Deep cycle battery solar recharge.

[Aquatron]

Hi,

Just a little question if you think it might be of some help to others.

Would it not be better to use a marine deep cycle battery that is recharged from a solar cell to run a hydrogen generator. It seems to me that if people are worried about it requiring more power to produce the hydrogen than you get back after burning the combined hydrogen-oxygen and gasoline, then why not remove the system completely from the engines electrical system and just use the deep cycle battery to produce fuel. These batteries are capable of running at 20 amps for a long time without discharging too far. The battery can be trickle charged with the solar panel not only while the battery is in use but when you have parked it for while and you go to work or have parked it for the day. I am going to install it in the bed of pickup truck but the battery could also be in the trunk of a car.

Another idea is to use platinum plated stainless anodes. This may sound expensive but the plate size only has to be half the size as the hydrogen producing cathode. The amount of platinum plating can be extremely thin and this will keep the anode from breaking down and forming the rust colored water for a very long time. These types of anodes are used in the production of commercial products and are used because the plates last a long time.

These are things that I am trying and want to know your opinion of.

Thank you.
Steven P

[JanGeo]

YUP definately both are great ideas. The HHO generator and solar powered/charged battery makes your vehicle a hybrid / pluging hybrid plus even if you were charging off the grid it would still be much cheeper than the gasoline energy costs. Platimum wire electrodes were used in my science class back in highschool when platinum was much cheeper than it is today and the water was spiked with sulfuric acid to make it conductive - made gas very well with low voltage and the acid solution stayed clear.

[bobc455]

Essentially you are using solar power instead of engine power to provide energy for the Hydrogen. Great idea, but it will take a considerably-sized solar cell to provide the sort of current to recharge the battery. Much larger than these business-card-sized things that I see some people put on their dashboard.

-BC

[BEEF]

*edit* dang it, bobby beat me to it.

how big a solar panel are you planning on using. I like the idea, I really do. the last time I checked, solar panels are not cheap. neither are marine batteries.

another idea if you are limited by solar panel charge times is to get 2 marine batteries so that one is always on the charger.

this probably has more merrit than any HHO system that I have heard of. I am not a big fan of HHO because of the losses of the electrical system. I still have my doubts about overall profitability. that being said, you can transfer this system from one vehicle to another so that the initial cost could be spread over a long period of time.

someone had suggested before to have an external battery (not hooked to the cars electrical) and use a charger (grid power) to charge the battery from time to time. this would lower the initial cost but you would have operating costs. I think it was RIDE (user name) that suggested it. can't remember because it was a few months back when it was suggested.

I think a big determining factor in how to go about it would be the cost of materials. the generators are relatively cheap (from what I hear) if you build them yourself but the battery and solar panel could get expensive.

start a gas log. I am sure several people would love to see how this idea works.

[Lug_Nut]

20 amperes discharge for an hour will require 10 hours recharge at 2 amperes.
I've a pair of solar panels, one in the car, one on the storage shed. These are about a foot area, produce a peak of 18 volts (at no load) and about 3.6 watts in perpendicular full sunlight.
3.6 watts at 18 volts is .2 amperes. One of these panels I have will require 100 hours of direct perpendicular (tracking) solar exposure to put back one hour of 20 ampere discharge.
The one in the car keeps the clock and radio memory from draining the fully charged battery when the car sits for days on end without being started.
The panel for the shed tops off a car battery that runs an inverter for low consumption (one 15 watt c-f, or a pair of 40 watt tubes) lights in the shed. It takes almost a week of 8~10 hour charge days to provide barely an hour of light with the 80 watt ones on. That's why I now have a "low beam" c-f in there too.

[JanGeo]

Get a wind generator - works on windy days and at night and usually they are cheeper and put out about 400watts - way more than a solar panel. The return on investment is going to be long term however.

[bobc455]

20 amperes discharge for an hour will require 10 hours recharge at 2 amperes.
Nope, charging is not a 100% efficient process. It'll take more than that. (Sorry I can't cite the specific efficiency, since that would help with the conversation, but I'd rather let someone who knows the specifics give some efficiency numbers. But if you have a laptop, for example, you'll probably have observed that it's a lot quicker to go from 0 - 15% battery charge than from 85% to 100% charge.)

But you are kinda implying that solar cells are essentially a "current source" and not a "voltage source", which is the correct way to think of the situation.

