http://oupower.com/index.php?dir=_Other ... &PageNum=2
"A theoretical graph showing the possible intersection between GAS PRODUCTION (blue arrow) and ALTERNATOR LOAD (red arrow)....relative to mpg improvements.
The THEORY being that producing as much gas a possible might not be the best approach to increasing mpg due to the higher load on the engine through the alternator. It is possible that where the lines intersect is how much gas you'd want to produce?
An engine designed to run on gasoline might not run so well on large amounts of hydroxy without fairly extreme modifications?
Notice: theory only"
http://www.metrompg.com/posts/alternator-optional.htm
"And it turns out that not only does running without the alternator result in a real MPG gain, it turned out to be the largest single fuel economy improvement of all the mods I've tried to date."
"...around 163 watts for running the engine, ECU & fuel pump; marker lights @ 95 watts; cruise control at 30 watts (just a guess). For a total of about 288 watts." (288w / 12v = 24 amps)
"So the back of the envelope tells us that my car requires around 530 watts, or nearly two thirds of a horsepower (745.7 watts = 1 hp) to run its alternator (for the load specified).
539w / 12v = 44 amps EQUIVALENT ??????
I've calculated elsewhere that the Firefly has to generate 5.4 hp to maintain 70 km/h (43.5 MPH) in ideal circumstances. So reducing that power requirement by 0.64 hp should reduce fuel consumption by a similar amount: which is 11.9% (at that speed)."
"7.3 mpg (US) - difference of between A avg. and B avg. runs
10.3% - increase in fuel economy without alternator"
So...depending on the vehicle...for every 24 amps in gas production you might lose ~10% mpg with a small car? Or you will need to gain 20% in mpg from hydroxy to have a 10% mpg gain after alternator load is factored in?