CGON Hydrogen generator
Discussion
I have been trying to find something definitive about whether or not CGON's ezone1 hydrogen-generator/injector is snake-oil, or not.
https://www.cgon.co.uk
The emissions claims are startling (reduce to 0%, basically) and the MPG claims are up to 20% fuel savings, which I think means really 5% for most. Even so, that means it would pay for itself in a couple of years. I like the fact that they've employed the same guys who busted VW for diesel gate to test it, plus they have a tie-in with Morgan cars.
But.......there's a lot of web-sites out there claiming these cannot work, due to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics mainly.
Anyone tried one, or get any definitive proof (not opinions), either way? Be really interested.
https://www.cgon.co.uk
The emissions claims are startling (reduce to 0%, basically) and the MPG claims are up to 20% fuel savings, which I think means really 5% for most. Even so, that means it would pay for itself in a couple of years. I like the fact that they've employed the same guys who busted VW for diesel gate to test it, plus they have a tie-in with Morgan cars.
But.......there's a lot of web-sites out there claiming these cannot work, due to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics mainly.
Anyone tried one, or get any definitive proof (not opinions), either way? Be really interested.
I'm not sure if this is "proof", but it's certainly a well argued and scientific explanation why they cannot work as described.
https://youtu.be/s2t11GR6jFc
https://youtu.be/s2t11GR6jFc
hydrogen in diseesel engine does reduce soot but mpg claims are dubious as the energy required to produce the hydrogen has to be taken into account.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
''The results showed a decrease in the particulates, CO and THC emissions and a slight increase in CO2 emissions with the addition of hydrogen, with fixed diesel fuel injection periods''
''At low engine loads, the addition of H2 promoted soot burnout due to elevated temperatures and higher oxidation rates; at intermediate engine loads, the effects of soot formation and oxidation counterbalanced each other; and at high engine loads, the excessive displacement of intake O2 by H2 led to slightly increased rates of soot formation.''
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
''The results showed a decrease in the particulates, CO and THC emissions and a slight increase in CO2 emissions with the addition of hydrogen, with fixed diesel fuel injection periods''
''At low engine loads, the addition of H2 promoted soot burnout due to elevated temperatures and higher oxidation rates; at intermediate engine loads, the effects of soot formation and oxidation counterbalanced each other; and at high engine loads, the excessive displacement of intake O2 by H2 led to slightly increased rates of soot formation.''
Edited by The Spruce goose on Tuesday 10th October 19:52
snakeoilsalesmen said:
How it works:
By adding a small amount of the hydrogen produced by the patented technology in CGON’s units, combustion is enhanced when hydrogen atoms migrate between the fuel molecules. This means that nearly all of the fuel is burnt and fewer emissions or particulates are expelled into the air.
So, how much of the fuel, do you think is burnt in a modern engine. If say we consider the fuel mass injected to be 100%, how much would you guess is oxidised. 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.5% go on, have a guess.By adding a small amount of the hydrogen produced by the patented technology in CGON’s units, combustion is enhanced when hydrogen atoms migrate between the fuel molecules. This means that nearly all of the fuel is burnt and fewer emissions or particulates are expelled into the air.
Then consider the following.
You engine converts heat energy into useful work (it's a heat engine at heart) Adding some compound to the fuel or air it is injecting cannot change the losses from the engine. It can't change the friction with which the pistons slide up and down the bores, or the crank, cams and other rotating parts spin round with. It can't change the cooling system, which still must reject heat to it's surroundings in order to prevent your engine from getting hotter, and hotter, and hotter till it melts. it also cannot change the heat lost out the exhaust.
So, in order to provide "20% lower consumption" it must somehow get 20% more energy out of the fuel and oxidiser (air). And yet the best they can come up with is "combustion is enhanced when hydrogen atoms migrate between the fuel molecules". That's it. Seriously? That's all they've got.
And then the elephant in the room:
The passenger car segment is heavily legislated. You cannot legally sell a car without that car passing a massive raft of standard tests. Those tests include completely standard tailpipe emissions tests. Nothing special about them, every day, car manufacturers run hundreds of these tests as the optimise and calibrate there cars engines and transmissions. And yet, despite is being extremely easy and relatively cheap (around £5k would be enough for a series of 5 tests to get an initial, statistically valid, estimate of the reduction in tailpipe emissions and consumption from this system. Thats just the cost of 10 systems. And yet, have they done this? Er, nope.
Okay, thanks for the replies.I understand the thermodynamics angle, but we know some things work catalytically, where the 2nd law does not apply - same here, perhaps?
I was wondering if anyone has actually tried one of these, as Emission Analytic's numbers (for emissions, at least) do seem to suggest something is going on.
I was wondering if anyone has actually tried one of these, as Emission Analytic's numbers (for emissions, at least) do seem to suggest something is going on.
Excellent (funny as well as educational) rebuttals of this tech here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2t11GR6jFc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OhICSDRySQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2t11GR6jFc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OhICSDRySQ
I think it's worth covering some basic things about PEMs as well, as it's being used to give "validity" to these HHO devices performance.
PEMs, which stands for Portable Emissions Measurement, is nothing fancy. All it consists of is a set of exhaust gas analysers in a small box, that will fit in the boot of a passenger car.
