• 29
  • Image Credit: HNO Green Fuels
  • Image Credit: HNO Green Fuels
  • Image Credit: HNO Green Fuels
  • Image Credit: HNO Green Fuels
  • Image Credit: HNO Green Fuels
Recently, we ran an article: LeefH2 wants to clean up pretty much every diesel engine and it mentioned the way HNO Green Fuels, the maker of the LeefH2, wants to create oxygen from a diesel engine while also reducing particulate matter. I had some concerns with that.

Turn your diesel engine into an oxygen farm? Really? LeefH2 supposedly works by breaking the water molecule up into hydrogen and oxygen, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and then burning hydrogen in the fuel mixture. Except that when hydrogen is burned it bonds again with oxygen from the atmosphere, so the net oxygen produced by this scheme? Zero!

HNO harps on a strange claim in their promotional video:

If adopted worldwide we really could make particulate matter from diesel emissions a thing of the past, while adding billions of tons of life sustaining oxygen to the atmosphere.

This shows that HNO doesn't understand very basic science and might not be a company you want to be giving your money to. But they made a really slick video!

The problem with the "scheme" is Newton's Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Non-engineers sometime think electricity in a car is free, but producing electricity in a car increases the load on the engine, reduces fuel efficiency and actually costs about $0.50 per kWhr in a car: more than 4 times what electricity costs at home. Similar things have been tried by many, including a product announcement by the beloved Malcolm Bricklin which never came to market.

Automobiles are designed to produce enough electricity to run all the systems in the car simultaneously. When you add extra loads like an "electrolyzer," the alternator will burn out. So for this scheme to work the current must be kept very low. Except that hydrogen produced through electrolysis at 12V at a low current will have a very low efficiency: probably much less than 50 percent. This means it takes twice as much energy to produce the hydrogen than is produced when the hydrogen is burned, which wastes energy.

LeefH2 says that the efficiency of the diesel burn is so dramatically improved that it makes up for this loss in efficiency caused by producing the hydrogen. The idea is that hydrogen burns so quickly that it will make the diesel burn more thoroughly. Except that nobody can ever demonstrate that the improved diesel burn makes up for the loss in efficiency.

HNO's slick promotional video to get you to part with your money is also flat out wrong about clean diesel: advanced new technologies such as electronic controls, common rail fuel injection, variable injection timing, improved combustion chamber configuration and turbocharging definitely improve diesel combustion.


LeefH2 graphic

All internal combustion automobile engines (diesel and gasoline alike) today use electronic fuel injection controlled by a computer located somewhere in your car. Computer software controls how much fuel and air are combined based on a slew of variables to produce the most efficient burn possible. When hydrogen (which in this case is a fuel), normally not present in the air we breathe, is added to the engine air intake, the entire software to optimize the engine and reduce pollution is compromised. And unlike diesel or gasoline fuel which are precisely controlled by fuel injectors, the LeefH2 just allows hydrogen fuel to be added to the air intake without any regulation.

A group called Performance, Innovation, Transport investigated hydrogen injection claims (but not LeefH2 specifically, as far as we know), and writes in Hydrogen Injection: Myths and Facts that, "Contrary to manufacturer claims, none of these technologies has shown any ability to reduce vehicle fuel consumption."

Just like other contraptions which are supposed to reduce fuel consumption, if there was really something to the LeefH2 major automobile manufacturers would have implemented it a long time ago. If you want to lower fuel consumption and reduce emissions (and keep your money in your pocket) the US Department of Energy has some excellent suggestions you can follow which really do work.

So, those are my concerns with the LeefH2 technology. In the spirit of fairness, I asked a number of questions to HNO Fuels' Donald Owens. Owens has a mechanical-electrical engineering degree from Kettering University (formerly General Motors Institute) and a law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center.

===

ABG: What voltage does the HNO Electrolyzer use to perform electrolysis?

