• 48
We're not sure how many companies there are that are producing or testing on-demand hydrogen systems, but we're getting rather accustomed to seeing new ones nearly every single day, each one touting radical and impressive-sounding fuel mileage and emissions improvements. The latest comes from Hydrogen Hybrid Corp, which claims to have finished testing its $8,995 8X Mega Fuel Cell System on a Class 8 semi truck equipped with a Series 60 Detroit 14L diesel engine. Now that the testing, which the company says took place on US roads from Ohio to California and back, is complete, the vehicle is supposed to be on display at The Queen Mary Parking lot in Long Beach, CA.

So, what does HHC claim its 8X Mega Fuel Cell System is capable of? An increase in fuel economy of 30-100 percent along with a decrease in emissions of up to 95 percent. That would certainly be impressive it if were true, but we're not really convinced that a box that measures just 24x18x18 inches containing what the company refers to as "an unordinary method of resonant electrolysis" can really produce "over 2,500 liters of hydrogen per hour" as the company claims.

Even if the system worked as advertised, a number of questions need to be answered. For instance, how much water would be required to support that kind of hydrogen extraction? Where would that water be stored? Where does the electricity for the electrolysis come from? What impact does it have on the engine's ability to make power? And so on.

[Source: Hydrogen Hybrid Corp]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 48 Comments
      • 2 Months Ago
      Who in the 1700s would believe that you could move hundreds of tons of men and material over steel tracks by just boiling water? That's just crazy talk! Why did we even listen to those idiots?

      Steel floats? Nut jobs!

      Flying men? Loony!

      Fly to the moon? That's just crazy!

      Billions of calculations per second in a device the size of a fingernail that's made from beach sand? Call the men with the straight jackets!

      I wonder what is worse... those who dare to dream or those who are too scared or stupid to even try.

      Maybe that's why the world's wealth always concentrates in the top 2% which is made up of those dreamers and the rest of us waste our days working in our own little Journey of the Broke (JOB).

      Those dullards (you know who you are) who refuse to open their eyes and dare to dream of the “possibilities within the impossible” make great workers for those who do. We need those dimwits with the "worker's mentality" too.

      Somebody has to tote that bail...
        • 2 Months Ago
        While I appreciate and share your optimism (for example I am a strong supporter of the human exploration and settlement of other worlds, especially Mars), I have to respond to this:

        "I'd rather follow Christopher Columbus than the Catholic Church."

        This extends the usual myth that conventional opinion in Columbus' time held that the Earth was flat by roping in the Church, claiming the Church to hold this belief.

        Both are false. Educated people knew perfectly well that the Earth was a sphere. Columbus' difficulty in securing funding arose from disagreements over the Earth's circumference; he miscalculated it as being much smaller than it really is, whereas established opinion, citing remarkably accurate measurements going back to classical antiquity, understood the circumference to be about what it really is. As they correctly argued, given the vast distance involved, Columbus could never have reached Asia with the limited range of his caravels, even without the Americas in his way, which none of them was aware of.

        Some of Colmubs' uneducated sailors may well have feared sailing over the edge of the world, but that's a separate issue.

        In any event, the Catholic Church and religious belief never entered into the discussion. Even during the Galileo controversy, when it did become enmeshed in an astronomical dispute, the Church never held that the Earth was flat; its spherical shape was assumed by all parties.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Chris,

        You seem to believe that we scientists know everything about the physical "laws" and that there is nothing left to be discovered whereas I do NOT! I guess we don’t need that giant supercollider.

        There are MANY questions left unanswered and without an open mind about new ideas we will NEVER have the answers. By the way, NONE of the inventors had a "FULL UNDERSTANDING" of physics when they invented these miracles. BUT THEY DID HAVE DREAMS AND VISION.

        They may be right and they may be wrong, but I am AT LEAST willing to LISTEN and give them the benefit of the doubt (not money) until they can prove themselves.

        Yes, I know. Not blindly believing in dogma is heresy. I guess that I’m guilty as charged. I'd rather follow Christopher Columbus than the Catholic Church.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Tim, every one of those things you mentioned only happened after all the basic principles were researched and understood. Improvements on those things only happened after additional research refined the knowlege of those principles.

        No, I've never assumed that we knew everything, quite the contrary. But history has shown repeatedly that basic research and understanding fundamental principles always comes first. You're assuming we should just dream big and make things happen without understanding what we are doing, and that rarely works.

        Christopher Columbus was lucky. If North America and the Caribbean islands hadn't been where he thought Asia was, he and his crew would likely have perished in the middle of the ocean.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Well said. I've not seen a more closed-minded bunch of self-destructive types in a while like I have here.

        Thank God for people who at least try and be innovative...even if it fails. Where would all these whiny little children be if they didn't have all their toys thanks for people who took risks and didn't listen to the same counterparts of the doomsayers here well over 100-200 years ago?

