Do most otb tournaments add seconds to your clock with each move?

My ideal time control would be 1 hour for each player for the whole game, but 30 seconds added. So at most probably 3 hours for the game. That way you can have 3-4 matches in day but still play every endgame out.

5 hour games would really allow some deep variation analyzing, but I'd hate to sit in chair that long. Do they have lunch breaks? Bathroom breaks? Do they drive home every day after each game and come back the next day, or do they pay for a hotel room?

Very nice. I wish I could ever bring myself to say something like that (trust me, I've thought it).

we must have a game next time I'm in New Jersey.

Dear Aaron:

In regard to adding time, a TD may add time to a a players clock if his opponent makes an illegal move in suddent death and under five minutes. otherwise time is usally never added.

In the sitation you state, a TD may add a delay if you request a draw on ILC (insuffiecient losing chances) if he warrants that you have a valid claim.

Players are expected to use time delay clocks, they take preference over clocks that do not have that capability.

TD's prefer not to get involved with games, games are between players.

If you are using a time delay feature during your game, then you cannot request a draw on ILC, since you may not lose on time because you typically have 5 seconds to make before your clock begin deducting time.  This is not adding time. 

If you do have a clock that has the delay feature and you chose not to use it, some TD's will not hear your claim since you chose not to use this feature.  You may not request that a TD give you a TD clock.

If a TD gives your ILC merit and you do not  have a time delay clock, the ILC is a draw offer and your opponent may accept the draw or not.  If your opponent is losing it would be wise to accept a draw, if not, then a TD may place a clock with the time delay and deduct half your remaing time.  The game will continue, win lose or draw.  The time delay allows players to play their game without losing time, (not adding) so the game is decided between the two players and not a TD decision.

The only time a TD may make a ruling with ILC if no clock is available, and that rarely happens.  Most TD, will have a clock with the feature for such situations.

The rationale is that the game should be decided between the players.

If you want more time to just think, that gives you an unfair advantage and against the rules and defeats the purpose of the timed tournament.

I  hope this helps!

"The only time a TD may make a ruling with ILC if no clock is available, and that rarely happens."

I think you are wrong.  If the claim is clearly correct, the TD is supposed to declare the game a draw and the game ends.  For example, if each player has one queen (and there is not something like a mate in 2 or a skewer available), the rulebook says the game should be declared a draw.  The clock is only used if the director is not sure - for example, queen and knight vs queen.

Ha, why would you ever be in New Jersey? Not a ton to see

A player shouldnt win a game on time in easily drawn positions simply because he has some seconds/minutes on the clock more than his opponent  and can "blitz" his opponent into losing. I have seen this happen in such obvious drawn positions as K+R v K+R  and a TD or arbiter is right to declare certain drawn positions as drawn. Thankfully, increments are designed to stop such nonsense and they do help a lot. If you want to win in such a manner stick with blitz . 

Well consider this: 

A teammate of mine played (with me) in a tournament and ended up with K+R vs K+N. After reaching this position his opponent (K+N) offered a draw which my friend refused, stating he wanted to give it a try. At that point both players had at least 10 minutes on their clock. So far so good, however at that point the opponent started to think, until his time dropped below 2 minutes. He stopped the clock and 'claimed' a draw with the TD which was honored. My teammate was upset with the TD, arguing that he first wanted to see whether his opponent could draw the endgame. Note that this was played before increments were introduced.

Any thoughts?

In england I do not think this would happen. From my experience arbiters normally ask the players to play on for a few moves, and the better side only has to be attempting to win by normal means.

In your scenario its not a "simple draw" and in fact is very difficult for the side with the knight and he must know what he's doing. The arbiter should have insisted the game continue on some moves while he observed before making any decision. If the superior side is making progress he can still win but if he is simply trying to shuffle pieces faster than his opponent and win on time, not making any progress on the board the game should be declared drawn. 

I've been to one which was sudden death in 90 minutes and 30 sec increments.(They add time after your move) My opponent had 1 minute and I had 3 minutes. We played to mate and I ended up with 10 minutes. Increment really helps these problems.