The arguments were all from you.

I merely stated facts that you recognize when you make the statement that you don't know how to generate enough HHO to run an engine.

Fact-the 5 states of vehicle operation

Idling-total waste of energy 0 MPG

Acceleration-when done properly and understanding the peak efficiency of your engine its the most efficient method of converting the energy potential of your fuel (regardless of the fuel used).

Constant speed-because of the low throttle position and the resulting high manifold vacuum the effective compression of your engine is much lower than it's mechanical capability. Efficiency is generally in the range of 21% compared to 35% for the same engine when manifold vacuum is eliminated.

Coasting-my Civic gets 5 times the speedometer reading in MPG. Coasting at 50 with my engine idling at .2 GPM the mileage is 250 MPG.

Deceleration-actually produces negative (read below 0 MPG) because you are wasting your inertai by allowing the engine drag to bleed off your stored energy. Braking is another form of deceleration which is even worse than deceleration with engine drag. When I decelerate using engine drag, the computer shuts off the Fuel injectors. It's called DFCO, and no fuel is consumed when DFCO is engaged. It still cost you stored inertai but it is much better than braking which converts the intertial energy to wasted heat.

The EPA along with Ford, Eaton, Parker Hannifin, and other parties has calculated that MPG could be increased by 80% by improvements that address the above mentioned losses.

Hypermilers use stored inertia as well as shutting the engine off to DOUBLE fuel mileage. Check the top percentage statistics in this site to see how some of these drivers beat their EPA ratings by over 100%.

The current record for a standard vehicle is a Honda Insight at 180MPG averaging 36 MPH. Google Wayne gerdes for more information.

The industry is trying as we speak to develop Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition, where a gasoline engine can actually operate on compression ignition, as long as the fuel-air mixture is homogenous (completely emulsified). This is very difficult to obtain becasue it requires pre-mixing of the fuel and air, with the potential for an explosive backfire. Potential MPG improvement of 25%.

I am working with Virginia Tech school of Engineering on an in wheel Infinitely Variable Transmission that addresses the 5 states of vehicle operation.

The system will

Eliminate all idling

Only run the engine to recharge accumulated hydraulic pressure for the in wheel IVT to supply to the vehicle in the precise amount necessary to satisfy driver demand. The accelerator pedal is connected to the in wheel drives. There is no connection to the engine. It only runs at it's highest efficiency to restore accumulator pressure to a predetermined maximum.

Regenerative braking that will recover 82-90% of the energy lost in braking.
This means if you stop you store that energy for reacceleration with no power necessary from the engine whatsoever.

These are recognized and proven improvements in power application in vehicles.

The design is Patent Pending. Va Tech will do engineering analysis, prototype, and CAD this design.

In spite of your opinions I actually wish you success in your HHO experiments. The other side of the coin is I know what the true energy potential of your HHO is, and understand the dynamics of combustion well enough to interest an major Universities Engineering Department.

In the immediate future the potential of the IVT in-wheel drive is to reduce the component count by 25% per vehicle, while providing acceleration at the limit of all 4 tires traction coeffecient with the ground. That right double the mileage and 0-6 times under 5 seconds, even less if you want that kind of acceleration.

This concept of mine has been published in Green Car Congress, as well as Va Tech.it has also been published in the August edition of the journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. That's right the ASME has recognized that ther is potential in this design.

There is no Physics to ignore in this design. It represents almost a decade of research into what really causes waste in vehicles.

Maybe at some point in the future, you will be able to actually drive a car with my system and enjoy the benefit.

If you HHO developments actually improve the efficiency of the engine, then the sum of your efforts and mine will be even more than they would be individually, which will benefit every driver on the planet.

Claims of vast improvements in MPG need to be verified by independent testing and observation, by disinterested parties, with no profit incentive.

When you make claims and argue, make demands, and assumptions, you merely serve to destroy the credibility of your position.

It's called "put up or shut up". Don't take it personally, the same litmus test applies to me and anyone else who makes claims without proof.

