Cuts emissions! boosts fuel efficency! 1337 beeeyotch!

[Airencracken]

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfeb17de-d945-4db4-87a6-090911200e96

Can this man save the world?
Everyone wants to cut car emissions. Sooner or later, someone will find a way to do it. Joe Williams hopes it's him.

WILLIAM MARSDEN
The Gazette

Saturday, September 17, 2005


Peter Romaniuk of Innovative Hydrogen Solutions looks over his company's machine, which the company claims eliminates almost all emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles. The company says it is developing a version of the machine that will be one-eighth the size of the current prototype and that should be ready by next year.

Joe Williams Sr. believes he has the machine that will help save the world. It will make the sky blue, allow everyone to breathe easier, and, in a time of skyrocketing fuel prices, save us all money.

Yes, it's hard to believe. Williams is a Winnipeg boy who cut his business teeth managing McDonald's and Burger King franchises. Even now, he employs only 15 people in his Toronto and Manitoba offices. He entered this save-the-world field only 11 years ago and has invested just $7.5 million in his product.

But before you sniff skeptically and skip to the next story, read on.

Because if Joe Williams turns out to be right, "I think Bill Gates and our group will be shaking hands," he says. "It's that big."

"It" is his Hydrogen Generating Module, or H2N-Gen for short.

Smaller than a DVD player - small enough to sit comfortably under the hood of any truck or car - it could be big enough to solve the world's greenhouse gas emission problems, at least for the near future. In fact, it could make the Kyoto protocol obsolete. Basically, the H2N-Gen contains a small reservoir of distilled water and other chemicals such as potassium hydroxide. A current is run from the car battery through the liquid. This process of electrolysis creates hydrogen and oxygen gases which are then fed into the engine's intake manifold where they mix with the gasoline vapours.

It's a scientific fact that adding hydrogen to a combustion chamber will cause a cleaner burn. The challenge has always been to find a way to get the hydrogen gas into the combustion chamber in a safe, reliable and cost-effective way.

Williams claims he has achieved this with his H2N-Gen. His product, he said, produces 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.

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.

The H2N-Gen increases burn efficiency to at least 97 per cent, Williams said. This saves fuel and greatly reduces emissions.

It also means less engine maintenance and oil changes. The only thing the vehicle owner has to do is refill the unit with distilled water once every 80 hours of engine use.

Tests show the unit itself should lasts for at least 10 years, Williams said.

It can be attached to any kind of internal combustion engine: diesel, gasoline, propane/natural gas.

Also, because the H2N-Gen manufactures only enough hydrogen to feed the engine at a given time, there is no dangerous onboard storage of hydrogen gas and no hydrogen under pressure.

Williams said his product, if it works as well as he claims, will serve as a bridge between the present and the time when the combustion engine is relegated to the scrap heap of history. The preferred interim solution has been gasoline-electric hybrid cars, which remain expensive.

But Williams doesn't want you to take just his word for it.

3 other pages i didn't link tew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sweet. Time to get one of these babies on the prius... when it get out of the shop that is...

[PrObLy]

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.



This is not true. Although most combustion engines do operate at about 35 percent efficiency (sort of on the high end), this does not mean that 65% of the fuel is not burned. In fact, IC engines are great at burning the fuel, I think somewhere around 98-99%, but only 35% of that which IS burned goes into useful work. I.E, the rest turns to heat and friction losses.

Interesting fact: Just 6 percent of the fuel energy actually accelerates the car and, subsequently, less than one percent of the fuel actually goes towards accelerating the driver of the vehicle. (Lovins, 9/05, scientific american)


I call BS on this magical hydrogen making device.

I suppose it could increase efficiency and fuel mileage a bit by causing an increase in temperature differential due to maybe creating a slightly more full combustion which would mean the carnot efficiency would be greater ( carnot = 1 - TC/TH)

[hoey222]

i've seen several other devices that have similar claims. harvards plasmotron does something similar. the idea of sending gasses to the combustion chamber appears to be a good idea. it improves emissions output and fuel efficiency. whoever can bring the technology to the marketplace first will make tons.

