Search Results for: hyzor

The terminology ‘dry-cell’ came into the public domain as a ‘trade name’ for Brown’s Gas, likely originating from Denny Klein during the explosion of on-board electrolyzer experimentation that happened during 2008.

The originator popularized the term ‘dry-cell’ to differentiate the ‘recirculating-electrolyte‘ electrolyzer designs (dry-cell) from the original electrolyzers that did not recirculate the electrolyte (wet-cell).

The ‘dry-cell’ is a misnomer.  Dry-cells do NOT use dry (no liquid) electrolyte.  In fact, they usually use MORE liquid electrolyte than the original simple design; that they re-named a ‘wet-cell’.

A so-called ‘dry-cell’ is simply a full flooded wet-cell with an additional reservoir for electrolyte and a means to circulate the electrolyte fluids, (liquid and gas mixture) between the electrolyzer and the reservoir.

I think they were named ‘dry’ because they, theoretically, could have a smaller portion of the liquid electrolyte in the cell-pack at any given time.  This is actually not true in a lot of cases.

The dry-cell’s fluid reservoir is usually mounted higher than the cell-pack and is connected to the cell-pack so that the natrual ‘rising’ action of convection (heated liquid electrolyte) and gas bubbles will ‘pump’ the electrolyte/gas mixture up out of the electrolyzer, allowing fresh electrolyte to flow into the bottom of the electrolyzer.

A ‘dry-cell’ is simply an ‘electrolyte circulating electrolyzer system’.  The electrolyzer portion of the system can be, and usually is, EXACTLY the same design as the original (now ‘re-named’ wet-cell).

Typically the dry-cell’s reservoir is used to separate the BG (aka HHO) and electrolyte fluid, allowing the BG to exit from the system and the de-gassed electrolyte to re-enter the bottom of the electrolyzer.

Dry-cells can be designed using parallel-plate or series-plate configurations; exactly the same as the original wet-cells.  I say again… Nearly ANY electrolyzer can be converted to be a ‘dry-cell’ just by adding a reservoir tank and recirculation hoses.  BUT just because it’s a dry-cell DOESN’T make it more efficient, most often just the opposite is true.

Some advantages of the dry-cell concept include:

1. An increased ability to control the temperature of the electrolyte.  For any given electrolyzer design, frequency, pulse (width and shape), electrolyte and electrolyte concentration there will be an ideal or optimum temperature.

Sometimes the BG production increase can be dramatic if the optimum temperature is maintained; so all electrolyzers should have temperature control, allowing heating or cooling as needed.
Our HyZor is an ‘integrated dry cell’ because the ‘extra reservoir’ is built into the body.

2. The ability to mount the reservoir tank separately from the electrolyzer, supposedly allowing easier filling with water and easier placing of components within the vehicle.  Easier filling may not be actually true, depending on the electrolyzer and the location of the reservoir tank.
Our HyZor is designed to be filled remotely and includes electronics to monitor fluid level.

3. The ability to remove bubbles from the electrolyzer faster than natural convection, particularly if using a pump.  Using a pump to increase ‘dry-cell’ efficiency is highly recommended.

4. The ability to ‘treat’ all the electrolyte, filtering out solids and/or changing the electrolyte density easily and quickly.  In some cases, this can be a practical advantage.

The usual concept is to have the BG, generated in the electrolyzer, lift itself and some electrolyte out of the electrolyzer using bubble-assisted convection or pump assisted convection. The upper tank then allows the BG to separate from the electrolyte fluid (at it’s own convenience) and the, now clear, electrolyte then falls back (through a separate tube) to the bottom of the electrolyzer, to continue the process.

The dry-cell may also cause more ExW to form, as cations and anions can be ‘pushed’ out of the electrolyzer with the BG before they have a chance to complete their chemical dance.

My advise would be to provide a pump for positive circulation of the electrolyte. Maximizing the advantages above (particularly as I’m finding that temperature control may be a major factor in finding the peak performance point) and minimizing the inevitable ‘surging’ that happens with passive bubble-assisted circulation (surging causes portions of plate surfaces to become inactive).

Also, it is VITAL to remove bubbles from the active electrode surfaces ASAP to raise electrolyzer efficiency.  Every bubble that is stuck to a surface is preventing that portion of the surface from participating in the electrolysis process.  Less surface area causes a higher amperage density and higher cell voltages; both of which reduce wattage efficiency.  A pump forces the fluids, including the bubbles formed on the plates, to be ejected from the cells; allowing the electrolysis process to be more efficient.

