On 9/9/2017 at 13:24, burntcrisps2 said:

Its £459 fully fitted.

still.....

The final nail in the coffin for any device like this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically boils down to every energy conversion is inefficient. In the context of this device it works like this:

 

It consumes electricity from the battery and charging system to electrolyse the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

 

This energy is larger than the amount of energy that will be released by the hydrogen and oxygen during subsequent combustion.

 

Some part of the energy produced during combustion is converted to motive power in the engine (about 60 % is lost as heat).

 

Part of the engine's output drives the alternator to produce electrical energy.

 

The alternator will produce less electrical power than the mechanical power it consumes while doing so.

 

We're back to where the electrical power is used to electrolyse water.

 

Overall, we have a chain of non-ideal energy conversions, each resulting in a loss of energy as heat or noise. The device consumes more energy than it produces and so places an additional demand on the engine, increasing its fuel consumption. Even assuming some positive contribution from the hydrogen combustion, overall you're losing out.

But with the right marketing it's surprising how many people you can convince otherwise.

Plenty of research papers of having a small hydrogen generator & adding this & air into the engine air intake....

 

research here in 2105 using A Skoda Felica 1.3GLXi engine & very similar plate generator as per the CGON device...

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016815001714

 

It is noted that HHO gas enhances the combustion process through increasing engine thermal efficiency and reducing the specific fuel consumption.

 

"""The released heat of HHO facilitated breaking of the gasoline molecules bonds and hence increasing reaction rate and flame speed and then combustion efficiency is increased. It is also noted that introducing HHO gas to the fuel/air mixture has a positive impact on the octane rating of gasoline fuel. Therefore the engine compression ratio can be raised and more gain in the efficiency can be obtained. In addition the ignition advance could be increased to maximize the engine torque without knocking of engine."""

 

Conclusion:-

The engine thermal efficiency has been increased up to 10% when HHO gas has been introduced into the air/fuel mixture, consequently reducing fuel consumption up to 34%

The concentration of NO_x, CO and HC gases has been reduced to almost 15%, 18% and 14% respectively on average when HHO is introduced into the system

 

They also list a further 26 research papers on adding hydrogen to spark ignition engines etc...

 

So those that still  suggest "its snake oil" go argue with the scientist of those papers as well.....

 

?

Can we crowd fund someone with a suitable motor to get one installed and then do a BRISKODA Real World Trial?

 

I will put £5 towards it, so only 91 more members needed prepared to put up £5 and a Member prepared to do the testing.

Maybe someone with a Morgan, TVR or whatever would be a good test vehicle.

Edited 13 September, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

to be 100% honest I was more interested in their claim to decarbon the engine, DPF EGR etc....just like the pictu re on their website

They look like different dpf's tbh,

 

But either way, as ive said... prove the science in real world independent testing, and i'd be more interested. 

The rate of consumption given the amount they say youll get through just seems too tiny to be of benefit.

On 13/9/2017 at 11:30, fabdavrav said:

Plenty of research papers of having a small hydrogen generator & adding this & air into the engine air intake....

 

research here in 2105 using A Skoda Felica 1.3GLXi engine & very similar plate generator as per the CGON device...

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016815001714

 

It is noted that HHO gas enhances the combustion process through increasing engine thermal efficiency and reducing the specific fuel consumption.

 

"""The released heat of HHO facilitated breaking of the gasoline molecules bonds and hence increasing reaction rate and flame speed and then combustion efficiency is increased. It is also noted that introducing HHO gas to the fuel/air mixture has a positive impact on the octane rating of gasoline fuel. Therefore the engine compression ratio can be raised and more gain in the efficiency can be obtained. In addition the ignition advance could be increased to maximize the engine torque without knocking of engine."""

 

Conclusion:-

The engine thermal efficiency has been increased up to 10% when HHO gas has been introduced into the air/fuel mixture, consequently reducing fuel consumption up to 34%

The concentration of NO_x, CO and HC gases has been reduced to almost 15%, 18% and 14% respectively on average when HHO is introduced into the system

 

They also list a further 26 research papers on adding hydrogen to spark ignition engines etc...

 

So those that still  suggest "its snake oil" go argue with the scientist of those papers as well.....

 

First thing to note about this journal is that it's open access - this category of publishing has a reputation for lax peer review. In many cases, the peer review process is simply a case of checking if the publishing fee has been paid. In this case, it is a journal funded by the University of Alexandria, publishing work by its own students. They state at the end of the article "Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University": the authors are all members of that faculty.

 

They display no raw data for the parameters measured from the engine, or sample calculations for the efficiency and other reported results so there's no way to check their claims on these figures.

 

If we take their claim of producing 18 l/h of gas from the electrolysis unit we can do some calculations. The manner in which they're collecting the gas suggests it's at room temperature and atmospheric pressure (they should really have included these measurements). Molar volume of a gas at STP is 22.414 l/mol; adjusted for the assumed conditions (RT and AP) we get 24.467 l/mol.