For years, exhaust gas analysers, such as those made by Horriba were large, bulky and needed a range of high purity Calibration and Span reference gases to calculate (extremely accurately) the exact chemical composition of a flow of exhaust gases:
Even without the heavy / large compressed gas bottles, this won't fit in a car:
Because of that, and because of the difficulty of providing a repeatable enough driving environment to make statistically valid analysis of the results (more on this later!) emissions tests were lab based, conducted on rolling roads, with controlled fuels, temperature, humidity, and used complex measurement devices with high resolution.
For example:
By controlling the tests boundary conditions extremely accurately (temperatures to 0.1degC, speeds to 0.05 mph, road loads to 10w, test to test repeatability was excellent, and a statistically valid picture of an vehicles emissions and consumptions could be built up with high confidence.
The downside, was that the mandated drive cycles were not kept up-to-date with modern road conditons and by the mid 2000's those cycles ended up being pretty unrepresentative of most drivers conditions (for example, they have the vehicle soaked and started at 25degC!)
Our government, and that of the EU that sets those cycles, rather than simply admit they had been lax and should have introduced an updated test with a colder start and with a higher average speed test (which is exactly what they did in Japan, the US and China in 2003!!). But, after much backpedalling, blamethrowing, and bad mouthing, the EU decided to introduce ON ROAD real time exhaust emissions analysis. And guess what, that change was pushed by, yup, the makers of a new, compact, analysis system that would fit in the boot of a car, the aforementioned PEMs.
But, what they neatly pushed under the carpet, was the fact that real world testing is so full of variables that cannot be controlled, that the results from PEMs testing are mostly total rubbish (in fact, just around 10% of any given PEMs drive cycles done are considered valid). So a system was introduced, that measured and tried to estimate how the car had been driven and how the environment in that particular day affected the results. It's a complex mathematical calculation that uses accelerometers, and GPS to try to map out the speed and driving load profiles for any given drive, and if those profiles fit into an "acceptable window" the test results are considered valid.
However, then 2 other issues became apparent:
1) Because the test is driven on real world, often the air around the test vehicle was dirtier (in terms of pollutant concentrations) than that coming out the tailpipe! (modern cars are V clean!!) For the Lab test, ambient air if filtered and conditioned, and the background measured by a second set of analysers constantly so the tailpipe results can be corrected for those background concentrations. PEMS, does a zero cal before the test, and one after, but does NOT measure the background concentrations DURING the actual drive.
2) An analysis system that can fit in a car is not nearly as precise or possessing as high a resolution as one that can fit in a large lab. And as modern cars are so clean, huge percentage differences can be caused by tiny, tiny real changes in pollutant concentrations (ie, if you put out 0.001g/km of NOx, putting out 0.002g/km is 100% worse, despite the difference being just 0.001g/km! One extra issue is the accurate measurement of total exhaust mass flow, because analysers are ratiometric devices. if you measure a fixed say 10ppm of NOx, flowing 100l/min or 50l/min of exhaust gases makes an enormous difference to the pollutant mass! Typically, ime, on car flow measurement is at least 10x less accurate than in lab measurement
As a consultant for PEMs testing for several major UK OEMs, i reckon that on average i can find fault with around 75% of the test results done on any given vehicle. Be that poor road loads, speed excursions, poor measurements, poor calibrations and a host of other, highly complex measurement effects.
Let me give you an example.
One of my employers was finding a 35% variability in the tailpipe NOx of the same car over the same test. Well after a LOT of careful data analysis, it was discovered that the vehicles 12v battery state of charge was causing this issue! When the car had been parked over a weekend (monday test) the SoC was lower, and the "smart charge" system was adding additional load to the engine to recover that SoC compared to that for a test after just an overnight soak. I found that this extra load, only around 5% of the total road load was enough to move the engine operating state just outside that of the LP EGR system, but not high enough to get far enough in to the operational window for HP EGR. As such, sat in that valley between EGR system capabilities, the tailpipe NOx was varying by the large percentage values recorded.
ie A tiny, tiny, change of load led to a relatively huge effect.
So, after all that, do i think PEMs results are valid?
Well, yes and no. I personally wouldn't trust any PEMs result unless i could see the following:
1) a complete traceable calibration and setup record for all the instruments used
2) a statistically valid test suite, including A-B-A type testing with a good level of correlation
3) The results from at least 3 vehicles of the same type, driven across all the speed profiles required
4) An extremely close look at ALL the real / measured and calculated values before processing and definitely not just the % comparisons!
Would i trust an data for these HHO systems, well no, not really. if i could see the raw data, and a statistically valid amount of it, then there could be some validity to there claims, but to date, i have not seen that data
PEMs, which stands for Portable Emissions Measurement, is nothing fancy. All it consists of is a set of exhaust gas analysers in a small box, that will fit in the boot of a passenger car.
For years, exhaust gas analysers, such as those made by Horriba were large, bulky and needed a range of high purity Calibration and Span reference gases to calculate (extremely accurately) the exact chemical composition of a flow of exhaust gases:
Even without the heavy / large compressed gas bottles, this won't fit in a car:
Because of that, and because of the difficulty of providing a repeatable enough driving environment to make statistically valid analysis of the results (more on this later!) emissions tests were lab based, conducted on rolling roads, with controlled fuels, temperature, humidity, and used complex measurement devices with high resolution.
For example:
By controlling the tests boundary conditions extremely accurately (temperatures to 0.1degC, speeds to 0.05 mph, road loads to 10w, test to test repeatability was excellent, and a statistically valid picture of an vehicles emissions and consumptions could be built up with high confidence.
The downside, was that the mandated drive cycles were not kept up-to-date with modern road conditons and by the mid 2000's those cycles ended up being pretty unrepresentative of most drivers conditions (for example, they have the vehicle soaked and started at 25degC!)