[johnnymk]

This is not true. Although most combustion engines do operate at about 35 percent efficiency (sort of on the high end), this does not mean that 65% of the fuel is not burned. In fact, IC engines are great at burning the fuel, I think somewhere around 98-99%, but only 35% of that which IS burned goes into useful work. I.E, the rest turns to heat and friction losses.

Interesting fact: Just 6 percent of the fuel energy actually accelerates the car and, subsequently, less than one percent of the fuel actually goes towards accelerating the driver of the vehicle. (Lovins, 9/05, scientific american)


I call BS on this magical hydrogen making device.

I suppose it could increase efficiency and fuel mileage a bit by causing an increase in temperature differential due to maybe creating a slightly more full combustion which would mean the carnot efficiency would be greater ( carnot = 1 - TC/TH)

:stupid:

Plus it is expensive. Friction losses are a very large part in the transfer of energy from the fuel tank to the road. It may reduce emissions somewhat but at what cost and how much additional maintenance?

Plus, I don't recall hydrogen being a necessary component for the burning of gasoline in an IC engine :confused:

[mechmike0034]

This is not true. Although most combustion engines do operate at about 35 percent efficiency (sort of on the high end), this does not mean that 65% of the fuel is not burned. In fact, IC engines are great at burning the fuel, I think somewhere around 98-99%, but only 35% of that which IS burned goes into useful work. I.E, the rest turns to heat and friction losses.

Interesting fact: Just 6 percent of the fuel energy actually accelerates the car and, subsequently, less than one percent of the fuel actually goes towards accelerating the driver of the vehicle. (Lovins, 9/05, scientific american)


I call BS on this magical hydrogen making device.

I suppose it could increase efficiency and fuel mileage a bit by causing an increase in temperature differential due to maybe creating a slightly more full combustion which would mean the carnot efficiency would be greater ( carnot = 1 - TC/TH)

:stupid: :stupid:

Computerized engine controls, advances in automotive engine design development, and tighter machining and manufacturing tolerances have made for great leaps in volumetric efficiency (which in turn equal more power, lower emissions, and greater fuel mileage) over the last thirty years, but the 35% energy-to-work figure still holds true.

[bachviet]

Unless someone eliminates all mechanical moving parts in a car, the efficiency will remain around 35%.

[Grimm]

Plus, I don't recall hydrogen being a necessary component for the burning of gasoline in an IC engine :confused:
Ummm... :spock: Uhhh... it wouldn't be gasoline if it didn't have hydrogen in it. That is why it is a hydrocarbon.

Gasoline chemicaly stores energy. That energy is released during combustion, forming several other chemical compounds.
Introducing other chemicals into the chamber while combusion is (or just before) taking place will have an effect on the chemical reactions that take place. Different available chemicals, in this case extra hydrogen, will affect the available potential energy and the final energy released. I don't know the chemistry involved, it might be horse hockey, but it might be valid science.


We need a chemist to review this.

[MrGreg]

How much current does it take to produce the hydrogen? How big of an alternator will it require to produce that current? Won't be quite so attractive if you need a bowling ball sized alternator (sucking power) to get the gains.

[attgig]

according to this:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/two_onboard_wat.html

it's going to cost 7500 bucks cad (6k+). it would really have to give you incredible gas mileage for it to be worth it.

[Grimm]

according to this:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/two_onboard_wat.html

Assuming it works, it's going to cost 7500 bucks cad (6k+). it would really have to give you incredible gas mileage for it to be worth it.
If it increases mileage by 25% (split the difference between 10% and 40%), that would make an already 31 to 36 mpg fuel concious vehical get 38.75 to 45 mpg. This is in the range of hybrid cars. People are already paying an extra 6k for hybrids. What happens when you take a hybrid and add this? 40 mpg goes to 50 mpg.

This technology can probably be adapeted for any vehical, so it elimiates the problem of choosing between a few hybrid models.

Today it looks like it will be expensive, but when the car companies get ahold of it, provided they decide to actualy use it, I bet they can get the per/unit cost way down. It's a lot cheaper per unit to manufacture 10,000,000 than it is to make 10,000.