Also, most dry-cells are miss-designed for maximum efficiency, because they enter and exit the fluid through the side-plates.  This causes flow, surging and ‘shorting’ issues.

Fluid for each cell should enter from directly below each cell and exit directly above each cell, using manifolds (like these people did).  If fluids from one cell can access another cell, electricity can ‘short’ between the cells and cause lower efficiency.

Our HyZor, as currently designed, is a compact, integrated hybrid wet/dry electrolyzer wherein the bulk of the electrolyte is separate from the (dual) electrolyzers and electrolyte CAN circulate in and out of the cells. 

I have not yet seen a dry-cell that can match or exceed the efficiencies of our current HyZor design, which has achieved 20+ MMW.

Fuel cells do not use electrolyte; but I think you are confusing fuel cells (which take hydrogen and oxygen as fuel to make electricity and water) with an electrolyzer (often called a generator) which uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Our electrolyzer designs, like the on-board ER HyZor, use lye (NaOH) as the electrolyte.
I’ve tested hundreds of electrolytes, electrolyte concentrations, frequencies, plate spacings, etc. I’m always looking for the most efficient electrolyzer design, electrolyte and power supply (more on that elsewhere).  There is a difference between efficiency and practicality.  In my commercial electrolyzer designs I use PRACTICALITY as my main design parameter, sacrificing some efficiency for user-friendlyness and lower cost.
So far, I’ve discovered that lye is the most practical electrolyte, because it produces BG cleanly, efficiently, is low cost, has low toxicity and is fairly easy to acquire.  I’ve designed my electrolyzers to optimize the characteristics of lye so lye (NaOH) will produce 30% more BG than using KOH.
My electrolyzers are over 100% Faraday efficient if you consider both the BG production and the heat produced.  ER1200 WaterTorch independent efficiency test results (without measuring heat energy produced).  
A lot of electrolyzers promoted on the internet use baking soda as the catalyst.  The reason baking soda works as an electrolyte is because a small portion of it turns into lye.  The rest of the stuff in baking soda just clogs the system up with impurities and/or turns into poisons.  
You can cleanly achieve the same result (inefficient electrolysis) by using a 5% mixture of lye (by weight).  This makes the electrolyte about as benign as citrus juice (see below).
 

Virtually all engines today (diesel trucks are just catching up) use electronic sensors and an engine computer (CPU) to help make the engines more efficient.  
 
Modern CPU programming measures a lot of parameters and ‘assume’ that a certain volume of fuel is needed to achieve power in any given set of conditions.  The CPU is programmed to assure that volume of fuel is injected.  
 
Note: Electronics only peripherally increase combustion efficiency, by coordinating timing and fuel volume based on ambient conditions (measured with sensors).  
Electronics do not directly affect the actual combustion event.
 

Modern fuel systems with computer controlled air:fuel ratio DO decrease fuel consumption.  BUT…
 
Oxygen sensor feedback (to optimize air:fuel ratio) is almost a joke in most applications.  Yes it works but it could be MUCH better.  
The systems I personally built (have documented in my HyCO 2A Manual Update and have subsequently improved) in the 1990s save twice as much fuel as the ‘modern’ pablum ‘they’ are giving you…  
AND, ‘they’ are basing ‘their’ programming on liquid fuel characteristics, which are inherently inefficient. 
 
When you actually increase combustion efficiency, so that the fuel combusts:
1. When it should to most efficiently convert its heat to mechanical energy
2. Completely in the short time that it most effectively converts heat energy to mechanical energy.  It isn’t enough that the fuel completely burned, it has to burn at the right time!
Then the fuel consumption goes down and the power goes up.  
 

When you increase Thermal Efficiency (getting more power using less fuel) the CPU no longer properly responds to the ‘information’ that it gets from it’s sensors.  
The CPU continues to make (now-erronious) ‘decisions’ based on programming that ‘assumes’ the fuel system is still using the un-enhanced combustion.
 

The ‘computer’ doesn’t know what to do with the ‘results’ of efficient combustion, which include a higher exhaust oxygen content, so it adds fuel to ‘compensate’.  
 
We discovered this effect in the 1980s and developed Combustion Enhancement Interface Technology (CEIT) to help the fuel saving technology interface with the vehicle’s fuel systemsynergistically to achieve optimal gains!