-BC

[theholycow]

Get a wind generator

...and attach it to the car.




























j/k :D

[JanGeo]

Actually with Lead batteries the amp hours out is almost the same as the amp hours in but you have to charge with a higher voltage so the energy is greater for charging than what you get back out. A good LEad battery should return about the same amp hours however. Laptops have Lithium batteries and they are a bit more efficient returning almost as much in as out also again charging takes a little higher voltage but not as much as a lead battery so they are more efficient however the final 10% charge will take a while to be absorbed as the battery ages it will take even longer. NiMh and NiCad batteries are less efficient than any of the other chemistries and usually have a high leakage rate loosing as much as 10% in a single day after a full charge plus to fully charge them you have to pump in an extra 10-20% more energy than you get out.

[african_andy189]

This is silly, converting light to electricity(14 percent efficiency) to charge batteries(probably a little power lost to heat in the charge controller), then powering a HHO generator(which is probably 20 percent efficient at most) and then power a car that's maybe 20 percent efficient. As many power losses as possible basically!

It is such an inefficient way of getting power.Why waste the time with this, electric power is the only way forward - the technology is easily apply-able to any car, lithium ion batteries now make even more power per kg available.All the technology exists, even with lead acid batteries you can make a decent electric car.Batteries were the biggest limiting factor - not anymore.

Yeah hydrogen is sticking it to the man but its just not practical,the amount of power used to convert water to hydrogen is rediculous, if there is a more efficient way then it might be possible.To have enough hydrogen to run your car you'd have to have a generator that is probably the size of your car and draws killowatts not milliWatts like they say.

with electric power you can be completely independent and self reliant, the only reason the governent is moving towards hydrogen is because they can make an infrastructure and pipe it and charge per litre.

Why has no one replicated the stanley meyer circuits that break water down using tiny amounts of power?If somone had actually done it there would have been a real revolution and people would demand water powered cars.

The funny thing is when people build these things no one EVER shows any results.If you get results i'd be glad to look at them, i wanted this to work aswell - i built one myself. I am completely open minded to these things but people have to see the truth of it all.

The logic of HHO generators is like the logic of a child putting a generator on the front wheel of his bike to power a motor on the back wheel.

[Lug_Nut]

bobc455, Getting something for nothing appears to be the new sales pitch. Without knowing how much conversion efficiency loss was present, I went with the scammers and figured 100%.

a_a189, the advantage is that even at 14% conversion from photon to electron, that's 14% that was 'free'. Another 80% loss to H2, and another 80% loss to motion and the net return (.14 x .2 x .2, or 0.0056%) of the input power is still an infinite amount more than the 'free' price of that input power. Who cares how much is lost when the initial supply is unlimited?
If the bicycle generator works only going downhill, stores and then provides power for uphill, where is the illogic?

p.s. I'm looking for funding (a couple of hundred dollars might be enough), for construction of a proof of concept operational model of a 'perpetual motion' device I've had in mind for decades. Maybe not even as productive as 0.0056%, but it needs zero input energy so it's all gain.

[BEEF]

african andy,

I agree with you on the hydrogen fore front but also realize that all electric has its own problems. range, speed, DOT approval. most don't have any of them in a package that the average american can use. most of the ones that go 55+ miles per hour are 3-wheelers so they can get around the safety of a regular gasoline car.

also remember the charge times. the fastest I have heard of is still around 3 hours and requires a special high current line to be installed in your house.

here is an answer to america's dependency on oil (notice AN answer, not THE answer)
http://www.myersmotors.com/

the question is, are you willing to sacrifice to get it? speed is good and so is range but it is 30k and seats one person. safety may also come into play. I actually considered this until I saw the price tag. that was truely a slap in the face.

I am waiting for the compressed air cars to start making their way to the states. the concept is sound and application remains to be seen in our sometimes hilly environments but we will see.

[JanGeo]

The idea of solar powered battery charging is that it is a one time cost and the panels are at 20 to 22% efficiency if you check out Sun Power.

Making an electric car is not CHEEP by any means - think about $20-30,000 for the lithium batteries and $5,000 for motor and controller then start on the conversion. The HHO process is doable for maybe $200 if you shop around and build most of it yourself. I have seen stainless steel wall switch plates used for the HHO generator purchased from Home Depot. Some hoses and rubber stoppers or plastic pipe fitting mounted on a mason jar with a couple of wires to the 12 volts on your deep cycle battery or car battery and you are ready to go.