Owens: We have two different electrolyzer products. One is the LVU (Low volume unit) and the other is an HVU (High volume unit)

The LVU needs between 10.5 and 14 volts to operate. We are using PEM (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane) to accomplish the electrolysis of water. This particular cell/stack design uses two volts per cell and we are currently using a seven-cell stack in our LVU although we can add cells for application that may require a little more hydrogen than the current LVU produces, but not as much as what the HVU provides.

The HVU is a different cell/stack configuration and also requires 2 volts per cell, but the surface area of the cells are much larger and draws more current. Depending upon the configuration of the HVU (and hence the application), the voltage can be as low as eight to as high 30 for the applications we currently have in mind right now. However, the one we are testing has six cells and can operate on nine-to-12 volts.

ABG: How much current does the HNO Electrolyzer use?

Owens: The LVU uses from 3.5 to 5 amps. The HVU, as high as 40 - 50 amps.

ABG: Can the Electrolyzer be mounted on its side, or does it need to be facing upright to function?

Owens: The electrolyzer itself can be mounted on "its side" and still function, but in our application the water is "gravity fed" to our electrolyzers, hence the device itself (HVU or LVU) needs to be upright, if for no other reason for gravity to feed the electrolyzer with water. The HVU uses a pump that pumps water through the cells for reasons beyond your question, but it also helps with cooling the electrolyer.

ABG: How do you plan to install the Electrolyzer in small cars of today where there is little extra space under the hood?

Owens: Firstly, the device is never installed under the hood. The space under the hood is too "unpredictable" from vehicle to vehicle, so we could never hope to have universal installation if we were even thinking about under the hood.

Secondly, we do not have any intention of installing the device in small cars (or even large cars for that matter...at least initially). In our testing, we discovered something I call "load sensitivity" in gasoline engines with what I would call "less than adequate" alternators. There is a limit to the amount load you can put on a vehicle and not have repercussions in terms of fuel economy. If the alternator has to work to hard to produce the hydrogen, there will be no gains in fuel economy. There may be some emission gains, but in the gasoline world, right now, the only thing that is important is fuel economy. For small cars....there is too much load even with our LVU.

Even though we did see a pretty good gain of fuel economy when we tested a 2010 Chevy Suburban (almost 24 percent on the highway test), there are a number of "variables" that can make the fuel economy gains in gasoline engines unpredictable or not consistent.

That is why our focus is on diesel engines, because the alternators (particularly for vehicles) are never as "sensitive" and particulate matter is a constant.

ABG: What additive do you use in water to make electrolysis possible?

Owens: There is no additive with the LeefH2. This is not alkaline electrolysis, where some type of additive is required, usually KOH, to cause the water to decompose to HHO.

We use PEM Electrolysis. PEM electrolysis is a different process altogether. There is no electrolytic solution. We only use deionized or distilled water. And instead of Oxyhydrogen or HHO being produced, we produce H2 and O2 as separate gas streams, where the H2 goes to the engine and the O2 goes to the environment. I cannot say this enough: this is not Alkaline Electrolysis. We do not produce HHO or Oxyhydrogen gas.

ABG: Has HNO been the recipient of government grants to promote this outstanding research? If yes then please list them along with dates and amounts.

Owens: No, we are in the process of hiring a grant writer so we can apply for government grants. The application for grant writing is a long process, and not as easy as most people would think.

ABG: How much oxygen and hydrogen does the Electrolyzer produce per hour?

Owens: The LVU (at least the seven-cell one, we have a 13-cell that we are testing), produces 0.230 liters per minute or 13.800 liters (.23 x 60) per hour of hydrogen

The HVU varies with the stack that we use. It can accommodate as few as four cells and as many as 40 in its present configuration. The HVU we are testing currently has six cells, which produces about 2.5 liters per minute or times 60 equals 150 liters of hydrogen per hour.

The electrolyzer is designed to produce hydrogen, so the the specs that we get from our supplier has to do with hydrogen production not oxygen production. Oxygen just happens to be a by-product.

