[NewCandle] BG and electrolysis

[Nick Reiter]

OOH you guys is gonna get me onto a topic dat will
make me sooo noisy...

> I am frankly surprised about Nicks results; I always
> thought that not
> a lot of gas was needed and the commercial units I
> have seen
> just tap a little current off the
> alternator/battery. Is
> the gain in mileage that small, or are great
> quantities of
> the gas necessary to see a good effect??? 

BOTH!

OK, here is a bit of a review:

The group that approached our company and got the
management at the time interested had several lab
scale electrolyzers that ran off of 220VAC.  They ran
at about 3 to 5 kW.  I could get about 15 slpm of
blended gas out of one maxed out continuous.  Which is
enough for a nice torch flame.  Said group tendered
the usual claims - vaporizing tungsten, vaporizing
brick, implosion, selective heating of different
materials.  They also had a set of test results with
an automotive unit that supposedly showed like 25 to
30% increase in mpg.  We tried a years worth of
verification tests of their claims.  Put together an
electrolyzer per their specs, put it in a small pickup
wired with all the sensors and datalogging we could
throw at it.  Ran it at a local test track and on the
highway, city driving.  Only under one condition -
literally a low idle on the engine, was there any
noticeable increase in fuel efficiency - maybe like 1
or 2%.  When switched over to bottled H2 and O2 (thus
saving the added burden on the engine from the
alternator) we got maybe 10%.  Then we found that the
O2 did nothing but increase NOx, and it was the H2
that appeared to be helping by burning some extras. 
There may also be a period at the beginning of tests
where extra carbon in the chambers is being burned.

Running a similar electrolyzer on a 13 liter diesel
test engine at a local college gave maybe 10%
savings... as long as the gas was being generated by a
separate unit!  Powering the electrolyzer off of the
engine (call it 3 or 4 kW at least) usually made for a
deficit.

Plus we found from curve extrapolation that a really
large amount of gas - far exceeding our electrolyzers
ability - would have been needed to get into the 20 to
30% range - like over a hundred slpm.  That would have
meant BIG new breed custom alternators.  And more
oomph to turn them with.

Long story short, after a little over a year and
probably a quarter million dollars, we gave up.  Every
time we would refute a claim from the original gang of
would-be promoters, they would come up with a month
long song and dance to say how we weren't conditioning
our power right... or our 220VAC didn't have the
subtle frequencies needed... or the brick we used
wasn't right.  Truth was (to me at least) their test
results were poorly instrumented and incomplete, their
analysis was wrong, their calorimetry was skewed, and
they toted the usual well-the-NWO
Conspiracy-must-have-altered-our-data shtick. 
Delusion mixed with sloppy engineering mixed with
heresay.

Our own final report suggested there might be a slim
chance of a niche market for mixed Hy-Oxy gas - or
hydrogen alone - generators in pollution control and
exhaust scrubbing for diesel engines.  If we (or
I)ever go back to it, it would be for that reason.

The moral of the story - it takes power to run an
electrolyzer.  That power for automotive use needs to
come from the engine.  Some smaller engines might be
able to show a positive balance via fuel savings, most
probably not.  Old, small, somewhat inefficient
automotive or truck engines would probably benefit the
most.

In the words of Forrest Gump, "and thats all I have to
say about that..."

NR

 
> >Plus there could be this possibility, which is not
> talked about 
> >that much even by Wiseman and his crew:  BG seems
> to produce a 
> >short-lived oxidizer off of the neutral plates -
> probably various 
> >short-lived peroxide compounds.
> 
> Huh??? The Browns Gas generators I have seen ( built
> by
> Brown himself ) used no neutral plates, unless you
> consider the case grounded shell to be a "plate". 
> 
> >IMHO "pretreated water" serves to increases the
> amount of gas 
> >available and that is its advantage in a BG-type
> electrolyser over 
> >normal water.
> 
> That's the claim Ham seems to have picked up on; it
> should
> be easy enough to prove if you generate some gas
> using
> a constant current supply and collect the results.
> 
> How do you intend to test the treated water, Terry? 
> 
> K.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NewCandle mailing list
> NewCandle at ipdiscover.com
>
http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com