So, when will we see a up-date on this article?

If 80% of the gasoline was running out of the tailpipe of a vehicle, we would have big problems. When you use electricity to split water molecules, you are using energy. Some of that energy is wasted, some is used to actually split the molecular bonds. When you burn hydrogen, you are combining it with oxygen to form water. This releases the exact amount of energy that was used to split the bonds in the first place minus the lost energy. You have a net loss of energy.

Here's the Better Business Bureau report on Protium Fuel Systems, the first company that sold this hydrogen-on-demand snake oil to Beloit:

"At the end of 2008, the BBB began receiving complaints from consumers in several states claiming that they had received partial orders, severly [sic] delayed shipments, or no parts at all from the company after having been charged for complete fuel systems. The company responded to some of these complaints; however, in early 2009, the company cut off all communications. Known phone numbers for the firm went unanswered or were disconnected, answering machine messages went unreturned (reported both by customers checking on orders and those from the BBB inquiring about the status of the company and complaints), and the firm's listed website was disconnected. Given the number and nature of complaints and the firm's lack of response, the BBB terminated its Accreditation.
Consumers who paid for fuel systems or other orders from the company using a credit card are encouraged to file disputes against the firm through their card issuer."

The above is at: www.bbb.org/oklahoma-city/business-revie...

I'd encourage any one in Beloit with an interest in the fiscal responsibility of the city to watch L2 Hybrids, Beloit's current snake-oil supplier, like a hawk.

Sooner or later, the Beloit managers will no longer be put off by any hydrogen-on-demand supplier telling them, "What, you HAVEN'T hydrolized your intake oxylazer switchover combustulators? No WONDER you're not getting better mileage. But considering what a great . . . CUSTOMER . . . Beloit's been, I have a deal for you. For a mere $976.55 per unit, I can send you . . ."

That's when the Beloit managers will throw in the towel and admit that they've been had. But will they admit it to others? I don't envy their predicament at all, but I hope they have the courage to do so.

Beloit's hoping for federal stimulus money to fund its hydro-boost program? It's bad enough that you're wasting your own money on this perpetual-motion nonsense. Please don't try to stick the rest of America with your bill.

unfortunatly none of the people commenting here know what they are talking about! For starters the dateline story was about a scam artist with arrest warrents in nine states!!! this does not disprove HHO technolgy,he was claiming unrealistic milage numbers and his instaler was lieing though his teeth. secondly HHO boosters are NOT breaking any laws of physics because we are not getting more energy out than was put in because the HHO is not subsidizing gas usage as these boosters produce much too little hho to actualy subsidize, the reality is that the hydrogen oxogen CHANGES THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE COMBUSTION. surely even nonscientist or nonmechanical people can grasp the concept of two substances(gasoline & air ) acting differently when something else (HHO) is introduced. Also lets address these numbers your commentors were throwing around, when someone says that a engine is only 20% efficient that means that only 20% is actualy converted into mechanical energy the rest is wasted into HEAT,NOISE and VIBRATION, this has nothing to do with the amount of gasoline any particular engine wastes.While I'm on the subject american cars are designed to waste gas and the american auto ass. has known that hho boosters reduce emmissions for many years, but of course they ignore it because it also reduce gas consumtion. Bottom line here is that hho boosters work! as long as all rules are followed .mythbusters missed some glaring simple science in their lame attemt. first of all these boosters are just that a BOOSTER not a conversion to run your car on water. secondly if interface with onboard computor is not done properly ,forget it. no improvement will be realized. this is very simple science! don't let naysayers and non hands on types spout retoric from non reliable sources (such as dateline and mythbusters) because we all know american mainsteam media cannot be trusted, for example reporters being fired for reporting that WMD's were not in Iraq, Who killed the electric car , not shown on american t.v. inconvenent truth.not shown on american t.v. ziet giest, not shown on american t.v.

Shopierehuh Apr 8, 2009 at 8:58 p.m.
..
This would be the same GM that ran things so well, that they almost went bankrupt in the 80’s. They ran things so well that they shut down the plant here in Janesville! They have running things so well they couldn’t see this technology coming along,
..
Is this the well run GM that you referring to???

So they didn't want hydrogen technology that would save their corporation when gasoline was 3 to 4 dollars a gallon because they had an unsucessful electric car in 1996? Oh, I see.

