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:

[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:

[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.

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

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.

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... :)

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.