[Ratm]

www.canada.com

"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.

The original idea came from an American but without the help of Mr. Joe Williams, the technology would have died with him.

"It was a friend introducing me to a friend, saying you got to meet this guy," Williams said.

This guy was an environmentalist and inventor named Gene Stowe, from Tempe, Ariz. Stowe had developed a plastic cylinder that produced hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis on demand only when a fuel engine was running.

Stowe's hydrogen-producing cylinder was "very rudimentary." Among its many problems was a nasty habit of blowing up.

"They had a lot of UFO sightings around the area because whenever his cylinder blew it sent a disc flying 200 to 300 feet into the air," Williams said, chuckling.

Stowe died six months after their meeting. Williams was intrigued enough by that time to try to take the idea to the next level.

"Six months after their meeting" did he die or was he MURDERED.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Ratm

"Six months after their meeting" did he die or was he MURDERED.

Or maybe both?

[Ratm]

I should have wrote did he die of natural causes!

[11011001]

I was under the impression that he was blown up. Anyways, is this actually viable? Or is he just another quack?

[Ratm]

^^^rtfa

[11011001]

Originally Posted by Ratm

^^^rtfa

No need to talk like that.

Okay, maybe he isn't a quack.

But it seems some of the things stated in the article are misleading. Such as the stated efficiencies. Electrolysis isn't cheap, and a lot of the improved efficiency is going to be going back into the device.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Ratm

www.canada.com


The original idea came from an American but without the help of Mr. Joe Williams, the technology would have died with him.


"Six months after their meeting" did he die or was he MURDERED.

If you are serious in your question, I'll attempt to answer it.

Critical thinking here suggests there is no indication of foul play. I assume you have no other sources of info on this matter, so one MUST assume, because there is no reason to think other wise, that it was due to unsuspicious causes.

It IS possible he was murdered, to find out one would do some investigation, starting with calling the reporter of the story. Then, the death certificate and the doctor or coroner who signed it. Then, MAYBE the family.

If you think there are forces that wouldn't want your looking into this matter, you'd better procede carefully.

Just because someone dies suddenly or unexpectedly when they are on the trail of a significant energy related discovery doesn't automatically mean they were murdered. Although there HAVE been some deaths that occured I wouldn't be surprised to discover WERE part of a conspiracy to silence that person and/or prevent his scientific research or discovery from hitting the street.

But, then again, you were just kidding. Right?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by 11011001

No need to talk like that.

Okay, maybe he isn't a quack.

But it seems some of the things stated in the article are misleading. Such as the stated efficiencies. Electrolysis isn't cheap, and a lot of the improved efficiency is going to be going back into the device.

In chemistry and manufacturing, electrolysis is a method of separating bonded elements and compounds by passing an electric current through them. The most common form of electrolysis is electrolysis of water:
2H2O(l) → 2H2(g) + O2(g)

In high school we created chlorine gas by hooking up a 9v battery to a glass of salt water. Then we were told not to do this at home.

Not expensive.

Women getting an electrolysis procedure to eliminate hair growth IS expensive (and I don't know what that entails).

The procedure and device in the article seems to be real and verified to REDUCE EMISSIONS.

Any claims for increased gas mileage didn't seem to stand up to testing, from what I could tell.

[Millennium]

Although this would certainly cut down on oil usage and reduce emissions of pollutants, I don't see how this would stop global warming. Any device which uses electrolysis to generate hydrogen and then burns it is going to emit water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. Of course, water vapor occurs naturally, as do all greenhouse gases; the problem with the greenhouse effect comes from too much of these gases being emitted. Water vapor isn't likely to be much different from any of the others as far as this is concerned.

As for the guy, did he die of natural causes, or did his engine blow up? The safety claims of this device are interesting, but how much testing was performed?

[yukon]

....they mix with the gasoline vapours....greatly increasing efficiency and reducing fuel consumption by 10 to 40 per cent - and pollutants by up to 100 per cent.

No. It's still burning gas, which has more than hydrogen and oxygen in it. Unless they're claiming that they're perfected the GEET engine, and are now transmutating elements into other elements, they haven't eliminated pollution. As well, I seem to remember being told that gas combustion is pretty efficient, and since you'd have to generate the electricity to charge the battery to make the hydrogen to mix into the engine, this 40% more energy can only come from a massive increase in efficiency, which is certainly possible but I'm doubtful since I've never heard of this "hydrogen + gasoline" mixture idea. Another 10% is helpful though.

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But, then again, you were just kidding. Right?

[11011001]

Originally Posted by mojo2

In high school we created chlorine gas by hooking up a 9v battery to a glass of salt water. Then we were told not to do this at home.

Not expensive.

Women getting an electrolysis procedure to eliminate hair growth IS expensive (and I don't know what that entails).

The procedure and device in the article seems to be real and verified to REDUCE EMISSIONS.

Any claims for increased gas mileage didn't seem to stand up to testing, from what I could tell.

You misunderstood my use of the word cheap. I was talking in terms of input energy which you left out of your equation.

I am doubtful that there is even a net gain in energy output from this system, and if there is, if it's really significant. I think people need to be careful when looking at this. It almost looks like an attempt at a perpetual motion machine. That is, one is using energy from the engine (making hydrogen) to put energy back into the system (hydrogen gasoline mixture).

Still, I don't think the efficiency is the point. I think the issue instead seems to be the final products of the reaction. Maybe it's cleaner.

I am starting to revert to my original reaction. The device isn't really the big deal that the article makes it seem to be. Hybrid cars are going to be saving more icebergs than this thing.

Edit: ---------------

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 so wrong. 35 per cent of fuel is fully burned? WTF? Modern ICEs burn around 99% of the fuel injected into them. That 35% actually represents the efficiency of the engine in converting the potential energy in the fuel to kinetic energy. This ill informed jurnalist is saying it's being spit out the back. Actually, most the energy is lost to heat, and noise. The article's grasp of science is extremely flawed.

[FulcrumPilot]

This is of no use to me if I cannot stick it into my longboard! So I say scrrew it!

[E's Lil Theorem]

I thought this thread was going to be about some hot Canadian femmes jumping up and down on an American trampoline...or, something close to that.

I reckon cleaner and more efficient fuel is a good thing, but hardly beautiful