  
Examples of Combustion Enhancement Interface Technology (CEIT)
1. Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer (EFIE),
2. Electronic Diverter (ED),
3. Manifold Air Pressure Enhancer (MAP Enhancer)
4. Intake Air Temperature Enhancer (IAT Enhancer)
5. Fuel Temperature Sensor Enhancer (FTS Enhancer)
+. and many more.  
 
Here is a website that explains how simple it is to modify sensor signals and some reasons you might want to modify signals (besides combustion enhancement) (click).  
 
CEIT is designed to ‘correct’ the signals coming from the various sensors so that the CPU will make the correct desisions to optimize the advantages of the combustion enhancement.
 
CEIT not only allows combustion enhancement technology to ‘merge’ with existing CPUs, but it also allows people to convert the power gain (that normally accompanies combustion enhancement) into further mileage gains; so you have the same power and performance as before but can now go even further of a gallon of fuel.
 
Modern CEIT technology combines several sensor modifications in one unit, like the Diesel CEIT Module.  Truckers in the USA are reporting as high as 50% increased economy when the Diesel CEIT Module is applied with practical combustion enhancement technologies like the HyCO 2A, HyZor, HyCO 2DT and Water Injection (see a history of water injection here (click)).
 
My Electronic Diverter circuit allows people to take control of their own fuel injectors.  Allowing TRUE deceleration fuel shutoff and control of the ACTUAL air:fuel mixture.

A. For carbureted vehicles, add the HyCO 2A system only after you get the basic Carburetor Enhancer working.
Often, people find the basic Carburetor Enhancer gives sufficient mileage gains and the pollution reduction for their needs.  In any case, the HyCO 2A won’t give any gains until you have a functional Carburetor Enhancer.
The HyCO 2A, installed with the Carburetor Enhancer, with it’s electronic upgrade, will often double the mileage of most vehicles (from original mileage). So an example of 10 mpg is now 20 mpg.
For Electronic Fuel Injection vehicles, add the EFIE (on each oxygen sensor before the catalytic converter) and a MAP enhancer (on your MAP and or MAF sensor) before installing the HyCO 2A.   With Fuel Injected vehicles, the gain is often 50% over original mileage.  So 10 mpg would be 15 mpg.
Here is a chart, to help you choose between the HyCO 2A and HyZor technologies.
Here is a calculator to find out how much money you’ll save.Adjust the percentage to fit whatever technology you are using.http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/FiveYrCalc.php 

A. YES! In fact, power plants and boats/ships are excellent applications for the HyCO 2DT because they normally operate under constant load (turbochargers activated all the time).
And the HyCO 2DT will work on any turbocharged engine that is fed with gasoline or diesel fuel (not NG or Propane).  The HyCO 2DT can even be used to add water to the combustion mix, to significantly increase combustion efficiency.
Water Injection is further enhanced with HyZor Technology (Brown’s Gas for vehicles).

Access Protected

You must be logged in and have purchased one of the following products to view this content

You can login here if you are a returning customer

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.
 

 
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. Not with our technology at this time.
We are currently concentrating on the type of technology that enhances carbon-based fuel combustion.  See this PDF for a full explaination (click)
We are researching several ‘Water as Fuel’ options.   We have reason to believe that water CAN be used as a fuel, but we do not, yet, know how to do it.
NOTE: for people wanting to run vehicles on water, Les Banki says”It never ceases to amaze me just how much unnecessary trouble people are willing to go to, while a simple solution is ‘staring them in their faces’!
I am referring to my WFGP design which has been in public domain for close to a year now!
Anyone who has taken the time to STUDY it would/should know that I don’t need to go to great complexity in order to separate the gases, I don’t need water injection, ultrasonic transducers, I don’t need plasma ignition, I don’t need “Deuterium grade HHO”, I don’t need high frequency pulsing or any other “fancy” stuff either!
In short:  A simple, high efficiency multi-cell electrolyser (like the HyZor Technology) – coupled with the correct engine management process – does the job.Period.”
I´m in contact with Les Banki from Australia, he’s converted small gensets to running on Brown’s Gas (HHO) only.  He has posted for public use the circuits and manuals how to do it, how to RETARD the ignition timing and how to deal with preignition spark…Summary of his project here: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/LesBankiProject
There are many ways to produce Brown’s Gas (HHO) at greater efficiencies than Faraday Law.  Many people try to replicate the complicated system of Stanley Meyer.Here is a simple and straight forward system to auto tune resonance:http://ritalie.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=3Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFQ8IEu4YVg
 

 
That’s actually a really good question, highlighting a common misconception.
 