Our government, and that of the EU that sets those cycles, rather than simply admit they had been lax and should have introduced an updated test with a colder start and with a higher average speed test (which is exactly what they did in Japan, the US and China in 2003!!). But, after much backpedalling, blamethrowing, and bad mouthing, the EU decided to introduce ON ROAD real time exhaust emissions analysis. And guess what, that change was pushed by, yup, the makers of a new, compact, analysis system that would fit in the boot of a car, the aforementioned PEMs.
But, what they neatly pushed under the carpet, was the fact that real world testing is so full of variables that cannot be controlled, that the results from PEMs testing are mostly total rubbish (in fact, just around 10% of any given PEMs drive cycles done are considered valid). So a system was introduced, that measured and tried to estimate how the car had been driven and how the environment in that particular day affected the results. It's a complex mathematical calculation that uses accelerometers, and GPS to try to map out the speed and driving load profiles for any given drive, and if those profiles fit into an "acceptable window" the test results are considered valid.
However, then 2 other issues became apparent:
1) Because the test is driven on real world, often the air around the test vehicle was dirtier (in terms of pollutant concentrations) than that coming out the tailpipe! (modern cars are V clean!!) For the Lab test, ambient air if filtered and conditioned, and the background measured by a second set of analysers constantly so the tailpipe results can be corrected for those background concentrations. PEMS, does a zero cal before the test, and one after, but does NOT measure the background concentrations DURING the actual drive.
2) An analysis system that can fit in a car is not nearly as precise or possessing as high a resolution as one that can fit in a large lab. And as modern cars are so clean, huge percentage differences can be caused by tiny, tiny real changes in pollutant concentrations (ie, if you put out 0.001g/km of NOx, putting out 0.002g/km is 100% worse, despite the difference being just 0.001g/km! One extra issue is the accurate measurement of total exhaust mass flow, because analysers are ratiometric devices. if you measure a fixed say 10ppm of NOx, flowing 100l/min or 50l/min of exhaust gases makes an enormous difference to the pollutant mass! Typically, ime, on car flow measurement is at least 10x less accurate than in lab measurement
As a consultant for PEMs testing for several major UK OEMs, i reckon that on average i can find fault with around 75% of the test results done on any given vehicle. Be that poor road loads, speed excursions, poor measurements, poor calibrations and a host of other, highly complex measurement effects.
Let me give you an example.
One of my employers was finding a 35% variability in the tailpipe NOx of the same car over the same test. Well after a LOT of careful data analysis, it was discovered that the vehicles 12v battery state of charge was causing this issue! When the car had been parked over a weekend (monday test) the SoC was lower, and the "smart charge" system was adding additional load to the engine to recover that SoC compared to that for a test after just an overnight soak. I found that this extra load, only around 5% of the total road load was enough to move the engine operating state just outside that of the LP EGR system, but not high enough to get far enough in to the operational window for HP EGR. As such, sat in that valley between EGR system capabilities, the tailpipe NOx was varying by the large percentage values recorded.
ie A tiny, tiny, change of load led to a relatively huge effect.
So, after all that, do i think PEMs results are valid?
Well, yes and no. I personally wouldn't trust any PEMs result unless i could see the following:
1) a complete traceable calibration and setup record for all the instruments used
2) a statistically valid test suite, including A-B-A type testing with a good level of correlation
3) The results from at least 3 vehicles of the same type, driven across all the speed profiles required
4) An extremely close look at ALL the real / measured and calculated values before processing and definitely not just the % comparisons!
Would i trust an data for these HHO systems, well no, not really. if i could see the raw data, and a statistically valid amount of it, then there could be some validity to there claims, but to date, i have not seen that data
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th November 23:28
Spotted this today quite misleading
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/cgon-ltd-a17-386763...
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/cgon-ltd-a17-386763...
Edited by daydotz on Friday 25th May 18:31
I have actually been playing about with HHO electrolysers for years. Driving thirsty old petrol Land Rovers has been a good incentive.
There is very, very little oxyhydrogen (HHO) that can be generated from just 1 - 3 amps. And irrespective of what you may read or what is stated, an electrolyser's gas output is directly related to the current flowing as it is all about electron exchanging.
I assume that the hydrogen is not being split from the oxygen, so it will be oxygen and hydrogen (HHO) entering the combustion chamber, but at such tiny amounts the effect will be negligible. What I have found, is that it is the water vapour that travels into the combustion chamber with the oxygen and hydrogen that is the major player and indeed the key.
If you google water injection you will find that plain old water can increase the performance/fuel economy of an ICE, and all this can be done simply, and without the need for very expensive electrolysers. I'm not going to go into the details here, but I know BMW had impressive results from simply injecting water - again, just google it.
I always noticed that my old Land Rovers seemed to have more power on cold, damp, misty mornings than on warmer days, so I decided to experiment with just water rather than HHO electrolysers, and hey presto better results than my electrolyser attempts, and far simpler.
Now I simply have a reservoir of water (I add some anti-freeze in the winter) in my engine bay. I made a 1/4" nylon gasket to go between my carburettor and the inlet manifold, into which I drilled a 4mm hole and fitted a brass hollow pipe. A silicon tube attaches the water reservoir to the brass pipe and I have a small adjustable tap in between. When the engine is running the vacuum created in the inlet manifold draws water from the reservoir. Simple as that! My mpg is 2mpg better than it was before this implementation. And while 2 mpg might not sound like much, bear in mind that we are talking about old Land rovers that only used to get 15mpg round town!
