The Dangling Carrot

[1973dodger]

Let me first say, this thread may anger or offend some, however, it is not my intention to doubt the possiblities of how hho can effect the performance and mpg of our vehicles or to discourage anyone from trying. I've been at this electrolosis experimenting for a several months now, and consider myself reasonably well read and decently experienced in trying various cell configurations. I certainly do not consider myself the foremost authority in this forum, for there are many in this forum, who have been at this a lot longer than myself and have much more education in the field of electronics and electrolosis than myself. But I do consider myself to be reasonably intelligent and skilled. But the ability to make enough hho efficiently(goal; 6lpm @ 40-50 amps or less) to assist my 03 Dodge Ram Cummins has eluded me to date. It appears to me, in brute force electrolosis, that one can only expect to achieve 1 lpm at 13 to 22 amps using a standard 12 to 14 volt power source. To date the best I have been able to achieve is 1 lpm at 16.7 amps using a 13.5 power source, after trying countless configurations, which at 6 lpm would amount to 100 amps or over 1300 watts.

Sure I have read and watched video of people who claim to make anywhere from 6 to 45 liters per minute with less than 30 amps. Are these claims bogus or are they the "dangling carrot" held before us which is just beyond our reach? Or perhaps, they are just beyond what us common folk can understand or have the education to comprehend. I am fine with that, I understand my limitations in the field of electronics and in a particular feild of education, but it appears to me, there are many more educated than myself, that have not got a grasp of the efficiency required to achieve these seemingly lofty expectations. Sure the likes of Boyce, Meyers, and Dingle claims are well documented,(yet not completely explained) but I am not even aiming that high.

So my challenge to all who read this thread is; who out there has achieved or has personally witnessed an efficiency of better than 1 lpm @ 16 or better amps using a standard 12 to 14 power source, or perhaps a better way to put it is; 1000ml/m at 216 watts or less, regardless of voltage. If you do meet this challenge, I ask you to not use youtube as your reference unless you have personally witnessed this or it is your own experiment you document. You see I, like you, have already seen most of the claims or have read of them from some obscure person on youtube or on the internet. What I am after here is some real life person who has experienced a high effiency production or who has witnessed it and can tell us all what makes it tick. If you have done it and it is beyond my understanding, fine, I'll move on to other priorities in my life and say I tried my best, perhaps there are some who read this thread it can help. If it is some piece of information which you could help me to understand, I am able and willing to learn.

I'll end this thread by saying, I do believe it can be done or else I would have given up some time ago and a few thousand of dollars ago. However, I find myself at a crossroads with few ideas left to try.

Sincerely,

1973dodger

[BoyntonStu]

A well written and logical request.

What you are asking for should stand up in court, not on Youtube!

I would also like to see proof.

OTOH Some folks with 1 LPM claim that their 03 Dodge Ram Cummings or equivalent have gained significant MPG.

Therefore, I offer them another carrot that demonstrates their gains.

Here's a claim from another forum that I find fairly believable:

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

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

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

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

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


Do you find this story reasonable?

BoyntonStu

[JojoJaro]

But the ability to make enough hho efficiently(goal; 6lpm @ 40-50 amps or less) to assist my 03 Dodge Ram Cummins has eluded me to date. It appears to me, in brute force electrolosis, that one can only expect to achieve 1 lpm at 13 to 22 amps using a standard 12 to 14 volt power source. To date the best I have been able to achieve is 1 lpm at 16.7 amps using a 13.5 power source, after trying countless configurations, which at 6 lpm would amount to 100 amps or over 1300 watts.

The Jaxom cell appears to have broken this efficiency level.

[bigapple]

A well written and logical request.

What you are asking for should stand up in court, not on Youtube!

I would also like to see proof.

OTOH Some folks with 1 LPM claim that their 03 Dodge Ram Cummings or equivalent have gained significant MPG.

Therefore, I offer them another carrot that demonstrates their gains.

Here's a claim from another forum that I find fairly believable:

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

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

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

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

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


Do you find this story reasonable?

BoyntonStu

well i dont have enough personal experience to personally say whether or not its legit, but i do know that it takes alot to get black smoke to go away. the black smoke is caused by sulfur in standard diesel fuel. even with my friends f450 who runs biodiesel 85% of the time, he still gets black smoke from old diesel fuel burning. the story might be a bit bogus

ive heard of some people using a standard audio subwoofer amplifier to run higher currents thru an electrolyzer. thoughts anyone?

[1973dodger]

Boynton Stu,

I find it hard to believe, 1 lpm would ever do anything on an engine such as mine. It have tried 2 lpm with a double smacks booster pulling 36 amps and noticed no improvement. I believe the hho made would be so diluted by the time it reached the intake valve, it would have no effect on combustion.

I have asked this question more than a couple of times on this forum, and have had no replies to date. The question is; "Does it trouble any of you why the hho is only igniteable with in a couple of inches of the surface of the water in your bubbler?" Which lends one to think, either you need a higher concentration of hho introduced to the air stream or a closer injection point to the intake valve. Which, in a turbo diesel, is further complicated the amount of air a diesel sucks in, which further dilutes the hho. The other problem is being able to introduce the hho closer to the intake valve, because of the pressure side of the turbo.