Many people are aware that extra oxygen in the exhaust causes the computer to richen fuel mixtures… And that the EFIE is designed to ‘correct’ the oxygen sensor output so that the computer doesn’t know there’s ‘extra’ oxygen in the exhaust.
 
But they are not aware of WHY there is extra oxygen in the exhaust.
 
It isn’t because of the oxygen that is being fed in with the Brown’s Gas (aka BG or HHO).  Some people think just adding pure hydrogen will solve the ‘extra oxygen’ issue don’t understand the real issue.
 

Just to give you some perspective, on a 5 liter V8 engine, about 5 liters per hour (not per minute) of BG (HHO) from one of our HyZors is enough to give most vehicles a 25% reduction in fuel consumption.  
Of that 5 liters/hr of BG, only about 1.67 liters is oxygen.  A 5 liter engine, running at 1800 rpm, will pump 35,100 liters of air per hour, of which about 7020 liters is oxygen… So you can see that a couple of liters of oxygen being inserted from an electrolyzer will make virtually no difference to the engine’s exhaust oxygen content.
 

In fact, feeding in pure hydrogen will STILL increase exhaust oxygen, because it increases combustion efficiency, even though pure hydrogen won’t work as well as BG (HHO) because pure hydrogen lacks certain constituents that further increase combustion efficiency, like water vapor and ExW. 
…so just feeding in pure hydrogen isn’t the answer to lowering exhaust oxygen.
 
What increases exhaust oxygen content is EFFICIENCY of combustion!  Anything that increases combustion efficiency (including adding hydrogen) will increase exhaust oxygen content.
 
The ‘increased’ oxygen comes from three major ‘sources’.
First, if you are using less fuel, less oxygen gets ‘burned’ and thus there’s ‘more’ in the exhaust.
Second, when increasing combustion efficiency, the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) rises slightly but the Carbon Monoxide (CO) drops off to near nothing, so oxygen that was tied up as Carbon Monoxide is free and causes exhaust oxygen to ‘rise’.
Third, combustion happening more efficiently will reduce Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) so oxygen that was tied up as NOx is freed up and exhaust oxygen content ‘rises’.
 
You can learn more about combustion efficiency in my ‘Double Mileage, Guaranteed’ eBook.
 
So any technology that increases combustion efficiency WILL cause a rise in exhaust oxygen and, if you have oxygen sensors, you WILL need a EFIE on each one to compensate.
 
Note that oxygen sensors are often biased to assume you are burning a certain amount of fuel.  When experimenting with my HyCO 2A system, I tripled the mileage of my 345 ci engine in a 1974 International 4×4 crewcab 3/4 ton truck with a box on the back.  It went from 7 mpg to 23 mpg… And the oxygen sensor was reading as little as -200 mV!  Negative millivolts means that there was more oxygen in the exhaust than in the outside air, which is impossible of course, so indicates the bias I’m talking about.
 
So my answer is YES YOU NEED an EFIE!  It doesn’t matter what technology you use to increase combustion efficiency (like vapor fuel, hydrogen, BG, water injection, acxitone, etc.) you will need an EFIE on each of your oxygen sensors; and maybe some other Combustion Enhancement Interface Technology (CEIT) like MAP Enhancers, IT Enhancer, Carburetor Enhancer, ED, etc.
 
NOTE: It can occasionally happen that when combustion enhancement is added, the exhaust oxygen rises (that always happens) and the computer does NOT increase the fuel.  In these cases the EFIE is not needed.  This usually happens when (for some reason) the computer’s oxygen sensor feedback programming is not working.
 
So if someone tried their technology on such a vehicle and it worked without an EFIE, they might assume they don’t need an EFIE on any vehicle; and that’s an incorrect assumption.  If the oxygen sensor feedback programming is working, you need an EFIE(s) on your oxygen sensor(s).  
 
NOTE: It’s possible (assuming your oxygen sensor feedback programming is working) to reduce your fuel consumption by as much as 10% by adding the EFIE alone (with no combustion enhancement technology), by slightly leaning your fuel mixture, so it pays to add an EFIE in any case.