Is the H2N-Gen a feasable piece of technology

The H2N-Gen is a piece of machinery that adds hydrogen to the oxygen in your car’s combustion engine. This causes a cleaner, more efficient burn and increases gas mileage while cutting on pollutants. Supposedly this will start being marketed in March.
Is this a feasable piece of technology or too good to be true?

It seems to range from outright lies, to scientific junk. First off his claim of:

Seems to be simply false. 80 million miles is 152 years of driving continously at 60 miles an hour. Thats a major, and completely unnecessary, amount of testing for one product. I highly doubt that anyone would be stupid enough to do this amount of testing. Even thats ignoring the huge logistical, and financial problems with doing this much testing.

Another problem I see in this claim is simply the cost of gas. Lets say the cars got 25 mpg, at 2 dollars a gallon, thats 6,400,000 dollars for gas alone. That amounts to 85% of the total budget he is claiming.

Second, this claim:

Seems to be absurd. There is still combustion going on in the engine. The products that are being expelled afterwards should be hot, regardless of whether its CO or CO[sub]2[/sub].

The first problem with this is that I believe that 35% efficiency relates to the percent of power out versus energy in. That is, if you get X amount of energy from burning the gas completely, you only get .35X energy out. That does not mean only 35% of the fuel is burned. It includes inefficiencies in the engines.

Second, I might have to brush up on my chemistry, but there is no way you get carbon from an IC engine.

Outside of those problems, its certainly possible that he has a device that will improve efficiency. Adding in Hyrdogen does make the combustion more efficient, and does reduce pollution. Whether its possible to generate the Hydrogen on demand, and getting a net-gain in power, and whether this guy has done it remains to be seen.

As pointed out above the company is mixing efficiencies.

The theory of H2 in a IC engine seems like it could work, that being that the H2 will ‘carry’ the ignition from one point (spark plug for a otto cycle engine) to every point in the cylinder very fast (meaning much faster then the primary fuel).

I don’t see why not, and people do have problems with carbon buildup on valves, trucks spew out carbon on heavy acceleration.

Didn’t we just go through this with a similar product?

From that thread’s linked-to Wired article:

So, point of evidence in favor of such a device working: At least one company is using it, and is saving $700 worth of fuel per truck per month. For this product, at least it all doesn’t seem to be PR hype, but is in fact a product that trucking companies have field-tested and want more of.

How is this all possible? Well, the above thread is pretty much just a thousand lines of dopers grasping in the dark when they don’t quite know enough about the product … but, kanicbird, you actually made the closing comment that summed it up:

Now, granted, this new product is (maybe) talking about gasoline engines, not diesel ones, so I don’t know if any of the foregoing still holds true.

boy what a bunch of half truths and downright lies.

Uh no. 100% of the fuel is burned, but not all of it completly. 35% takes into account friction losses, pumping losses, and generation of heat among a bunch of other things. See Una’s posts in the other thread for a much better description of combustion efficiency that I could ever give.

Hey mellon head, nothing turns into carbon, the carbon is already in the fuel. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon So if you are burning a hydrocarbon fuel your choices for the carbon are:

  1. Deposit it into the engine or exhaust
  2. Expell it out the tailpipe as either CO, HC, or CO2
  3. Use a transmogrifier to make it into diamonds

Why? You are still using gasoline, you will still have combustion byproducts getting into the oil. Why would the maintenance requirements go down?

OK, what about the

Do they fill themselves, or do they never run out? (CoughBullshitcough)

So what? I can exceed the EPA estimated mileage on every car I drive (Working for a car company I get to drive lots of cars. Something to keep me amused while I drive is to see just how high an MPG I can achieve) Unless you are doing the exact government test this does not mean anything. Have you ever heard the term YMMV?

What type of test was done? Idle? 2500 RPM? Loaded mode? Again unless you are running the exact same test as DC the result is meaningless. Emissions on new cars are already awfully low. FTR in real world on the road testing, with the State of California, some model Volvo achieved negative emissions. The air behind the car was cleaner than the air in front.

Or it could mean that the vehicle has a long exhaust system, lots of airflow over said exhaust system, and it was a cool day. :wally

Maybe this thing works. But I am going to have to see something that makes a lot more sense than the linked article before I jump on this bandwagon.