However, in our testing, the LVU uses approximately an ounce of water every four hours or in 512 hours the LVU would have used about one gallon of water which is a little over seven pounds of oxygen. Per hour, this is roughly 0.0136 lbs per hour.

The HVU, as currently configured would use roughly one ounce of water every 24 minutes. In roughly 51 hours, this particular HVU would use roughly a gallon on water or a little over seven pounds of oxygen. Per hour, this is approximately 0.137 lbs per hour.

We have larger HVUs that will produce more oxygen for different applications and different engine sizes.

ABG: What is the efficiency of the HNO electrolysis unit?

Owens: We do not produce our electrolyzers, we get them from a supplier, so I do not know the exact efficiency numbers. PEM electrolyzers are known to be more efficient than Alkaline electrolyzers. According to a study from J. Electrochemical Society, "the initial performances [of PEM electrolysis] yielded 1.88 V at 1.0 A/cm2 which was, compared to the alkaline electrolysis technology of that time, very efficient." We use PEM electrolysis.

ABG: How does hydrogen increase the Laminar flame speed?

Owens: The question of the century. Hydrogen is known to have a flame speed that is much, much faster than typical fuels used in combustion engines. There is a demonstration of this (that we did not produce) on YouTube. It is very instructive relating to just the pure flame speed of hydrogen. Please review it for your own edification if you are not already aware of it. The explanation of Laminar Flame Speed will make more sense once you do.



Now that you have seen that, you can have a better understanding of the research that has been done on Hydrogen and Laminar flame speed. In studies at Princeton and MIT, hydrogen was shown to increase the Laminar flame speed and combustion efficiency. Because of the presence of hydrogen, the flame speed of diesel fuel (even natural gas) is increased. There even seems to be a linear relationship between the addition of hydrogen and the flame speed increase.

ABG: How much capital has been invested in HNO Green Fuels, Inc. so far?

Owens: We have "self funded" with friends and family. We are a private company and the amount that we have raise is confidential.

ABG: Bloomberg mentions HNO Green Fuels, Inc. filed for Private Placement on January 17, 2014. How is this proceeding? Have you raised funds or are you currently a public company?

Owens: We have not raised much with our private placement yet. We are still in the process of raising funds, and most has been through our personal network of friends and family.

We are not a public company.

===

Charlie Paglee is the CEO of Brannan Auto, an American automotive component engineering and manufacturing company focused on China, specifically on the electric vehicle industry. Mr. Paglee has more than two decades of business experience in China and speaks fluent Chinese Mandarin. Mr. Paglee is an electrical engineer who started working with electric vehicles in 1991. Mr. Paglee was the Vice President of China for Fisker Automotive and before that he was Employee Number 5 at Aptera Motors.


