  Most people simply get the electrolyzer operating with the BG outputting to atmosphere and then plug the electrolyzer output into the VTA when starting the stopwatch.My VTA is slightly different than most in that I counterbalance the weight of the testing bottle.  When measuring without counterbalance, I lift the bottle to keep the liquid level inside the bottle even with the liquid on the outside of the bottle.  This VTA does a pretty good job of keeping the liquid levels even, so your volume measurement will be accurate. I use this apparatus because I’m often testing by myself and I don’t have three hands :)It’s also important to note that the temperature of the water and any impurities in the water can affect the ‘reading’.  I use pure water at ambient temperature (about 70°F).  If my electrolyzer is hot, I bubble the output gas through water to bring it’s temperature to around 70°F.  This eliminates inaccuracies that would be caused by steam volume in the output gas.
For absolute accuracy (not generally needed unless comparing results to other electrolyzers) the ambient air pressure needs to be factored in, to correct the gas volume to US-STP.
 

CEIT is Combustion Enhancement Interface Technology.  
 
CEIT is meant to help fuel savers work synergistically with existing fuel systems.
 
The first CEIT was the Carburetor Enhancer, originally developed back in the 1980’s to help the HyCO 2A fuel saving technique enhance carbureted fuel systems.
 
As Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI)  was implemented, additional CEIT has been developed to allow fuel saving technology to be effective on fuel injected systems.  The first CEIT for EFI was the EFIE technology.
 
As EFI has matured, and become more sophisticated, CEIT has also evolved.  The next CEIT for EFI was MAP Enhancer(s) and now there is a whole range of CEIT to choose from.  The choices depend on the specific fuel system being enhanced and the operation of the fuel saver being applied.

On many pages and in Forums / Blogs, COMMENTS are allowed for authorized users.
Authorized users are users the website knows are not SPAM robots. We had a real crazy time until we figured out how to prevent SPAM from being pasted all over our website.
If you are a real person and you cannot comment when logged into your account, contact us and we’ll manually authorize you.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don’t stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to edit or remove comments at our discretion.  We also reserve the right to de-authorize any user who abuses the commenting privilege.