Shopierehuh Apr 8, 2009 at 7:59 p.m.
..
In 1996 GM produced a vehical called the EV.
..
250 miles per charge, 4 hours to fully charge.
..
GM literly SCRAPPED the EV?
..
If you can explain why they scrapped the EV, you will have your answer
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/t...

It is good that they are thinking out of the box. I hope they are not going over already plowed ground. It is fun to talk corporatebabble once in a while isn't it?

I would like to give the conspiracy theorists a chance to express themselves. This question should do it. I wonder why a corporation such a G.M. that is faced with bankruptcy or something very similar, did not grab this technology. It would have saved their big profit vehicles, the full sized SUVs, by making them have almost the milage of an economy car. What say ye, tinfoilers?

The story told of as much as 100% increase, I was being conservative. If I was being critical, I would have picked the story apart line for line, like when they mention "electrolysis of distilled water" which is impossible. But the assumption is that we know there is electrolyte in the water.

I_C_Y, a claim of 50% increase in fuel efficiency was made by "zbra2" on a public blog and I politely asked for verifiable evidence of that claim.

fool_on_the_hill Apr 8, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.
..
That’s rich!!
..
The City of Beloit is a Governmental agency!!, but they need to run it by you first.
..
Now that’s comedy!!

"All science aside, the results tell all, don't be so short sided. Vehicles getting 50%+ increase in MPG with a drop in emissions says that is a good thing."

Could we have a link to the test data from an accredited agency such as EPA, Road & Track, etc.? Thanks.

I_C_Y: The Explore does not have a high compression engine; therefore there is no benefit from adding a high octane fuel. The Explore pulling nothing will have the better mileage.

Oh, and just for fun, these only pull about 10 to 15 amps from the electrical system, hardly a problem for the alternator. If you are an HHO experimenter and you are pulling more amps than that, beware, you're doing something wrong.

As for the EPA, that is also a non issue. You have to override the emission to get in trouble, this company simply adds a millivolt or 2 to the o2 sensors & subtracts the same to the MAP sensor. This allows the computer to deal with the difference in fuel calculations so the Check Engine light will not activate.

As for warranty issues, this is a fleet and they work on their own vehicles. Also, warranties cannot be void without proof, a law that has been in place since the mid 80's or earlier.

The company they purchased from is excellent, that is they have truly done their homework, They have had problems in the beginning that they are still working out. Their latest design, a dry cell, is very nice and their electronics that can run without all the distracting crap inside the vehicle is perfection.

All science aside, the results tell all, don't be so short sided. Vehicles getting 50%+ increase in MPG with a drop in emissions says that is a good thing.

Beamish Apr 8, 2009 at 12:31 a.m.
..
I understand that the unit places a small load (Work) on the engine.
..
Here’s the question:
..
If Explorer “A” is running 87 octane going down the highway, and Explorer “B” is running 100 octane, pulling a small trailer, which one is getting better gas mileage?
..
http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/article...

I_C_Y: You have a keen interest in technology and engineering. You'll find the subject even more interesting with a clear understanding of its basic laws and fundamental principles.

I_C_Y, the modern alternator has the capacity to deliver more current, but does not, unless it is required to by the electrical system of the car. In elementary terms the additional output could be looked at as additional resistance added to the pulley and belt that connects the alternator to the engine. More resistance in the systems requires more energy from the engine.

Would it be be possible to defeat the laws of physics with the proper amount of "Hope and Change"?

fool_on_the_hill Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 p.m.
..
A couple of problems with your comments;
..
1. The average car alternator is generating excess electricity that is not being used (provided you’re not running every electrical item on the vehicle). About 30-40% extra.
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-iQudVeyteoL...
..
2. The 27 miles, or 7 miles is based on a “fuel cell system” electric car (which currently are less efficient than ICE’s), not on injecting the Hydrogen into an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine).

We still haven't broken those silly Laws of Thermodynamics, and still haven't solved perpetual motion...but keep trying.

Power in still equals power out. Darn

Look at ethanol production. Natural gas + corn = fuel, (minus all the conversion losses), but natural gas is already a fuel.

So if we were smart, we could use the (American) natural gas as a fuel, use the corn for food, and use all that tax money given as ethanol subsidies for building a natural gas infrastructure, and reducing our dependence on 70% imported oil.

