Hydrogen Generating Module
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
At 7500$CAN, I'd buy one unit for my Corolla tomorrow if it was available.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but does this sound good?
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
Note the units here, Tim- litres per 100 km. If you're using fewer litres per every 100 km then that means you're getting better fuel economy, not worse. Smaller numbers are good here. Miles per gallon is just the opposite. For example, 10 miles per gallon = 23.6 litres per 100 km and 50 miles per gallon = 4.7 litres per 100 km.
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
The unofficial test mentioned was only a small improvement for city/highway mileage -- a meager step from ~18.2 to 21.3 mpg. I would want to see more than a 20% improvement with my car's fuel consumption. For example, if my mileage went from an average of 23 mpg to 30 mpg, I would be satisfied, but a jump of 23 to 25 isn't substantial. Although I must admit, that almost any consistent improvement is better than nothing.
Doing some calculations for my car, at 2 mpg more, a tank would net me roughly 35 more miles or, on average, another half-day of driving before I need to fill up. Since I fill up roughly every seven days, half a day per week should net me something like an extra 3.7 weeks per year. At roughly $52.00 per fill-up, I would save ~$190.00 per year. If I go a step further, the USD8,850.00 hydrogen box would pay for itself in 46.5 years. I think I'll pass, unless there is some major fuel conservation improvement. Which, I should add, could easily happen within the next year, or even six-months.
Doing some calculations for my car, at 2 mpg more, a tank would net me roughly 35 more miles or, on average, another half-day of driving before I need to fill up. Since I fill up roughly every seven days, half a day per week should net me something like an extra 3.7 weeks per year. At roughly $52.00 per fill-up, I would save ~$190.00 per year. If I go a step further, the USD8,850.00 hydrogen box would pay for itself in 46.5 years. I think I'll pass, unless there is some major fuel conservation improvement. Which, I should add, could easily happen within the next year, or even six-months.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Even if it doesn't justify itself from an economical perspective, the 100% reduction on pollution rejects would be enough for me to lay down the cash.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
IMO, it's snake oil.
Think about it. Even if you don't know anything about internal combustion engines, don't you wonder at the arithmetic?
Think about it. Even if you don't know anything about internal combustion engines, don't you wonder at the arithmetic?
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
I guess my question would be: why not power the engine with hydrogen alone, and forget about the petrol altogether? I'm assuming that it can't generate enough of it.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
That would make it a perpetual motion machine, fed only on a diet of water ... which highlights the conservation of energy paradox that you're supposed to swallow here. :roll:
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
I think it is interesting.
But just a band-aid of sorts.
You still need the gasoline.
It probably can't produce enough hydrogen fast enough to fully power the car.
Even if you made it as big as the engine.
Hey jtr, do you have links to those BEV manufacturers?
But just a band-aid of sorts.
You still need the gasoline.
It probably can't produce enough hydrogen fast enough to fully power the car.
Even if you made it as big as the engine.
Hey jtr, do you have links to those BEV manufacturers?
I was thinking the same thing as time... The unit runs off the cars electrical system, yet the electrical system is powered by the engine... I'd like to know how much power the unit requires for the electrolysis.
I also agree with you, Will This is a band-aid. But, if this thing becomes popular, it certainly can't hurt to reduce emissions, and reduce gas consumption, even in the short-term.
I also agree with you, Will This is a band-aid. But, if this thing becomes popular, it certainly can't hurt to reduce emissions, and reduce gas consumption, even in the short-term.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
It's a total, complete, absolute scam.
1. Adding a small amount of hydrogen to the fuel mix does not improve combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel.
2. It takes energy to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Even ignoring the fact that this is only about 65% efficient, it is quite impossible to release a greater amount of energy by burning the hydrogen (which of course is recombining it with oxygen and ending up with more water!). In addition, substituting hydrogen for gasoline doesn't significantly change the inevitable inherent inefficiency of an internal combustion engine. All up, you'll lose 70 to 80% of the energy from the hydrogen in trying to make more hydrogen. In other words, the process will worsen fuel economy!
3. The water vapour produced is actually a bigger contributor to greenhouse problems than the carbon dioxide from burning hydrocarbons.
I suspect that the unit actually 'produces' so little hydrogen that its negative effect on the engine is insignificant, i.e. it simply does nothing.
1. Adding a small amount of hydrogen to the fuel mix does not improve combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel.
2. It takes energy to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Even ignoring the fact that this is only about 65% efficient, it is quite impossible to release a greater amount of energy by burning the hydrogen (which of course is recombining it with oxygen and ending up with more water!). In addition, substituting hydrogen for gasoline doesn't significantly change the inevitable inherent inefficiency of an internal combustion engine. All up, you'll lose 70 to 80% of the energy from the hydrogen in trying to make more hydrogen. In other words, the process will worsen fuel economy!
3. The water vapour produced is actually a bigger contributor to greenhouse problems than the carbon dioxide from burning hydrocarbons.
I suspect that the unit actually 'produces' so little hydrogen that its negative effect on the engine is insignificant, i.e. it simply does nothing.