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
  • 29 Comments
      Rotation
      • 9 Months Ago
      This isn't about Newton at all. It's about the laws of thermodynamics, not Newton's laws of motion. I am unconvinced about HNO's product. But I don't think this story really covers it well. Yes, you are going to pay for your fuel somehow. Making it from water is unlikely to be cheaper than sourcing it directly. LeefH2 says they reduce particulate matter, not that they reduce fuel use. I'm skeptical of even this, but particulate generation is not a straight matter of the laws of thermodynamics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
        DarylMc
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Rotation
        Hi Rotation It seems to me that reducing particulate emissions comes at a cost by many of the methods used now. This system could be more useful than the article suggests. The claims of adding oxygen to the environment seem fanciful as the author suggests but since there is only so much oxygen to be consumed in a combustion charge maybe it is possible to have a net positive effect.
          DarylMc
          • 9 Months Ago
          @DarylMc
          Hi Rotation Maybe I've got it wrong but this is my guess how it might be possible. The oxygen produced from electrolysis is not added to the combustion so the amount of oxygen in the cylinder wouldn't change. If less extra oxygen is consumed from the cylinder charge than the amount discharged by electrolysis it would be a net gain. I agree it does sound fanciful which unfortunately brings doubt about the particulate claims. A few years ago I looked into a supplemental LPG injection system for my diesel vehicle. There were claims of increased power, reduced smoke and cost savings due to the lower fuel cost of the LPG component. LPG is also a domestically sourced fuel. I couldn't justify the conversion cost but I think that injecting gas fuels holds a lot of promise for improving diesel engines.
          DarylMc
          • 9 Months Ago
          @DarylMc
          Hi Rotation As a particulate reducing measure the process deserves to be investigated. Goodness knows there is going to be widespread availability of cleanly sourced hydrogen any day soon:)
          Rotation
          • 9 Months Ago
          @DarylMc
          DarylMc: Diesels don't run stoichiometric like gas engines. There is usually extra air (including oxygen) i the chamber. Adding hydrogen will result in more combustion. Yes, you'll always have some imperfect combustion. But that's a small amount, you'll never meet emissions with more than a small amount of unburned fuel going out the exhaust valve. And most of that unburned fuel that escapes will light off in the catalytic converter. You're still going to be near net zero on oxygen unless you release some hydrogen unburned.
          DarylMc
          • 9 Months Ago
          @DarylMc
          Hi Rotation Yeah that is a good point about diesel v gas engines. But if more oxygen is burned due to the hydrogen addition then you would expect also a small increase in power. How that balances out I do not know and is why I was a bit sceptical of the oxygen claims but I wouldn't write them off.
          Rotation
          • 9 Months Ago
          @DarylMc
          Since the hydrogen is combusted with oxygen, it has to be a net zero or very close to it. Unless the system releases unburned hydrogen to the atmosphere it isn't making next oxygen to the atmosphere. I'm not sure the HNO people completely understand their product. Kinda reminds me of the HHO people.
      Cavaron
      • 9 Months Ago
      Is the gentleman Don_Wade1215 here? Has he red the article? Has he any more comments about the brains of sceptics?
      Timothy H
      • 9 Months Ago
      There's an elephant in the room... this looks a lot like - and purports a similar theory as - those HHO kits from yesteryear that you could buy on eBay, which suggested you could double or triple your gas mileage and shoot rainbows from your tailpipe. Hard to believe (wink, wink), but those things turned out to be a hoax. Not saying this is exactly the same thing, or built the same way, but I would have to see some pretty serious science to back it up before I would drop more than about $10 on one.
      • 9 Months Ago