Just an idea

Even if you don't agree, checkout Boone Pickens plan.

http://www.pickensplan.com/didyouknow/

Can someone please answer these questions?
Isn't modifying / tampering with the fuel system illegal (Federal emmissions law)?
Doesn't it void your warranty also?
Is this Beloit government agency breaking the law?

You're welcome, copperguy. I didn't see anything on that L2 website to change my opinion of vehicle-powered hydrogen production.

The idea that a vehicle's alternator is already putting out more than enough electricity to power the electrolysis without increasing fuel consumption is commonly known as, "getting something for nothing".

According to that Hydrogen Association website, one gallon of water can produce enough hydrogen to drive the Honda test car 27 miles. So, a quart of water should contain enough hydrogen to drive that Honda almost 7 miles.

By the way, that site has loads of useful information about hydrogen, conversion efficiencies, etc. Thanks for that link, I_C_Y.

Sure enough, fool. TY!

Have you checked out the L2 website? Looks like pretty similar stuff to me, eh?

What about the idea that a vehicle's alternator is already putting out more than enough electricity to power the electrolysis without increasing fuel consumption? That seems a little logical to me, but I'm definitely NOT a scientist! I AM just a bit confused as to how a quart container of water could produce any significant amount of hydrogen?????

Thanks for helping educate us, fool and others!

I_C_Y: You might want to do a little more research on the function of fuel octane. Higher octane is less ignitable than lower octane for the purpose of reducing pre-ignition (knock) in high-compression engines. If what you claim was true, why would anyone burn low octane fuel?

We all agree that water is a much more readily available commodity than gasoline. However, it takes ENERGY to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. When that conversion process is electrolytic, it costs about 1.43 units of input energy to reap 1 unit of hydrogen energy. (That's under optimal conditions.) As I explained below, for any conversion system relevant to this article, efficiency is roughly 14 energy units of gasoline to produce 1 energy unit of hydrogen gas from water.

The EPA test results in the Dateline expose' is exactly what one should expect from such systems: slightly LESS fuel efficiency after the hydrogen system is installed.

Hydrogen boost test, run on portable generator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhF2ESXq-...

fool_on_the_hill Apr 7, 2009 at 9:57 a.m.
..
Why does one put higher octane petroleum in their car?
..
Performance and mileage.
..
I’m not suggesting that any of the laws of physics are being violated with these attachments.
..
What I am suggesting is that water as a commodity is far less expensive per gallon than petroleum. And more readily available.

I_C_Y: Maybe I'm just dense but I don't understand the relevance of your post re: octane. What is it you are implying and why are you directing this to me, in particular?

Copperguy: In or near paragraph #14.

fool_on_the_hill Apr 7, 2009 at 6:15 a.m.
..
Correct, the electro/chemical process of electrolysis has been around since 1807.
..
Observation: If unleaded petroleum has an octane of 87 – 92, what is the octane of Hydrogen?
..
What is the octane rating of hydrogen?
Short answer: "130+" according to a study done by the College of the Desert and Sunline Transit Agency (http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/gener...)

fool: OK, got ya now.

Protium wasn't mentioned in the article as far I can tell. L2 Hybrids is the supplier here. So, I went to L2Hybrids.com.

For what it's worth.

The only possible way to get 100% energy conversion is by colliding matter with anti-matter. In that collision the particles completely destroy each other resulting in 100% energy conversion. No other method of energy conversion can reach 100%, not even nuclear fusion.

To clarify a couple of points:

The chemical process of hydrogen electrolysis is real. It is why lead acid batteries can create an explosion hazard, especially while overcharging. That process is not in question.

The issue at hand is about electrolytically producing hydrogen ON BOARD a fossil fueled, internal combustion motor vehicle. As I have outlined below, its stated goal has zero chance of success. None. It makes no difference which person or company is making these claims. Wishing doesn't change the laws of physics.

Copperguy, you wrote, "I went to the web site for the company mentioned in the Beloit article. That company doesn't seem to be Protium."

Since Protium Fuel Systems was mentioned in the article and their website URL was in Paul's post I wondered, "What the heck company IS copperguy seeing at that URL if I am seeing only a blank page??" Such discrepancies between different ISPs can and do result from DNS update delays or corruption so I rechecked it with three different browsers. No puzzle, simply a question. Thanks for the confirmation.