[johnnymk]

Ummm... :spock: Uhhh... it wouldn't be gasoline if it didn't have hydrogen in it. That is why it is a hydrocarbon.

Gasoline chemicaly stores energy. That energy is released during combustion, forming several other chemical compounds.
Introducing other chemicals into the chamber while combusion is (or just before) taking place will have an effect on the chemical reactions that take place. Different available chemicals, in this case extra hydrogen, will affect the available potential energy and the final energy released. I don't know the chemistry involved, it might be horse hockey, but it might be valid science.


We need a chemist to review this.

I am talking pure hydrogen. By your reasoning, introducing carbon into the combustion chamber will add performance. I don't think so.

Here is a short article regarding the chemical reaction of burning gasoline:

Combustion of Hydrocarbons

Since almost all transportation modes depend on the internal combustion engine, it is worth investigating the chemical combustion principle of hydrocarbons. For the majority of internal combustion engines, gasoline (C8H18; four strokes Otto-cycle engines) serves as fuel, but other sources like methane (CH4; gas turbines), diesel (mostly trucks) and kerosene (turbofans of jet planes) are used. In a complete and perfect combustion of gasoline the following chemical reaction is achieved:

(2) C8H18 + (25) O2 = (16) CO2 + (18) H2O + energy (1)

Gasoline produces around 46,000 Btu per kilogram combusted, which requires from 16 to 24 kg of air. The energy released by combustion causes a rise in temperature of the products of combustion. Several factors and conditions influence the level of combustion in an internal combustion engine to provide momentum and keep efficient operating conditions. The temperature attained depends on the rate of release and dissipation of the energy and the quantity of combustion products. Air is the most available source of oxygen, but because air also contains vast quantities of nitrogen, nitrogen becomes the major constituent of the products of combustion. The rate of combustion may be increased by finely dividing the fuel to increase its surface area and hence its rate of reaction, and by mixing it with the air to provide the necessary amount of oxygen to the fuel.

If all internal combustion engines worked according to Equation 1, emissions and thus local environmental impacts of transportation would be negligible (except for carbon dioxide emissions). The problem is that combustion in internal combustion engines is imperfect and incomplete for two reasons:

First, the fuel and the oxider are not pure, causing an imperfect combustion. Although the refining process provides a "clean" fuel, gasoline is known to have impurities such as sulfur (0.1 to 5%), sometimes lead (anti-knock agent) and other hydrocarbons (like benzene and butadiene), while air is composed of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
Second, in part because of the first reason and in part because of the technology of the engine, incomplete combustion emits other residuals. Combustion in an engine occurs at an average rate of 25 times per second, leaving limited time for a complete combustion process. Besides carbon dioxide and water, a typical internal combustion engine will produce carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC; benzene, formaldehyde, butadiene and acetaldehyde), volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates, and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These combustion products are the main pollutants emitted in the environment by transportation.

[attgig]

Today it looks like it will be expensive, but when the car companies get ahold of it, provided they decide to actualy use it, I bet they can get the per/unit cost way down. It's a lot cheaper per unit to manufacture 10,000,000 than it is to make 10,000.

word!
that's what any car manufacturer behind in the hybrid market should do *ahem* gm chrysler *ahem*.

might require slightly more maintenance (distilled water), but not worrying about the battery, a second engine, and absolutely no weight. it's money.

[civicdidex]

opec will purchase the design rights...

[Bires]

We need a chemist to review this.


You called? :)



I'm with Probly on this one. It's B.S.

Two huge problem with his claims:

1. In order to spit off the H2 and O2 from the H2O you need a huge current. That current can only come from the generator/alternator and eventually from the engine (unless it's haulling a 200lb battery around too that can be plugged in every night). That power that it needs to split the water would be a tremendous drain on the engine (like several air conditioners all on the same flywhell belt). It would seriously rob the engine of useful power.

2. As the temperature of the combustion chamber increases, the amount of NOx pollutants increases, not the other way around. True, unburnt hydrocarbons are reduced, but acid rain and smog producing NOx emissions increase. As long as you burn air (70% N2 and 21% O2), you will get NOx. Unless he found a way to cheaply and quickly separate N2 and O2 from each other in air without loss of pressure...but I doubt he did, since he would have won the Nobel prize if he could.