In the next 9 months Tech will have the answer to the question "How good is it", concerning my design. When it becomes reality (assuming the test results are positive), your car will automatically hypermile itself, with no driver imput other than normal driving style.

Until then enjoy persuing your goals. When you have credible improvement I will gladly enjoy the benefit of your efforts. My problem is all my knowledge and experience is screaming it just won't work. That doesn't mean it is impossible. It simply means my experience leads me to believe it's highly improbable.

regards
gary

The EPA has a functioning hydraulic hybrid test mule that averages 80 MPG in a 3800 pound vehicle.

They also have built a SUV that gets something like 40 MPG.

For more information Google

EPA hydraulic hybrids

For a similar system to mine, with the exception of the in-wheel drive configuration try,

Ingo Valentin or
Valentin technologies

Also you can see some efforts by searching the 100 MPG prize contest and looking at some of the designs.

Ferdinand Porsche had a design for an electric car in 1900 that used in wheel electric drive motors.

Most of the competition to my design uses a bent axis variable displacement pump, a design that is 50 years old. Efficiencies have approached 75% with that pump.

My design has 3 distinct advantages over the existing state of the art (a quote from the professor at Tech).

The question is:
Will it break the 82% threshold for success? I am hoping for 90%. That means from wheel to accumulator back to wheel.

Storage will be by accumulator (98%) efficient or flywheel. The drive motors have to achieve 96% for the 90% overall efficiency to be achieved.

Here is the prize, 3.6 billion in wheel drives worldwide at a $10 per drive royalty. A car that can get 80-100 MPG is a realistic possibility. For a SUV that mileage will be considerably less, unless the aerodynamics are improved drastically.

Aero drag is 70% of your energy losses at 65MPH. In my car drafting increases my mileage by almost 10 MPG.

The most efficient engine today is 51%, theoretical designs have approached 60%.

After spending $15,000 and 4 years I found a patent issued in Australia that basically claims the same thing, so my first patent will never be approved.

The second patent, for the in wheel drive has siginificant novelty over the first and should be approved (my opinion of course, probably somewhat biased ;)).

This is a joke Yukon, please take it that way.

I know how to get 100 MPG in your Yukon, stick it in the Space Shuttle and shoot it into orbit! ;).

Remember this, there is no free energy, even the sun will eventually burn out, and the moon will come crashing into the earth.

Carnots law states clearly, every conversion of the state of energy involves some loss. This law has not been violated in almost two centuries. You can't get more out of a system than you put in, energy wise.

Notice the efficiency quotes for the accumulator (98%). It doesnt get much better than that. The competitor drive (bent axis pump) is 93% at low speeds but drops to 75% at high speeds. This means better mileage in the city but worse mileage at higher speeds, which kills it as a solution.

My design only needs to reach the speed of the wheels, which works out to 60 MPH at 840 RPM. This is where the efficiency will be a crucial fact.

By next summer the facts will be known, it will either be successful or it will be a failure.

Success means wealth, fame, recognition, etc.

To me the real success will be to see my 87 year old father ride in a car with his kids powertrain, and know the son he raised actually did something that helped to change the world as we know it.

I would trade that for all of the rest.

Relax and enjoy the debate with other like minded people. Learn all the reasons why what we drive today is obsolete. Demand improvements from those who have the power to achieve results.

When John Paul Jones said "I have not yet begun to fight" his worm riddled hulk was sinking from under him. Most sane people would have given up. When he boarded the Serapis and took control, his Bon Homme Richard sank within 2 hours of the capture, in the middle of the ocean.

We as a comminity all believe that we can do better.

Never give up, never surrender.

regards
gary

I never argued, just defended my ideas when people decided to attack something they know nothing about :p

So lets see you ASSUME someone knows NOTHING about anything.

It's called prejudice son, judgement passed without any knowledge.