[BEEF]

yes it is cheap but what do you get for the money. I have yet to see anyone on here start up a gaslog that showed a significant increase from HHO.

most that don't start on this site waving the HHO banner and actually do try it, say that there is either no change or very little (in the negative way) they are then instructed to spend even more money to buy enhancers that may run their cars lean and most decide not to put their cars at risk.

that has been my observations about it.

you also have the spammer from time to time that says that their mielage went up from X to X but they usually don't even tell you what kind of car it is...and they post an affiliated site to sell the products that they praise

*edit* jangeo, how did you get your gassavers sticker for your car? I have been wanting one and have had very little luck getting one.

[JanGeo]

Yeah I should just build one and try it on my xB - I just don't want any hydrogen embrittlement in my engine. If I get my hands on some stainless steel sheeting I will build one since I have all sorts of ways of making it run on batteries with variable voltage controllers good for over 100 amps.

The GasSavers sticker I make on my friends vinyl cutting machine but he packed it up so it is not available - also the hypermiler sticker on the right side that you can't see in the photo.

[BEEF]

that is awesome that your friend made it. I thought that was one that this site was selling. obviously I was wrong. that is good quality and looks really clean.

you see what I am saying about the entire HHO thing though. I am not willing to risk my engine for it either. I would rather be fine with what I have than the promises of high numbers and no data to back it up.

[JanGeo]

No my friend didn't cut it - I did on his machine. Just plain white vinyl. Of course once I got the cutter running he put me to work.

Yeah making HHO is a little bit of work but if the concept is correct there could be some interesting gains and like I posted before if you can make enough HHO to actually get the engine to run a little on it then you basically make your car a plug in hybrid. The point would be a motor turning the engine vs HHO making the gasoline burn more efficiently or run completely on HHO via a second battery. Something tells me that an engine at idle takes in a lot more air than we could possibly generate with an HHO generator. Of course a simple test would be to make some gas and bottle it then feed it to the engine while driving down the road and observe the ScanGauge.

[Aquatron]

I need to clarify a few things.

I have not yet installed the hydrogen generator in my truck yet.
The size of my marine battery is 120 amp hours and in no way will it be connected to my engines electrical system.
The solar panel is made for 12 volt batteries supplying 15.4 volts in daytime at 5 watts making it trickle charger.
Cost of solar panel was $40.00.
The panel measures 14 in. by 11 in. making for easy placement in the vehicle.
Made by Coleman.

I have a unique situation where I drive only 15 minutes to town, 30 min. round trip. I do not work and do not drive every day. If it takes a day and a half to recharge that fits my situation just fine. If I need it before that I can always have the battery fast charged.
I am not trying to make the vehicle run on hydrogen only and this is not a fuel cell.
I do not know if hydrogen even works as a supplement to gasoline but i'm going to try. The entire system has only cost a little over $200.00. I built everything myself.
I will post all my findings, good or bad.
I don't have access to a dyno but I can have emissions and other diagnostics checked.
I have no connection to anyone that sells or builds these devices nor will I.
I do not claim that this works, only trying for myself.

[BEEF]

I am actually interested in your experiment. I think you may be limited by the size of your solar panel but you have a valid concept. if you were to fast charge the battery though, it would skew the numbers because that electricity is no longer provided free of charge (like with the solar panel).

the concept is there but the execution of it.

start a gas log and take some MPG figures now so you can see the difference. don't prove it to any of us, but to yourself. I have often thoght that if you can take away the losses, there might be something there....well...possibly. still don't like having to use enhancers like EFIE and map adjusters and what not.

[theholycow]

still don't like having to use enhancers like EFIE and map adjusters and what not.

I just got an idea.

The reason why that stuff is required is, if I understand correctly, proposed as follows: If you just inject HHO, you're adding fuel but no air, effectively making a rich mixture. It's not producing more work, it's just burning the HHO worthlessly. So, you lean the gasoline out. Now you're flowing the same air and burning the same amount of fuel, some of which is HHO.

Am I correct in my understanding of the reason why that equipment is usually recommended by HHO proponents?

If so, how about instead of trying to fool or bypass the ECU, you let it continue to mix gasoline and air using its own sensors and logic...and feed it your own HHO + air mixture? Now the gas/air mixture is stoich, the HHO/air mixture is stoich (or whatever), and the whole combination is properly mixed.