 
Not directly, for several reasons:
1. Brown’s Gas should be considered to be an ‘electrical’ flame, not a BTU flame.  It’s dominant energy is electrical, not thermal, in nature.  Brown’s Gas does not efficiently heat air or water, such mediums dissipate the electrical energy with minimal temperature rise.
2. Brown’s Gas also burns MUCH faster than regular furnace gasses like natural gas or propane and would result in furnaces, designed for slower burning fuels, to explode.
3. BG takes more energy to make than you get back from it (burning it directly and alone as a fuel).
4. Lots of people try heating a secondary material (like copper or magnesium oxide) with Brown’s Gas, and then having that material heat the air or water (there’s even patents for this technique).  
While this technique is more efficient at heating than the ‘bare’ flame, I have not yet seen any proof that this ‘Rube Goldberg’ and expensive technique is more efficient than simply putting the electricity (needed to make the Brown’s Gas anyway) directly into a simple, efficient and inexpensive off-the-shelf resistive element.  
There are scam plans on the internet that use BG (HHO) to heat copper pipes… YES, BG will heat copper pipes and a fan blowing through the pipes will blow the heat into the room; BUT does it really take only 300 watts of energy to make 6000 watts of heat?  No one has yet proven that to me and I haven’t had time to verify the rumors myself.
So NO… Brown’s Gas isn’t practical to use as a ‘stand alone’ fuel in regular gas furnaces. BUT
The EXCEPTION is that Brown’s Gas acts like a catalyst to increase the efficiency of hydrocarbon-fuel combustion.  If you use Brown’s Gas IN ADDITION TO a hydrocarbon fuel, then good things happen.
Here is proof that BG assists carbon-fuel combustion, download PDF
We have been with using Brown’s Gas to increase the efficiency of internal combustion and then add water to compensate for the fuel mass that we have reduced (water replaces the volume of fuel normally used as the combustion ‘cooling’ fluid).  We have the world’s best such technology and we describe it in our ‘Brown’s Gas’, ‘HyZor Technology’, ‘Water Injection’ and ‘Super Gas Saver Secrets’ books.  This is in ADDITION to the gains you can achieve by burning fuel efficiently.
The catalytic effect works at the molecular level, helping the fuel’s atomic bonds to break with less energy input.  I call it ‘lowering the combustion self-propagating endothermic energy requirement’.  Thus, when the fuel burns, the combustion requires less of the heat energy produced to keep the combustion happening.  This allows (for the same fuel mass) more (exothermic) energy to be released as heat.  The quantity of additional heat energy released is far greater than the energy we use to make the Brown’s Gas.  Of course, less efficient technologies than ours have less gain.  
Note: The actual energy put in (to make Brown’s Gas) is 98% recovered in the combustion process; that’s another reason why the catalytic enhancement shows up as a significant ‘free energy’ gain as heat.
Our research so far indicates that this catalytic effect is much more effective on long chain hydrocarbons.  So Methane (and Compressed Natural Gas) has the least gain, Gasoline (Petrol) has a greater gain, Diesel has a very good gain (around 50%) and heavy oils (like the crude used to fuel ocean going ships) get the greatest gain (can replace up to 90% of fuel with water).  Coal combustion is enhanced too.  All this assumes, of course, proper implementation of the technology.
This data is based on our own internal combustion research and on data acquired from various other sources that add hydrogen to assist carbon-fuel combustion.  Our research has been done at ratios from about 5,000:1 carbon-fuel:Brown’s Gas.  It is true that higher concentrations of Brown’s Gas result in even more fuel savings, but there is an optimum ratio for any given application (we are still researching to find that ratio).  After the volume of BG required for the catalytic effect is optimized, any additional BG results in mileage lost (in internal combustion applications) and reduction in combustion temperature (in external combustion applications).
Because we were initially researching with increasing the efficiency of internal combustion in mobile applications, we were limited in by the vehicle’s electrical input.  Stationary applications are not so limited.  Since the actual energy put in (to make Brown’s Gas) is recovered in the combustion process, and the electricity didn’t come at such a dear price as in vehicle applications (up to 14 watts of fuel burned to make 1 watt of BG), there is a much greater potential for profitable efficiency gains in stationary applications (where the electricity to make the BG comes from the Grid).
I’m able to replace 50% of my Natural Gas in my shop with Brown’s Gas and still retain all the original equipment.  By measuring the temperature of the air coming out of the furnace, I find the actual heating value of the mixture is exactly the same as the original NG alone (even though, by volume, BG has only 1/3 the ‘BTU’ value of NG; about 10 BTU per liter for BG and 30 BTU per liter for NG). Putting in more BG than 50% changes the combustion flame too much and the gas becomes incompatible with the furnace (can cause explosions).
Because of the cost of my electricity, water and Natural Gas, BG costs me only 10% of the NG.  Every liter of gas I replace with BG saves me 90% of the cost of the NG.  My electricity is $0.06 per kilowatthour.  Water is $2 per 18 liters (about 5 gallons).  Our WaterTorches make 1860 liters of gas for every liter of water put into them.  Our WaterTorches use less than 2 watthours (convert to MMW) to make each liter of gas.
I see absolutely no reason that the same setup couldn’t be used with propane.  We simply plumb the BG (out from the WaterTorch) into the furnace-gas flow just before the furnace-gas burner shutoff switch (I also add a special bubbler (to prevent backfire and gather excess moisture), a check valve (to prevent furnace-gas from escaping if the BG is disconnected) and a shutoff valve (normal for any gas appliance)).  The BG then mixes with the furnace-gas before it goes into the burner, both enhancing the combustion of the furnace-gas and partially replacing it.
The WaterTorch is easily set for producing an exact volume of gas, and the pressure will rise to just above the furnace-gas pressure (coming from the final stage regulator) automatically, so a precise balance (and ratio) of BG to furnace-gas is simple and automatic.  The WaterTorch is slightly modified (easily done) for automatic shutoff when your furnace shuts off and for automatic water fill.
I’m doing it.  It’s simple.  I see no reason that would prevent anyone from doing it (besides perhaps officials getting concerned because they don’t know what’s happening safety wise and the utility might change your meter, thinking the old one went bad (they did that with mine).  This next Winter I’ll have it in my home as well as my shop.
On the subject of safety.  In every way, BG is safer than NG, or Propane.  It is lighter than air, it simply cannot build up a combustible concentration in a room that has even the simplest ventilation (cracks allowing air to move).  BG is produced on demand, there is no stored gas.  Our WaterTorches (electrolyzers) are designed extremely strong, well able to contain any internal explosions, usually without damage.
 