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger

[BoyntonStu]

Boynton Stu,

I find it hard to believe, 1 lpm would ever do anything on an engine such as mine. It have tried 2 lpm with a double smacks booster pulling 36 amps and noticed no improvement. I believe the hho made would be so diluted by the time it reached the intake valve, it would have no effect on combustion.

I have asked this question more than a couple of times on this forum, and have had no replies to date. The question is; "Does it trouble any of you why the hho is only igniteable with in a couple of inches of the surface of the water in your bubbler?" Which lends one to think, either you need a higher concentration of hho introduced to the air stream or a closer injection point to the intake valve. Which, in a turbo diesel, is further complicated the amount of air a diesel sucks in, which further dilutes the hho. The other problem is being able to introduce the hho closer to the intake valve, because of the pressure side of the turbo.

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger

Dodger,

You are taking a completely correct position by being skeptical.

If I were you this is what I would do:

Join several other forums in Yahoo Groups.

I belong to Hydroxy, Watercar, and Workingwatercar.

I get many messages every day and I usually learn something useful.

Between the daily messages, the archived messages, the Files, and the Photos, you will quickly find someone who has the same or nearly the same vehicle as you.

When you contact that person who shares your problem, you can compare notes etc.

In my example of the Aussie trammer (trucker), he can be reached through one of the groups above.

His success may involve a simple thing, like where he injects, etc.

I certainly do not blame you for being skeptical.

I am also skeptical, especially about the claims that I consider to be unrealistic.

Keep us informed.

BoyntonStu

[Painless]

On the subject of the diesel HHO injection issue, how about delivering the HHO into the diesel supply line between the pump and the fuel pressure rail? A one way check valve would ensure that diesel doesn't get into your HHO system. This would also solve the pilot injection issue.

[JojoJaro]

On the subject of the diesel HHO injection issue, how about delivering the HHO into the diesel supply line between the pump and the fuel pressure rail? A one way check valve would ensure that diesel doesn't get into your HHO system. This would also solve the pilot injection issue.

Are you thinking of injecting gaseous HHO into a diesel fluid stream?

If so, that will not work.

That will screw up the pressure sensor on the CP3 pump and the common rail. Because gasses are highly compressible, your pressure will fluctuate wildly causing erratic pressure readings on your sensors, causing your CP3 pump to oscillate its pressure output wildly. This in turn will be interpreted as a sensor malfunction and you will get a christmas light display in you CEL. Your ECM will then conclude that something is really bad with your engine and will revert to 'limp' mode. There's a reason why they instruct you to purge you fuel lines from air.

Also, you can not inject between the CP3 high pressure pump and the common rail. Pressures in this area can reach 29,000 psi. I don't think any of us can fabricate a fitting that will withstand 29,000 psi. Do you know how thick the common rail is? I don't, but I know it's thick.

[JojoJaro]

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger

I don't know what to make of claims of higher than theoritical efficiency. Maybe just a measurement error, or maybe they are measuring steam. Most likely steam because many of these high producing cells do get hot.

I do know this much. Nobody has come up with a design that has been proven to produce better than theoritical efficiency. No design have been confirmed, not even Stan Meyer's resonance design. Boyce I don't think ever claimed higher than theoritical efficiency. He just has a 'big' unit so he can produce humongous amounts of gas.

No, I have not witness any of the high claims personally. But there is reason to believe some are legit. I think Jaxom is a straight shooting fellow. His design does have elements of a design that can produce big.

I think the Tero cell design is still the best.

I have gathered and researched all the parts I need to build a 24" x 6" Tero cell copy, but I just can't find the justification to spend the money. Like I mentioned, my fuel cost is $.03/gallon. At that price point, it does not seem a wise investment to build an HHO generator. I am still vacilating between the 2 choices.

[precaster1@msn.com]

Boynton Stu,

I find it hard to believe, 1 lpm would ever do anything on an engine such as mine. It have tried 2 lpm with a double smacks booster pulling 36 amps and noticed no improvement. I believe the hho made would be so diluted by the time it reached the intake valve, it would have no effect on combustion.

I have asked this question more than a couple of times on this forum, and have had no replies to date. The question is; "Does it trouble any of you why the hho is only igniteable with in a couple of inches of the surface of the water in your bubbler?" Which lends one to think, either you need a higher concentration of hho introduced to the air stream or a closer injection point to the intake valve. Which, in a turbo diesel, is further complicated the amount of air a diesel sucks in, which further dilutes the hho. The other problem is being able to introduce the hho closer to the intake valve, because of the pressure side of the turbo.

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger

Gasoline vapors also only ignite close to the liquid, diesel only when touching the flame. we're not trying to use gas, hho, and a little air but gas, air, and a little hho, such as adding propane to the air intake on a diesel. But we are creating the additive as we go.