I would venture to say there is a "placebo effect" going on with the test cars/trucks. People that drive them will be easier on the gas expecting better results and low and behold they get it. It would be very interesting to see a car/truck put out with no mods and tell people this one has all the latest and greatest fuel savings items and watch the MPG increase on that vehicle also.

I could care less if the City of Beloit is doing this because I'm not a Beloit tax payer. The tax payers of beloit SHOULD be interested in the science experiments that are going on because if they fail, they lose. Search "Protium Fuel System scam" on the internet once and see what you find. This isn't new science, it just hasn't been perfected yet.

Displaced worker: At what point to you say that something just doesn't work? After it's been tried hundreds of times over hundreds of years? After careful measurements have been made and shown it doesn't work? After we've put people on the moon using ideas based on the fact that this stuff just doesn't work?

Yes, people trying new things should be honored. If not, then bread mold never would have been turned into penicillin, and we would have told a swiss patent examiner to shut up (Einstein).

But, let us put our money down in proportion to the evidence. There is darn near zero evidence that this works, and a lot of evidence that it doesn't. So, where does your money go?

Very nicely explained, spudbeach. "and so the total amount of useful energy you get is less than the amount you put in."

This reminds me of a physics instructor many years ago who said this about loss of energy; "If you are looking for something free, you are not going to find it in this world."

Thanks for the correction on the "tiny" error about the 20% efficient I.C. engine and the explanation of what it really means.

it's amazing how negative people have been. So they want to mess around with a few vehicles and try to save money. In this day and age you want to criticize them for that? Give me a break. The Beloit city government could do nothing and be reactive instead of proactive like Janesville and maybe they too could have an ice arena and historic building falling apart on them. I don't know if this stuff works but why complain when they try it?

Not to mention every trucking company in the US would be using one.

If increasing fuel economy was this easy GM, Ford, and Chrysler would have made this type of system standard on all trucks and SUV’s 15 years ago.

It does work its been proven to me by my teacher. It does produce hydrogen its just a matter of how much and whether your cars computer/sensors ect can handle it. Its people saying that is bogus is what sets this country back on technology advancements.. if someone is trying something new they should be applauded not condemned.

Just a teensy-weensy correction for an article with massive errors:

To quote the article:
"Unleaded gasoline engines are only about 20 percent efficient. That means the engine is burning only one-fifth of the gasoline pumped into the vehicle; the rest leaves as exhaust through the tailpipe, Lutz said."

To say that only 20% of the gasoline is burned is complete baloney. Unburned hydrocarbons are a known pollutant, and heavily regulated by the EPA. If you're in a state with auto-emissions testing (as I've had the pleasure to have been), and you had that much gasoline coming out unburned, you'd be shut down in a heartbeat.

What the "20% efficient" means is that only 20% of the energy you get from burning the fuel is turned into usable mechanical energy (i.e., getting the car moving). The rest is turned into heat -- hot exhaust gases, friction inside the engine, lost energy in the transmission, etc. A ton of energy is lost to heat -- if not, we wouldn't need a radiator, and the engine wouldn't get hot. Unfortunately, there's not a lot we can do about that, thanks to thermodynamics.

The rest of the article is just as bogus, betraying a lack of knowledge of the energy cost of producing hydrogen. It's easy to make hydrogen (or Brown's gas or oxy-hydrogen, whatever you want to call it), but there's always going to be some wasted energy, and so the total amount of useful energy you get is less than the amount you put in. If not, you've got more than a "hydrogen on demand" vehicle -- you've got perpetual motion. And that, my friends, is as common as ocean front property in Nebraska.

Fool: on the Protium site, I get a blank page. Nothing about L2 Hybrids. Sorry, guess I'm no good at your puzzles.

I am by no means saying that L@ is not a scam. Just saying that it doesn't appear to me that it is one-in-the-same with Protium.

"Mythbusters" had a recent segment on making hydrogen from water to run a car which showed the concept to be bogus (to put it politely)

Before you buy into this technology, please read this article that was wrote by someone that has worked with these systems.

http://reviews.ebay.com/Hydrogen-Generat...

Copperguy, what do you see on the http://www.protiumfuelsystems.com/ website? Did you read my post, below, re: the blank page and the Wayback Machine?

Paul: Am I missing something? I went to the web site for the company mentioned in the Beloit article. That company doesn't seem to be Protium.

Like others, I saw the Dateline piece last night. I was really amazed when I saw this article today. What timing!