Keep displaying your ignorance for all to see.

i'm not the ignorant one
You are what is known as a bookie. A bookie is someone that cant do research on new things for himself so he bases his knowledge on what he reads based on others peoples finding. Yes i do believe its a good place to begin. but according to people like you the bumble bee is physically incapable of flying. you arent worth an argument you will find any and all outdated and narrow minded so called "fact" to attack anyone you dont agree with. I'm sure Edison ran into a lot of people like you, but thankfully they didnt stop him either ;)

And no i its not that ASSUME you know nothing about this. you have shown me through your posts that you know very little about this.

It is you who has shown us through your posts that you know nothing. You still cannot even grasp the simple fact that there physically isn't enough energy in a gallon of HHO to do what you propose.

Ladies and gentlemen, lets not discourage those who come here from learning better ways to manage the energy efficiency of their vehicles.

If they choose to enter with a chip on their shoulders, then whittle on the chip, without killing the host.

It seems like some members think they know the holy grail of high efficiency. While they may or may not be right in their beliefs, at least they have dedicated some effort and energy to the cause.

That is far better than the alternative, which is to accept the state of the art as unimprovable and suffer the consequences.

They just need to park the EGOs at the door or they risk having them handed back to themselves on a platter.

Recognize the accomplishments of those who double the EPA ratings of their particular cars. Most of those same cars are fairly inexpensive while still being reliable.

15 MPG is 6,666 gallons per 100K miles. At $4 per gallon that becomes an amount that can easily equal the purchase price of many NEW vehicles. If we all could reduce that to 2000 gallons per 100K then the price of oil worldwide would crash, and we all would benefit, not just economically.

This is not a statement of judgement against those who drive large fuel inefficient vehicles. In many cases they have no other choice in some circumstances, but I would prefer to believe if they look at their situation carefully they can still make a dramatic improvement in their monthly financial position.

regards
gary

(off-topic)
I spent at least a whole minute trying to guess what EGO stands for...Exhaust Gas Opening? Then I realized that it was capitalized to stress the word 'ego'... :D

lol, it would seem i have the flatterists ganging up on me ;)
but i have shown no ego or attitude. you guys are just getting frustrated because i wont bow down to the fact that YOU cant make it work and see no way to do so. It doesnt mean that one doesnt exsist, it just means that you dont know how, will never know how, and wont ever care to know how. so that brings me back to one of my original questions, why are you in an HHO thread?

so, holy cow. do you actually have a VW rabbit?

Sure do...Why would I put in lots of gaslog data for it, and work so hard at realistically fabricating all the detail? For that matter, why would I even create a garage entry for a car I don't have?:confused:

I've posted lots of pictures of it as I attempt to do some grille blocking without making it look weird. I've also posted measurements and observations of its behavior, and just the other day I posted some sensor logs.

I'm going to make some semi-blanket statements about the general population here. I DO NOT claim to speak for everyone; I speak for myself only, but I've observed very similar attitudes in a large portion of the rest.

Regarding HHO fans...we do welcome:
- People looking to use it in realistic ways
- People trying to figure out how/why it works
- Even people who hope to find some way to make it work unrealistically well

We don't welcome:
- People trying to sell anything
- People claiming that it works for them in an unrealistic way but not willing to provide lots of data (or any data)

And then there's people who insist that it would work for them in an unrealistic way but don't even claim any personal experience. They come off as trying to sell something, which turns us off, but it's possible that they've just been convinced and are uninformed. Based on that chance, we try to help.

We attempt to provide scientific data to those people, but most of them don't want to hear it, and it degenerates into a worthless discussion...after all, people any either side of such a discussion are still human and prone to responding as they do, feeling like something was a personal attack when it wasn't, and so on.

So, back to the topic. You claim that we "dont know how, will never know how, and wont ever care to know how." By making that claim, you imply that you DO know how. If you know how, please share with us the following:
- Your research
- Your data
- Your experience with it
- The others who must also have done it successfully, unless you're the one person who has managed to make it work but you somehow still have time to post to internet forums between the millions of dollars you must be raking in from people who want the same results -- and that's NOT sarcasm, that's what would really happen if you happened to be the one person who made it work in a demonstrable, repeatable, scientifically-verifiable (even if it somehow defies explanation by existing science, it can still be measured and verified by science) way.