A. Eagle-Research defines Brown’s Gas (aka BG, HHO or HydrOxy) as:

“A mixture of combustible gasses coming out of an electrolyzer that is specifically designed to electrolyze (split) water and to NOT separate the resulting gasses from each other.”

Electrolysis splits water into hydrogen and oxygen by inserting two electrodes into a solution containing a catalyst and water; then running direct current through the solution.
Hydrogen evolves from the negative electrode (cathode) and oxygen evolves from the positive electrode (anode).  There are many catalyst choices.

The difference between traditional and Brown’s Gas (BG) electrolyzers is a ‘membrane’ in the solution between the cathode and anode.
The membrane traditionally separates the hydrogen and oxygen into two separate streams.

BG electrolyzers do not have a membrane, so all gasses generated come out the same hose.  

Because there is no membrane to interrupt the process, the BG electrolysis can make a third gas, a negatively charged plasma form of water (H2O with extra electrons we call Electrically Expanded Water (ExW)), evolving directly out of the solution (not associated with either electrode); making the BG uniquely different from a traditional H2:O2 mixture.

Brown’s Gas is a ratio of 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen and usually contains a significant water vapor component.

Brown’s Gas is made using water and electricity in specially designed electrolyzers, like our AquaCure.

Research indicates that Brown’s Gas has characteristics that cannot be achieved by simply mixing bottled hydrogen and oxygen in a stoichiometric ratio.

BG contains H, H2, O, O2, H2O (as water vapor) and a special 6th ‘structured’ gas that shows up in ‘dried gas’ as water vapor; https://eagle-research.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Browns-Gas-Spectroscopy.pdf
Chris Eckman calls this 6th constituent “linear water isomer with extra electrons, stable in a Rydberg Cluster”,  professor Ruggero Santilli calls them ‘Magnecules’ and George Wiseman calls it ‘Electrically Expanded Water’ (ExW) ExW is a negatively charged plasma form of water.

Matter exists in 4 ‘states’  Solid, Liquid, Gas and Plasma.

The 4th state of water (ExW) seems to act like a ‘glue’ that holds ‘structures’ of water together, which is why we think atomic oxygen and hydrogen can exist in a stable form.  These structures of H and O atoms (Yull Brown called a fluid crystal) can be large enough to be heavier than air.

ExW gives Brown’s Gas unique properties associated with extra electrons… Like voltage generation or increasing EZ (Exclusion Zone) Gel formation.

Here is a 2019 Presentation, George Wiseman gave at an international conference on water in Germany.

Here are George Wiseman’s early theories of what Brown’s Gas may be…
Here is George Wiseman’s 2017 presentation.
Note that he introduced the initial version of AquaCure at ‘less than cost’ to get beta testers.  The feedback gave us the AquaCure we have today.

BG is also known under brand names like: Common-Ducted Gas, Rhode’s Gas, Spirig Gas, HydrOxy, Brown Gas, Green Gas, Klein Gas, Aquygen, HHO, SG Gas, Ohmasa Gas, Knallgas, HNG and (erroneously by WikiPedia) OxyHydrogen.