      PART ONE: Hi AutoBlogGreen and Readers, It's HNO Green Fuels. Just seeing this today. At first we were angry about it, but after reading it again, we can't help but laugh. This is a horrible "article" written by a clearly biased, self-serving author. We don't know why he chose to try to discredit our company, but whatever the reason is, it's pathetic. We thought he came to us with honest and true questions, but it turns out he just wanted to cause controversy for this website. The more clicks, the better, right? Even after answering his emailed questions, he didn’t have the decency to tell us if he received them or not, or even respond to us when we asked him if he had any further questions. What kind of a journalist would do that? Clearly one with ulterior motives. If he's someone who supposedly has "business experience in China” (a country with some serious particulate matter issues), and works in the “electric vehicle industry,” we can only assume the worst. If anyone reads the questions at the end of Charlie’s diary entry, or rant, our answers still stand. We can't seriously call that an article up there. Firstly, Charlie did not once address our company's number one and most important focus-- particulate matter, not fuel consumption. We reduce particulate matter by 50%. Never once does he even mention this fact. He simply skates over it, hoping the readers will be focused on blindly burning HNO Green Fuels at the stake because he says the word “scheme" over and over. We were grateful to read the comments of those who didn’t fall for that. Secondly, he says that the oxygen produced would be "net zero" because the hydrogen burned would bond again with the oxygen. This is NOT an absolute statement because one would have to assume there’s pure combustion in the combustion chamber, where nothing would come out of the exhaust except for CO2 and water. This never happens. We produce oxygen outside of the combustion chamber. Because one doesn’t see a lot of water spilling out from the exhaust, anyone with a brain can see all of the hydrogen present will not bond with the oxygen the LeefH2 is producing. Not only that, but the hydrogen in the combustion process can bond with other chemicals that create other chemical compositions, such as sulfuric acid. Where does that leave the oxygen? In the atmosphere.
        • 9 Months Ago
        PART TWO: In addition, combustion consumes oxygen out of the air, which creates a net negative amount of oxygen. With the LeefH2, we are helping to replace what is usually lost-- this is not hyperbole. And what does Newton’s Third Law of Motion have to do with increasing the burn rate of the fuel and reducing particulate matter? It’s almost like declaring the LeefH2 doesn’t work because of “Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation” or “E=MC2.” These are statements that have absolutely nothing to do with laminar flame speed and particulate matter reduction in diesel engines. He says our focus is on "automobiles" where the extra load would burn out the alternator. Why would he say this when we explicitly address this in the Q&A? We already said, "that is why our focus is on diesel engines, because the alternators (particularly for vehicles) are never as 'sensitive' and particulate matter is a constant.” Charlie seems to deny the fact that hydrogen increases the laminar flame speed. In fact, he says “nobody can demonstrate that this is the case.” Incredible. This is so blatantly untrue, it’s laughable. This has been proven time and time again by many sources including MIT and Princeton. We sent him these articles in our email, and he obviously didn’t read them. Read them here: http://hnogreenfuels.com/download/hydrogen-addition-on-laminar-flame-speeds-of-fuel-air-mixtures.pdf http://hnogreenfuels.com/download/mit-laminar_flamespeed.pdf Even in his rant, he cited that the Performance Innovation Transport didn’t evaluate OUR system or address what WE do—reduce particulate matter. The Performance Innovation Transport doesn’t have anything to do with us, yet he cited them as fact anyway. He even goes as far as to say we’re flat out lying about clean diesel. If he was confused, why didn’t he ask us directly? Of course clean diesel has improved over the years but harmful emissions are still created regardless. Clean diesel uses many techniques that include filters and NOx absorbers, which catch the emissions in the exhaust. The LeefH2 cuts down on the emissions directly in combustion chamber which is a significant improvement in the process, and can even have a host of benefits for clean diesel. The LeefH2 can help both clean diesel and regular diesel. We fully support clean diesel, but clean diesel does not apply to the millions of vehicles and engines around the world that are still in use today. What about the people and companies who simply can’t afford to convert their entire fleet to new clean diesel engines? Are we supposed to simply forget about them? The LeefH2 can be an affordable solution to an expensive problem.
          • 9 Months Ago
