http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfeb17de-d945-4db4-87a6-090911200e96

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.

Read the article and it's very interesting if proven out.

Would something of this magnitude have the potential to shake up the world economically and perhaps politically? Current financial powerhouses losing ground due to lack of interest in their fossil fuels etc.

Fandros

It's not really about replacing fossil fuels, just making them burn cleaner.

it's not a replacement for fossil fuels, but greatly increasing efficiency and reducing fuel consumption by 10 to 40 per cent would affect fuel prices and demand.

Think ya outta read the entire article as well as do a lil research.

It reduces the need for fossil fuels...hence a saving.

Fandros

I'm very dubious about the "100% reduction" in emissions. Sure hydrogen easily recombines with a lot of the elements found in fuel, but some of those products aren't environmentally desirable either.

I'm also curious how they're handling the necessary volume of gas intake, air-breathing combustion engines need a lot of oxygen. If the electrolysis device is providing all of that, you'd need a very large water reservoir and a pretty hefty current to separate the elements. It didn't specify if the H2N device was in addition to normal air intake or replaced it entirely. You could likely reduce the dirty recombinations in combustion exhaust by a lot simply by supplying a cleaner oxygen intake (ie, no nitrogen).

I guess every bit of savings is worthwhile, but this seems to be more about emissions than energy. 10% is what they've observed in practice, after years of refinement. The 40% figure seems a bit arbitrary.

I'm always wary when people over hype hydrogen related technologies, since hydrogen isn't an energy source.

Even if we invented cold fusion and could power everything with sea water, we would still eventually drain the ocean. The real solution is to use an energy source that does not use fuel from the earth, ie solar power, or nutrino power, or gravitational field power, etc.

I didn't take it as a fuel cost reducer but as an emissions reducer.

I'd agree, but the article waffles all over that. The inventor himself says he'd rather have a percentage of money saved on fuel than cash from selling millions of units. So he seems to think it's about saving fuel (then says he'd want to control the Kyoto emissions certificates, which is just wacky).

The results from the "test drive" seem to coincide with all the gasoline experts who say "um, gasoline is really good. You can't get much more efficient with it."

Well I don't see it as a cure all, but its sure a step in the right direction if even a 10% higher efficiency with any significant reduction in harmful emissions is achieved. One can hope it is refined further from the present design to make it more efficient and cheaper to produce.

Even a moderate increase in efficiency and decrease in pollutants -- when applied to mass transit and high use (taxi, police, etc) systems -- will produce an appreciable net effect on fuel consumption and the environment over time. We'll not solve these problems overnight, but through a series of important steps such as this seems to be.

Exactly my viewpoint Thor.

Fandros