3. You would have to haul a lot of DI H2O around under your hood to make the device practical. Sorry, no. The thing would not be the size of DVD player.

4. His machine has a stupid name. "H2 N-Gen" ? What's the deal? It sounds like a machine on Spaceballs.

5. He started at McDonalds. :puke: That crap will mess with yo' mind!


Anyway, this is just my initial impressions. I would love it if a machine like this could work...but this one can't.

[Grimm]

I am talking pure hydrogen. By your reasoning, introducing carbon into the combustion chamber will add performance. I don't think so.That's not what I was saying. I was saying that introducing more hydrogen into the combustion would affect it, not improve it, affect it. Your reading things into my post that I did not put there. Carbon is a solid. How would someone continuly introduce pure carbon into an IC engine?

I was saying we should not discount the idea untill someone with a practical knowedge of chemistry could review the claims.

You called? :)



I'm with Probly on this one. It's B.S.

Two huge problem with his claims:

1. In order to spit off the H2 and O2 from the H2O you need a huge current. That current can only come from the generator/alternator and eventually from the engine (unless it's haulling a 200lb battery around too that can be plugged in every night). That power that it needs to split the water would be a tremendous drain on the engine (like several air conditioners all on the same flywhell belt). It would seriously rob the engine of useful power.

2. As the temperature of the combustion chamber increases, the amount of NOx pollutants increases, not the other way around. True, unburnt hydrocarbons are reduced, but acid rain and smog producing NOx emissions increase. As long as you burn air (70% N2 and 21% O2), you will get NOx. Unless he found a way to cheaply and quickly separate N2 and O2 from each other in air without loss of pressure...but I doubt he did, since he would have won the Nobel prize if he could.

3. You would have to haul a lot of DI H2O around under your hood to make the device practical. Sorry, no. The thing would not be the size of DVD player.

4. His machine has a stupid name. "H2 N-Gen" ? What's the deal? It sounds like a machine on Spaceballs.

5. He started at McDonalds. :puke: That crap will mess with yo' mind!


Anyway, this is just my initial impressions. I would love it if a machine like this could work...but this one can't.
Yes, I did call! Thanks Bires for your input. :)

Looks like he is just another guy with a perpetual motion machine. You would think that a reporter would check the story with a chemist before releasing it.

[Airencracken]

maybe it isn't traditional hydrolosis? Maybe there is some kind of catalyst that is dropping the reaction energy?

[Bires]

maybe it isn't traditional hydrolosis? Maybe there is some kind of catalyst that is dropping the reaction energy?

Catalysts don't change the thermochemical values of reactions, they only change rates of reactions and the size of the energy barrier. Since we are talking about an endothermic process, a catalyst won't help.

[Grimm]

Ye caane change tha laws of physics, kepten!

[attgig]

well, if that was so easily solved by a simple chemical reaction, it would already be out there as a product. but it takes extra genious, and extra insight to figure out how to make it all possible and practical.

i think everyone has these ideas and prototypes, but seems like this idea became newsworthy after the independent engineering firm verified the product, and its claims.

[Bires]

...the independent engineering firm verified the product, and its claims.

That's the problem. They claim their machine works a certain way. Sure, if you burn H2 in your engine, it will increase the operating temperature, and you will get more horsepower/work per gallon of gas, because you aren't just burning gas, you are adding a new fuel.

Where does the H2 come from? From water. Splitting water is a rediculously inefficient process, just to get H2 and then recombined it again with O2.

Does the science work? Probably. Is it efficient? No.

--------------------

It did get me thinking though. If you lined your truck bed or car cabin with solar cells, you get enough juice to split off enough H2 to become a supplimentary fuel, and then add that fuel to gasoline. The pressures are a problem, as you would need a primary H2 pump to collect and force the gas into the ignition chamber in volume enough to be useful.

I'm most likely missing something, as H2-gas hybrids have been explored, but never realized.