        I bet alot of people here believe in God too....say it ain't so.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Tim, you've waaay oversimplified it. A steam engine is more than just "boiling water", making it requires a basic understanding of physics and engineering (and a lot of steel). Making a steel ship requires an understanding of the principles of buoyancy. Building a flying machine requires an understanding aerodynamics, as well as the physics of the engine powering it. Flying to the moon requires a detailed understanding of physics, chemistry, metallurgy, biology, and celestial mechanics. Making a digital computer requires knowlege of electronics, physics, chemistry, and advanced mathmatics, (and a lot of processing of that "beach sand").

        In short, all those things you mentioned requires a full understanding of the principles involved, and not one of them involves violating the basic principles and rules governing how the universe works.

        Understanding some of the physics involved, I realized that the rather modest improvements in fuel economy with these "HHO" devices are accompanied by a reduction in power and performance. It would be cheaper to go light on the accelerator, and it would be more efficient to simply use a smaller engine.
      • 2 Months Ago
      I bet if you take this thing apart it's just a water injection system for a high compression turbo, which can give incredible gains on a diesel but not the kind they are talking about.
      • 2 Months Ago
      AutoBlogGreen is just feeding the hydrogen hype troll.
      • 2 Months Ago
      You can run hydrogen in your vehicle right now! Check it out...

      http://peacelovefreedom.org/Products.html
      • 2 Months Ago
      Why even report about people like this anymore?
        • 2 Months Ago

        Fuel cells generate electricity from a simple electrochemical reaction in which an oxidizer, typically oxygen from air, and a fuel, typically hydrogen, combine to form a product, which is water for the typical fuel cell. Oxygen (air) continuously passes over the cathode and hydrogen passes over the anode to generate electricity, by-product heat and water. The fuel cell itself has no moving parts – making it a quiet and reliable source of power.
        The electrolyte that separates the anode and cathode is an ion-conducting material. At the anode, hydrogen and its electrons are separated so that the hydrogen ions (protons) pass through the electrolyte while the electrons pass through an external electrical circuit as a Direct Current (DC) that can power useful devices. The hydrogen ions combine with the oxygen at the cathode and are recombined with the electrons to form water. The reactions are shown below.

        Anode Reaction: 2H2 => 4H+ + 4e-
        Cathode Reaction: O2 + 4H+ + 4e- => 2H2O
        Overall Cell Reaction: 2H2 + O2 => 2H2O

        Individual fuel cells can then be combined into a fuel cell "stack." The number of fuel cells in the stack determines the total voltage, and the surface area of each cell determines the total current. Multiplying the voltage by the current will yield the total electrical power generated.

        Power (Watts) = Voltage (Volts) X Current (Amps)

        • 2 Months Ago
        A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy of a fuel (hydrogen, natural gas, methanol, gasoline, etc.) and an oxidant (air or oxygen) into electricity. In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. Unlike a battery however, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce electricity and heat as long as fuel and an oxidizer are supplied.

        Both batteries and fuel cells are electrochemical devices. As such, both have a positively charged anode, a negatively charged cathode and an ion-conducting material called an electrolyte. Fuel cells are classified by their electrolyte material. Electrochemical devices generate electricity without combustion of the fuel and oxidizer, as opposed to what occurs with traditional methods of electricity generation.

        Fuel cell construction generally consists of a fuel electrode (anode) and an oxidant electrode (cathode) separated by an ion-conducting membrane. Oxygen passes over one electrode, and hydrogen over the other, generating electricity, water and heat. Fuel cells chemically combine the molecules of a fuel and oxidizer without burning or having to dispense with the inefficiencies and pollution of traditional combustion.
        • 2 Months Ago
        StemCellHealth, you've got the right definition of "fuel cell", but the jokers at "Hydrogen Hybrid Corp" do not. What they are selling is a water electrolysis cell that makes modest amounts of of H2 and O2 to feed into a standard internal combustion engine, where it displaces some of the fuel/air mixture, resulting in a reduction of power and a modest improvement in fuel economy.

        "Hydrogen Hybrid Corp" calls their electrolysis unit a "fuel cell" for marketing reasons only.
      • 2 Months Ago
      It's not just this company, it's the whole hydrogen phenomenon that is a gigantic hoax. Both hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen internal combustion engines are scams that will never work. Ever.

      http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
      • 2 Months Ago
      For how long are people going to continue falling for the nonsensical claims of the hydrogen lobby?

      Three years from now, six or seven bigname makers will have battery electric vehicles in the showrooms. Nissan/NEC just announced they were pulling their programme forward by a year in order to have 200,000 battery packs available for 2011. They clearly anticipate huge actual demand.

      Once battery power is established, nobody will bother pouring more funds in to the everlasting hydrogen myth (it's 35 years since Ford told us to expect hydrogen vehicles soon. BMW recently said their own hydrogen experimentation was unlikely to produce showroom vehicles for a further 20-30 years, and they are turning their attention to battery power. That other hydrogen proponent, Honda, has finally signed a batterymaker deal).

      Strange how so many of these headline hydrogen stories involve some magical box which we can't be told the details of..

