Search Results for: hyzor

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.

… than a wet-cell?  Not automatically.
Efficiency depends largely on the design of the electrolyzer, power supply, electrolyte, electrolyte density, electrolyte temperature, etc. These design parameters are largely independent of whether an electrolyzer is a ‘wet-cell’ or a ‘dry-cell’.
Efficient designs are optimized for the application. There are far too many electrolyzer design variables to discuss them all and the ramifications of each here. However, if building electrolyzers, keep in mind:
General Efficiency Considerations:
1. Don’t assume that any particular electrolyte or concentration is the best. Test each electrolyte with various concentrations until you find the optimum for your electrolyzer design. The main two electrolytes are NaOH (sodium hydroxide) and KOH (potassium hydroxide). We prefer NaOH because in our electrolyzer designs NaOH is 30% more efficient than KOH.
2. Wide plates tend to be more efficient than tall ones.  You need to remove the bubbles from the plates as fast as possible, because wherever there is a bubble, there is inactive plate area.  That is the one advantage of the wire-wound design of the ‘jar’ cell from Water4Gas.
3. Electrolyzers tend to run more efficiently when hot (reduces electrolyte resistance). There will be an optimum temperature for any given electrolyzer, electrolyte and electrolyte density; it’s best to be able to control the temperature.
4. Because electrolyte lowers resistance when the temperature rises, you need to deal with an effect I call ‘amperage-runaway’.  Learn about efficient ways to control amperage-runaway (see HyZor Technology book). MOST power supply designs ‘out there’ are using technologies we abandonded decades ago.
5. It’s VITAL to use an electrolyzer design that does not allow electricity to ‘bypass’ the plates.This was never an issue in the original Faraday cell designs because the electrolyzer was just ONE cell.But in the various ‘series-cell’ designs, it becomes an issue.  If electricity bypasses the plates (through the electrolyte or electrolyte foam), then you lose gas production (and wattage efficiency).  So you want to ‘force’ the electricity to go through the cell/plate/cell/plate, etc. by making that ‘path’ less resistance.Again, this consideration is specific to series-cells, it doesn’t matter if it’s ‘wet’ or ‘dry’ design. 
Dry-cell specific Considerations:If you do use a ‘remote reservoir’, here are a couple of design tips to raise efficiency. 
1. Designs with pumps tend to eliminate the ‘surging’ that happens in convection cells. Be sure to use a pump large enough to remove the bubbles from the cells ASAP. If this is done, excellent results can be achieved with narrow plate spacing.  Of course this also means a larger reservoir, because the bubbles need to be removed from the fluid before re-entering the electrolyzer.  Perhaps a vortex could help.
2. Design for even flow of electrolyte through all cells, unrestricted exit of the liquid/gas mixture from the top of the cell-pack (like these people did, click) to the reservoir and DO NOT allow the electrolyte from any cell to mix with any other cell’s electrolyte until the electrolyte is well away from the electrolyzer (to prevent electricity from bypassing cells).
Wet-cell Efficiency:
For the world’s most efficient and practical (as far as we know) electrolyzer designs, read our Brown’s Gas books 1 and 2, the HyZor Technology book and watch Brown’s Gas videos 2 and 3.  Then ask us about Pressure Relief tubes, Gridplates and the Barbell neutralzone.
Our HyZor, as currently designed, could be considered to be a compact hybrid ‘wet/dry- cell’ wherein the bulk of the electrolyte is separate from the (dual) electrolyzers. 
I have not yet seen a dry-cell or wet-cell that can match or exceed the efficiencies of our current HyZor design, which have achieved 20+ MMW.

In theory yes, there are ways to do it; but we do NOT recommend it.

Brown’s Gas uses a lot of electricity to make.

BG requires special explosion-proof containers.

BG can’t be stored under high pressure (it will explode).

In addition, the BG flame in it’s pure form will melt through cooking pots in seconds, so you have to dilute it in various ways (reducing it’s efficiency).

You’re better off using the electricity to do the heating directly. And there are much better (safer and cheaper) options to ‘store’ energy.

However: Mixing BG with a carbon-fuel is a GREAT idea as the BG acts like a catalyst, allowing the carbon fuel to release more heat than it otherwise would.

Note: There are ‘rumors’ (patents and plans on the internet) that, using ‘catalytic materials’, a BG heater can be constructed that radiates large amounts of heat (using little electricity).  I have not yet seen proof that this works.

FAQ: Using BG in a furnace?

Not directly, for three 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).

So NO… Brown’s Gas isn’t practical to use as a ‘stand alone’ fuel in regular gas furnaces.

NOTE:
BG is VERY inefficient to directly heat air and water.
There are people who use BG to heat another material (other than air or water directly).  The BG seems to be able to heat some materials to hotter temperatures than if you ‘just’ used electricity, thus achieving ‘over-unity’ heating.  I have NOT confirmed this effect myself, yet.

Two such possibilities are:

1. H-CAT example.  BG heating a catalytic material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd_yrSldFWw

2. 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.

The EXCEPTION is that Brown’s Gas DOES act 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.