Here is a research synopsis from Moray King
Water Electrolyzers and Zero-Point Energy

Here is a peer-reviewed discussion about Brown’s Gas for health:
http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-11/mohaupt

OxyHydrogen is the name of mixed molecular hydrogen (H2) and molecular oxygen (O2) in ratio of 2H2:O2, as you can achieve by mixing bottled gasses OR by electrolyzers with a membrane that separates the hydrogen and oxygen, such as PEM:SPE electrolyzers; which OFTEN erroneously call their mixture ‘Brown’s Gas…
Just mixing pure hydrogen and oxygen is NOT Brown’s Gas because it does not contain the electron rich ExW.
https://eagle-research.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Spanish-Study.docx

Short History of Browns Gas

Brown’s Gas was originally patented in the 1960’s
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3310483A/en
The late William Rhodes, of Pheonix Arizona, was awarded the patent 3,310,483 for ‘Multicell OxyHydrogen Generator’ on March 21, 1967 and he called it ‘single-ducted gas‘.

Not much happened with the gas until the late Yull Brown (then in Australia) in the 1970’s patented his own machine for making it.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4014777A/en
and started to commercialize the gas for various applications (mostly to replace torch fuel gasses like acetylene).  He spent the next 30 years of his life traveling the world, selling his technology and developing variations of his machines.

Yull Brown was particularly effective in the Orient, where China (in particular) was undergoing a MASSIVE buildup and they adopted the Brown’s Gas as a standard welding gas instead of developing an acetylene infrastructure.

During most of that time the single-ducted gas was generally known as ‘Brown’s Gas‘.

After that, several people started making variations of Brown’s Gas machines and many of them ‘brand-named’ the gas (it’s all the same gas) to try to get unique market share.
The first variation was HydrOxy, from Alvin Crosby of New Zealand, who was a distributor of Yull Brown but was unhappy with Yull’s machine’s design and made a better one.

I’ve been working with Brown’s Gas since 1986 and I’ve used the name ‘Brown’s Gas’ to honor the inventor that commercialized it AND because it’s important (less confusion) to keep the same name for the same gas.
The world would NOT know of this gas if it wasn’t for Yull Brown’s effort over the last 30 years of his life.

My version of a Brown’s Gas electrolyzer was half the weight, half the size and produced more gas with half the electricity.  It also was simpler, more manufacturable and safer to use.

The name HHO popped into existence via the late Denny Klein just before the huge raise in oil prices in 2007-2008.  Denny was featured on FOX News at the time, so the gas got a lot of good publicity with the trade name HHO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

One of the excellent applications of BG is for combustion enhancement (typical 25% reduction in fuel consumption) so when Ozzie Freeman put out an eBook on how to DIY apply HHO to your vehicle and sold over a million copies, the name HHO was then ‘cemented’ in the public consciousness.

There’s lots more to the history, but that’s the gist.

All the ‘trade names’ are for the same gas,
… though Brown’s Gas can vary in QUALITY depending on the quantity (percentage) of Electrically Expanded Water (ExW) contained in the mixture.

More George Wiseman Brown’s Gas Presentations:

2001 KeeylyNet Conference

2007 Nexus Conference

2014 Tesla Tech Part 1

2014 TeslaTech Part 2

2017 TeslaTech

2018 TeslaTech

2019 TeslaTech

2019 Water Conference in Germany

Some of George Wiseman’s Brown’s Gas Interviews:

George Wiseman on BitChute

With Mark Kent of Osmio

With Mark Kent and Dr. Jon Xue Zhang

With Mark Kent and Clive De Carle

With Clive de Carle

With Nathalie Niddam

With Greg Carlwood of HigherSideChats    Folllowup Show

With Kevin Shelton of Epigeneering

FAQ: with Fringe Energy

With Justin Stellman of Extreme Health Radio

Justin Stellman of Extreme Health Radio #3 (EP #734)

With Odessa Orlewicz of Librti part 1

With Odessa Orlewicz of Librti part 2 (Q&A)       Librti June 29, 2022 (further Q&A) 

With Karen Elkins 

With Lynnie Wennerstrom of LynnieMotivates.com

With Andrew Scheim of Blue Z Water

With Benjamin Balderson of Odin’s Alchemy

With David Drimmel of Healevations

The Crow Show   (all episodes with George Wiseman)

