It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SCI/TECH: New H2N-Gen Device Seeks To Cut Car Emissions by 97%

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:51 AM
Joe Williams, a former McDonalds and Burger King manager has invented a device called a Hydrogen Generating Module, or H2N-Gen for short. After 11 years and $7.5 million invested in the project, the device is apparently capable of reducing fuel consumption 10-40% and reducing car emissions up to a whopping 97-100%! The device is small enough to fit under the hood of most vehicles, and operates using the process of electrolysis. The resulting hydrogen and oxygen gases are then fed into the engine's intake manifold where they mix with the gasoline vapours.
September 17, 2005

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.

Please see rest of article at source for much more information!

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

What a great thing for this world! We need this bad to help save on fuel costs, but the real benefactor of this is the environment. The beneficial implications of this could be far-reaching, with enery savings and that oh-so-important hole that's opened up in the atmosphere. Let's hope the final R&D stage goes well for these wonderful people doing an incredible deed for all of humanity, as well as this precious planet.

Related News Links:

[edit on 19-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]

[edit on 19-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:02 AM
Definatly good news, very good news. This could quite possibly be what the US needs to get through another oil crisis like this summer's without economic ruin. On the other hand knowing gas companies they'll raise prices if these things become common place. That or the oil companies will prevent these things from coming into use at all.

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:18 AM
This was debunked on Slashdot. I'm really sorry to say it but there are many many problems with the article as well as the fact that this guy isn't the only person to be working on such a device.

This means that only 35 per cent of the fuel is fully burned.

Actually 90+% of the fuel is burnt, the 35 percent figure is the maximum amount of "work" achieved with a given amount of fuel, the rest is wasted as heat and friction.

There are many more problems with the device but I'll leave that up to others to figure out.

Here is a lengthly /. discussion that thorougly rips the claims to shreads.

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:55 AM
A good discussion does ensue there, sardion, although I would encourage members to make up their own minds on this. I think "ripped to shreds" is a bit harsh, as what part of it I read left me thinking "there's some who say he can't, and some who say he can." I think when someone has spent that kind of time and money developing a project in the scope and size of this, we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt. They are surely not going to let the real cat out of the bag so soon. They could have discovered something that could make a difference in the classic "no free lunch" energy problem. I myself will wait to see what happens with it.

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 11:22 AM
Ok maybe that was a bit harsh, but I was thorougly unimpressed with the original article as I've pointed out one error. There are more if you look hard enough, so the question I have is this, why didn't the Author fact check? This mistake should not have been made...

This means that only 35 per cent of the fuel is fully burned.

BS The Carnot limit of an Internal Combustion engine is 35 % the rest as I stated above is wasted Heat. H2 isn't going to somehow recapture that heat.

The H2N-Gen increases burn efficiency to at least 97 per cent

Take the two quotes in context. What is this guy trying to say? That the "Burn efficiency" is somehow more then doubled?
Anyone who owns a car that gets lower then 95 % "Burn Efficiency" doesn't do regular maintanance on their car, Cryo Treating the engine parts would reduce pollution and increase efficiency much more.

The H2N-Gen recently went through third-party verification -- known as "proof of concept" - at Wardrop Engineering Inc. of Toronto, specialists in product testing and development. The company built its own prototype according to Williams's design and tested it against Williams's claims. It passed with flying colours.

Can anyone other then the Gazette confirm this? I tried getting through to Mr. Scheps but he wouldn't take my call. Getting more fishy.

"At the time we first saw it, it seemed too good to be true," Scheps said. "But for everything we're seeing it seems really good. It does work. So we're moving into phase two. Refinements and further testing."

So we still have to wait. If it works as advertised don't you think Car Manufacturers would be falling over themselves trying to buy the rights to this technology?

Williams never doubted that his H2N-Gen would work. He said his company has "over 80 million miles of real experience of onroad verification of the machine in all four seasons."

Really now. 80 million miles is how many man years of testing? If they had that much testing under the hood then why do they need to do further refinement? Something that has stood up to that test in my mind should be pushed out to market ASAP. Yet they want to refine it further...

"We're marketing a 20-pound unit for $7,500," Williams predicted.

Now we get to the juicy stuff, much more pricey then a Hy-Brid and not nearly as cost effective. The only reason why I would pay that much to put it on a Transport Trailor would be to decrease pollution if it actually does that.

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.

If he actually pulls through with this then I'll set him up on a pedistal right next to Tesla and Fuller.

It must be noted that when Brown's company hit the Toronto venture exchange last year and began selling its units, it was soon discovered that the product was not reliable. After selling only 55 units at $11,500 a piece, Brown had to take the product off the market. The company's stock is trading at around 78 cents.

As an investor this paragraph makes me very suspicous.

The Gazette drove a 2000 six-cylinder Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with an H2N-Gen prototype from Montreal to Cornwall and back. We set the cruise control at 102 kilometres per hour. The trip computer indicated that on the highway the car averaged about nine litres per 100 kilometres, which is more than 10 per cent below the manufacturer's mileage rating of 10.5. The combined city/highway mileage was slightly more than 11; the car is rated at 12.9.

We also tested the Jeep SUV at one of Ontario's Drive Clean emissions inspection centres. The car's emissions were well below the manufacturer's ratings. For instance, on carbon monoxide, Daimler/Chrysler gives a rating of 5.5 grams per mile for this model of car. The Drive Clean rating for the Jeep was zero.

This proves nothing. A properly maintained with slightly overinflated tires will always look better then the cars rated specs. Driving a certain way on hi-ways will do the same thing.

Again sorry for the Skeptical eye towards this story, I do not doubt that burning more H2 in our engines will help with efficiency and maybe pollution there are just too many errors for me to blindly give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

I hope I'm wrong though because we need something like this!

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:20 AM
Certainly all good points sardion, thanks, you just increased my Skeptical Emissions by about, oh, 97%.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:25 AM
Note the last sentence in the article.

If it works.

Here's another technology that shows potential. I saw another report on this on TV a couple of days ago, but didn't have time to watch it, but, at least, the idea is still alive.

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:18 AM
I've seen this discussed on two other forums as well as here, and the consensus seems to be--no way jose. I'm sure the guy is/was very sincere in his attempts to get, what amounts to, a free lunch, but the science doesn't work out.

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by sardion2000
This proves nothing. A properly maintained with slightly overinflated tires will always look better then the cars rated specs. Driving a certain way on hi-ways will do the same thing.

If you're telling us you can get +/- 28 miles per gallon and zero emissions out of a 5 year old six cylinder Jeep by giving it a tune up and pumping up the tires, I'd say it's your post we should be suspicious of. In 30 years of driving, I've never been able to match manufacturers mileage claims, even in brand new vehicles.

top topics


log in