 

18 l/h then is converted to 0.736 mol/h or 0.0123 mol/min of gas, which is in a molar ratio of 2:1 H2:O2.

 

The lowest engine speed they test at is 1500 rev/min, so we can now determine how much gas is made available per engine revolution: 0.0123/1500 = 8.17 x10^-6 mol/rev, and given that there are two intake events per revolution for a 4-stroke engine, we get 4.08x10^-6 mol/cyl of gas, which contains 2.72 x 10^-6 mol of hydrogen.

 

The enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen is -286 kJ/mol, so the additional hydrogen added to each cylinder here is 286*1000*2.72x10-6 = 0.78 J/cyl. This contribution drops further as engine speed increases: at 2500 rpm it's 0.47 J/cyl.

 

If we assume their graphs go as far as maximum power at the given engine speed we can deduce the maximum power at 2500 rev/min from figure 8(c) as about 13.5 kW. At this speed and load, the engine is generating 162 J/cyl of mechanical output. Assuming a (slightly generous) thermal efficiency of 40 %, this means 405 J/cyl of heat being generated by combustion of fuel.

 

Thermal efficiency is the percentage of heat energy(Q) converted to mechanical energy(W): W/Q. Based on our assumptions we can calculate the impact on thermal efficiency from the hydrogen added by the electrolysis unit:

 

If we assume all of the heat energy generated by the hydrogen is converted to mechanical energy (a very generous assumption in light of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), we now get 162.33 J of work (W) and 405.33 J of heat energy consumed (Q), giving a thermal efficiency of 39.9 %. Recall that we assumed a TE of 40 % initially, this shows a drop in thermal efficiency based on the information provided by the authors. This is a best case scenario:

 

The authors state that the early ignition of the hydrogen can help initiate faster and cleaner combustion of the petrol. This would be possible, but only if the hydrogen/oxygen mixture is injected directly in the vicinity of the spark plug during the compression stroke, where it can ignite separately to the main fuel/air charge. Injecting the gas mixture into the intake air will ensure it is very evenly mixed throughout the fuel/air mixture and any particular contribution from H2 combustion will be marginal.

 

The cited article on this (reference 16) uses a H2 to air ratio of 3 % at the engine intake. At 2500 rpm, this engine is pulling 1611 l/min; H2/O2 Gas is being supplied at 0.3 l/min containing 0.2 l/min of hydrogen. This gives a ratio of 0.019 % H2 to air. The referenced paper shows smaller gains than these guys for a much larger amount of hydrogen around stoichiometric conditions.

 

Bottom line is that this idea does not stand up when subjected to the laws of physics and chemistry, and some close scrutiny of its proponents' claims.

Now that /\ @chimaera

 

Is a proper explanation of why this doesnt seem plausible outside of the "conditions" of the "testing"...

maybe we should convince someone from youtube like CarThrottle or someone like that to buy one and review it 

8 minutes ago, Bertie90 said:

maybe we should convince someone from youtube like CarThrottle or someone like that to buy one and review it 

Mythbusters did it several years ago.

i watched this and i think i'm over this now....a car is a car, use it, break it buy another one. THE END

 

 

"Do not be that muppet..."

8 hours ago, Bertie90 said:

i watched this and i think i'm over this now....a car is a car, use it, break it buy another one. THE END

 

 

I like him. Cant beat aussie directness

On ‎19‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 16:40, chimaera said:

First thing to note about this journal is that it's open access - this category of publishing has a reputation for lax peer review. In many cases, the peer review process is simply a case of checking if the publishing fee has been paid. In this case, it is a journal funded by the University of Alexandria, publishing work by its own students. They state at the end of the article "Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University": the authors are all members of that faculty.

working out included:----

 

 

Quote

Bottom line is that this idea does not stand up when subjected to the laws of physics and chemistry, and some close scrutiny of its proponents' claims.

 

You going do to the other 26 articles??

 

The basic principal that they use a small amount of hydrogen to effectively crack the fuel molecule into smaller parts creating more surface area to make it easier to burn is sound & can be done. Just like using a wedge to split apart a big log into smaller pieces creating more exposed surface area which allows it to burn easier, etc.

 

Just they CGON have perfected it as they have worked on it for many years & have looked at other peoples research which again has been done over many years. Just because your can't figure it out with your knowledge does not mean that it is irrelevant.

 

Check out their facebook page showing the results & pictures of the PENS equipment (emissions anaylitics) to the EQUA test for urban driving & dyno rolling road testing also...50.6% NOx reduction in real life driving. Also pictures of the development work with Morgan on the dyno... 

 

https://en-gb.facebook.com/cgonltd/

 

Science, engineering etc are full of examples over centuries where "conventional" wisdom stated that "X" was impossible & that the proposer was a heretic & nut job...eventually they were proved right.....even in this day in age, various expert people stated in the 80's that the computer would not get as fast as it is doing...or how about the "higgs boson" ..basically in the early 60's is was theorised etc by Higgs, & others, but it was largely ignored...finally proven with CERN in 2012.