      And as for using hydrogen as a gasoline/diesel supplement within combustion engines - forget it -- there won't be any combustion engines. Combustion engines have served us well but are SO last century.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Tell me...how do you plan to fly overseas on holiday with your batteries?

        Wanna load up that 747 up with Li-Ions?
        • 2 Months Ago
        These scammers are not the "Hydrogen lobby".
        • 2 Months Ago
        "Considering the very low energy per cubic foot for H2"

        Hello captain ignorance.

        Hydrogen has a higher energy density per mass than gasoline, batteries can't even come close to matching gasoline let alone hydrogen.
        • 2 Months Ago
        MIKE:

        I'm not the one assuming one size fits all. You battery lovers are. The problem with some of you is that you are assuming far too much about future technology limitations when history has clearly shown that what we take for granted today was only the hopes and dreams of past humans.

        There are many challenges to using hydrogen...as there were for many revolutionary changes made in human history. No one said it's going to be easy, no one said it's going to be straightforward. But the rewards and benefits of using hydrogen is well worth the effort to try and solve the issues at hand. There is no cleaner, no better fuel for the future if the problems facing us today with using it currently can be solved.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Noz, why do you assume a "one size fits all" solution for all transportation? An energy solution that works well for one type of transport may be poor for another and not work at all for a third.

        Consider the "Skysail" parasail kite now being used by ships to harness the wind. Works great on freighters, but wouldn't work well for trains and is totally useless for cars and aircraft.

        Hydrogen may be a good fuel for really big rockets and may even find some use on certain aircraft due to the high energy per pound of H2 fuel. But cars don't fly, fuel weight is much less of a concern, cost and efficiency are more important. Considering the very low energy per cubic foot for H2, storage is a serious problem for H2, as is the high cost and low efficiency compared to batteries.
        • 2 Months Ago
        LOL, tankd0g, Admiral ignorance!
        In case you didn't pay attention in class, "Mass" is not measured in cubic feet, or cubic meters, or liters, or gallons. Mass can be measured in "pounds" (or "grams", if you prefer metric), and if you review my earlier post, I did say "high energy per pound of H2 fuel". By the way, batteries don't have to match the energy density (by weight or by volume) of gasoline, as electric motors are several times more efficient than gasoline engines. In fact, considering that batteries are more efficient than fuel cells, they don't really need to match H2 fuel energy density either.

        Noz, I've never assumed batteries are a "one size fits all" solution, I already mentioned Skysails for ships, and even the potential use of H2 fuel for aviation. It is you that insists that a rocket fuel be used to power everything, including cars!

        There is no cleaner better fuel than ELECTRICITY for the future, and batteries are 3x more efficient at storing electricity than the electrolysis/fuel cell combination. Why waste clean electric energy with the less efficient more expensive H2 option?
      • 2 Months Ago
      Carny said: Both hydrogen fuelcells and hydrogen internal combustion engines are scams that will never work. ever '

      This is a treat admited by carny that they prohibited hydrogen fuelcells cars and hydrogen ice too. Any criminals working for goverment or other groups will always tell you the whole story. So he write it here almost completelly.

      Goverment related people defending big-oil and banks have treaten any manufacturers and any new business people to commercialize any hydrogen technology. It's a gross as this.

      He should have written: We the big-oil and arms cartel have treaten to kill and ruin any business not financing us. You won't breath any of your own air, ever.
        • 2 Months Ago
        The problem with your paranoid fantasies, Gorr, is they don't make any sense. Nobody has ever "prohibited" H2 fuel cells or H2 ICE engines. Some governments have done the exact opposite, providing millions or billions in H2 funding. The US government, headed by oilmen Bush and Cheney, provided the most H2 funding and the most H2 promotion - that's why most of the H2 powered prototypes on the road are here in the US.

        The oil companies are the biggest promoters of H2 fuel, as they have the cheapest source of H2, they are the biggest producers of H2, and they want to sell that profitable H2 fuel when the oil runs low.
      • 2 Months Ago
      I'm glad to see others recognize this as a scam. The following link is to an engineering site, this will open on the current discussion, however a search of the site will show that the topic of hydrogen injection has been discussed many times, with close to a unanimous consensus that it is utterly a scan.

      In case anyone is interested several legitimate test have been cited emphasizing this point.






      http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/30962#newcomments
      • 2 Months Ago
      Should be called "Hydrogen Hype Corporation"
        • 2 Months Ago
        Yep. But if they revealed that the rather modest improvement in fuel economy is accompanied by a reduction in power and performance, they wouldn't sell any.

        So, for marketing sake, they use a lot of bafflegab and wildly exaggerate their claims.
      • 2 Months Ago
      The introduction of hydrogen allows the diesel engine to more
      efficiently burn the diesel. Thats how it works. Hydrogen changes the
      "burn time" of the atomized diesel allowing the fuel mixture to more
      fully combust during the power stroke.
      • 2 Months Ago
      You guys are one of the best sources of "green" news around - please stop giving these guys an audience!
    • Load More Comments