I guess the hardest part would be measuring the HHO.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

While doing all that thinking, which has caused smoke to pour out of my ears and gear-grinding sounds to emanate from my cranium, I realized something...when you add HHO to your air/fuel, you're not richening the mixture at all. The two H's already come with their own O to recombine with; HHO is at the optimum mixture all on its own. When you burn HHO, you're just combining the O with the H's.

I think my level of skepticism about the usual HHO strategy has just gone way up.

[Aquatron]

I have a question as I do not completely know the answer.

Gasoline is a hydrocarbon only containing hydrogen and carbon and a few additives, when the combustion takes place, does any of the energy come from the the atoms of carbon reuniting with oxygen or nitrogen?

It seems to me that when 1 gallon weighing 6 pounds and has 5 pounds of its weight in carbon that only hydrogen combing with oxygen is the only energy supplied.

Is this why the efficiency of gasoline combusting is so low, and if i'm adding more hydrogen and oxygen to the combustion wouldn't this add to a greater efficiency in that combustion?

[BEEF]

holycow,

a big problem with all of these claims of HHO is that they site that hydrogen can be used as a fuel which is correct and has worked very well. honda actually has a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

the problem is that they are not putting in hydrogen. they are putting in hydrogen and oxygen. I have heard (I don't know for a fact) that the hydrogen in the mixture is not enough to burn the oxygen that is also in the mixture thus this adds oxygen to the end product making the computer think that your car is running lean. I am not that big into HHO so I don't know for sure (just wanted to reitterate that).

the concept that a lot of HHO guys work on is that hydrogen burns at a different rate than gasoline so you can run the mixture leaner without detonation or the problems associated with it.

here comes the bravery question:
are you willing to trust what other say and lean out the mixture on your car?

I want my car to run for a long time with no problems. that is why I am not even willing to try HHO on my car. there is the lack of gas logs from people that claim they are getting significant gains as well.

[theholycow]

Is this why the efficiency of gasoline combusting is so low, and if i'm adding more hydrogen and oxygen to the combustion wouldn't this add to a greater efficiency in that combustion?

Is the efficiency of gasoline combustion low? I thought the lost efficiency was in harnessing that energy -- in the thermal and mechanical reactions, not the chemical reaction.

[theholycow]

I have heard (I don't know for a fact) that the hydrogen in the mixture is not enough to burn the oxygen that is also in the mixture thus this adds oxygen to the end product making the computer think that your car is running lean. I am not that big into HHO so I don't know for sure (just wanted to reitterate that).

I think that is a proposed explanation for why HHO isn't producing results when people try it. I don't think it's true. Just think about it...you do the opposite of burning when you split H2O into HHO; so once you burn it, you're recombining it and releasing that energy which you stored in it. When you recombine it, the hydrogen atoms have to recombine with the oxygen atoms to form H2O molecules again, thereby using up the oxygen that was brought in along with the hydrogen.

...or is it that in combustion chamber conditions, the hydrogen doesn't combine with oxygen the same, and you don't get water, instead getting HO and an extra H, or maybe something like H3O2 and an extra O for every two molecules made?

Or is my basic (VERY basic) chemistry knowledge failing me and splitting water isn't the opposite of burning hydrogen, and therefore burning hydrogen doesn't produce water? We are always told that burning hydrogen results in water, hence why a hydrogen (not HHO) car doesn't pollute (though, of course, whatever source of energy was used to make the hydrogen could pollute).

It's times like these that I wish I had paid attention to what was being taught in chemistry class.
(Now you say: Why, what was being taught? Then I say: I don't know, I didn't pay attention.)

[BEEF]

holycow,

that is a good question about what it actually combines to. I haven't heard of people having water coming out of their tailpipe or steam for that matter but maybe that is understood amongst the HHO crowd. that one I am not sure about.

also, I thought the inefficiency in the ICE (internal combustion engine) was a mixture of the thermal energy lost and the losses in transferring a linear motion to a rotary motion...and all the gearing with the transmission and differential.

[theholycow]

Well, how would they know if it's recombining to water? AFAIK, most HHO users use at most a few ounces of water per day...and it's hard to tell if there's any steam or water coming out of your tailpipe anyway, unless it's so much that it's leaving a cloud of steam (as it does on a cold morning anyway).

Regarding ineffiencies: Indeed, those inefficiencies are there, but again...none of those are combustion inefficiency.

[BEEF]

maybe the heat if you really wanted to stretch it.

and you are right, if water was coming out of the tailpipe it would be a very small amount so I'm not sure on that one.

