Hydrogen Generating Module to Help Your Car?

TomClancy_Jack writes "A Canadian man claims to have invented a hydrogen electrolysis box that can be fit onto any existing internal combustion engine. He claims that engines using his "H2N-Gen" box 'produce a more complete burn, greatly increasing efficiency and reducing fuel consumption by 10 to 40 per cent - and pollutants by up to 100 per cent.' If this doesn't turn out to be vapor-ware or just a regular scam, it could turn out to be one of the biggest recent innovations in transportation history. He claims it will be on the market in 6 - 12 months, so time will tell."

Comments

Simple question:

[overshoot]

Where does the power to crack the water come from?

It's another perpetual-motion machine, people.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Simple question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay it's very simple, but I'll take it slowly for you. The purpose of hydrogen power is not as a source of energy but as energy storage. If we can get cheap, clean power from the ol' grid (say, from fission), we can produce hydrogen to efficiently store the energy. See? It's not so complicated.

Re:Simple question:

[mjfgates]

H2 and O2 are not catalysts, nor do they "improve" combustion of other things in the neighborhood. One's fuel, the other's oxygen, and they just plain burn.

If you actually want to use water to get more motie power out of a given amount of fuel, just inject the water straight into the combustion chamber. This increases pressure in the combustion chamber and thus increases torque. It also forces water into the engine oil... not so good for the engine in the long run. Useful for drag racing, and for dogfighting in WWII-era military aircraft, but I wouldn't want it on my car.

Re:Simple question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Car engines are notoriously inefficient, which means that there are a number of areas in which power can be generated without expending more fuel.

Option 1: thermal energy being radiated by the engine - doesn't do much at present and there's a lot of it there.

Option 2: a dynamo - there's a lot of spinning axles and power trains in there which could easily give you a decent amount of rotational energy to use.

There's probably a lot more ways you can get extra power from a car. Assuming that a car was 100% efficient you would be correct, but unfortunately it isn't so the perpetual motion argument doesn't work. For an example, have a look at the Toyota Prius - a lot more miles per gallon than most cars, yet not breaking the laws of physics...

Re:Simple question:

[CoffeeSan]

I noticed that you posted "If we made an engine that recaptured the unspent fuel or had a system of burning the fuel completely we would have a better ratio of conversion from matter to energy." The thing of it is, engines already burn about 98% of the fuel. It's just that only one third of the resultant energy is spent on torque. The other 2/3rds of the energy is wasted as heat and friction. To claim that more efficient combustion would result in better mileage is wishful thinking. It's not the combustion that needs tweaking, it's the amount of usable energy that comes out of the combustion.

Re:Simple question:

[onemorechip]

The resistance of the alternator to turning is proportional to the electricity generated. Add more electrical load, and the alternator is harder to turn.

While that is a true statement, it ignores the fact that internal combustion engine efficiency does vary with the load on it. A running engine with zero useful load is still burning gas so it has zero efficiency. Drawing energy from the alternator to do useful work does cause the engine to operate more efficiently. However, greater efficiency does not necessarily translate into less fuel consumption. I believe it will be more efficient to shut the engine down while idling, and it might be more efficient to use regenerative braking. Both of these tricks are used in hybrids (at least, both are used in the Toyota Prius).

Hybrids are successful mostly because they recapture braking energy and allow the engine to be shut down when it is making more power than necessary.

Let's not give the impression that regenerative braking is the only factor in hybrid fuel economy. Fortunately you did say "mostly" rather than "only", but that still significantly underplays the other factors. Aside from the aforementioned trick of shutting off the ICE when the car is stopped, how about:

1. You can use a smaller and more efficient internal combustion engine because the electric motor(s) supplement the ICE power for peak loads. In the case of Toyota, an Atkinson cycle engine is used. This is a more efficient design than the familiar Otto cycle, having a longer expansion stroke. But it produces less power for a given displacement, so in a non-hybrid engine with comparable fuel economy the acceleration would be sluggish. The Prius's ICE puts out a maximum of 76 W, but with the additional 67 W from the electric motors at peak demand, it has reasonable acceleration.

