I was wondering the same thing. I don't want to be cynical and it would be great if it worked but I find it difficult to believe that you could produce hydrogen at the rate required without using a large amount of power, so negating any improvements made by the system. I am happy to be corrected though.

So the engine uses fuel to generate electricity to power this (electrolysis) device, but only the hydrogen is fed into the combustion chamber. Why not use the oxygen also? Isn't the point of nitrous oxide injection to feed more oxygen into an engine?

I wonder what volume of hydrogen it can produce. Consider a one litre engine running at 3K RPM. That's around fifteen hundred litres of air a minute it's sucking in. What proportion of hydrogen would be added to produce this miraculous 80% reduction in pollution and 20% improvement in economy?

Is my cynicism showing?

Not to worry - you're not the only one. If his 'device' is so good, then they'd be car manufacturers beating a path to his door with wads of cash wanting to buy the patent off him. Funny how they aren't and he's likely selling this on his own website or eBay/Amazon etc. its likely that, whatever the 'device' does, it uses more electrical energy (which has to come from the petrol or diesel fuel) to make the hydrogen (or whatever) etc than could ever be 'saved' in a more efficient combustion process.

PS. See Aussie equivalent to HJ (though in typically Aussie style, far more 'direct'), John Cadogan's take on them (the whole video is on all such devices, but at 13mins he discussed an Aussie equivalent device doing ths same):

youtu.be/3ebR0yyPO_U?t=779

Edited by Engineer Andy on 24/08/2017 at 14:39

Have to agree. I know how much energy our sterilant generator uses - it's a 3 phase supply that runs at 600 Amps - and that doesn't generate any large quantities of Hydrogen. We actually re-did the risk assessment for HSE a few months ago, and found that the calculations prevously done had over-counted the hydrogen 100 times over.

I'm sure that with a few 'tweaks' to the setup we could generate more hydrogen, but even if we increased the outupt ten-fold we'd still be in tiny quantities.

In fact, if the claims were true and they could generate enough hydrogen to make a difference, I'd be very interested in seeing some in-cylinder temperature numbers. Hydrogen burns very hot - hot enough for engine longevity to be a potential concern.

If you have a simple battery charger, take the carbon electrodes from a used 6 Volt lantern battery and dangle them in a concentrated solution of common salt, apply voltage to them and you too can generate Hydrogen at one electrode and Chlorine at the other. (NB, do not breathe the Chlorine or continue the experiment for mone than a minute).

The hydrogen produced will be 75% ortho hy drogen and 25% para hydrogen. Both have the same density, chemical properties and flammability. Neither you nor an engine will tell the difference.

You will note if you carry out the experiment how small a volume of gas is produced - if the system is scaled up to produce enough for a significant volume to affect fuel consumption, it will be obvious that a big generator and a big tank of electrolyte will be necessary.

Reminiscent of the legendary additive that let you run a car on water which the big oil companies hushed up.