[dkjones96]

To me, combustion inefficiencies would come from things like having to spark the cylinder 30 degrees BTDC to burn the fuel on time as opposed to all of it instantly burning at 5-10 degrees ATDC (more like a diesel).

I imagine that if combustion efficiencies were improved that you would have more knock after HHO installation.

[JanGeo]

Ok Aquatron - that solar panel is maybe going to keep up a little with your usage depending upon how many amps you use to make the HHO. If you do a lot of down hill with "no gas pedal" on your trip I would recommend switching in the deep cycle battery to the alternator and get some of that free energy converted to electricity and charge that 120ah battery when you are engine braking down the hills.

Depending upon where you inject the HHO will determine if the air flow sensor counts the extra gas coming in but you basically have a perfect combustion mixture being added to the air and fuel and I don't think the ECU will know what is going on other than the fuel will burn a little better because the HHO is going to ignite the droplets of gasoline better. Output of HHO is heat and water - output of gasoline which is composed of hydrocarbons hydrogen oxygen and carbon molecules combining with the oxygen and some of the nitrogen in the incoming air making CO2 CO and H2O along with NO2 and NO. By adding ethanol they/we add some oxygen and hydrogen molecules reducing the carbon content of the fuel a little thus reducing the CO and CO2 output.

Burning the gasoline in the engine is NOT releasing all of its energy - because not all of the gasoline is burned. Most of it is in newer engines at light loads and yes there is a lot of energy lost to heat into the cylinder walls and as friction.

I think if the efficiency of HHO (making and burning) was high enough I could probably get my engine to idle on 900-1000 watts of electric power into the HHO generator and then run the engine completely on HHO. It would make more sense to add an electric motor to the engine and turn the engine over with the electric motor than to produce HHO if it is not too efficient. Adding the electric motor is a lot more work and more cost however and doesn't increase the burn efficiency of the gasoline.

[RoadWarrior]

Combustion efficiency, 99% of all the fuel is burned period, a little bit gets past the rings and a few molecules are "allowed" into the cat to keep it happy.

All the energy in the gasoline is released, but 70-85% of that is in heat and noise. What is normally taken to be meant as the thermodynamic efficiency of an IC motor running gasoline is the proportion of that energy that it converts into kinetic energy that can be used, in the first instance this is pressure, which is converted to linear motion by the piston and rotary motion by the crankshaft.

So there is no hidden energy, you get all of it out of the gas, but what you want is more of that energy shoving you down the road, and less of it leaking wastefully out of your tailpipe and cooling system.

Now the rate at which gasoline can change it's energy into pressure is relatively slow, this means that to get peak cylinder pressure at top dead center, you actually need to light the mixture before top dead center. aka ignition timing advance. BUT the only pressure that is useful is the pressure at TDC and afterward, the rest of the motor has to work against the pressure generated before TDC, and the time it takes to complete the burn means heat is lost to the cylinder head that could have gone into making pressure.

So, anything that could be used to speed the burn up, should be good. H2 has a flame front speed 10x faster than that of gasoline. If you can get enough H2 in there to light off the mixture more rapidly, you can reduce spark advance, moving ignition timing closer to TDC and save the wasted work against the combustion pressure generated before TDC. Additionally, by lighting the gas mixture "everywhere at once" you cut the heat loss to the cylinder head during the propogation phase of the reaction, meaning the amount of heat the gas puts into the motor is less, allowing a little less gas to make the same pressure.

The hydrogen itself contributes to cylinder pressure, it appears the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency of H2 is double that of a gasoline air mixture, but the best that has been achieved in H2 IC motors is only 50% due to mechanical limitations. However, it is fairly likely in small proportions that the H2 actually achieves it's theoretical efficiency, because the gas mixture is something of a buffer to it. How does this work?

Imagine inflating a balloon with a firecracker... Now if you have your standard balloon completely deflated and have a firecracker that will produce exactly the volume of gas required to inflate it... you may be dissappointed. The violence of the reaction would likely unevenly stretch and rip the balloon, or attempt to stretch it too fast, or it may melt the rubber. This is similar to the mechanical limits encountered in trying to make an H2 motor better than 50% efficient. If however we were to have a balloon that was 3/4 inflated, and use a firecracker that will produce the last quarter of gas required to inflate it, we might be more likely to meet with success, as the reaction would be cushioned somewhat by the air already in the balloon, the violence damped. This may be true for any hydrogen assist technology, HHO, plasmatron, bottled H2, any combined H2 and gasoline mixture, the mere presence of "buffering" gases allowing the maximum amount of energy to be captured from the H2. This means that any given BTU amount of H2 up to a saturation point we don't know, but could be inferred at 33% from MITs publications on their plasmatron work, is worth at least double, more likely triple the same BTU amount of gasoline in producing pressure = KINETIC ENERGY.