With Rob Edward of Dig Within

With Chance Garton of InnerVerse

P.A.T LIFE Podcast #2

Conversations with Dr. Tom Cowan

The Hellenic Wolf videos:  Full,  Patents, Intro, History, ExW,

Kaleb Davis Episode EP-07

AlfaVedic with Dr. Barre Lando and Mike Winters

Conversation with Prof. Gerald Pollack and Mark Kent

STERN (anti-Cancer) WEBINAR 2 WHY Brown’s Gas is better than pure hydrogen

Vonu PodCast  (Brown’s Gas as a potential energy source)

Advertisement: Interview with Jordan Jay of United Fight Alliance

FAQ #1

I came across this site making claims that were in some contrast to my understanding about Browns Gas–

What is Brown’s Gas?

Am I missing something?

Nope, even the title premise is incorrect.

It is easier to diagnose electrolyzer electrical issues using voltage.  Ohm-meters are unreliable when testing electrolyzers.If there is a direct short somewhere, (preventing normal application of power without blowing a fuse), then use my simple and inexpensive capacitive amperage limiting technique to control the amperage and prevent the short from being an issue; then test electrolyzer conditions with a voltmeter.
Ohm-meters are unreliable when testing electrolyzers for many reasons, some conflicting with each other, some exacerbating. Examples include:
1. Ohm-meters actually send a current through the ‘load’ to measure the load resistance.  ANY current will activate the electrolyzer, making gas and affecting the actual resistance.  High impedance ohm-meters minimize this issue because they use less current but will still show a varying resistance as conditions in the electrolyzer change.
2. Some conditions in the electrolyzer that affect resistance are: electrolyte type, electrolyte density, electrolyte temperature, electrode shape, electrode material, buildup of non-conductive or dielectric material on the electrodes (usually by electrodeposition on the negative or oxidation on the positive), impurities in the electrolyte, etc.
3. Electrolyzers can become ‘polarized’ and thus give a different resistance reading if you switch the ohm-meter probes one way or the other.
4. Electrolyzers often act like capacitors and/or ‘store’ a charge in a variety of ways (in the electrolyte and on the electrodes).  This charge usually dissipates over time but ohm-meters are not configured to compensate for it.  The charge will ‘skew’ the meter’s reading, creating more or less ‘resistance’ reading, depending on the polarity tested.
So my advice would be to NOT use an ohm-meter to diagnose any issues with an electrolyzer, except very general ones, and certainly don’t trust that the meter reading to accurately tell you much about what is going on inside the electrolyzer; there are too many variables.
If you do use an ohm-meter, at least be aware of the variables, and how each one affects the resistance reading, so that you can use the readings to generally diagnose some issue.
Since there are so many ways for the resistance to vary in an electrolyzer, and the resistance varies continually as conditions change, there is never a ‘fixed’ resistance or even a ‘stable’ resistance in an electrolyzer.  The only way you can accurately determine a ‘resistance’ (at any given time) is to use the Ohms Law formula as expressed, R = E/IR = ResistanceI = AmperageE = Voltage
The varying resistance of electrolyzers is not that big of a deal, no magic or anything ‘over unity’ interesting.  It’s just a side effect of electrolyzer conditions at any given time.  This is normal, natural and easily understood.
Now the way electricity interacts with the electrolyte and the cell design parameters… That’s interesting!  And exploring that has (so far) led me to electrolyzer efficiencies less than 1 watthour per STP liter of BG produced.