2. The engine can spend more time operating in or near its most efficient power band. When that power exceeds the demand, the excess goes to the batteries (but when the car is stopped, the car's microcontrollers will make the decision to shut off the engine instead, unless the battery still needs repleneshing). When the power in this band is insufficient to meet the demand, power can be drawn from the battery, rather than revving the engine up and burning more gas less efficiently. Related to this, the Prius uses a continuously variable transmission, in the form of a planetary gear system called a Power Split Device (possibly trademarked), to achieve a balance between the engine and the car's two motor/generators. I believe Honda also uses a CVT, but its design is more conventional than Toyota's, and I don't know if it is directly tied to fuel economy. I'm not sure if other hybrid manufacturers use a CVT.

[Flywheel] systems were mechanical variants of a hybrid; that is, capturing the energy of braking and storing to use to accelerate the vehicle.

That statement furthers the misconception that hybrids are solely about regenerative braking.

Where does the energy come from?

[detritus`]

But this draw to seperate the water would require a lot of energy, which would be drawn from the engine causing it to work harder (like A/C). Plus the problem of constantly refilling the reservoir (and who cant see the first lawsuit when people have to add caustic chemicals like KOH)

Re:Where does the energy come from?

[greebly]

You'd think that, but it just isn't so. Common alternators place a constant load on the engine once they spin at a few hundred RPMs, even when the regulator is off.

You can make a DIY version of this same thing. Other people sell kits to do this exact process. Electrolyzing water into Hydrogen and Oxygen but not separating them produces what is called Brown's Gas (the Hydrogen and Oxygen mix). Brown's Gas can be generated easily with a very few amps of current. The draw on the circuitry can be regulated by way of control of molarity of the electrolyte.

My friend is currently experimenting on a cheap version of this with a manual shutoff switch (hey, it's cheap!) and has gone from 24MPG to 27MPG in a recent model Nissan Maxima (3.0L V6 model). We're not even done experimenting!

This stuff is for real. It just uses surplus electricity being generated by the alternator whether the battery needs charging or not. The engine is already doing the work, we're just recuperating it in the form of a mileage increasing, emission reducing water electrolysis system.

Ho Ho Ho

[cdrguru]

Yes, adding water to an internal combustion engine will make it burn gas more efficiently and increase fuel economy. This is a well-known fact.

Of course, it has nothing whatsoever to do with hydrogen, other than water contains hydrogen. What is happening is the water makes the air more compressable (increased humidity) and the engine works better. This was far more true in the 1950's where such water add-ons were more popular.

Now, with the addition of the keyword HYDROGEN we have an entirely new set of rubes which will certainly pay $7500 for this without batting an eye. See, if it uses hydrogen, it must be more environmentally friendly.

Rubes. Marks. Suckers.

Unfortunately, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. And pay for it.

Re:Ho Ho Ho

[duffahtolla]

Okay, I hate pissing contests but I'm pretty sure this is right.

With a perfect burn, Each single molecule of gas (c11h24) must be given 18 molecules of Oxygen and assuming a simple 1/4 ratio of oxygen to nitrogen (ignoring the 1% trace gas) This gives

I'm not sure what volume a liquid c11h24 so let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its zero. (This is in your favor)

c11h24 + 18o2+ 64n2 (82 molecules of gas)

After the burn it would be:

12h2o + 12co2 + 64n2 (88 molecules of gas)

So we get an increase of pressure of a 7% from byproducts from the burn of a single molecule of gas.

But if we look at temperature the flame itself, 2,500 kelvin (open air). Given an original temperature of say 300 kelvin, and the formula you mentioned (pV=nRT). The pressure would go up 833% by Temperature alone.

So I'll let you decide it. Byproducts (7%) or temperature (833%).

btw, we don't use electric coils because we need a source of energy to power those coils. Such as the energy contained in gasoline. And that's why "we don't do this".

I dunno

[Ozwald]

From TFA:

Most internal combustion engines operate at about 35 per cent efficiency. This means that only 35 per cent of the fuel is fully burned. The rest either turns to carbon corroding the engine or goes out the exhaust pipe as greenhouse gases.

I thought that it was 35% energy created from the explosion, the rest in waste heat? The fuel is most certainly fully burned. I always thought that efficency would come from producing less heat with less friction, not more heat. It most certainly sounds fishy.

Oz

Absoutely Brilliant Business Model

[gizmonic]

In other words, he would hope to install the H2N-Gen unit in, say, every Canadian National railway and truck engine for free in return for a percentage of CN's fuel savings.