          PART THREE: If that wasn’t enough, he says "if there was really something to the LeefH2, major automobile manufacturers would have implemented it a long time ago,” then he links an article that tells the readers to simply hit cruise control on your cars and obey the speed limit in order to reduce emissions. Incredible. How does this begin to compare with a device that reduces particulate matter by 50% directly in the combustion chamber so the user doesn’t have to worry? And to address how "major automobile manufactures would have implemented it a long time ago,” innovation comes from ANY entity who works towards it, whether you’re a big company or not. While he waits on other companies to change the world for him, we at HNO Green Fuels, decided to do the work ourselves and try to come up with real solutions. To sum this up, how can we put this? Quite frankly, we don’t care what his opinions are on our company or product. We only wrote this response to address the readers, because some of you asked. Charlie is not in our offices, in the EPA-approved labs, or at our work stations. We don’t need his approval or pat on the head to continue doing our work. Our crowd funding campaign has ended and guess what? Our business is still running just as it was before, and all of our employees will continue to work hard and relentlessly in order to improve environmental and human health. Sorry, Charlie. Our work will continue.
      goodoldgorr
      • 9 Months Ago
      This product can be installet in a car like mine and measured, after the results then it is maybe something to buy but I doubt cuz they don't mix hydrogen in a fixed ratio like for exemple 1% or 2% or 3% at all engine rpm and load. They just flush hydrogen in the engine without calibrating it whatsoever and they don't cut some gasoline use and they don't recalibrate the ignition ratio.
        goodoldgorr
        • 9 Months Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        Don't buy that, if one of your friend want to buy that refer him to this tread and say to not buy that, this is a product that might damage the engine. Look for results from lab testing and manufacturer recommendation. If it's not installed in new car and trucks then the work by leaf h2 is wrong, you have to retune the engine for this thing to work. In winter, results might be catastrophic. mpg can decrease, engine heads might be worn-out prematuratly. Insist that actual car manufacturers do something with the waist heat from the exhaust, there is energy, heat and co2 pressure and flow to convert in hydrogen or methanol. This could be way better then this limp ellectrolyzer dragging the alternator.
        goodoldgorr
        • 9 Months Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        Not the ignition ratio but the ignition timing. I will buy when they gonna use the waist heat of the engine instead of the alternator to produce the hydrogen, that way no energy drag They have to stock the hydrogen in a little tank for procuring a fixed ratio of hydrogen versus petrol gasoline or diesel like say 3% at all time and recalibrate the injection event accordingly and the ignition timing, probably reduce the ignition advance because it's burning faster. IN theory this system can increase performance, reduce pollution and increase mpg but in practice I think that leafh2 is doing crap and messing the engine.
      PeterScott
      • 9 Months Ago
      While there may be some emission benefit from such systems. I don't see anything new here, except venting the oxygen to atmosphere. I see no real benefit in that except a propaganda to fool the gullible. It makes little difference if the engine consumes this oxygen, or an equivalent amount of oxygen already in the atmosphere. Either way the net oxygen content of the air will be the same, since you need the same amount of oxygen to fuel combustion either way. Beyond that there are already established competitors who have been selling such systems for years. Like: http://www.blutipower.com/products/blutip-hgs-system/ I remain very skeptical of such add-on systems. It would seem that in these days of fine tuned combustion processes with engineered intake swirl pattern. Precise injection control of pattern, timing etc. That simply dumping some extra hydrogen into the intake air, would provide limited benefit. If there were a real benefit to be had, engineers building diesel engines in the first place, would be investigating how to be integrate H2 injection into their engines with the same precision they apply to other parameters. Since this doesn't seem to be happening, even in the face of requirements for expensive pollution controls, leads me to believe, that the claims of these add on systems are greatly exaggerated.
      Levine Levine
      • 9 Months Ago
      When the subject is electrolysis, the chemistry of breaking up H2O into H2 and O2 using electricity, most Americans are as smart as a rock. Americans are the product of government funded public schools operated by socialist labor union members. It should come not as a surprise American students achieve test scores that rank near the bottom of standardized math and science tests despite massive salary increase for baby-sitters masquerading as teachers. The bond-energy of the H-O is 68 kcal/mole. This means you must put in more than 68kcal to break the H-O bond but at best get only 68kcal/mole when H-O bond is formed. The laws of thermodynamic says you can't get more energy out than you put in. There's no free energy just as there's no free lunch. When you use the H2 as the reactant in a subsequent chemical reaction, the product must account for all the energy expended. HNO electrolysis machine can't make more energy than it consumed. If the objective is to produce H2, there's other chemistry available that produce H2 more efficiently than electrolysis. Essentially, HNO is a scam upon the ignorant and gullible American proletariats. These are the same folks who believe in Pet Rocks, Loch Ness Monster, and Big Foot. Today, HNO wants them to believe in LeefH2.