LOL HC!

Lurch is backing up now, don't push him too hard. When he calms down and starts communicating with his equals, who knows he migh actually learn something.

He might teach us something if he gets that chip off his shoulder.

Until then

gary

First of all HC WTF are you talking about? have not you seen the posts where i mention that i dont know how? or have you not seen where i have posted research? but maybe your like ride and would rather not read it so you can wander along ignorant that MAYBE you arent the end all be all of human intellect. and no i'm not backing up, i would have to be attacked by something worthwile to even consider backing up.
i was just going to mention that i had my VW rabbit diesel modified to run at 70 MPG before i sent it to the crusher. northern car and i got tired of dealing with the rust.

And ride. how is it that you are so full of yourself?
I can only think of a few reasons why you act like you do, and none of them are good.

AND WHEN THE HECK DID I SAY I COULD RUN A CAR ON WATER!?!?!?!
ARE YOU GUYS EVEN ABLE TO READ??? i think its time someone changed your diaper, you act like middle school girls. At first i thought maybe if i explained they might be interested in a discussion. nope all you wanted was to bash someone, you asked for data, i gave more data then you were capable of reading. now all you want to do is be ignorant little retards that are only acting the way they are because your so far away I CANT WRAP MY HANDS AROUND YOUR STUPID LITTLE HEADS.
sorry to everyone else for this post, but stupid people REALLY tick me off.
so for everyone elses sake i'm going to quit giving you 2 morons a target and let you live in your own little bubble of stupid.

Your previous statement (deleted) was 60,000 MJ/m3 energy content of HHO.

Actually it is 12.3 MJ/m3, for pure hydrogen.

For HHO its 12.3/9 or 1.366 MJ/m3 for your HHO, instead of your quoted 60,000.

Your words, your facts.

You are off by only 59,998.633 megajoules.

regards
gary

I have absolutely no doubt you could run your engine on straight HHO.

The problem is the fuel tank.

If you want performance shoot some pure oxygen in your manifold and see what happens, especially since the atmosphere contains 80% nitrogen which is neither an oxidizer, or a fuel. It has a tendency to get in the way of combustion.

For that part if you were really interested in ascertaining empirical facts. You can easily add metered amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into your engine without any hydrogen generator, just used compressed gas, available at your local gas supply company in high pressure bottles.

This allows you to separate the benefit from the cost, energy wise. Use a chassis dyno and get some data. the crank up your generator and see what the difference actually is, with the generation and supply functions completely independent of each other.

regards
gary

company that makes efie and power moduals
 

I work for a small company that makes efie's and power mods and the elements to convert water to hydrogen. I haven't done this to my car yet but am looking to do this soon. They have a number of utube movies that show how it all works. when they do discounts, the price is fairly cheap compared to having to make the circuits on your own. Quite a bit of info on the site also that give a better understanding.

We don't know how either. Until you find someone who does, what makes you think it's possible?

In order to avoid further confusion, I was posting a complete list of what I suspect it would take to convince lots of people. The list included some things that you already posted.

Good job. Those old Rabbits were a very different car, and the diesels more so, but 70 MPG is still very impressive.

Look at the title of the thread you're posting in. If you're talking about a different subject then you're in the wrong thread.

We're quite able to read, hence why we think a thread titled "Run your car with water" is about running your car with water. Of course, the wording is vague and could mean any number of things including running your car on gasoline with a bottle of water riding along in the trunk...but on this forum, it's pretty common that something like "run your car with water" means "run your car with water as its only fuel".

LOL, ok there buddy...people who take internet forums too seriously and too personally end up with mental health problems (I know some individuals IRL who had problems like that). You might want to step back for a moment, remind yourself that we're anonymous jerks at the other end of an internet connection, and say "to hell with them" or just take it one step at a time.

