Posted on 09/18/2005 7:52:36 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s
WILLIAM MARSDEN The Gazette
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.
--snip--
"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.............
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
Give me a break, this smells distinctly of Skegway hype.
Since their inception batteries have produced hydrogen gas when charging. Read the warning label (affixed to your vehicle battery) about the danger of explosions. Yes, electricity can produce hydrogen, and it takes one hell a lot of it to do so.
Bump for later read
Exactly. You can't get something foe nothing in physics. I'm going out on a limb here and predicting this thing will never see the wide spread use this guy is envisioning.
I don't think he's claiming a way around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I gather what is being claimed is that the air/gasoline/oxygen/hydrogen mixture results in more complete combustion of the gasoline than in the usual air/gasoline mixture with the consequence of lower hydrocarbon and CO emissions and a net gain in energy output (even with the energy drain from the electrolysis/reburning of the oxygen/hydrogen component of the mix). Not being an engineer, I can't tell whether such a claim is reasonable, but it's not unphysical.
Not to metion the miniscule amount produced by the tiny electrolysis cell.
"If this story is true, Hugo Chavez might try to kill the guy."
Not if Pat Robertson doesn't kill Chavez first!!
"They aren't. It's the government that is doing it, that is responsible for it. If the oil companies had their way they'd be drilling all over and pumping oil for $10 a barrel. It's out there, make no mistake."
Except for that altruistic "$10" part, I agree.
In other words, we tested the product, but we didn't test the product. If the device works, WHERE ARE THE INDEPENDENT TEST RESULTS?
Won't this invention cause global cooling?
Did you read that he is not selling the device, he is going to install it in vehicles and pocket the savings in fuel? That, to me indicates that he has a viable device. He is taking all the risk.
These stories about small companies with non-scientific inventors who've developed working models of hydrogen engines that will be 'into production in about a year' seem to run about every six months.
I think GM and Ford and Toyota probably see them and buy up the patents from the inventors so we have to keep buying their cars.
I like this better than the dead cats guy.
It's not enough hydrogen to bring the temperature up that much.
2) does the increased efficiency compare with the increase in cost for components and his special mix,
it depends on how much he charges (article says 7500 dollars for a big vehicle like a bus-- assuming Canadian dollars), and on the price of a barrel of oil
3) is the increased efficiency for real (and how does it compare with engines designed to operate at more optimal efficiencies)?
Apparently yes but exactly how much is the question-- sounds like the article claims at least 10 percent; it would operate on any conventional gasoline engine and some other types.
(From reading the article and my own engineering background)
My wife's 94 Park Avenue 3.8 pushrod V-6 3800 engine always reads 0 CO; <2 HC; have all of the inspection slips.
It gets 30.7 MPG at 70MPH on cruise control with the A/C on and the windows up.
The 70% of gasoline in any car that isn't converted to work is simply converted to heat, somewhere; either dissipated by the cooling system or used in the catalyzing process in the exhaust pipe.
All engines indeed could benefit from a fogging process but the inherent drawback is not so much corrosion but the fact that the devices can be installed in such a manner that vehicle attitude coupled with gravity can lead to a catastrophic engine failure when siphoning takes over.
I ain't about to buy stock in this guy just yet.
Exactly-- and the amount of electricity from the car's alternator is not nearly enough to produce a large volume of hydrogen gas, compared to the volume of gasoline vapor that a car normally consumes. So think of the introduced hydrogen as more of a catalyst than outright fuel. A little added to the gasoline vapor produces large changes in the combustion process.
To get an idea on this put a basketball in a mortar tub and slosh it back and forth; then take that basketball, fill it 2/3 with water and tie a rubber band to it and fasten the other end to one end of the tub.
Now, slosh the tub in the same manner and watch the difference in the water movement and the effort to slosh the tub.
Read the whole article; he is sharing the risk.
I did read the whole article.
What I meant was the business model was for a share of the savings.
Did you read that the man from Arizona died within 6 months of revealing his design for the device? Find that suspicious?
I don't get your drift. The tide differential is just massive up there. I understand that a pressurized "tank" trying to fill a smaller tank loses its ability to pressurize the smaller tank as its' contents drain. But, for tidal power, we're talking about gravity as the driving force and ocean water as the medium of force transfer/turbine drive. Force and medium not limited like water in a tank. Yes, I can see that only half the total differential is usable, otherwise you couldn't drain the reservoir for the next cycle. But that's still > a 10 foot head of water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.