See? Now that is thinking. The government gets the units for free to add to the vehicles. If it doesn't work, the government is not out any money, and only he loses. If it does work, and he gets, say 25% of what they saved? They spend 75% less on fuel for no investment, and he makes a fortune. It's a win win situation all around. That's the kind of business thinking that is going to make him exteremely wealthy. Assuming it's not vaporware. Pun intended... :)

POGUE had it 70+ years ago - VAPORIZE GASOLINE!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.himacresearch.com/

IHMO, the oil industry started using additives around that time (like lead) to keep this method from working.

Do your own research.

There will be no 'magic box' that will enable you to cut deep into the oil companies profits.

They'll never allow that.

If hydrogen takes off, it will be because it will be regulated and controlled & you'll still have to go to your well known oil company pumps and pump it into your vehicle at about the same rate you do now.

Think not? Watch how they 'clean up' veggie oil users and low budge biodiesel manufacturers in the next couple years through strict regulations.

90% alternator efficiency?

[skids]

Not unless it's a spankin' new 42V DC automotive system...

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA187806.html

Or a custom job...

http://nyserda.org/programs/transportation/TransPr oj_6641.asp ...but personally I think switching electrical loads to thermoelectric waste-heat recovery systems is a better option overall:

http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/industry_news/0 7-09-05_7

Fun fact: At $3 per gallon gasoline, with current ICE and alternator efficiencies, electricity onboard a moving car costs 55 cents per kWh.

Who checks their facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that people can publish this, let alone someone is trying to market it. Firstly their statement:
"Most internal combustion engines operate at about 35 per cent efficiency. This means that only 35 per cent of the fuel is fully burned. The rest either turns to carbon corroding the engine or goes out the exhaust pipe as greenhouse gases."

Is completely wrong. It operates at 35% efficiency because the remainder of the chemical energy coming from the fuel is lost as heat. The fuel is definitely burned, and what isn't is typically further converted in the Catalytic Convertor, to make sure that we aren't just pumping out hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. And of course it outputs greenhouse gases. No matter what it will always be outputting CO2, if we are using gasoline as the fuel.

As for the system, I have my doubts about the improvement. By putting extra H2 and O2 to the engine with the fuel you may get a bit better combustion, along with possibly more waste heat. But definitely the cycle of using car battery electricity to split H2O, with the electricity coming from the car alternator, and thus the engine, and then burning the H2 again will Always Lose Energy in the cycle.

You might get a bit of a boost from just having the feeds compressed as it enters the cylinder, but that could be duplicated much cheaper and easier with a Turbocharger or Supercharger, which Will improve fuel economy at least a little.

Fuzzy math

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

"Williams never doubted that his H2N-Gen would work. He said his company has 'over 80 million miles of real experience of onroad verification of the machine in all four seasons.'"

80,000,000 test miles? Assuming they've had (many) working prototypes installed in vehicles for, let's say, 2 years, and drove those vehicles quite regularly at a rate of 20,000 miles per year, then they must have a FLEET of test vehicles! How many? 2,000 for 2 years at 20,000 miles per year! Doesn't that sound a little unlikely for a 13 person company?!

Another gripe/question with this claim is that TFA and everyone else are so excited about "100 percent of pollutants" being eliminated, and "the Kyoto protocol [becoming] obsolete." Is it just me, or does not a "more complete burn" (a.k.a. 100% oxidation) of a carbon-based fuel still result in CO2? How does this guy suppose he's going to cut greenhouse gases by making CO2 production more efficient? And don't say "Well, if your car goes further on a tank of gas, you've used less fuel" because the argument here is that 100% of the fuel you *are* using is being oxidized, right? So while our currently inefficient engines leave behind many carbon compound byproducts, they are producing as much CO2/mile as this guy's invention would.

If you remember freshman chemistry better than I do, please correct me.

On a side note, I'd love to be wrong in this case.

Think like Brazil

[gone.fishing]

On the History Channel the other night I watched the Modern Marvels segment on Sugar. Brazil has all but given up on petrolium and are using ethanol that they brew from sugar. It is nearly as efficient as gas and is 100% renewable, and for those eco friendly types, it is carbon neutral. They have a law that requires all gas stations to sell gas, diesel, and alcohol. They require all manufacturers to make multi-fuel cars and they are succeding.

We don't need a box that does some fake magic hocus pocus, we need something like what Brazil is doing!