How many heavy equipment mechanics do you know that are considered fit for the public?
we usually dont live to see the age of 60.
We are really tough high strung aggressive people that tend to see a heavy wrench as the first resort. I'm just the mechanical ability in my group, My groups tells me what needs to be done and i figure out how. My dad has a degree in physics, my brother has a degree in math, and me and a machinist make it work. I dont do equations , I bend things.
and as far as the thread being named "run your car on water"
Several years ago the cubans had an old green pickup that ran on nothing other then water. There is proof, It was all over the news. They got caught by the coastguard about a mile from shore.

sorry, couldnt pass up the pun.

but the thread is called "run your car WITH water"

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/with

1. accompanied by; accompanying: I will go with you. He fought with his brother against the enemy.
2. in some particular relation to (esp. implying interaction, company, association, conjunction, or connection): I dealt with the problem. She agreed with me.

Maybe you should get your brother to check your math, and your father to check your Physics.

I see you used a reference for your English definition. It might be helpful to google "hydrogen energy density" and get the facts about energy density (like I did), instead of using someones "facts" that have an error margin of 59,000 to 1, before you use them to support your position.

Check a couple of different sites (like I did) to make sure their "facts" are the same as others.

My father (still living) was a B17 pilot who used water injection to keep his 4 Wright Cyclones from blowing the cylinder heads off the engine when he took off with a full load of fuel and bombs in 1943-44. Born in 1921. Took him 3 planes to complete 30 Missions (battle damage), handed the DFC by Jimmy Dolittle. Flew top secret missions over the shores of Pas de Calais to convince the Germans that we would invade there instead of Normandy. Those missions were not declassified until 1971.

Also show your father the post you made about me at age 57. I would expect he would not think too highly of your opinion of people who have a lot more experience than yourself.

Now in your defense;

I think the most effective use of HHO is in heavy equipment, where alternator loads are relatively insignificant compared to power use. At lower and idle speeds HHO MIGHT improve fuel economy.

That is what the local HHO distributors told me when I had a personal meeting with them, and actually rode around my local area with one of the two people who were promoting HHO. There were truckers who claimed it helped their mileage (never met any of them). The same distributor told me it would probably not work well in my Honda.

Oh yes Virginia has passed a law that any system installed on an emissions compliant vehicle must be certified to pass emissions of the same vehicle. Leaning out mixtures, messing with timing, and introducing very fast burning hydrogen into a combustion chamber has a tendency to make NOX emissions skyrocket.

The fine per violation is $2500.

Advising and encouraging people to ignore the emission laws could be construed as a conspiratorial act, in the rare event the government decided to make an example of someone who thinks emission controls on vehicles are something they can render inoperative without consequence.

No a scare tactic or some interstellar conspiracy. In 30 years of working on vehicles I was never summoned to appear in court to answer for my actions in dealing with at least several thousand customers and many times that number of contracts.

regards
gary

There are two different types of diatomic hydrogen molecules that differ by the relative spin of their nuclei.[19] In the orthohydrogen form, the spins of the two protons are parallel and form a triplet state; in the parahydrogen form the spins are antiparallel and form a singlet. At standard temperature and pressure, hydrogen gas contains about 25% of the para form and 75% of the ortho form, also known as the "normal form".[20] The equilibrium ratio of orthohydrogen to parahydrogen depends on temperature, but since the ortho form is an excited state and has a higher energy than the para form, it is unstable and cannot be purified. At very low temperatures, the equilibrium state is composed almost exclusively of the para form. The physical properties of pure parahydrogen differ slightly from those of the normal form.[21] The ortho/para distinction also occurs in other hydrogen-containing molecules or functional groups, such as water and methylene.

You can find the facts on hydrogen everywhere, many sites agree that when ignited in an oxygen rich environment hydrogen combustion increases drastically, but none of them say how much.
My dad has also read these post, he has stated that you know what you know very well, but that you are unwilling to consider anything else. he asked me why i'm even bothering with you and not to get him involved.