I have checked around regarding this technology. I remain a bit skeptical, though I have been assured by some knowledgeable scientists (who I know personally and have no interest in any of these products) that claims to have obtained hydrogen through these methods are credible and it is easy to do.

Whether or not the company Beloit has chosen is another scam I guess has yet to be seen. But I wouldn't automatically label them a fraud because of Protium.

IMHO.

Protium review Part II:

On 3rd November 2008 the kit was shipped back to Protium by courier (at considerable cost) and confirmation was received from the courier that the parcel had been delivered to Protium on 10th November. This information was communicated to Protium by email on 18th November 2008.

Thereafter the only responses I received from Protium were automated confirmations of receipt of my emails – no information on my refund was forthcoming.

On 1st December I complained to the FTC and my complaint was entered into the Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database available to thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.

I notified Protium of my action by email dated 1st December and did receive a response from the Warranties Director stating,

“Hello ........, I apologize, I have been out of the office all last week. I have been told that we are still in the process of reviewing refund requests. As soon as I hear anything about the status of your refund I will let you know. Aleta McClintock Manufacturing & Warranties Director.

A further reminder email was sent on 3rd January 2009 and an auto receipt confirmation received but so far no reply or refund has been received.

Here's a report on "Protium Fuel Systems".... I guess people in the city of Beloit don't have the internet yet...

Protium Fuel systems advertize their products on this web site http://www.protiumfuelsystems.com/ and claim to be one of the leading suppliers of automotive Hybrid kits that generate Hydrogen from water to save fuel consumption

Having visited the web page and exchanged some correspondence with the company on 3rd June 2008 payment was made via Paypal for a complete kit to be delivered to me in Jakarta Indonesia where I work.

After much delay and numerous emails inquiring as to shipment the kit was finally sent on 31st August – THREE months after the order and payment. I received the shipment on 27th of September 2008.

To start with, two components that were paid for were NOT included and there was a letter in the package stating that those items would be sent separately as they were on back order.

One of the items, a float switch, though not vital was a desired item for safety.

Subsequently on 18th October, after many more emails ONE of the two short shipped items was received and I was able to start installing the kit.

Installation again required many emails to Protium to obtain clarification of unclear and contradictory installation instructions.

The installation of the kit was finally completed on 22nd October 2008 but did not work – no Hydrogen was being produced.

One of the claims by Protium was that the Hybrid kit they supplied was specially designed to generate Hydrogen from pure distilled water and they warn against using any catalysts or additives. In fact on there web site they have warnings about then dangers of cheap kits that use baking soda and other catalysts to help Hydrogen generation.

Protium's response to my inquires regarding the non functioning kit was surprising – they asked me to add a certain amount of TAP water to the pure distilled water that I had been using.

By end October having tried all available options and failed to get the kit to work, including having had a component fail and having still not received the remaining short shipped component, I gave up and asked Protium how I could make use of their advertized unconditional money back guarantee in returning the kit.

The response was simple – return the kit (an address was provided) and a full refund would be made.

"If you believe everything you hear...I have some great ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you."

...and I have a jim-dandy perpetual motion machine for sale.

Seriously folks... energy efficiency of hydrogen electrolysis conversion is, at best, about 70%. The energy used for this conversion comes from electricity, which is generated by the automotive alternator running at about 50% efficiency. The energy to generate this electricity comes from the vehicle's internal combustion engine, operating at a typical efficiency of about 20%. Since the claim is increased miles/per gallon, then this result needs to be accomplished via that same 20% efficient internal combustion engine. This means the system's total gasoline-to-wheel horsepower efficiency attributable to hydrogen is no more than 1.4%. In other words, every unit of mechanically useful hydrogen energy produced by such system requires 71 times the fossil fuel energy to generate it! This is only a rough analysis, but you get the picture.

Now, I'm not accusing the City of Beloit of not honestly logging an improvement in their vehicle fuel economy. What I am saying is, there just might be "some other" explanation for the effect they are observing. Perhaps, something that doesn't have a rosy ending, either.

If the city workers in Beloit's public works department want to play around with 4 or 5 cars/trucks to see if they can make something work while keeping their jobs productive and interesting, they should have at it. I think it's cool that the city management is supportive of their efforts. Janesville has spent much more money on wasted efforts(can anyone say GM retention task force??:)), so please don't criticize a small amount of thinking outside of the box in hopes of saving the city of Beloit a serious amount of money......

donkeykong, what they are seeing is likely confirmation bias.
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
.
To obtain truly verifiable results, double-blind tests should be performed before and after by an outside agency. That would be a test where the agency did not know which vehicles it was testing had been altered or what to expect in results.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-double...
.
No need to feel bad. Many top scientists have fooled themselves in much more embarrassing circumstances.