        Joe Acerbic
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Levine Levine
        Government funded public schools operated by socialist labor union members are bad indeed for science education, almost as bad as privately funded conservative fundie Christian madrassas that teach nothing but fervent science denial and superstition.
          Thereminator
          • 9 Months Ago
          @Joe Acerbic
          Agreed...the polarizing effect of emotional-bias has turned the U.S.A into a Fanatical sandwich.
        GK
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Levine Levine
        Levinex2, the claim is that LefffH2 reduces particulate emission, not that it's free energy or even increases efficiency. The applicable science and maths is covered by others below. 'Muricans also don't do very well in reading comprehension. ;)
      charlie.paglee
      • 9 Months Ago
      Claims that I am in some way biased are completely unfounded. I have no stake in any companies that make products that might compete with HNO Green Fuels’ LeafH2. If anything, the opposite is true: I am a very strong proponent of green automotive technology. When I saw the original headline for the technology HNO Green Fuels was raising funds for I was excited. I am American but I live in a country choking from pollution, a considerable portion of which comes from low quality Diesel Fuel. I was going to call up HNO Green Fuels and talk with them about licensing their technology in China. The company that figures out how to clean up air pollution caused by China’s high-sulfur content Diesel fuel will definitely be very successful. But when I read what HNO was hawking I was crestfallen. Using electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen and then adding hydrogen to an engine air intake is nothing new. Many companies have tried before but none have demonstrated meaningful improvements in fuel efficiency. Electrolysis is not as simple as it sounds. Impurities in water gum up the electrodes. Electrolysis of water requires an electrolyte in water to conduct electricity. Adding electrolysis to an automotive drive train is fraught with problems. Hydrogen increases laminar flame speed, but improving laminar flame speed at the expense of fuel economy, while increasing CO2 emissions and wasting petroleum resources is a non-starter. Claiming that the LeafH2 will add “billions of tons of life sustaining oxygen to the atmosphere” is fanciful. There is no net addition of oxygen to the atmosphere because hydrogen bonds with oxygen when it is burned. Arguing that not all hydrogen is burned further reduces the efficiency of the LeefH2 device, further reducing fuel efficiency. Remove the claim about adding oxygen to the atmosphere and remove claims about fuel efficiency (see the green graphic above) or at least explain that your device will reduce overall fuel efficiency. But then what is the point?
      Marco Polo
      • 9 Months Ago
      Hmmm... well, although I have no idea whether valid technology or claims made by Mr Donald Owens or HNO Greens Fuels is valid, sincerely misconceived, or dishonest. In my opinion, the technology seems unlikely to possess any real merit, but that doesn't mean the investors are not sincere, or dishonest. However, what is really disappointing, is for ABG to allow such a clearly biased, and self-interested, author, pose as an independent ABG journalist to gain authenticity for a remorseless partisan attack on Mr Owens. Charlie Paglee doesn't just say that the LeefH2 is a misconceived idea, but goes further and implies that both Mr Owens and HNO are intentionally dishonest. Charlie Paglee is quite entitled to voice his doubts and opinions, and even opposition to HNO, but he must do so as an individual, while declaring his vested pecuniary interest, in a rival alternate technology. Cloaking himself in the guise of an independent reporter for ABG, ( I realise that ABG included a disclaimer), is at best disingenuous. If Donald Owens (and HNO)apply for DOE assistance, they will need to prove to the DOE experts that the process has some real science and merit. Given the very public failures of both Fisker Automotive, and Aptera, there are those who would say that Mr Paglee's own history is not unblemished, and he now find the PRC a less scrutinised area in which to conduct his business activities. ( I'm not one of those who believe that Mr Paglee did anything improper, or wrong, in his past failed projects . All new technology has an element of risk, and failure, especially for pioneers) .