Incidentally, you must use de-ionised water (that used for car batteries) rather than tap water or else the minerals in tap water quickly clog the small brass pipe aperture.
One of my Land Rovers has the Ford Essex V6 engine installed, and because it does not have hardened valve seats I used to use a fuel saver set up. This was a reservoir that did exactly the same as the water set up mentioned above, operating in exactly the same way. Now this reservoir is filled with de-ionised water instead. Land Rover drives beautifully and better mpg.
There is very, very little oxyhydrogen (HHO) that can be generated from just 1 - 3 amps. And irrespective of what you may read or what is stated, an electrolyser's gas output is directly related to the current flowing as it is all about electron exchanging.
I assume that the hydrogen is not being split from the oxygen, so it will be oxygen and hydrogen (HHO) entering the combustion chamber, but at such tiny amounts the effect will be negligible. What I have found, is that it is the water vapour that travels into the combustion chamber with the oxygen and hydrogen that is the major player and indeed the key.
If you google water injection you will find that plain old water can increase the performance/fuel economy of an ICE, and all this can be done simply, and without the need for very expensive electrolysers. I'm not going to go into the details here, but I know BMW had impressive results from simply injecting water - again, just google it.
I always noticed that my old Land Rovers seemed to have more power on cold, damp, misty mornings than on warmer days, so I decided to experiment with just water rather than HHO electrolysers, and hey presto better results than my electrolyser attempts, and far simpler.
Now I simply have a reservoir of water (I add some anti-freeze in the winter) in my engine bay. I made a 1/4" nylon gasket to go between my carburettor and the inlet manifold, into which I drilled a 4mm hole and fitted a brass hollow pipe. A silicon tube attaches the water reservoir to the brass pipe and I have a small adjustable tap in between. When the engine is running the vacuum created in the inlet manifold draws water from the reservoir. Simple as that! My mpg is 2mpg better than it was before this implementation. And while 2 mpg might not sound like much, bear in mind that we are talking about old Land rovers that only used to get 15mpg round town!
Incidentally, you must use de-ionised water (that used for car batteries) rather than tap water or else the minerals in tap water quickly clog the small brass pipe aperture.
One of my Land Rovers has the Ford Essex V6 engine installed, and because it does not have hardened valve seats I used to use a fuel saver set up. This was a reservoir that did exactly the same as the water set up mentioned above, operating in exactly the same way. Now this reservoir is filled with de-ionised water instead. Land Rover drives beautifully and better mpg.
Edited by Ballbearing on Friday 4th January 17:38
I've been following CGON closesly, not least because they are a local business and I have met the CEO at a couple of car events and he seems like a decent chap.
I was hoping to get a reconditioned box from them as a trial to run on my old E38 in order to see what advantages it would bring, but I ended up getting rid of the car before that could happen.
I've read a lot of stuff about how it might be 'snake oil' etc etc but in my conversations with the CEO he mentioned that one of the larger hauliers have equipped them across all their trucks (Stobart? Dentressangle? I can't remember) and that also Morgan have done a deal with them to fit boxes to the BMW V8s they use, in order to lower overall emissions to reduce tax on them.
So if it is snake oil' it's possible that by using more electricity to reduce tailpipe emissions even if there's ultimately no net gain economy-wise, the amount of money saved on environmental sin taxes by large fleet operators and suchlike could be offset; and this is probably where the REAL savings lie. At the end of the financial year rather than anything meaningful at the pump.
I was hoping to get a reconditioned box from them as a trial to run on my old E38 in order to see what advantages it would bring, but I ended up getting rid of the car before that could happen.
I've read a lot of stuff about how it might be 'snake oil' etc etc but in my conversations with the CEO he mentioned that one of the larger hauliers have equipped them across all their trucks (Stobart? Dentressangle? I can't remember) and that also Morgan have done a deal with them to fit boxes to the BMW V8s they use, in order to lower overall emissions to reduce tax on them.
So if it is snake oil' it's possible that by using more electricity to reduce tailpipe emissions even if there's ultimately no net gain economy-wise, the amount of money saved on environmental sin taxes by large fleet operators and suchlike could be offset; and this is probably where the REAL savings lie. At the end of the financial year rather than anything meaningful at the pump.
This stuff (HHO electrolysers for automobiles) has been knocking about forever and a day. It goes quiet for a few years then, when everyone has forgotten the last revolutionary headline making HHO invention, this 'New' invention pops up again. None of what CGON is claiming is new, and indeed the laws of thermodynamics have not changed one iota since the last similar device hit the limelight... and then vanished!
I read a CGON write-up and warning bells immediately rang. Firstly, they claim that their device produces the more energetic ortho hydrogen as opposed to the less energetic para hydrogen (it's to do with the relative spins of the atoms within the hydrogen molecule), but the reality is that at room temperature hydrogen naturally consisted of 75% ortho hydrogen to 25% para hydrogen, and this is the highest ratio possible. So straight away this claim is a 'nothing' claim.
Incidentally, I did read that Eddie Stobbart knew nothing of his trucks being fitted with the device, but can't remember where I saw that.
In the old days, mechanics servicing cars used to get the engines up to working temp and then squirt water down the throat of the carb to decarbonise the heads and pistons. This was just with plain water, so you can see how misting water into the engine can help with emissions.