I can’t yet say. There are too many variables.
For example: the efficiency of the electrolyzer. For any given fuel volume there will be an optimum volume of BG to use as a combustion enhancement catalyst. I have found (see HyZor Technology book) that a law of diminishing returns applies. So for the first amp of BG production (on any given electrolyzer) you get the most gains. The next amp gets less gains, etc. until peak (peak varies with engine and electrolyzer efficiency), and then additional amperage actually LOSES mileage. A lot of people are in that range, not getting optimum gains, because they are assuming that if a little BG is good, a lot is better; and it’s not PRACTICALLY true.
The answer is somewhere in a balance of amperage (thus BG production) and the efficiencies with which BG is produced and used.
Note: I idled a 140ci engine TOTALLY on BG at a rate of 3000 liters/hour (see BG video 2). My average electrolyzer efficiency at the time was 3 watthours/liter, so I was using 9 kWh (from the Grid) to idle an engine for an hour in my shop. (It ran amazingly smoothly) I think if I had made ignition timing adjustments and raised the compression of the engine, I could have significantly reduced the BG consumption.
My point is that we are dealing with two different philosophies and which we concentrate on is totally dependent on electrolyzer efficiency.
The first philosophy is using BG as catalytic combustion enhancement.
As long as the electrolyzer can’t make enough BG to actually run the engine (when powered by the engine) then catalytic combustion enhancement of your fossil fuel is the ONLY practical avenue.  Here is proof that BG assists carbon-fuel combustion, download PDF here.
Efficiency is the key here, because actual fuel mileage gains seriously depend on the electrolyzer efficiency. It takes a LOT of fuel to make electricity (most people have NO idea how much).
Here’s an example; part 1: Assuming the gasoline engine is 25% efficient, the alternator belt drive 90%, the alternator 55%, electrolyzer 60% (overall efficiency of energy conversion is 100*0.25*0.9*0.55*0.60 = 7.4%); then for each watt of electricity produced by the alternator took (100/7.4) 13.5 watts of fuel. The resulting BG needs to increase overall engine efficiency by 13.5 watts for every watt of BG produced before there will be ANY gain in fuel mileage.
So if we look at our efficiency bell curve, it will peak (for these conditions) when the overall engine efficiency does NOT increase by more than 13.5 watts of fuel per watt of BG produced.
Example part 2: Assuming we change NO other efficiencies in the engine (I definitely recommend making every efficiency upgrade possible but for our example we’ll hold to one variable) and ‘just’ increase the efficiency of the electrolyzer to 100% (which we have done and may be doing better). So the engine is 25% efficient, the alternator belt drive 90%, the alternator 55%, electrolyzer 100% (overall efficiency of energy conversion is 100*0.25*0.9*0.55*1 = 12.4%); then for each watt of electricity produced by the alternator took (100/12.4) 8 watts of fuel. The resulting BG needs to increase overall engine efficiency by 8 watts for every watt of BG produced before there will be ANY gain in fuel mileage.
So if we look at our efficiency bell curve (see the HyZor Technology Book), it will peak (for these conditions) when the overall engine efficiency does NOT increase by more than 8 watts of fuel per watt of BG produced.
Electrolyzer efficiency significantly affects how much BG is ‘optimum’, in a ‘feedback’ kind of loop. As the overall engine efficiency increases, the amount of fuel required to produce a watt of BG goes down (engine efficiency rises) further reducing the wattage of fuel needed to produce the BG.
Example part 3: So the engine is now 30% efficient, the alternator belt drive 90%, the alternator 55%, electrolyzer 100% (overall efficiency of energy conversion is 100*0.30*0.9*0.55*1 = 14.9%); then for each watt of electricity produced by the alternator took (100/14.9) 6.7 watts of fuel. The resulting BG needs to increase overall engine efficiency by 6.7 watts for every watt of BG produced before there will be ANY gain in fuel mileage.
So if we look at our efficiency bell curve, it will peak (for these conditions) when the overall engine efficiency does NOT increase by more than 6.7 watts of fuel per watt of BG produced.
Each efficiency gain, wherever applied, affects the entire system in a dynamic balance; which is one of the reasons I can’t answer the question: “1. How much BG does any given engine need or can effectively and efficiently use per liter of engine displacement.” The answer depends on several variables, which change with every application.
My rule of thumb, with my HyZors, is1 amp of BG for each liter of engine displacement.
This recommendation is based on:
1. The average ‘reserve capacity’ of most alternator systems (about 3 amps per liter of engine displacement). Greater amperage draw than this (for the HyZor) starts to create issues with the ability of the charging system to keep a battery fully charged (particularly in winter with short vehicle runs) and I have to assume that the electrolyzer isn’t the only ‘after-market’ load on the alternator.
2. Absolutely keeping the customer’s gains on the ‘most gains’ side of the efficiency bell curve. The first few amps gives the greatest gain. So typically, my HyZors are getting the same gains that found by other designs that use 10x the amperage.
3. As we increase electrolyzer efficiency, the volume of BG per amp rises, which will further increase customer’s fuel mileage without causing excessive stress on the charging system.
In the end, I want to make it possible for the customer to make informed choice about how much BG to produce, with the ability to vary the production to desire.
More reasons I can’t give an actual ‘volume of BG’ in any given application include:
Amps make Brown’s Gas (BG).  There is traditionally a direct relationship of amps to gas production in an electrolyzer, EXCEPT with making BG.  When making BG there’s also Electrically Expanded Water (ExW) produced, so there’s an additional gas volume (that extra gas makes BG electrolysis seem over-unity according to Faraday equations).
Gas production (volume of gas) is hard to measure correctly without very expensive equipment, so I give people an ‘amperage’ rule of thumb; which is accurate for MY electrolyzers only!    
Generally the amperage and thus BG production (in my electrolyzers) should be about 1 amp per liter of engine displacement.
Gas production will vary depending on the electrolyzer design (more or less ExW), which is another reason I hesitate to give actual gas volume as a ‘rule of thumb’.
The more ExW you can produce (as a percentage of the BG), the less gas (BG) volume you need to get your mileage gains.  
The ‘magic’ is in the ExW, not the hydrogen (H2).  So if you have an electrolyzer that produces a larger quantity of ExW, then you do not need as much gas volume (and thus use less amperage) to get your optimum gains.  My electrolyzers get the same gains as ‘others’ that use 10x the amperage.
Some engines will require more amperage for optimum fuel savings, some less.  My 1983 Honda Civic Hatchback with 1.5 liter engine gets it’s best gain using only 0.95 amp.
 