You have stated the facts for Hydrogen, and yes you are correct. I have stated research data on HHO. do some research, and then come back when you want to discuss HHO, not hydrogen :p
hydrogen is open shut, we already know all about hydrogen, and a car could use hydrogen, but it would require a whole hell of a lot more then i would need of hho. so yes, your argument is right.... for hydrogen. but i was never talking about hydrogen.
Every torch i have ever used has a VERY volatile gas tank accompanied by an oxygen tank, without the oxygen that volatile gas doesnt to anything but make smoke. when combined with the oxygen the power of the cutting torch is increased by an amazing amount.
and that is also the idea in HHO

Yes, but that doesn't change the amount of **energy** stored in one unit of hydrogen, or your gas. The oxygen merely provides a means to release the energy that's already THERE. In the case of HHO, you yourself added that energy to the water in the form of electricity, which converted to chemically stored energy, the HHO. You CAN NOT get more energy from the HHO than you put in. That energy doesn't exist. Only the energy you put in.

Your torch's power goes up drastically when you add oxygen because it's CONCENTRATED. IT's the same amount of energy, but in a much smaller space: the size of the torch flame. If you measured the actual energy coming from the flame with and without added oxygen you'll find it's similar if not nearly the same. The oxygen just concentrates it into a nice hot little flame. Kinda like the difference between putting one gallon per minute of water through a itty bitty hose vs a big one. It'll trickle out the big one (big smokey torch flame) vs shoot real far out the small one (little bitty HOT torch flame) even tho it's the same amount of water going through both hoses.


Get it yet?

dale, as this bash fest has gone on i have been getting attacked by smarter and smarter people.... why would i want to go back to a discussion with the bottom of that chain?
You can read, go back to my earlier post and check the sites i had posted :p

I've checked your posts, and they're all bull. Sorry.

Bottom of the chain, heh. Sorry to say YOU are the bottom of the chain. Good day.

okay, maybe he cant read.

Lurch you responed to one of my posts with an admission that my facts were correct.

It would be much more productive, if you avoided assuming people who take the time and energy to contribute here, are not subjected to character assasination. They may have a lot more educational background than either you or me and be capable of real positive contributions only to be deterred from doing so by unnecessary attacks and insults to their intelligence.

A lot of people come here and read to learn how we as a community have approached the issue of making the most of every BTU of energy we consume.

The choice is yours of course, but I will promise you one thing.

If you choose to have a contstructive debate without acrimonious comments about the intelligence of others, you will find it to be a pleasant constructive experience.

If you shoose to be combative and insulting, we can do the same. The ultimate cost to the operators of this site is wasted bandwith. The untimate cost to those who come here to learn, is they have to wade through a sea of crap to get the information they need.

As Patrick Henry stated once.

We can all hang together or we will be hung separately.

The powerful forces, oil companies, as well as other businesses that would suffer as a result of our success, don't want us to rock their boat and reduce their profit.

It could be assumed (I hope incorrectly) that you were a part of that effort, when you go after people who you consider to be less capable of reason and logic.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself seems to be a lost art in todays internet world.

Maybe you are right, I am just too old to be useful in your society, but i was raised in a world where you treated people with the assumption that they were deserving of your respect, even when you thought they might not.

regards
gary

if i choose to be combative?? I didnt CHOOSE to be combative, I came to share what limited knowledge i have in hho so that others may benefit even if only a little.
But you guys assume i'm claiming i can run a car on water, You assume i am claiming 100mpg, you assume i am trying to be the end all be all of hho production, and therefore you start to attack, I didnt start the character assassination, you tell me i dont know what i'm talking about and to research more because i'm making a fool of myself.... YOU obviously had no idea why i was here and you didnt care to find out, you would rather assume i am another grand claimer of 100mpg on a on a 1990 buick. And after listening to dale for who knows how many posts i finally did to him what he has been doing to me this whole time.

