22% increase in mileage - 1st test !!!
Hi everyone, I'm new to this forum.
I just did my 1st test on my 1st home made cell. Since I live in Canada and we talk more of Km and Liters, I'll stick to actual gain in distance for the volume of gasoline used but will try to convert km to miles as I go along. My installation is quite crude for now, but will refine it eventually. Planning to post photos whenever I can get to it...
I am pleased to announce that with my 1st experiment, I noticed a gain of distance travelled of 22% in a 1.6L Honda Civic DX 2000 (hatchback).
This car typically uses 6.9 to 7 L / 100km travelled. With a gas tank of 44L, I can state that with a fill-up of 42L, I normally travel 600 km (372 miles). That 22% gain boosts it to 732 km (455 miles), not bad at all indeed for a 1st try!
CELL SPECS: For now, 2 plates of steel (4x12" - notches and holes = about 44 sq. in. of surface for electrodes, distanced about 1/8"). Using only my Well water (artesian well, a bit hard water) with NO electrolyte. Cell is drawing about 6.5-7 amps when cold, and gets up to about 9 amps when warm. So far I only compared mileage for a distance of about 363 km, so the % in gain is probably not accurate, will need to drive some more to get a relevant average.
NOTE: This was achieved with a NON-FUNCTIONING Oxygen sensor, so default values for fuel mixture are used by the car computer, eliminating the headache of fooling the ECU.
This is very encouraging, will drive on this system for at least 1 fill-up or 2 to get a "real" average increase in mileage. I will post back with updated figures as I get new ones.
Woops forgot to mention: My typical driving consists of a mix of country road, highway and city driving: roughly 1/2 highway, 1/4 country, 1/4 city. I drive a bit aggressively in town (stick-shift, yeah!) and usually between 120-130km/hr on the highway (75-80 Mph - Faster than that, consumption increases quite a bit!). I love to zip trough the curves of those country roads...
Originally Posted by fly
During my 1st test, I did a lot more city driving than usual...
2003 ford ranger 2.3 liter, 5 spd standard. Went from 22.4 to 28.1 mpg.
1/2 gal. distilled, 1 1/2 tsp potassium hydroxide, 2 sets of 6 (+nnnn-) 316 ss plates 2.5 x 4.5 inch, 0.068 spacing
First time running on the intake side. Bottle dosen't seem to get hot, actually did better on the other side of the butterfly (37.5%).
I jacked the amps from 4 - 5 amps to 7 - 8. If I don't do better at next fillup, will move back to upstream of the butterfly.
2002 F150 4.6 5speed 4x4. Was getting 14mpg. Now Im running cool and consistant at 19mpg.
Thank you all for your wisdom and advice.
My container holds half a liter of water, my plates are .125x1x5 spaced 1/16.
My config. is +NNNN-. thats 2.8V per bay.
Im drawing 4.6amps with potassium/sodium hydroxide
10amps gives me 22mpg but I need more water capacity to handle the heat.
Actually F150, that's still 12-14 volts if the electroylte is in one bath. The electrolyte needs to be isolated for a true voltage drop, otherwise current leak will occur and the voltage gets applied to one common electrolyte.
what do you mean isolate the electrolyte? Your saying that 2.8 x 5 = 14?
If I am not mistaken, I think he is talking about wrapping your cell. If you have it in the open, the whole batch is electrified, where as if you wrap it, it makes it more condensed to be mainly at the cell and not the whole jar of water. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I am getting out of your statement.
Originally Posted by godoveryou
Swiss Guy Ammaninox
How about in the case of the "dry cell" constructed by Ammaninox in Switzerland, GOY? He has the plates each isolated by gaskets from each other, and the only leakage current would be through the holes he bored for elyte flow on the bottom and gas flow on the top...still only getting 7mmw. (He did show a nice, linear stepdown of voltage across each plate in his video.)
Originally Posted by godoveryou
Would separating the plates with acrylic walls give you the big jump in mmw that your design cells are getting?
700 Mile Test 5.4% gain.
A very believable test.
I wish that everyone would use the same testing method!!
However, I just reviewed some past videos and I am not sure if the increased MPG is due to Hydroxy or to H2O.
Last edited by BoyntonStu; 09-01-2008 at 11:18 PM.
I wish we had a standard for testing, or at least some kind of standardized sheet when people do tests like that.
Engine size/displacement, modifications to the MAP/MAF/02/ECU, etc.
His mileage changes could have been anything in that test unfortunately, less headwind for the 2 tanks of gas with hydroxy on would give you 5% more mileage.