Additional effects of HHO supplementation are the fact that it takes up a lot of room in the chamber, this reduces pumping loss, increases dynamic compression at smaller throttle openings and lower rpms, and increases the efficiency point of the motor, causing it to be running in a better BSFC range. Theoretical efficiency of a gasoline motor might sound good at 30 odd percent, but practically, at part throttle, you've got an effective CR of next to nothing. You only need 25HP out of a motor capable of 150, so your motor is 6x too large, the volume hydrogen displaces makes it effectively "smaller", you get your 25HP at maybe 80% of theoretical efficiency instead of maybe 30%.

These effects are in addition to the observation by MIT and Arvin Merritor that hydrogen supplementation can shift the lean misfire point from about 17:1 to 25:1

However... you do have to fight your oh so clever ECU, because it does exactly the opposite things you want it to do. For instance, timing advance is often mostly determined from the coolant temp sensor. IF you turn your HHO on, when your engine is nice and hot and advance is pulled right back... you start cooling the motor off, because you're getting more push for less heat, so the ECU advances the timing.... completely the opposite of what is good when you're putting HHO in there.

[JanGeo]

Small point on the complete combustion - if it did completely burn you wouldn't end up with carbon deposits in the combustion chamber.

Your points on the more rapid combustion really makes a lot of sense and the acetone would also help towards that end by making the fuel droplets smaller so they burn easier and presumably quicker. I have variable intake timing which helps reduce pumping losses and up to 38 degrees of timing advance at light throttle and highway speeds and it should be interesting to see how HHO affects the timing assuming that a knock sensor will override the ECU's dendancy to time the wrong way.

[Aquatron]

Gas log for Aquatron:

This is pre-install of hydrogen.
240.5 miles driven
17.3 gallons used
13.9 miles per gallon

[BEEF]

aquatron,

please start a proper gas log (along with a garage) without that, details can get skewed and numberes corrupted.

for example, those numbers look terrible 13.9 MPG unless you are running a large SUV or even a dodge truck with the cast iron V10 then those numbers look awesome. modifications?

I could assume that your vehicle is big because of your mileage and the size of the tank (and thank you for running an entire tank and not 2 gallons or so).

several of us are curious how this will turn out but for the sake of consistency and repeatability, a gas log will keep up with all of that. it has been a while since I set mine up but if memory serves me correctly, it isn't that hard to do.

[R.I.D.E.]

Flow chart of energy losses for a HUUMMV.

Flow chart of hybrid electric vehicle efficiency.

Source is University of Michigan and EPA.

regards
gary

[Aquatron]

aquatron,


for example, those numbers look terrible 13.9 MPG unless you are running a large SUV or even a dodge truck with the cast iron V10 then those numbers look awesome. modifications?


Ok,
I started a garage and gas log.

The main reason for poor gas mileage is terrain and mud/snow tires.
There are very few flat roads of any length here unless I want to travel 100 miles to interstate and even then they are not flat.
Gas is only $1.79 here in SW MO.

[BEEF]

is that a v6 or a v8?

I used to have a dakota myself. mine was a 2004 and the v8. I know that the older dodge motors were not known for their mileage. the dreaded 318 that was rated at 13 or so miles to the gallon.

dodge trucks are good trucks. I would have another. mine (before I got rid of it) would do 0-60 in under 6 seconds. not too shabby for a pickup.

thanks for creating the gas log. most that do the HHO thing feel like we are mocking them when we ask for a gas log. I see it as I wouldn't ask anything that I am not doing myself.

you might want to consider the increasing tire pressure at least. check the side wall max on the tires and increase it a little to see if it makes a difference. it won't cost much. I know sheetz (a gas station) gives free air still (one of the few that still do).

[Aquatron]

This truck is a v6, 3.9 liter. My first gaslog may be tainted by the fact that I had to haul a load of fire wood for 30 miles. I decided that I would use real world mileage because that is how the truck is going to be driven even when I do add hydrogen. I am sure that I will haul more wood after the install.
Probably without hauling the wood I may have been closer to the actual stated mileage for this truck.
I will try the air pressure adjustment too. Thanks.