It used to be that carburettor engines were set up to supply slightly too much fuel in order to keep the engine temps down. An engine with a lean mix could easily overheat within the combustion chamber causing damage to the pistons and valves, but with a rich fuel mix the fuel not burnt acts as a coolant, but of course is wasted and hence increases emissions. So, by adding water to cool the engine, the fuel mix can be leaner, the combustion chamber, valves and piston stay cleaner and the engines emissions come down. The added bonus is that the water cooling effect allows for a greater fuel/air mixture charge into the combustion chamber which will increase performance/mpg.
If the CGON device works, then it will come down to the water vapour entering the engine with the HHO. And as mentioned, at 1 -3 amps, the HHO generated is miniscule and this in itself will be offset by the energy required to electrolyse it in the first place. However, the water is free, it hasn't required any energy to produce it, and it will clean up the engines emissions by itself. Hence no thermodynamic laws are broken.
As for the 'magical' electrolytic solution that CGON would have you buy, well that will just be de-ionised (de-mineralised) water. They already state that there are no contaminates generated, so the electrolytic salt itself should not be used up (and it isn't in any simple electrolyser - you only get hydrogen and oxygen generated if you use inert electrodes) and should remain in the electrolyser.
The other thing that annoys me is that they claim the unit provides 'very pure' hydrogen. Very pure hydrogen... as opposed to what? ...Hydrogen that is a little bit dirty? Hydrogen is hydrogen! Anyway, it will be hydrogen, oxygen and water that is going into the engine, not just hydrogen.
I read a CGON write-up and warning bells immediately rang. Firstly, they claim that their device produces the more energetic ortho hydrogen as opposed to the less energetic para hydrogen (it's to do with the relative spins of the atoms within the hydrogen molecule), but the reality is that at room temperature hydrogen naturally consisted of 75% ortho hydrogen to 25% para hydrogen, and this is the highest ratio possible. So straight away this claim is a 'nothing' claim.
Incidentally, I did read that Eddie Stobbart knew nothing of his trucks being fitted with the device, but can't remember where I saw that.
In the old days, mechanics servicing cars used to get the engines up to working temp and then squirt water down the throat of the carb to decarbonise the heads and pistons. This was just with plain water, so you can see how misting water into the engine can help with emissions.
It used to be that carburettor engines were set up to supply slightly too much fuel in order to keep the engine temps down. An engine with a lean mix could easily overheat within the combustion chamber causing damage to the pistons and valves, but with a rich fuel mix the fuel not burnt acts as a coolant, but of course is wasted and hence increases emissions. So, by adding water to cool the engine, the fuel mix can be leaner, the combustion chamber, valves and piston stay cleaner and the engines emissions come down. The added bonus is that the water cooling effect allows for a greater fuel/air mixture charge into the combustion chamber which will increase performance/mpg.
If the CGON device works, then it will come down to the water vapour entering the engine with the HHO. And as mentioned, at 1 -3 amps, the HHO generated is miniscule and this in itself will be offset by the energy required to electrolyse it in the first place. However, the water is free, it hasn't required any energy to produce it, and it will clean up the engines emissions by itself. Hence no thermodynamic laws are broken.
As for the 'magical' electrolytic solution that CGON would have you buy, well that will just be de-ionised (de-mineralised) water. They already state that there are no contaminates generated, so the electrolytic salt itself should not be used up (and it isn't in any simple electrolyser - you only get hydrogen and oxygen generated if you use inert electrodes) and should remain in the electrolyser.
The other thing that annoys me is that they claim the unit provides 'very pure' hydrogen. Very pure hydrogen... as opposed to what? ...Hydrogen that is a little bit dirty? Hydrogen is hydrogen! Anyway, it will be hydrogen, oxygen and water that is going into the engine, not just hydrogen.
Edited by Ballbearing on Friday 4th January 17:52
EGTE said:
I have been trying to find something definitive about whether or not CGON's ezone1 hydrogen-generator/injector is snake-oil, or not.
https://www.cgon.co.uk
The emissions claims are startling (reduce to 0%, basically) and the MPG claims are up to 20% fuel savings, which I think means really 5% for most. Even so, that means it would pay for itself in a couple of years. I like the fact that they've employed the same guys who busted VW for diesel gate to test it, plus they have a tie-in with Morgan cars.
But.......there's a lot of web-sites out there claiming these cannot work, due to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics mainly.
Anyone tried one, or get any definitive proof (not opinions), either way? Be really interested.
EGTE, thank you for posting this thread, it makes for interesting reading.https://www.cgon.co.uk
The emissions claims are startling (reduce to 0%, basically) and the MPG claims are up to 20% fuel savings, which I think means really 5% for most. Even so, that means it would pay for itself in a couple of years. I like the fact that they've employed the same guys who busted VW for diesel gate to test it, plus they have a tie-in with Morgan cars.
But.......there's a lot of web-sites out there claiming these cannot work, due to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics mainly.
Anyone tried one, or get any definitive proof (not opinions), either way? Be really interested.
I'm a big fan of hydrogen used as a direct combustive fuel in ICE's. I'm sure we all understand that hydrogen can be disproportionately expensive to produce, however, the CGON eZero units do appear to provide a 'hybrid' type of emission reducer-cum-fuel efficiency gain units. EGTE is right in quoting 2nd LoT...but CGON may have gained/improved percentage output by using improved electrolysers or even mixed alloy electrolysers [cobalt alloy?],which in turn will reduce the amount of power required [alternator driven electricity] to produce hydrogen using only 1-3 amps.
