© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/fossil-fuel-stopgap-may-virtually-eliminate-auto-emissions/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
It’s old news that adding hydrogen to a combustion engine’s ignition phase causes a much cleaner, more efficient burn, but there has never been a safe, practical way of providing a steady supply of hydrogen gas in an ordinary automobile. But a company in Canada is confident that they have found a way to do it cheap, clean, and easy… and if they’re right, then Joe Williams Sr. and his crew at Innovative Hydrogen Solutions stand to make absurd amounts of money.
The device is called the “Hydrogen Generating Module,” or “H2N-Gen” in abbreviated marketing-speak. It’s small, about the size and shape of a stereo component, and powered by the car’s internal electrical system. It produces hydrogen by running a current through distilled water, and other chemicals such as potassium hydroxide, thereby splitting the water into its component hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then injected into the engine’s intake manifold, resulting in a reported 97% efficiency, up from a typical car’s 35% efficiency. This reduces fuel consumption by 10-40 percent, and pollutants by up to 100%.
It’s a fascinating idea, and its followers are delighted to describe the positive effects this will have on our environment, but it sounds a bit free-lunchy, and leaves some unanswered questions. For instance, does the system reconcile the energy that is spent when the engine has to work harder to produce the electricity for the device? Also, how much pollution is produced in creating the components for this device, including the manufacture of its integral chemicals? Even if the pollution reductions turn out to be a wash considering secondary pollution from manufacturing, there is some gain to be had in engine maintenance and oil changes, though perhaps not enough to justify the unit’s cost.
The initial release of the device, planned to occur sometime within the next 12 months, is intended for use on heavy vehicle fleets such as public buses, trucks and trains because they are the biggest fuel users and their engines are the worst polluters. So assuming the device materializes, we’ll soon know its real-world effectiveness.
Found on Slashdot.
Article on the Montreal Gazette website
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/fossil-fuel-stopgap-may-virtually-eliminate-auto-emissions/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Unfortunately, the mathematics on this is utterly absurd. It doesn’t matter what you add to the petrol, an internal combustion engine can’t even have a theoretical efficiency of 97%. The gain from the hydrogen may be at an efficency of 97%, but not the engine. The article itself admits it is wrong – if you have an efficiency up by 62%, then the fuel consumption should go down by 62%, not 10-40%. That said, there is something to this idea, but by the time anyone really gets around to using it commercially, the ICE will be starting to disappear.
If he can seperate H2 gas out from water then he should be using THAT for combustion. oops..
Ell well,.
Any updates on if this came out successfully?
but running a car on hydrogen that the car produced with its own power isn’t worth doing because burning the hydrogen at 97% efficiency wouldn’t produce enough energy to make up for the energy u lost converting the water to hydrogen in the first place. so you would be just wasting energy.
Ok, just in case someone is reading this again…. let it be known that the author here is clearly not well versed in basic physics. The 97% value that he cites likely refers to the combustion efficiency. So, adding hydrogen makes for a more complete burn which lowers emissions and marginally increases power and (possibly) net efficiency. Also, the 35% value likely refers to the engine thermal efficiency, or the percentage of chemical energy in the fuel that is actually converted to useful work by the engine. First of all this value is far too high. While internal combustion engines can operate at this efficiency, part load operation in a car and factoring in power transmission losses brings the actual efficiency (fuel to wheel) down to less than half this amount.
Long story short, adding a little hydrogen can improve emissions and perhaps power, but it’s quite an investment for such a marginal improvement. Anyone interested in a truly elegant solution for automotive propulsion should look to modern steam engines.
Here’s a thought (for some vehicle applications)…adding a deep cycle battery and a circuit to allow a high efficiency solar panel (mounted to the top of the vehicle) to supplement charging the battery since the battery make a better reserve to work from the alternator directly.
GG’s right, efficiencies quoted are wrong. And Prime seems to think that Perpetuum Mobilae exists – Hurray :)
Steam’s also not the answer although it can help up the overall efficiency, BMW’s busy with that.
Electric powered vehicles will only be practical when batteries evolve way beyond what’s available now, however solar powering will never be possible for the simple fact that the surface is too small to generate the required energy.
Enter your reply text here. OK
follow up? It’s 2008, possible limited success as some do this in glass mason jars (wires/ the water/ chemicals) under their hood. No mass appeal yet.
Answer: (perception) it works with limited success.
Inventer(typically said): Don’t tell me what I can’t create!