 

If you still think they are BS why not use FB to call them out & inform trading standards as it is a con if you are that confident in your calculations?

Edited 22 September, 20178 yr by fabdavrav

So... does that mean @fabdavrav is going to volunteer to be the real world brisky test pilot?

38 minutes ago, mac11irl said:

So... does that mean @fabdavrav is going to volunteer to be the real world brisky test pilot?

 

No because I don't have a suitable car where you would see a great difference....my old AUB engine Fabia maybe, but my new 1.4lt euro5 petrol which runs only on Shell vpower will produce way less emissions than my old car....which produced very little.

 

Now if I had a euro 5 or euro6 diesel & used cheap supermarket fuel I would fit the device...

 

maybe I should convince a relative who has a "green car" (Peugeot 3008 hybrid which actually pollutes the worst for NOx of any tested car)...mind you he likes to keep up with the Joneses & I haven't shown him the EQUA data for his "green car" yet....

Edited 22 September, 20178 yr by fabdavrav

UKMKIVs dealt with this much more efficiently here.

44 minutes ago, Wino said:

UKMKIVs dealt with this much more efficiently here.

 

The news article link in that was grammatically offensive to read

 

The CEO and some of the team have such a background in marketing as well, you would think they would have raised so much more in crowd funding.

In some promotional articles there is so much mention of Toyota and others and what they are doing that some might be lead to believe that there is some 'working together' 

with the worlds biggest car manufacturer but that does not seem to be the case.

http://bodyshopmag.com/2017/news/cgon-unveils-hydrogen-solution 

http://uk.linkedin.com/in/simon-johnson-07708081 

 

You would think that Chris Grayling MP & Michael Gove MP would be ensuring that Tax Payers money was going behind the development and promoting of the use of this proven to work product, British Innovation & British Production for Emissions Reduction.

 

The VW Group could be installing them on the Euro 5 TDI's that they are not reducing the on road emissions of vehicles after The Fix, but that meet Euro 5 tests but are still emitting & polluting greatly on the road.

Even if they had just purchased enough for fitting to half of the 1.2 Million TDI's with Cheat Devices in UK vehicles you would of though they could have negotiated a great discount, or just built them under licence.

Edited 23 September, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

10 hours ago, Wino said:

UKMKIVs dealt with this much more efficiently here.

 

The usual people shouting snake oil with out any proof.....again if they are so confident they are right inform trading standards....

 

One post in that thread I thought captured why the big companies can't be bothered...

"""The German post company wanted a fleet of small electric vans that they could use in cities and towns.  They have been asking VAG, Mercedes and BMW for years to build them one and in the end the post company got so fed up with them not doing it, that they designed and built one themselves.  Now Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium and France all want and/or are buying these little electric vans that have been designed and built by this post company.  It has been a massive success."""

 

the motor industry is a clique....anything new & sudden on the market....can't have that, so they either buy it outright or totally flatten it by ignoring it & treating it as passing rubbish..

 

The big car manufactures are focused on a 7yr life cycle & selling you a whole new vehicle to keep their sales up year on year......selling a device which is of more use to retrofit to existing older cars...nah...

 

Yes the device will work on the new euro6 cars which do pollute lots under the EQUA index, but the car manufactures would rather you bought their new more compliant car which is due out next year....just like apple & iphones...

No brainer really for under £500.

'May reduce real world running costs by up to 20%', 

So have that fitted, and then buy BP Cleaner Diesel or Petrol at just a few pence a litre more giving longer engine life, possibly improved MPG, maybe buy fuel additives / cleaners,

get in Long Life Oil for longer servicing intervals, fit a K&N Air Filter that 'could give improved performance' and ECO Tyres that may give better fuel economy and for under £1,000 the savings annually will be very high, well maybe.

Technically theyre not in breach of trading standards as they have that wonderful ISP term "UP TO" beside all the savings and reductions. 0.01% less nox is covered under "up to 50% less nox" 

 

And again... if they are proudly working with various named companies, how come the various named companies arent also proudly working with cgon on their websites? 

 

"Detroit buried the electric car" doesnt really ring 100% true either btw (common CT on interweb). Sure they didnt exactly help it along, but if range issues with Li-Ion battery banks is still concern imagine the 70's/80's with lead acid or at best nicad being the only tech available, They were pretty much unviable at the time regardless of 

The "up to ... less x", "up to ... more mpg" may not breach guidelines, but does anyone else who's watched the video on the cgon homepage think the "we've stripped down hundreds of engines looking for any possible problems..." line has the slightest possibility of being true? Sounds like a stinking-great whopper to me.

 

Why on earth would you need to strip down that many? This isn't a big rich company with lots of spare cash (far from it).  If they stripped down two or three after running the (miniscule amounts of) snake oil for a while, wouldn't that have been reassuring enough if they looked OK?