HydroHub™ PEM vs Hydrogen Fuel Systems alkaline dry cell.

Checkable, factual points only.

Four questions to ask both of us.

1. 01

   What is the written specification?

   Gas output, current draw, supply voltage, duty cycle and engine displacement band — in writing, before purchase.

2. 02

   What does five years of servicing cost?

   Consumables, labour intervals and the price of every replaceable part. This is where the two technologies genuinely diverge.

3. 03

   What are the warranty terms?

   The written warranty, plus an acknowledgement that it sits alongside — not instead of — your statutory guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law.

4. 04

   What is the primary source for that figure?

   For any performance number quoted, ask for the underlying report or paper itself, the engine and duty cycle it was measured on, and who conducted it.

No projected, typical or expected fuel-saving figure is published. Actual results vary materially with engine condition, duty cycle, load profile, fuel quality, installation and operating conditions. A controlled field evaluation on your own equipment, with baseline data captured before installation, is required before any commercial projection.

Questions.

How does HydroHub compare with Hydrogen Fuel Systems in Perth?

Both supply on-board hydrogen generation for diesel and petrol engines in Australia. The core technical difference is the cell: HydroHub units are PEM, conducting through a solid polymer membrane on deionised water, while the Hydrogen Fuel Systems Gen range is an alkaline dry cell using a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. That difference drives the servicing model — a resin filter change every 6–9 months versus ongoing caustic electrolyte maintenance. The other visible difference is claims: we publish measurement methodology rather than a headline savings percentage.

Their site headlines 34% fuel savings. Why don't you publish a figure like that?

That figure is their published claim, not ours and not a benchmark for our products. It sits well above the range the peer-reviewed experimental literature on hydrogen enrichment actually reports, which is set out on our evidence review page. We are not calling it false — we have no access to their test data — but we will not publish a number of that size ourselves, because under the Australian Consumer Law a performance claim has to be substantiated at the time it is made and we cannot substantiate one that would hold across engines, load factors and duty cycles. We publish the measurement method and attributed single-instance data instead.

Can their cited university test be verified?

Their site links a document titled “Murdoch University report on using HHO in Vehicles”, together with a “Certified reports Document of 32% Fuel Savings” described as a Kitech truck test report. Both are hosted as PDFs on their own website. We were unable to locate an independently published version of the cited university test through public journal or university repositories, so we can only note that we could not verify it independently — not that it does not exist. If you are evaluating them, ask for the report with its method, engine, duty cycle and the name of the body that conducted it.

Is alkaline dry-cell technology bad?

No. It is a legitimate, long-established electrolysis approach and it is cheaper to build. Our own group ran alkaline-cell programmes historically, and that data is archived on this site. The trade-offs are practical rather than moral: a liquid caustic electrolyte on a work vehicle brings handling, PPE, disposal and carry-over considerations that a solid-membrane cell does not.

How should I verify either supplier?

Ask both for the same four things: a written specification with gas output and current draw, the servicing schedule and consumable cost over five years, the warranty terms alongside your statutory rights under the Australian Consumer Law, and the primary source behind any performance figure quoted — not a summary of it. Then run your own baseline on your own equipment before and after fitting.

Is this comparison fair to the other supplier?

It is drawn from their publicly published material at the time of review and is limited to factual, checkable points. We do not have access to their internal test data, and product ranges and claims change — check their current site before deciding. If anything here is out of date or misstated, tell us and we will correct it.