You should be able to easily find at least one of their patents. They probably have publications out there. They do have white papers and presentations on their website. You also might find public information if they have had SBIR grants. However, there are probably NDAs with various partners that prevent at least some of the data from being made public.

 

As for RIGHT ON THE VEHICLE... that presumes I already have electricity on the vehicle in a battery... still need the power to do the electcrolysis... I'm not terribly convinced that using that power to DIRECTLY run an electric motor isn't more efficient than cracking some water with it and making hydrogen (effectively storing that energy as chemical).... burning the hydrogen in what? An internal combustion engine? to release the energy again then turning the wheels that way. I'm pretty darn sure the efficency for an electric motor is higher than an ICE.

Hydrogen is a storage MEDIUM.... not an energy source.... not until I can find it lying around instead of having to MAKE it! If I can find it already there, THEN I can use it as a fuel, until then it can just be used to store energy produced by another way. It can be a very efficient way to store that energy but still isn't a source of it.

The idea of the nanopartcles has some merit... but its being oversold buy that guy.

 

Thanks Tim for your explanation. I had figured something similar, but could not put the words to it. You did it for me.

Hydrogen is another quote-unquote "battery". One needs an external energy source to "charge" it. If that energy source comes from oil, then nothing has really been gained, from an energy independence and CO2-reducing perspective.

 

I quite agree with the 'nanoparticles' being oversold. As for hydrogen being an efficient energy storage, it turns out that our NiMH batteries do that already.

The "metal hydride" is a matrix mix of nickel and rare earth metals that due to the structure can hold an amazing amount of hydrogen in the matrix without chemically bonding. It is a hydrogen sponge and Wiki reports it can hold '6 times' the density.

The more I study NiMH batteries and chemistry, the more amazed and horror I have about them. They are not 'polite' batteries like the traditional lead-acid ones and have some rather nasty extreme range characteristics. That Toyota has a dedicated battery controller is about the only way they work in a Prius. But the amount of energy and when in proper condition, they are truly amazing. For example, I'm seeing round-trip efficiencies of 92% in my reconditioned batteries. This is on pare with motor-generator efficiencies. Absolutely amazing.

Bob Wilson

 

I work with NiMH cells in a handheld instrument I helped design. They are better than NiCd's but have their own issues....

LiIon's have some even more interesting issues...for example from what I've read the typical LiIon battery used in your phone looses its capacity to charge very well in around 3 years (ever notice thats when your cell phone starts to die early?).... and it doesn't matter if you use it or not... even if its just sitting on a shelf. I have to assume the ones they are putting in PHEV's have solved that problem somehow--either that or some people are going to be really annoyed after 3 years.

 

I love the whole "car runs on water" thing thats going around right now... same problem... there has to be an energy input.

If you start with water... separate the hydrogen and then produce water again.. you can't get any more energy OUT than the energy you used to separate the hydrogen. Its a closed cycle in thermodynamics.

... so the guy with the car "running on water"... well there has to be SOMETHING producing the energy he's using to separate the water.... THAT is the cars FUEL... it doesn't run on "water" at all.

 

"Runs on water" ignores the law of conservation of energy. It's a very neat way to get people who don't understand some basic science to shell out money, sometimes in great quantities, to "save gas" or "reduce dependence on foreign oil". I have had numerous debates with people who "believe" this trick. Part of it is ignorance of science and the other is ignorance of economics.

The latest frenzy to buy hybrids to "save money on gas" ties into this economic ignorance. I have friends that ditched one or two year old cars that get 23 MPG to run out and buy a hybrid. One case was so extreme I had to say something and I am afraid that I severely offended the proud new owner when I did the math for him and noted that ROI on his particular purchase (Tahoe Hybrid, 20MPG) was 243 years down the road if gasoline went to $10/gal. He traded in a 2007 Tahoe and got $17,500 for it, which left him about $25,000 in the hole on his old vehicle.

As far as the tech behind this press release, I have to take a wait and see attitude. The same with Exxon's advertisements about their LIon battery research. Exxon, who spent 1/1000 of what BP did on renewable energy research claims to be "leading the way in alternative energy technology". Marketing hype.

It's all marketing hype. Nothing matters until there is hardware on the road.

 

It MAY be a matter of poor wording. H20 gets converted to HHO - the hydrogen gets burned off leaving only Oxygen being pumped out the tail pipe - not water "at first". Oxygen by itself is very highly reactive (hence why it is an essential ingredient in starting most fires) so on its way through the tail pipe it reacts quickly with any hydrogen that happens to be in the air as it reaches the muffler. Some of the oxygen probably hasn't reacted even until it's left the muffler. So it "appears" that the car is leaving behind water when in fact it's leaving behind Oxygen and those Oxygen molecules are reacting with the first molecules they come into contact with.

That's one possibility. I'm still skeptical about these HHO conversion kits though myself.

 

One of the big test cases of if HHO works will be Ronn Motors who is testing their H2GO system with FedEx right now.