        DarylMc
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        Hi MarcoPolo A bit off topic but speaking of new ways of doing things which seem hard to believe, have you seen this evaporative cooling system? I know you had an interest in the subject. http://www.climatewizard.com.au/en/
          Marco Polo
          • 9 Months Ago
          @DarylMc
          @ DarylMc I know the system very well. It really just a specifically built evaporative system, designed for a building that suits this kind of cooling, in a climate which is very suitable for for this kind of technology. It's great because due to the size and shape of the building, the evap has the capacity to control the humidity levels, without unpleasant side effect. Well done University of Adelaide !
      Jesse Gurr
      • 9 Months Ago
      Says he doesn't know what the efficiency is because it's made by a supplier? Pretty lame excuse if you ask me. We can try to venture an educated guess what it might be. Let's try. For the Low Voltage Unit (0.23 L/min)*(0.06) = (0.0138 Nm3)*0.08988 = 0.00124 kg/hour 1/.00124 = 806.5 hours to make 1 kgH2 12 Volts * 5 amps = 60 Watts 806.5 hours * 60 W = 48.39 kWh = 68% efficient Which isn't bad, but is likely a result of how slow it is. High Voltage Unit (2.5 L/min)*(0.06) = (0.15 Nm3)*0.08988 = 0.0135 kg/hour 1/0.0135 = 74 hours to make 1 kgH2 24 Volts * 50 amps = 1200 Watts 74 hours * 1200 W = 88.8 kWh = 37.5% efficient That is pretty bad. Of course I am assuming a lot. Best case would be 8V and 40A which is minimum voltage and minimum amps but then you get 23 kWh/kg of 33.3 kWh/kg hydrogen. That doesn't make sense. So until we get some numbers, this is the best we got. So there you go. We now have some efficiency numbers. You're welcome. :-D
        Joeviocoe
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Jesse Gurr
        You beat me to it Jesse.... but here are my numbers: "13.8 liters per hour" for the LVU" -- 0.01 MJ/liter 0.138 Megajoules per hour 0.03833 kwh per hour or... 38.33 watts of hydrogen produced "The LVU uses from 3.5 to 5 amps." [at 12 volts] or... 42 - 60 watts input That is a claim of 63% - 91% efficiency on their electrolyzer. 77% avg --------------- "The HVU produces...150 liters of hydrogen per hour" -- 0.01 MJ/liter 1.5 Megajoules per hour 0.41667 kwh per hour or... 416 watts of hydrogen produced "The HVU, as high as 40 - 50 amps." [at 12 volts] or... 480 - 600 watts input That is a claim of 69% - 86% efficiency on their electrolyzer. 77.5% avg ============== They are claiming an average efficiency of 77%
          Joeviocoe
          • 9 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I based my HVU numbers on 12 volts too... because I think when he gave the amperage estimates, that was the assumption was for the 6 cell stack running at 12 volts... and NOT the future design for up to 30 volts. "The HVU is a different cell/stack configuration and also requires 2 volts per cell, but the surface area of the cells are much larger and draws more current. Depending upon the configuration of the HVU (and hence the application), the voltage can be as low as eight to as high 30 for the applications we currently have in mind right now. However, the one we are testing has six cells and can operate on nine-to-12 volts."
      DarylMc
      • 9 Months Ago
      This company's main platform seems to be to reduce particulate emissions from combustion engines. It may or may not be a good idea but they probably shouldn't be lumped into the same category as others claiming massive fuel consumption benefits. http://www.hnogreenfuels.com/
      Marco Polo
      • 9 Months Ago
      A very interesting exchange between "don_wade1215 ", on behalf of HNO Green Fuels, Inc, and the author of the ABG article, Charlie Paglee. Whatever the ultimate value of HNO Green Fuels, Inc's product, one thing has been established, HNO Green Fuels, Inc. is unafraid to fight it's corner in an open, and candid manner ! In contrast, Charlie Paglee's response seems inadequate. To the accusation of conducting a biased and poorly researched article, his explanation is decidedly weak . Charlie Paglee's article was purposefully intended to convey the implication that HNO Green Fuels, was a dishonest, and deceptive organisation, knowingly selling snake oil. Just being granted a patent, or even the results of some EPA tests, doesn't necessarily prove that HNO Green Fuels, products are commercially viable, or even useful. On the other hand, it doesn't confirm any element of deception or dishonesty. One thing has emerged as a result of this exchange, ABG should not allow commentators with "vested interests" pose as "independent" journalists. IMO, the article would have been far more insightful had it been written as a interview, or debate between the two opponents, with a summary by a truly independent journalist.
    • Load More Comments