The CGON units are not pure hydrogen units per se, for this one needs hydrogen purification, but I can see good mileage [pun intended...!] in their product. I drive a Subaru Forester 2.5L XT with approx' 250bhp running 25-33mpg and, like the majority of drivers, would welcome improved emissions and fuel efficiency. The eZone1 unit should provide both of these on the understanding that it's supplying not only direct hydrogen feed through the air intake, but also some water [as others above have correctly stated, water injection is nothing new and naturally aids combustion in the correct volume...and at the correct velocity]. Re' the quoted power gains, I wouldn't expect much gain...though a 2-5% increase should be attainable simply through a cleaner combustion, especially with an all alloy horizontally opposed engine as they're thermally very efficient.
I'm sat on the fence re' diesel emission gains as this will depend so much on the condition and mileage of the engine and DPF combined.
So, I've contacted CGON / Atmos Clear Ltd this afternoon asking if they have their units installed in any Subaru cars in the UK, and ideally any independent customer/s I can talk with. I'm enthusiastic for the eZone1 unit for 1. fuel efficiency gain, and 2. emission reductions. I've ran some quick calcs and the cost of purchase and install would be paid for within 12mths of install based on a 15% fuel efficiency gain.
I'll keep you updated once installed...
Ballbearing said:
Good detail + As for the 'magical' electrolytic solution that CGON would have you buy, well that will just be de-ionised (de-mineralised) water.
It may be these guys are adding a little something to the de-ionised water to aid hydrogen production at low current, and/or could be using ultra RO. I use ultra RO in my 9-to-5 and see some interesting results in various applications......though not sure if CGON are that smart.
This is always a difficult subject, particularly as most people only have what they have seen and read - the hype - to go on. The people with some real knowledge and actual understanding of the science involved are often ignored by folk who simply wish to believe the hype.
As stated in my first post, and as indeed anyone that understands the science will tell you, there is a set limit to how much hydrogen can be produced from any given current going through an electrolyser, because electrolysis is an electron exchange reaction, ie. the gas produced is directly proportional to the current flowing. There is no magic electrolyte that enables an electrolyser to produce more hydrogen from any given amount of current - it is simply scientifically impossible!
The voltage required to initiate electrolysis is around 1.3 volts, so from a 12 volt battery for maximum efficiency an electrolyser unit will consist of 7 - 9 cells in series. If you look at the CGON unit end on you will probably be able to count the plates. The very best that you can achieve is to make a most efficient electrolyser (in terms of power dissipation), but you cannot make the electrolysis reaction itself more efficient.
The CGON unit does not produce anymore gas at higher revs than it does at low revs, so the already miniscule amount of hydrogen entering the combustion chamber at low revs is vastly reduced at higher revs. However, water vapour drawn through into the combustion chamber may well increase at higher revs if the system is relying on the engine induction to draw in the gases.
I think you will find that CGON used to go by another name, I think it was The Hydrogen Cell, or something similar, so this is at least their second incarnation.
From what I've posted I'm sure you can see that I'm firmly in the 'Snake oil' camp, but not without good reason.
Anyway, take a look at the following links and make your own mind up:
https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/35430057/cc-elec...
https://electrek.co/2016/05/23/tesla-founder-marc-...
https://www.todaysmotorvehicles.com/article/bosch-...
As stated in my first post, and as indeed anyone that understands the science will tell you, there is a set limit to how much hydrogen can be produced from any given current going through an electrolyser, because electrolysis is an electron exchange reaction, ie. the gas produced is directly proportional to the current flowing. There is no magic electrolyte that enables an electrolyser to produce more hydrogen from any given amount of current - it is simply scientifically impossible!
The voltage required to initiate electrolysis is around 1.3 volts, so from a 12 volt battery for maximum efficiency an electrolyser unit will consist of 7 - 9 cells in series. If you look at the CGON unit end on you will probably be able to count the plates. The very best that you can achieve is to make a most efficient electrolyser (in terms of power dissipation), but you cannot make the electrolysis reaction itself more efficient.
The CGON unit does not produce anymore gas at higher revs than it does at low revs, so the already miniscule amount of hydrogen entering the combustion chamber at low revs is vastly reduced at higher revs. However, water vapour drawn through into the combustion chamber may well increase at higher revs if the system is relying on the engine induction to draw in the gases.
I think you will find that CGON used to go by another name, I think it was The Hydrogen Cell, or something similar, so this is at least their second incarnation.
From what I've posted I'm sure you can see that I'm firmly in the 'Snake oil' camp, but not without good reason.
Anyway, take a look at the following links and make your own mind up:
https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/35430057/cc-elec...
https://electrek.co/2016/05/23/tesla-founder-marc-...
https://www.todaysmotorvehicles.com/article/bosch-...
Edited by Ballbearing on Sunday 6th January 19:48
v8250 said:
It may be these guys are adding a little something to the de-ionised water to aid hydrogen production at low current, and/or could be using ultra RO. I use ultra RO in my 9-to-5 and see some interesting results in various applications...
...though not sure if CGON are that smart.
An electrolytic salt will be required to provide the necessary ions in the water for electrolysis to take place, sodium sulphate or something similar. But the salts are only carrying charges to and from the plates, they do not actually get used in reactions at the electrodes, so from the initial electrolytic solution, you should never need to top them up, which is why I said it will only be de-ionised water. Remember when we used to top our car lead-acid batteries up from time to time? We only added de-ionised water as the sulphuric acid content never got used up....though not sure if CGON are that smart.