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.

http://eagle-research.com/shop

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.

Here is proof that BG assists carbon-fuel combustion, download PDF here:
http://www.eagle-research.com/cms/node/443

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 to make each liter of gas.
http://www.eagle-research.com/cms/node/620
http://www.eagle-research.com/cms/node/109

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’ve done 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.

 
I have been led to believe that I NEED a MAP Sensor Enhancer.
If you have a MAP sensor then you NEED a MAP Sensor Enhancer if you want to optimize fuel economy.  
Not only will a MAP Enhancer ‘correct’ for manifold air pressure loss if using a fuel saver like the HyCO 2A, it will help the computer correct ignition advance for fuel savers like the HyZor (BG or HHO addition).

I had read somewhere that a simple potentiometer  needed to be place on the MAP sensor. I cannot find that document for all my trying and cannot remember where I saw it.  My MAP sensor has 3 wires.  One ground,  one 5watt power and one that adjusts voltage based on vacuum.   Which wire do I attach the potentiometer to?

 
It’ll be 5 Volt power (not 5 watt).  That’s the Power Supply voltage.  The ground is ground.  The signal wire (varies voltage) is where you want to apply the potentiometer (usually about 15K ohms).  You put the pot. in SERIES into the signal wire.  
 
The MAP sensor is a variable resistor that REDUCES the voltage signal going to the ECU (via the signal wire) by increasing resistance as the vacuum increases (lower absolute pressure).  Here’s an example chart:
http://injector-rehab.com/shop/mapsensor.html
Lower pressure (supposedly) means there is less air (and or lower engine demand for fuel) so the ECU cuts back on fuel (and retards the ignition timing) to compensate.
What this means to you is that you can ‘fool’ your ECU into reducing fuel by ‘modifying’ the voltage signal going to the ECU.
More resistance (in series) lowers the voltage, which lowers the fuel consumption.
So I recommend wiring your potentiometer so that clockwise LOWERS resistance (more fuel) and counter-clockwise INCREASES resistance (less fuel).
 
You can buy assembled MAP Enhancers on eBay for cheaper than you can buy the parts, unless you already have them laying about.

 
I haven’t seen anything (at Eagle-Research) about a MAP Sensor Enhancer.
I do not currently sell a MAP Enhancer because they are being sold on eBay for less than I can build them.  Usually they are just a 15K variable resistor (for variable voltage MAP sensors).
I have a 1989 Ford F-150 4 X 4 with a 302 cu. in. engine. The MAP sensor on a Ford does not send a voltage signal back to the computer but a Digital Frequency Signal. You cannot measure a voltage drop on the signal wire. You can only measure a frequency change.
That’s correct.
The Frequency varies from 100 Hz to 156 Hz at my elevation. I guess it is up to 159 Hz at Sea Level. The way it works is, as the vacuum increases the frequency drops. It varies based upon how many inches of vacuum in the intake manifold. That frequency signal from the MAP Sensor is also calculated and factored in by the computer to regulate how much fuel it pumps through the fuel injectors.
That’s correct.
The truck only has one (1) Oxygen Sensor and I have purchased the kit here for that.
Thank you 🙂
Do I need the MAP Sensor Enhancer in addition to the EFIE?
Yes.
This other place is saying i need both and they have a special one for the Fords that have a digital frequency signal but I don’t think they are adjustable.Their info says they are “set and forget” as it was stated on their site. That doesn’t seem like the optimum solution to me.
It’s not.  It should be adjustable so that you can balance gains and performance for your vehicle and application.
If I do NEED the MAP Sensor Enhancer is there a way I can send my own digital frequency signal down that line to the computer and bypass the sensor completely?
Yes you can, but it wouldn’t be wise.  You’d lose the whole reason the MAP sensor exists, which is to optimize air:fuel ratio and ignition timing ‘on the fly’ and automatically.  Best to use a ‘correction’ circuit.
Could I just use a low, VERY LOW frequency generator? That way I could dial in different frequency settings for different driving conditions and circumstances. Does anyone have an idea about how to make this work or if it would work?
It would even help if I could just somehow put a circuit in-line that would raise the frequency by 10 to 15 Hz or more if possible. Any ideas?
Actually you want to LOWER the frequency because you want the CPU to ‘see’ a higher vacuum (less pressure) and yes, I have designed such a circuit.  You put a 15K resistor in the power line (positive feed) leading up to the (frequency based) MAP sensor.  This lowers the voltage that the sensor is getting and slows down the output frequency.  But this solution also lowers the MAP sensor output signal voltage which MAY, in some cases, cause the CPU to think that the MAP sensor is bad. 
So you add a ‘voltage pullup’ P-channel MosFet to the circuit, wired thus:1. MosFet Source is connected to the positive wire going to the MAP Enhancer BEFORE the above resistor.2. Signal the MosFet gate with the MAP sensor output signal. 3. MosFet Drain then goes to the CPU (in place of the original MAP Sensor signal).I like this particular MosFet for this application.http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=IRFD9014YEAH! problem solved, you now have a simple low cost solution for frequency based MAP sensors.