The second philosophy of using BG is Water As Fuel.
This can only be possible when the electrolyzer efficiency is greater than 400% (this will allow an engine to ‘self-run’ on water).
It can only be practical if the electrolyzer efficiency is 4000% (this will allow the engine to have the excess power needed to be of practical use).
Since I know of no electrolyzer technology that is 4000% efficient, I choose to concentrate on the combustion enhancement philosophy discussed above.

Water Injection helps several ways.
1. Water enhances fossil-fuel combustion, particularly when used with Brown’s Gas (aka BG or HHO).
2. Water cleans the combustion area and valves in several ways; first by flash cooling red hot carbon deposits, causing them to flake off (this also tends to reduce pre-ignition and or detonation problems), second by helping the carbon burn (both the carbon buildup and the incoming fuel), third by reducing the volume of fuel needed to produce the same amount of power (less fuel means less potential carbon buildup).
3. Done correctly, water can replace the need to add ‘quenching/cooling’ fuel to keep exhaust temperatures down.  As explained in my Double Mileage Guaranteed eBook, only about 10% of the fuel that goes into an engine (with ‘vested interest’ OEM fuel systems) actually powers the engine.  It’s totally practical (using water to replace excess fuel) to reduce the actual liquid fuel by 50% (or more) while maintaining full power output.  As a bonus, the pollution levels are reduced to almost nothing.
4. Water Injection reduces the amount of water the engine has to handle.  Even most mechanics don’t know this because they aren’t taught organic chemistry.  A gallon of gasoline turns into nine (9) gallons of water when combusted.  If 50% of the fuel is replaced with water, then there is only four and a half (4.5) gallons of water produced by combustion of the fuel.  The net result is that the engine only has to handle five (5) gallons of water (4.5 from fuel and 0.5 from water injection). 
5. As explained above, water injection tends to reduce engine knock (aka pre-ignition or detonation).  This is a well established fact and used to help increase horsepower by being able to further advance ignition timing.
Water does NOT rust the engine or exhaust system, as explained above, water injection actually reduces the water the engine is already handling.
Water does NOT increase engine wear.  Oil and water do not mix, so water does not wash lubricating oil off the cylinder walls.  Liquid fuel washes oil off the cylinder walls (ask any mechanic that uses fuel to wash oil off parts when cleaning them), so adding water and reducing liquid fuel actually reduces engine wear.