I don't know what RO is?
Max_Torque said:
I think it's worth covering some basic things about PEMs as well, as it's being used to give "validity" to these HHO devices performance.
PEMs, which stands for Portable Emissions Measurement, is nothing fancy. All it consists of is a set of exhaust gas analysers in a small box, that will fit in the boot of a passenger car.
For years, exhaust gas analysers, such as those made by Horriba were large, bulky and needed a range of high purity Calibration and Span reference gases to calculate (extremely accurately) the exact chemical composition of a flow of exhaust gases:
Even without the heavy / large compressed gas bottles, this won't fit in a car:
Because of that, and because of the difficulty of providing a repeatable enough driving environment to make statistically valid analysis of the results (more on this later!) emissions tests were lab based, conducted on rolling roads, with controlled fuels, temperature, humidity, and used complex measurement devices with high resolution.
For example:
By controlling the tests boundary conditions extremely accurately (temperatures to 0.1degC, speeds to 0.05 mph, road loads to 10w, test to test repeatability was excellent, and a statistically valid picture of an vehicles emissions and consumptions could be built up with high confidence.
The downside, was that the mandated drive cycles were not kept up-to-date with modern road conditons and by the mid 2000's those cycles ended up being pretty unrepresentative of most drivers conditions (for example, they have the vehicle soaked and started at 25degC!)
Our government, and that of the EU that sets those cycles, rather than simply admit they had been lax and should have introduced an updated test with a colder start and with a higher average speed test (which is exactly what they did in Japan, the US and China in 2003!!). But, after much backpedalling, blamethrowing, and bad mouthing, the EU decided to introduce ON ROAD real time exhaust emissions analysis. And guess what, that change was pushed by, yup, the makers of a new, compact, analysis system that would fit in the boot of a car, the aforementioned PEMs.
But, what they neatly pushed under the carpet, was the fact that real world testing is so full of variables that cannot be controlled, that the results from PEMs testing are mostly total rubbish (in fact, just around 10% of any given PEMs drive cycles done are considered valid). So a system was introduced, that measured and tried to estimate how the car had been driven and how the environment in that particular day affected the results. It's a complex mathematical calculation that uses accelerometers, and GPS to try to map out the speed and driving load profiles for any given drive, and if those profiles fit into an "acceptable window" the test results are considered valid.
However, then 2 other issues became apparent:
1) Because the test is driven on real world, often the air around the test vehicle was dirtier (in terms of pollutant concentrations) than that coming out the tailpipe! (modern cars are V clean!!) For the Lab test, ambient air if filtered and conditioned, and the background measured by a second set of analysers constantly so the tailpipe results can be corrected for those background concentrations. PEMS, does a zero cal before the test, and one after, but does NOT measure the background concentrations DURING the actual drive.
2) An analysis system that can fit in a car is not nearly as precise or possessing as high a resolution as one that can fit in a large lab. And as modern cars are so clean, huge percentage differences can be caused by tiny, tiny real changes in pollutant concentrations (ie, if you put out 0.001g/km of NOx, putting out 0.002g/km is 100% worse, despite the difference being just 0.001g/km! One extra issue is the accurate measurement of total exhaust mass flow, because analysers are ratiometric devices. if you measure a fixed say 10ppm of NOx, flowing 100l/min or 50l/min of exhaust gases makes an enormous difference to the pollutant mass! Typically, ime, on car flow measurement is at least 10x less accurate than in lab measurement
As a consultant for PEMs testing for several major UK OEMs, i reckon that on average i can find fault with around 75% of the test results done on any given vehicle. Be that poor road loads, speed excursions, poor measurements, poor calibrations and a host of other, highly complex measurement effects.
Let me give you an example.
One of my employers was finding a 35% variability in the tailpipe NOx of the same car over the same test. Well after a LOT of careful data analysis, it was discovered that the vehicles 12v battery state of charge was causing this issue! When the car had been parked over a weekend (monday test) the SoC was lower, and the "smart charge" system was adding additional load to the engine to recover that SoC compared to that for a test after just an overnight soak. I found that this extra load, only around 5% of the total road load was enough to move the engine operating state just outside that of the LP EGR system, but not high enough to get far enough in to the operational window for HP EGR. As such, sat in that valley between EGR system capabilities, the tailpipe NOx was varying by the large percentage values recorded.
ie A tiny, tiny, change of load led to a relatively huge effect.
So, after all that, do i think PEMs results are valid?
Well, yes and no. I personally wouldn't trust any PEMs result unless i could see the following:
1) a complete traceable calibration and setup record for all the instruments used
2) a statistically valid test suite, including A-B-A type testing with a good level of correlation
3) The results from at least 3 vehicles of the same type, driven across all the speed profiles required
4) An extremely close look at ALL the real / measured and calculated values before processing and definitely not just the % comparisons!
Would i trust an data for these HHO systems, well no, not really. if i could see the raw data, and a statistically valid amount of it, then there could be some validity to there claims, but to date, i have not seen that data
We’re in similar line of work. I work for Horiba and we do a lot of PEMs etc! We’re a bit better than 10% though....90% plus, give or take using a drivers aid. Without that you’re driving blind and even 10% valid is probably a good result! We do perform correlations on kit before/after testing and generally the newer OBS-One PEMs is very good. If it fails we swap to another kit and that one goes for inspection. Though again, the regs do give some large leeway on correlation results, especially PN.PEMs, which stands for Portable Emissions Measurement, is nothing fancy. All it consists of is a set of exhaust gas analysers in a small box, that will fit in the boot of a passenger car.