If you believe everything you hear...I have some great ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you.

If it was so easy to split H2O into H and O, everything would be running off of water. But, it is extreemly difficult to split the molecule so there lies the problem. If it would split easily, you would use both the Hydrogen and the Oxygen in the burning process and that little tank of water that they claim to be getting the hydrogen from is a joke.

Looks like Beloit might be the one laughing all of the way to the bank.

Yeah, but for some reason haven't heard from Bernie in a while. He's probably just been too busy lately.

Fool are you fully invested with Bernie? LOL...

http://www.protiumfuelsystems.com/ has been displaying a blank page for at least 10 days.

The Wayback Machine has archived pages, but only between Nov, 2007 and Feb, 2008.

I don't know... Bernie Madoff swears by 'em. That's good enough for me!

Its a gamble a big gamble hence the small sample as of now. Water or hydrogen is a non-condenseable. If the injector or delivery becomes to rich the damage is irreversible. There are other issues with catalytic converters, exhaust and sensors that can rear there nasty head too. I am all for this kind of technology and it is not new. Water injection has been around for decades. It's the exciting new processing and delivery technology that makes it controllable but the long term dependability is up to great scrutiny.

Because everyone watched Dateline last night, do you think all systems like this don't work? If you read the article, they ARE seeing results with the system. Obviously, this system they have put in place works far better than the one on Dateline. I happen to know several City employees who have said they are seeing results. So please, stop assuming that because you saw something on tv that was similiar, that this is what they are using because it isn't.

The Gazette and the reporter should be embarrassed by this article, which should not be part of a reputable news provider's product. Didn't the editor do a little fact-checking? It seems as if the Gazette is as gullible as the Beloit Public Works department.

garyprimer, in an attempt to answer your first question, "How does a 400% increase in fuel efficiency translate into only a 20% to 50% increase in fuel economy?"

My guess is, the burning of the gasoline goes from 20% effieiency to (near) 100% (nothing is completely 100%), but to generate the hydrogen from electrolosis takes electricity, which is generated by the alternator running off the engine, so even though the gas is 100% combusted, you need to burn more of it in order to generate the hygroden. This is just an engineers guess, since I've never actually heard of this hydrogen boosting approach (I initially thought the article was about fuel cells).

gary my guess is that it got changed lol that is typical

I see 2 1/2 years now in the article. I don't know if I read it wrong or if it was changed after I read it. Either way, that answers my second question. Thanks.

There is a sucker born every day! Here is the link to the Dateline report.

http://www.freeenergy.ca/news/136/ARTICL...

Yeah, it now says 2 1/2 years. The Gazette usually needs to hand-correct fractions that appear as single glyphs in the print edition.
.
I'm unable to find a reputable journalist source to confirm that any of these devices work. They attract investors, get press releases onto automotive websites, and there's astroturf everywhere in the form of blogs and forum postings. It doesn't seem to, um, hold water.
.
The Dateline debunking is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29899191/

ok gary... I have read the article and I am a bit confused by your comment "The other question is does a hydrogen fuel cell last 22 years, the amount of time needed to recover the investment costs?" I guess because in reading the article it says "Based on the estimated 25 percent savings, the hydrogen boosters would pay for themselves within about 2 1/2 years." Where does 22years come from?

Only in Beliot, Its been proven on many televison shows that these types of set ups DONT WORK.

Two and one half years based on a 25% savings- although the actual savings would be more.

Rolling
On
Floor
Laughing
Out
Loud

This is very exciting, but I have a couple of questions that I'm sure someone can easily answer. How does a 400% increase in fuel efficiency translate into only a 20% to 50% increase in fuel economy? I would think that it would be higher. The other question is does a hydrogen fuel cell last 22 years, the amount of time needed to recover the investment costs? Higher fuel prices would reduce the number of years needed and anything that we can do to to reduce the burning of gasoline is worth something in itself, but I am merely questioning the premise that the investment would pay for itself in 22 years. I would feel intuitively that it would pay for itself much sooner.