I have a 84 Ford F350 Dually Cab and Chassis with a modified Dualy Pick Up Bed installed.
It has a 6.9L Diesel Motor. My Baseline mpg is 14MPG Highway driving.
I have two Hydrogen Generators that I am installing and will be testing it over the next few weeks to see what increase in MPG I get.
I got one online and cloned another from the first i bought on EBAY.
I also will be looking at the Exaust to see if it clears any from what it is now.
The cells are made out of 10"X 4"PVC pipe. The electrodes are Stainless steel carriage bolts.
I have installed a continuous duty Relay that has voltage applied to it with the ignition switch on.
I have installed a toggle swith on my dash panel with a Green Light next to it to show the unit is actually energized. The Hydrogen Cells only are energized with the toggle switch turned on.
I did it this way for the electrical because it was too easy in my earlier set up to forget to turn off the switch, which did not have an "ON" indicator light.
I am installing the second unit on the truck this weekend.
I have glued a hose fitting elbow to the top of the air cleaner for the Hydrogen gas to enter the intake.
I have shown the unit to be producing HHO by pulling the hose from the air cleaner and putting the end of it into a clear jar of water. It was bubbling at a slow rate with the Wire supplied from the Kit.
I changed the wire for larger diameter and the Gas Out put increased significantly.
I believe installing the second unit will produce a greater amount of gas.

I am at the same time working on a six cell array.
It will be using Flowmatic canisters obtained on Ebay with two mounting racks obtained from a Flowmatic company.
When I get the six pack array made and installed on my Diesel Truck, I will use the previous systems on my two Diesel Mercedes in which I already am getting 30 mpg.
So we will see how this all turns out. I will return with verifiable results. Tow Joe

Ok, the laws oh physics, everyone that makes these calculations are correct!

However, You are not adding in every variable.

You got to calculate the electrolyte that is being put into the distilled water, which causes the molecules to act much more rapidly.

So You calculate that and it would be correct that you can produce enough hydrogen to save a certain percentage on gas with only 15-20 AMPS. Which your alternator easily has left over.

Hope this helps everyone.

I'm very skeptical of this HHO thing as a way of saving gas, however as a 20 year retired AF jet Mechanic I can see the benefits on making an Engine run cleaner and cleaning Carbon build-up, which in itself is a gas user.
Many people may not know it, but up until the turbo-fan jet engine was developed, and normal compression Jet Engine on many of your heavy ACFT used water that boosted performance for take-offs, but one of the side effects of this that has been found is it seems to make parts last longer and burn cleaner, not to say this works on an internal combustion Engine.

One thing to remember, quoted maximum theoretical efficiencies of IC gasoline engines are only good when you put gas and air into them. Put different or extra stuff with different thermodynamic properties and the maximum theoretical efficiency CHANGES. The equation that governs this raises a thermodynamical coefficient of an input to an exponent, so relatively small changes can mean big swings in the numbers. Given that the number in question for Hydrogen is a power of 10 higher than most anything else that goes in, one can see that it wouldn't even have to burn for a relatively small quantity to have a measurable effect. Plus there's a lot of BS about how little mass or BTU of it goes in, well Hydrogen is very light, for it's mass it has a relatively huge volume, under a small amount of vacuum it expands a LOT. In vacuum, the motor isn't really sucking much air and breathes through a straw, literally, there's a small idle air passage in most throttle bodies not much larger than a drinking straw, meaning that in idle and high vaccuum conditions, actual ingestion of air through the idle passage or barely cracked throttle body is of the order of 5 or 6 litres a minute, so stick 2 litres a minute of hydrogen in there and it's a significant quantity, it's a quarter of the volume, then if it expands much more than air in vacuum, it's half the volume in the chamber... again, it doesn't even have to explode to have measurable effects here. When you floor the throttle and the motor is sucking in 1000s of litres a minute, THEN it's not going to have much effect... coincidentally this is what happens on a a typical dyno test when someone "proves" it doesn't work.