For years, exhaust gas analysers, such as those made by Horriba were large, bulky and needed a range of high purity Calibration and Span reference gases to calculate (extremely accurately) the exact chemical composition of a flow of exhaust gases:
Even without the heavy / large compressed gas bottles, this won't fit in a car:
Because of that, and because of the difficulty of providing a repeatable enough driving environment to make statistically valid analysis of the results (more on this later!) emissions tests were lab based, conducted on rolling roads, with controlled fuels, temperature, humidity, and used complex measurement devices with high resolution.
For example:
By controlling the tests boundary conditions extremely accurately (temperatures to 0.1degC, speeds to 0.05 mph, road loads to 10w, test to test repeatability was excellent, and a statistically valid picture of an vehicles emissions and consumptions could be built up with high confidence.
The downside, was that the mandated drive cycles were not kept up-to-date with modern road conditons and by the mid 2000's those cycles ended up being pretty unrepresentative of most drivers conditions (for example, they have the vehicle soaked and started at 25degC!)
Our government, and that of the EU that sets those cycles, rather than simply admit they had been lax and should have introduced an updated test with a colder start and with a higher average speed test (which is exactly what they did in Japan, the US and China in 2003!!). But, after much backpedalling, blamethrowing, and bad mouthing, the EU decided to introduce ON ROAD real time exhaust emissions analysis. And guess what, that change was pushed by, yup, the makers of a new, compact, analysis system that would fit in the boot of a car, the aforementioned PEMs.
But, what they neatly pushed under the carpet, was the fact that real world testing is so full of variables that cannot be controlled, that the results from PEMs testing are mostly total rubbish (in fact, just around 10% of any given PEMs drive cycles done are considered valid). So a system was introduced, that measured and tried to estimate how the car had been driven and how the environment in that particular day affected the results. It's a complex mathematical calculation that uses accelerometers, and GPS to try to map out the speed and driving load profiles for any given drive, and if those profiles fit into an "acceptable window" the test results are considered valid.
However, then 2 other issues became apparent:
1) Because the test is driven on real world, often the air around the test vehicle was dirtier (in terms of pollutant concentrations) than that coming out the tailpipe! (modern cars are V clean!!) For the Lab test, ambient air if filtered and conditioned, and the background measured by a second set of analysers constantly so the tailpipe results can be corrected for those background concentrations. PEMS, does a zero cal before the test, and one after, but does NOT measure the background concentrations DURING the actual drive.
2) An analysis system that can fit in a car is not nearly as precise or possessing as high a resolution as one that can fit in a large lab. And as modern cars are so clean, huge percentage differences can be caused by tiny, tiny real changes in pollutant concentrations (ie, if you put out 0.001g/km of NOx, putting out 0.002g/km is 100% worse, despite the difference being just 0.001g/km! One extra issue is the accurate measurement of total exhaust mass flow, because analysers are ratiometric devices. if you measure a fixed say 10ppm of NOx, flowing 100l/min or 50l/min of exhaust gases makes an enormous difference to the pollutant mass! Typically, ime, on car flow measurement is at least 10x less accurate than in lab measurement
As a consultant for PEMs testing for several major UK OEMs, i reckon that on average i can find fault with around 75% of the test results done on any given vehicle. Be that poor road loads, speed excursions, poor measurements, poor calibrations and a host of other, highly complex measurement effects.
Let me give you an example.
One of my employers was finding a 35% variability in the tailpipe NOx of the same car over the same test. Well after a LOT of careful data analysis, it was discovered that the vehicles 12v battery state of charge was causing this issue! When the car had been parked over a weekend (monday test) the SoC was lower, and the "smart charge" system was adding additional load to the engine to recover that SoC compared to that for a test after just an overnight soak. I found that this extra load, only around 5% of the total road load was enough to move the engine operating state just outside that of the LP EGR system, but not high enough to get far enough in to the operational window for HP EGR. As such, sat in that valley between EGR system capabilities, the tailpipe NOx was varying by the large percentage values recorded.
ie A tiny, tiny, change of load led to a relatively huge effect.
So, after all that, do i think PEMs results are valid?
Well, yes and no. I personally wouldn't trust any PEMs result unless i could see the following:
1) a complete traceable calibration and setup record for all the instruments used
2) a statistically valid test suite, including A-B-A type testing with a good level of correlation
3) The results from at least 3 vehicles of the same type, driven across all the speed profiles required
4) An extremely close look at ALL the real / measured and calculated values before processing and definitely not just the % comparisons!
Would i trust an data for these HHO systems, well no, not really. if i could see the raw data, and a statistically valid amount of it, then there could be some validity to there claims, but to date, i have not seen that data
Edited by Max_Torque on Thursday 30th November 23:28
There are some PEMs testers out there who run tests without access to a chassis Dyno and a room full of Horiba/AVLs latest emissions analysers. No idea how they can put full faith in their numbers.
I’m working on making all this real world testing lab based again. It’s very expensive to do out on the road and as you say, just far too many variables to look at. If they’re trying to enact some cal changes for 1-2% improvement, you’ll never see it in amongst the noise. The spread on RDEs of the same drive style is quite wide (even though the tests are valid and within the regs) even on newer euro 6d temp cars that have much tighter control on their emissions aftertreatment....and if it’s a diesel and it regens on test, well you can forget comparing runs.
If you’re ever visiting MIRA, let me know!
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff