Are We Overloking a Better Alternative Fuel?

Hi Angela:

I used to review technologies for DOE. Many of them were impractical. Unlike criminal trials, a new development is guilty until proven innocent. The career risk is too great for those people having to act on what you present them. You need to demonstrate how your technology works since nothing convinces better than data.

If you like I'd be willing to review your concepts. I don't need to know all the details. If privacy is a big issue then you need to tell me in broad outline what technologies are involved since I wouldn't want to be precluded from working in areas that I have marketable expertise.

regards, Jojo

Hello Jojo...

I'm sorry, but we are at that very vulnerable stage of development where patents have been submitted, but not issued. So, we are being very, very careful to whom we communicate our technology. Indeed, our business plan was printed in consecutive numbers and a close record kept on who gets what copy.

This may sound like paranoia to many, but having worked in the aerospace arena for years, I have seen some of our best ideas literally "snatched" from under our noses by larger corporations. They can affort a long litigation process....we can't.

Having said that, I would be interested in getting more independent evaluations on the technology. If you could supply me with a very short overview of yourself, your qualifications to review this technology and let me know wheather nor not you would be willing to sign a NDA, I'd be happy to discuss this with you further.

Thanks for your response, Ageela

I can't comment on the merit of your discovery, but what has the US government have to do with blocking you? I am confused. Are they prohibiting you from further development?

Or is it a case where the government is not aiding you enough?

Who is the consumer of this; the US government, private citizens, or both? If it is strictly government, then you might try talking to the US military (DARPA?) or such. However, I suspect a wider audience in the private sector.

If it is the private sector, you should be whispering in the ears of the major energy corporations. They have the dollars and the will to make new technology happen. Regardless, there must be a million venture capitalists that would jump on a real opportunity to provide a viable alternative that you claim. So, make your case to them and pick and choose the VC that offers the best chance and profit to succeed.

However, you must make a compelling case for your discovery and so far it sounds like you haven't. Maybe you should reevaluate what you have and see it through the VC eyes. Due diligence is the next step and don't skimp on it!

Thanks Hero...sound advice.

My business partner has, indeed, developed a detailed business plan, we have two major universities contributing to our development effort, we have built and demonstrated a prototypical engine, done economic impact analysis, etc.

In other words, we have done everything we can think of to further the technology. Yes, you are correct in that we were hoping to get some of the billions of dollars in R&D funds that are currently available in order not to have to bring on financial partners, but that was not our primary concern.

You sound like you have been through this type of process before, and as such, you will not be suprised to hear that our potential investors wanted assurance that there would be no objections from either the EPA or the DOE to the technology as part of their due dilligence. In other words, let the government do some of the heavy lifting for them.

Having passed that aspect, our problem now is that in order to bring this technology to wide-spread application, a certain amount of governmental cooperation (or at least non-opposition) is necessary.

We are staying far, far away from major energy companies inasmuch as preliminary analysis of our technology has shown that the average person can produce this fuel on-site for about $1.00 a gallon. Although it is true that the fuel does not possess the energy density of gasoline, it does possess many times more than hydrogen.

Another drawback is that current, internal-combustion engines cannot utilize this fuel, hence our development of the prototypical engine for demonstration.

So, I guess you could call us "distruptive technology", and many of the "big guys" will probably not be too happy if we succeed. That is why our attorney has advised that getting a "clean bill of health" from responsible governmental agencies will be a very practical move to help to protect our developments.

Thanks for your input, I hope this clears things up a bit. Ageela

"...our technology has shown that the average person can produce this fuel on-site for about $1.00 a gallon." Ha! maybe you should be selling this to Wal-Mart. ;-)

Don't discount the "Big Oil" companies. They are looking to make a profit and if they can be shown there is a profit they will leap on it.

If you really have the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed, it is time to make your sales pitch. Look at Tesla Motors for a good example. They are taking technology and putting it to profit by targeting the right customers for the right reasons. In your case you have a different battle, but are you looking at all the possible venues for this product? Automotive is just one venue (it may be the biggest, but not the only one). Maybe market penetration via another venue might be a way to crack the nut, so to speak. There are other possible starting points from farming to aerospace.

Once you start gathering a coalition of users and believers, it will take its own destiny and will.

If you hit a wall, think outside the box. Knock on another door or get a ladder. Obstacles are merely opportunities in disguise.

I understand your disbelief Pheonix. We had to do quite a bit of independent data verification to prove our claims.

Just to let you know, we are not looking at just vehicles. The engine is scalable and we have been looking at using it in various iterations for everything from lawn-mowers to locomotives.

In fact, our first engine is designed to produce only 50 horsepower, so might be practical for small vehicles, but will be able to power a multitude of other applications.

Our secondary engine (currently on the drawing board) will be capable of producing 250 horsepower with extremely high torque. This is the one that may be of interest to the motor companies. But, that one is a ways away yet.

Ageela

"I understand your disbelief Pheonix. "

ageela, your getting overwhelmed maybe? I think you meant anonymous hero

but to anonymous hero, walmart will not be interested until you reduce the cost from $1.00/gallon to $0.96/gallon.

phoenix911

...and reduce it another 4 cents a gallon every year from now on.

"Don't discount the "Big Oil" companies. They are looking to make a profit and if they can be shown there is a profit they will leap on it. "

I would advise caution here, because if you get them onboard, they may decide they may not need you and take the ball and run with it. And your stuck in court.

"Although it is true that the fuel does not possess the energy density of gasoline, it does possess many times more than hydrogen"

I assume you mean the "volume energy density", as hydrogen is much higher than gasoline by mass?

The last thing I would advise is to whisper in the ears of a major energy company as they likely would have the most to lose if your technology "took off". Back during the last energy crisis, when oil companies were flush with cash (as now), they saw the potential for King Coal to make a comeback. They countered that by buying up much of the major coal reserves in the US.

As to governmental bureaucracy, I am surprized that anyone finds their actions to be unusual. The majority of these bureaucrats are not technically astute enough to know a good idea when they see it. And, the governments approach has always been one of "If we put this off long enough, maybe they will go away". The only way to counter that is "persistence"; grind the bas__rds down.

You have to realize that allot of bureaucrats (not all) that job it is to make that kind of decisions. can only make decisions that fit the parameters given to them. Which is not only limited, be can be contradicting to itself. (then you get the run around, where these people hand it off)

You are looking at a overlooked fuel alternative. Thats the problem. There are no parameters for this "programmed" bureaucrat to follow. And I use the term program because of what my attorney told me, which I'll repeat to you.

These people are working at a job which pays 35,000 - 45,000/year. (benefits I am sure are great. But at that wage there is no incentive or reason to give even an positive response, why, because its not thier job.

So do not expect the government to step in back you up, with maybe an exception of making strategic donations to some committees.

I may sound bitter, but that is what I experienced with government, (other than the donations part, thats is my opinion)

Now that I aired that out, If you need government support, I would suggest you start networking yourself with politicians that are on committees, and begin to work it. on the fringes, as your contacts increase, so will the momentum. Remember, you are going to get tied up politically, meanwhile your alternative fuel may be developed or put to rest by other companies.

There is another way, odf what I have seen is, get your self a spokesman, such as Al Gore, or someone along those lines. This may be quicker but also expensive.

I wish I could be of farther help.

Best of luck,

phoenix911

Thanks Pheonix...

I agree with your experiences, and if you review the above answers, you might be able to see why getting at least some attention from applicable governmental agencies is important to us.

We are WAY past the funding stage, now we're moving into the socio-economic and political aspects of energy. We have little experience in this area which is why I threw this question out in the first place.

I have been in contact with several companies that are trying to develop practical energy-cell technologies and asked them what information or data they submitted to the government for review prior to receiving funding, recognition, evaluations, etc.

As far as I can tell, we have submitted all of this information, and much more, so I'm still at a bit of a loss. When your own Congressman gets the "run around", you have to think that something isn't really working all that well.

Ageela

"When your own Congressman gets the "run around", you have to think that something isn't really working all that well."

As much as I did I did not want to sound cynical. But the way it sounds you are on new grounds where there are no regulations, impact studies, or thing along those lines. It\s a new application at an overlooked resource. As I mentioned, The only way is to work it.

Hi Ageela.

I am so sorry to hear what they are hitting you with, or not hitting but only pretending (Water-boarding for inventors).

10 years ago I was in a very similar situation (not engines and fuel but water purification) and had to give in due to health reasons. This 'time out' period gave me more insight into how things work when the big boys really want to get what they are after. They will send you broke and your family and partners.

It also gave me the time to find other ways/applications for using my technology. I mentioned some part of it in an earlier post under 'free energy'. The suggestions I am about to make are not light hearted. If I would have the/a working prototype' like you have, I would do the following.

Step 1.

Withdraw your patents now so that they are not published/examined. That will give you more time to find investors. It will also make counter claims, prior knowledge etc impossible. If they find nothing similar they will start splitting hairs at your expense. I hope your partners are not as blue eyed as I was about the patent process.

12 months are over very soon and you will have to keep putting funds in to keeping the baby alive. Do not risk being overwhelmed by the yes sayers. They will turn with the wind if it comes to the crunch.

If you have a working proto type that is all you will need.

Next step would be to find a Film producer who is willing to film your endeavours as they happen. Make a movie and broadcast. You have to give away nothing regarding the technology/inner workings. Just keep a lid on it. If the script is written by Life who needs special effects. Show them that it works. Show them who is sucking whom dry and how. Public out cry can sometimes help. You want people leaving the movie theater crying and angry. Ask Mel Gibson. If he can take on the church he might take on the people throwing spanners in the works.

It is possibly easier to find funding for the movie (and not as risky) than to go all the way with an invention which at any stage could be blown out of the water and will, even if you have patent Attorneys and the funds to keep them happy.

Contact High ranking actors, Directors etc. If they believe what they see and you can demonstrate that if something goes wrong only the bureaucracy is to blame then you could be on a winner.

I would go and watch such slaughter any day. Real life struggle. For the people calling you paranoid it could be an eye opener. I have an idea/script on how to set up such a movie but will refrain from telling you what it would involve. Not that it would be boring but the wrong forum. What I can tell you is that it would take an executive producer with guts to take it on. And money and political connections to inform the public about what is going on out there. They will be the ones saving $$ and doing something for the environment.

This concept would also involve the major players in the fields of applications of your invention. It would all come out in one big wash and if the movie is successful you can go back to your Attorneys and pay them from those proceeds.

Remember, part of the marketing is already done. If I could only have some of your optimism, and not the scars that will never heal, I would have a more relevant answer to your catch 22 situation. Let me call it a caught 44 to be more realistic.

If you want to handle this the regulated way you will not be healthy enough to harvest the proceeds. You and your partners will lose. The big boys will win. If what you are suggesting doesn't work you are in trouble. If it does work you are in even more trouble. I promise I will pay my movie ticket to make it a success.

My wife just walked past and asked what I was doing. (She stuck to me all those years). I explained and she replied: "poor bastards".

Ky= Cynic: No. Realist: Yes. Alive: Yes. If I could only help!!

A pity you can't inform us with more details. It would be helpful for us to see what you are really up to. All the best. Ky.

yes - if it truly is "completely benign to the environment both during manufacture and use", I'm sure Al Gore would be glad to sit on your board of directors, and his buds at Apple and Google could pony up all the cash you would ever need - with none of that government paperwork.

Are We Overloking a Better Alternative Fuel?

Dunno...maybe if you actually tell us something we could comment?

So what is it?

I read all that...and no punchline...

????????????

Del

I don't think that the poster is marketing the alternative fuel as much as the disappointment it has dealing with bureaucracy trying to be proactive.

but yes I would like to know, damned curiosity, you must be contiguous Del.

On a slightly more helpful note than my previous (grumpy) comment.

I've found a policy of ...

'If you don't want to get turned down, don't ask the question' works wonders.

Once you do 'whatever it is you want to do'... 'they' have to prove it's illegal/dangerous etc, by then you have data to show it's fine.

As long as you don't break laws and show 'due diligence' in safety matters, risk assessment and all that cr*p they will have an up hill struggle 'getting in your way'.

To sumarize... don't let 'em see you..then they can't get in the way!

Del

good post,

"To sumarize... don't let 'em see you..then they can't get in the way!"

Reminds me when I worked for an OEM, I had a motto, "get the order, get it designed, get it built and get it out the door before anybody (execs, or family of the owner) finds out. Because when they do find out, you feel the momentum stop, due to all about nothing.

Yup..2 of my best designs were 'in spite of' not 'because of' the company...One project had actually been rejected by the PAC ( 'Product Approval Committee' doesn't that fill you with despair?)

Del

It got so bad, it was all I could do to deal with the internals of the company, just so engineering and fabrication could function.

PAC? How do you get on this committee?

I never had a problem though, designs worked, company made money, and I think I left before I went nuts. , i hope i did

and better for it.

I was on the committee!!! It was a staying awake contest mostly but the secretary was a good laugh!

That was my previous employer... I've slowly moved to smaller and smaller companies.

There are 7 workers where I am now (but 8 employees )

I can imagine the meetings.

I found a way around negative management.

To buy something you management a ridiculous quote. Just about as they want to reject it you show the the alternative product (which is what you wanted in any case). It works every time!!

Another hobby of mine (except CR4) is to comment on draft law. I at least make one way out proposal leaving them with something they can reject. It is a win win situation. Ok clever has met his match - they have accepted one of the booby traps.

This procedure can be adapted for any purpose.

OP should look in CR4 for a whopper of a free energy (PM) proposal and try and raise funding for it. If rejected he can submit his real proposal.

With crude going for $94 we will soon need some magic free energy.

Thats what the burden is, depending on the situation I would give them also a plan 'b'.

But I have found it to be faster to give them enough information for the best way of implementing a project, with out actually calling it, and let management come up with the 'idea'. since they thought they came up with it, they felt that they did thier part and stop interfering.

One can only do this so long before you feel you are no longer engineering projects but engineering situations. ?

If the technology is viable as you say. Then start now using it to produce electricity. Even if you set up a small generator in your garage where your making the fuel the utility companies have to pay you for the electricity produced. You may want to look at some of the laws pasted to promote that back yard inventor. I believe one of them was the forcing of the utility companies to by electricity produced.

If the technology can produce cheap electricity. Profits should allow you to expand pretty quickly. Then you will have all the attention you will want and may longer need those investors.

All of the above comments are on-point and very appreciated.

You are all correct in that I am not trying to market the technology at this time.

My company and myself have been involved in the aerospace and defense industry for quite a while and have learned it is wise to "sell no wine before it's time".

Financing has already been secured, and we are moving steadily along towards the secondary prototypical engine.

Putting myself in the position of potential consumers, I would surely be skeptical of a technology that seems "too good to be true", so I am trying very hard not to oversell it or it's potential.

It is exactly this intent that is prompting me to participate with both of the universitys I mentioned, have independent lab tests done to verify our results, and get the governmental agencies that will have an effect on the technologies proliferation identified and notified. You will notice that the only steps that I do not have control over are the ones that we are experiencing our major problems with.

It has been my previous experience that once the above steps have been accomplished, the rest follows. Hence, my frustration in getting the various governmental departments that we need to notify and "get on board" and my lack of success there.

Ageela

there are many alternative fuels. The USA has done a lo of work on boron based jet fuels. They work, but cost extra, but at some point might become cheaper.

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

more on google.

alcohols all work, but since the have some oxygen in them already, they make less heat on burning.

The concept you are promoting sounds like a tech scam.

It has all the earmarks of a technical scam, secrecy due to patents applied, but we all know that once you have applied for a patent that is recorded and if some one hears about it, your have priority and a year priority on other countries as well.

These NDA documents are in fact only useful if someone wants to publish your data. If they sign and quietly tell a friend, the NDA is worthless.

Goodness, I seem to have started a bit of a fire storm....

Gentlemen, let me be clear. When I say that my fuel has many times the energy density of hydrogen but not as much as gasoline, I am referring to energy per cubic centemeter, not by weight.

As far as being a "technical scam", I have had to listen to that reaction many times, and it just doesn't bother me any more.

It was this doubt that prompted us to build and test a prototypical engine. The engine worked as projected, but skeptics still search for a reason for it not to work.

When I say that the average consumer can "make it in their own garage" it is absolutely true. My scientific staff has developed a unit (about the size of a dorm-room refrigerator" that uses household electrical current and a feed stock (no, I won't tell you what feed stock) to produce approximately 5 gallons of this fuel per day. Since I doubt that this fuel will be available as you travel the interstate any time soon, this means that for commuters or those who travel only "around town" it should work just fine.

One of my guys is currently working on a way to put the fuel generator in a vehicle itself, making it mobile. This means that if you want to go to Grandma's house for a visit, you would be able to "plug" the vehicle in, provide the feed stock, and generate the fuel within the vehicle itself.

There is nothing magical about the fuel, you must put energy in to get energy out, and this energy is provided through the reaction of the feedstock and the electricity. So I tell people to think of this fuel as more of an "energy storage medium" rather than a tradtional fuel.

As far as "teasing" all of you with inadequate information regarding the technology, please remember that my original posting was not intended to garner either technical information or money, but to explore others experiences in dealing with governmental indifference.

But, having said that, I know that many of you are curious about the technology and would like more information (I know I would in your place) so, I will promise all of you that as it is possible (by that, I mean when my attorney says it is safe) I will be glad to explain more.

I hope this clarification helps.

Ageela

You are talking to technical people here, clearity is essential.

Gentlemen, let me be clear. When I say that my fuel has many times the energy density of hydrogen but not as much as gasoline, I am referring to energy per cubic centemeter, not by weight.

Why on earth would you present it in such a way?? Engine BSFC is always quoted in units of mass, not volume, and for excellent reasons. Imagine how difficult it would be to talk about the energy of some volume of hydrogen if you don't know whether it is at atmospheric or 5000 psi or 10,000 psi, at 0 C or 100 C, or as a liquid. If you are talking about using a fuel in an engine, and are talking about its energy value in such usage, then you have to talk in terms of mass -- all your alleged scientists could hardly fail to know this.

For any of this to have any credibility whatsoever, you will have to say exactly what tests you wanted the EPA and DOE to perform, and under what authority (what legal statute) they would be empowered to perform such testing for a commercial firm.

Why would an attorney suggest going to the EPA? Isn't that like an criminal attorney suggesting that a client go to the police for an opinion? The world you describe is not one I've had exposure to in the US. My dealings with the EPA have been cordial, and even OSHA has been open and helpful: when they been less than cheery, there has been good cause. I've contracted with DARPA, NIH, and other governmental bodies, and found them to act within their mandates.

What had you hoped that the DOE would say about your fuel? "Yes, our research shows it burns." ??

If your intent is simply to whine about government agencies, then to be effective, you will need to spell out specifically what it is that the law requires them to do for you and how they failed to do that.

Have you told your attorney about this conversation? If I was your attorney I would be having a complete heart attack about putting even this amount of info on the interenet for all to see....

If he/she does not have a heart attack, get a new attorney!!!

No offense, but have you read any of the other alternative energy posts on this site?

check out Masu's series on the future of energy, good stuff!

Don't fool yourself what you are doing is not so different than academia. You surely figured out who was important w/in your department & how to assure your place,get grants, resources, choices classes............

I would suggest aligning w/a local government to generate power or the easiest of all heat. Gather up ever more important government backers.

the threshold before EPA or air resources become involved for hot water or heat generation is relatively high, mobile sources always have a much higher profile.

This would allow you to do more extensive testing & data gathering under different conditions.

Keep us informed

Del's got it right

just go forward & act as if you have acceptance from the EPA & DOE, nothing succeeds like success.

-

Aurizon has very accurate perceptions of the whole patent/nondisclousure situation.

if you can't afford to defend you don't have a patent

if you don't trust the people you're dealing with, don't talk about it!

a typical NDA won't even make decent toilet paper [not soft enough]

-

all that being said you have a tough road ahead, a new fuel is hard enough

add to that needing unique equipment to utilize this fuel, makes any meaningful market share decades away.

-

let us know if we can be of any help, but please stop teasing us or the abuse is going to start soon.

good luck

They may sit on it for a long time. As that the petroleum industries are making large profits. Many of which have elected politicians in their pockets to insure the profits stay that way.

Some of the politicians have large fortunes in oil stocks and utilities. Why would the want to cut their own purse.

I think you will have to find means to force the issue. If you use what resources you have available to produce electrical energy. They will not be able to shut you down with out just cause. Plus you will have better control over technology.

You have the engine. You have the fuel. You have funding. Simply put your 50 HP engine in a motorcycle frame, and give it to the EPA for testing. For a motorcycle, it only costs a couple thousand dollars for a certificate. Then build the motorcycles in volume. Done.

The hurdles sound fictitious. Loads of people are driving cars on home made fuel. Where's is the problem? Start selling your product.

You claim "many times the energy density of hydrogen." This would be an absolutely astounding fuel, given that gasoline has about 1/3 the wallop per pound of hydrogen. By "many" can I assume you mean 3 or 4 times the energy density? That would put your fuel at about 10 times the energy density of gasoline.

Are you telling the truth?

If so, why are you not in production with these engines and this incredible fuel?

Thanks for the fuel comparison. I am wondering the same things.

A French lady once said "If they cannot afford bread why don't the eat cake?"

"made in your own garage" - In a "You must be joking film" of some time ago the driver of the car stops at a gas station and told the attendant to fill the tank with water, dropped a tablet in the tank and drove away. That would be nice. (Except that he had a dummy tank on the car).

MEDIA! MEDIA! MEDIA!

Put together a Flashy Presentation, use professionals.

Get a Public Relations type.

Get on the News Shows like The TODAY SHOW, Good Morning America, etcetera.

And if you can pull it off, The OPRAH Show.

The Discovery Channel. Popular Science Magazine, and Popular Mechanics.

In other words you want a Media Blitz that will inform tens of millions of US Citizens of your invention and galvanize a few of them to start nudging their Elected Officials to do something.

High oil prices and a cold winter are definitely in your favor for getting major public interest in anything that can save them money, OH, and the Environment.

Lastly, do not be shy. When you get your "Dog and Pony Show" together call "Mr. Green", Al Gore.

When "John and Jane Q. Public" get galvanized about something, things get done!

And the "Media is the Message."

Good Luck.

Thanks for your input...

If you read some of the comments posted above, you will see that some believe that this technology is a bit of a scam. It is my position that to attempt a public relations blitz or something of that sort would damage the technology's integrity.

I am a former college professor, and as such, I pay much more attention to data and documentation, not to advertisement.

It is one thing to demonstrate a technology with a "glitzy" presentation, it is another to demonstrate the technology with reliable data...

I am reminded of the "cold fusion" fiasco a few years ago, when a professor in Utah created a feeding frenzy regarding his claims. The results of this and attempts to replicate his reactions have had mixed results but the main reactions among the scientific and academic communities have been to now view this individual with skepticisism and suspicion. I really want to avoid that.

Ageela

ageela

Use your contacts at the university's I work for the chem eng dept of UH and high up's from GM come through here on a weekly basis checking our catalyst & fuel cell research.

One problem I think you already have in this forum is that (as I read it) your later revelation didn't correspond exactly to what appeared as the initial promise. What I'm trying to say is that you apparently wrote about taking the energy from the grid - in which case what you are describing would be a storage technology, rather than a basic fuel. It could be useful and convenient if the product is as at least safe (including volatility and biological properties) as gasoline. But I don't see how that solves any basic problems. Please say if I've misread something.

My advice would be to secure a patent for your invention. Bringing too much attention prior to that would be opening the doors for the "patent busters" to hop on board before you've got legal claims to the technology. Having secured a patent at least allows you the option of licensing the technology if another company wants to or is currently pursuing similar technology. Having gone through the patent process myself, I can assure you that it could take years to secure one for your invention. They do a thorough job at the USPTO and getting a patent for your claims will give you a solid foundation with which to continue your efforts. A good patent attorney is also crucial at the stage you're at.

Thanks...Steve

"My advice would be to secure a patent for your invention. Bringing too much attention prior to that would be opening the doors for the "patent busters" to hop on board before you've got legal claims to the technology."

too late,You are correct

Something like this should have been developed, until a press release to the consumer. Then all you have to deal with is security leaks.

Have you tried talking to technical people lower in the DOE chain?

NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) in Colorado has an advanced fuels and vehicles division and an energy analysis division. (http://www.nrel.gov/)

If you've talked to the DOE about testing, they are probably the people that would do the testing.

As far as your proprietary worries, the publicity stunts other people talked about sound surprisingly reasonable to me. Make a silly name and catch phrase for the technology, put up a website that talks about the technology without talking about technical details, get in some magazines or on TV, and just move ahead with proving your technology.

You said you are working with universities - any good engineering university will have student design competition teams doing things like hydrogen combustion, fuel cell, solar, autonomous, baja, or other cars/vehicles. Maybe getting a prototype engine into one of those cars would make a name for your company.

You could also consider doing something like entering the Automotive X Prize (http://auto.xprize.org/). Even if you don't have a car, you could enter and demo the engine and fuel in a public, well documented setting that would give your technology the legitimacy it lacks when you can't talk about it.

I agree with prbarry. Don't be greedy, think about the technology and how it can benefit people. Send all of the information out as open source material. If your name is associated with it some manner and it works, you'll not have trouble with money in the future I'm sure. It's becoming harder and harder to maintain ownership rights on information anyway and that's why musicians are beginning to decentralize the music industry by offering their songs for free online w/ option of donation.

"Don't be greedy, think about the technology and how it can benefit people. Send all of the information out as open source material. If your name is associated with it some manner and it works, you'll not have trouble with money in the future I'm sure"

So where is this Shan Gri La world you come from? That last 2 words in the quote I listed from your post tells me you have no experience in matters like that. I'll take it as your opinion and value it as such.

By the way, Have you made a donation to Mr. Farnsworth ever time you turned on your Television?

Get real.

You may have heard the old saying: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help! If you contacted 1,000 creative or manufacturing businesses, I'm sure you'd get enough horror stories to write a book. There's a story circulating about "this company" that works for you and me, employs 500 + people, and among the employees, they have the following: 29 accused of beating their spouses; 7 arrested for fraud; 19 in trouble for bouncing checks; 117 have bankrupted at least 2 companies; 3 have been arrested for assult; 71 can't qualify for a credit card, their credit is so bad; 14 arrested or accused of smoking funny stuff; 8 arrested for shop lifting; 21 are current defendants in law suits; and 84 have been arrested for drunken driving. Do you know who "this company" is? It's the U.S. Congress. So, don't expect that our senators and congressmen are there to help us. There may be some dedicated members of Congress, but..... You story is not surprising. Do you have any idea how much money we could save if we cleaned our governmental house and got rid of all the imcompetents and slackers, the nepotism-hires to pad the incomes of some families? Tens of Billions!! But most would then qualify for welfare, food stanps, etc and we'd spend the money in that way.

As we all know, anything not expressly forbidden by law in the US can be considered legal.

Cite the laws that require you to get some sort of approval from the DOE to start selling your miracle fuel that is ten times as potent as gasoline but 1/3 the cost. There is no need to ask the DOE to put some stamp of approval on your fuel or engine -- that is not their function. If you are violating a law, they will find you, not the other way around.

Getting the EPA approval for burning your stuff in your own style of lawnmower engine is as simple as can be, if, as you claim, you have funding. This costs a few thousand, not millions. For a lawnmower engine, passing the requirements are profoundly simple -- just look at the typical lawnmower engine -- it is essentially devoid of any type of emission control whatsoever. You've already done the testing, you claim, and have found your fuel environmentally benign. Start building those lawn mowers! One gallon of your stuff, at 10 times the energy density of gasoline would last a couple seasons, and only cost a $1. If your investors are sane, they'll be pushing hard to bring this scheme to market. Once people see your lawn mowers, leaf blowers, tractors and chain saws, they'll be beating your doors down to get automotive, and other, engines. You've filed the patents -- that's all the protection you need -- if you need to litigate, then you'd better get product on the market to generate the capital to do so. The DOE and EPA aren't going to file any infringement suit for you. I'd say that if your patent attorney is saying "Sit on this, and don't try to get any return on investment until the patent is granted." then you need to find a new attorney.

The EPA site is very helpful in showing exactly what is required to get certification. They even post the actual certification forms that Honda supplied for one of their motorcycle models. It's anything but rocket science. If, as you claim, you have a staff of scientists, they can figure it out.

If you're having a problem with a particular law, then post the section of law here, and perhaps we can help.

Here's another alternative: do an unpaid internship with any of the hundreds of little companies that have brought new fuels to market, successfully and quickly.

Humans who control events will normally prevent good things from happening. If they allow good things to happen and good inventions to be accepted, they will be mere spectators. After a long time, when the initiators of good things and inventions have been forgotten, the controllers might allow the events. Then they will be gods. This is normal human behavior. Most managers in government and industry are normal control people who often unconsciously try to prevent good things from happening. Workers and initiators must learn to bypass the controllers. My suggestion to you is to take some of the advice offered by others on this subjuct. Do whatever you can to bypass the DOE and other entities until the public demands that they allow you to move forward with your project. Always preface your public announcements with the acknowledgement that your product and others like it will not replace current energy sources but will add to them. Every lump of coal and every drop of oil will be removed from the earth and used to produce energy. We can use every additional source of energy we can devise. Keep up your good work.

Do I really have to do my Damon Runyan quote again?

"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come up to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an earful of cider."

I have read all of your comments this evening with great interest. As would be expected, the comments range from sage advice to calling me an idiot .

Believe it or not, this is exactly what I was searching for when I began this blog. Like most people, I am exposed to a limited number of people and opinions, and being able to see the various responses is, indeed, a learning experience for me.

For those of you who disagree with our manner of measurement, my only defense is that my head physicist is a former department head at NASA, and that is the way he measures volumes and potential reactions.

For those of you who think I have shared too much information in this forum, I would challenge you to tell me what the "feed stock" I refer to is. This is the "secret ingredient" and the technology will not work without it.

For those of you who make comments (disparaging and encouraging) regarding the government, my reply is that I am already a battle-scarred veteran of the invention and patenting process. We have had a number of patentable projects literally "snatched" from under our noses by major companys. Where we have enjoyed the greatest security is when we have been recognized by various governmental agencies (DOD, DARPA, NRL, etc.) as a distinct technology prior to it's general introduction. It appears to be difficult for others to claim your technology as their own when a governmental agency has already recognized it as new and innovative.

And, lastly, for those of you who feel that this is a "pie in the sky" technology, I am completely unable to defend myself to you without revealing much more of the technology than would be prudent. To these nay-sayers, I also give my thanks, as your skepticism and questions are the very ones that I have (and shall continue) to encounter as I move forward.

I can also provide you with one new piece of information. Today, we have negotiated the cooperation of one of the world's foremost ceramic laboratories to not only assist in the design and production of certain portions of the engine, but to continue their participation with us through the component evaluation phase. This was a major coup for our technology and should help us to gain a bit more cooperation from the governmental agencies we are pursuing.

Thanks for all of your comments, and please keep 'em coming. I'm learning as we go.

Ageela

Hi ageela

Very kind and thoughtful response. I hope you will find more true believers in your fuel/engine idea. They will assist you and your partners achieving what you have set out to bring to the market.

I agree, CR4 is a good place to be. They have helped and will assist many others in the future.

Good Luck. Ky.

I meant follow the link, there's nearly a year of commentary, argument, advice....

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/902/Possible-Technologies-for-Future-Energy-and-Power-Production

on all sorts of different possibilities from reality to absurdity.

PS this is just a thread.

Nice to get a lucid and courteous response .

I really don't understand why you need "acceptance of the technology" by some governmental agency. You say the following in post #57:

"Where we have enjoyed the greatest security is when we have been recognized by various governmental agencies (DOD, DARPA, NRL, etc.) as a distinct technology prior to it's general introduction. It appears to be difficult for others to claim your technology as their own when a governmental agency has already recognized it as new and innovative."

Well, your technology has already been recognized by a government agency as new and innovative--it's called the USPTO (if you indeed have a patent). If it is security you are looking for from some govt. agency you'll get no more than what your patent offers.

You seem to be looking for some kind of "endorsement" of your technology from a govt. agency that will identify this as THE new technology for the world to adopt, set governmental agencies on a path of affinity with you and pave the way for the success of your technology to the exclusion of other fuels and engines. However, government agencies don't "endorse" anything and they won't "evaluate" anything unless they have guidelines, criteria, regulations or standards by which to make some kind of an evaluation. If you tell the EPA that your fuel produces zero carbon emissions, you must set up the tests to prove it, and all they will do is evaluate the method you used to determine the results you claim. They won't endorse your fuel or your engine and they will do everything they can think of to impune your test methods and results.

Government agencies are not going to help you and if you pursue them, asking for their cooperation (in any form), they will obstruct you. If your investors want to know what governmental obstacles they will face in the introduction of a new fuel/technology/engine, simply tell them that it will probably be the same route that ethanol has followed, from backyard stills in the 60s to giant refining plants today.

I would advise you to forget any govt. agency help. Build you engines, put them in motor scooters and urban vehicles, dozens of them, and let the world see them run. Make your fuel in an open manner (you don't have to disclose the 'secret ingredient') fill the tanks, run fuel economy tests and publish the results. After you do the government can't stop you--they can only figure out which regulations you will need to comply with. If you really have a marketable (practical) alternative fuel and engine the market will overwhelm any governmental attempts to stop you. Good luck.

PS--Question: What is the name of the technology(s) that you have previously had recognized by governmental agencies( DOD, DARPA, NRL ) as a distinct technology prior to its general introduction, as you claim in the above quoted paragraph?

Very well put.

I am bringing an ultra-high mpg vehicle to market, as are the Aptera people. I have not been obstructed in any way, shape, or form by "big oil" the DOE, OSHA, DOD, DOT, or any other agency. The USPTO has even made it very easy to do patent searches and have immediate access to forms, etc -- and they will give me a monopoly on my technology!! (How can that be seen as a hindrance?) The Aptera people have announced that their vehicle gets 230 mpg. Where are the death threats against them; where are the government agency people lurking in the corners?

The people I know from these government agencies are people who could (ogmagod!) live right next door!

Ken

is your situation similar [epa,dot]to the companies building choppers, they are exempt until production reaches 25 or so? by selling kits or having lets call them franchises production can quickly add up.

What fuel will you be using?

When will we be able to buy one?

Hi Garth:

No, I'm not exempt, but having three wheels makes the vehicle a motorcycle. The engine is not a motorcycle engine, so I will need to adapt the fuel injection and catalyst from a motorcycle (which is slight, but only slight, overkill -- the limits have been tightened, so that motorcycles can no longer emit large multiples of what a large car emits -- but they are still much looser). The DOT regulations are effectively, nothing -- just the obvious lighting, mirrors, barely adequate brakes, DOT tires, etc. But to make this marketable, we will match fore and aft crash protection of a small car* and will do better than the typical small car on side protection (by virtue of some IP). We'll need to get EPA certification for the engine, just like any motorcycle manufacturer, but fortunately, the fee is much lower than for a car.

Fuel: gasoline/grid -- I don't want to to the basic research to make a small diesel really clean, and licensing Mercedes tech, but still having to create the hardware, is just too much for a small company to handle, I think -- also I think clean diesels are too new -- who wants a tank full of pee? With mpg over 100, the difference in consumption is not a real issue, either environmentally or especially cost-wise. In fact, re cost, I figured, using comparable quality engines, that the cost differential would mean an 18 year break-even on the additional cost of a diesel.

The vehicle is a series plug-in hybrid, so that it is easy to ditch the engine and add batteries, making a full electric. We'll offer both versions, and will offer two battery versions on the full electric: SLA and the hot (hopefully not really) battery of the day when the vehicle is released. For the latter, the batteries will be a large percentage of vehicle price, and I'd like to think (but don't) that lots of people will get the long range full-electric version -- but it will have to cost substantially more than the PHEV**. I think most people will go for the PHEV -- the amount of fuel used is so small, that they can feel good about generating a tiny fraction of the emissions of a typical vehicle. I'd like to think that all the full electric and PHEVs coming out will drive the prices of high energy density batteries down, and that in 5 years, there will be a huge move toward electric vehicles. Then its "just" a matter of cleaning up the grid, and putting 480V 500 amp service at every Starbucks.

When can you buy one:

At the end of 2008 we plan to take pre orders, with summer 2009 deliveries. Given enough funding, we could accelerate that a little, but the Aptera folks will probably beat us to market -- they plan to deliver in early 2009 -- but their market is quite different, strange as that may seem.

*this is requires some disclaimers and qualifications: a five star small car, head on into a five star big car, looses. But crush space is cheap from an aerodynamic and mass point of view -- so we can do better than five star in terms of the peak accelerations during the test. This vehicle won't be as short as a Smart car -- because for the vast majority of Americans, parking in a small spot is really not an issue -- I'll leave the dense in-city market to others.

** rambling re PHEVs: If GM actually brings their PHEV to market, I think it will be one of their better decisions -- and it makes me squirm to say anything good about GM -- how can they produce the most dangerous vehicle on the roads, in a weight class that should make it among the safest, for seven or eight years straight?? Honda, about whom I have strongly positive feelings, having raced them, fixed them, owned many, and managed a service dept that fixed them -- is I think, screwing up by not bringing out a PHEV, and even more so by publicly criticizing GM for doing so. Suddenly, this company that has done so many neat things, seems defensive. They say either diesel, or straight electric, no PHEV. But who knows... maybe they know something, and have a 400 mile battery lined up and are just waiting to pounce after others have sounded out the market. But I doubt it: the Hybrid Accord has been cancelled because sales were atrocious, the Hybrid Civic sells less than 1/4 the numbers of Priuses, and Toyota is dong so well with the Prius that they are planning a Prius brand. I think Honda needs Soichiro.

Ken

think of all the possibilities blue tec brings. "but ociffer we have to drink & drive we're on a long trip"

could you expand your explanation of why a full electric costs more than phev?

what sort of range for both?

& which market your aiming for & why that would be different than Apertura's?

Ageela,

Interesting way of using CR4's resources.

I don't know if its compliment or abuse........a compliment for now it seems.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

And if you want opinions you came to the right place, keep in mind, as you have experience i'm sure, when you talk loose, you will be called upon to back up your information.

I do not think you gave away anything of value, as you saw when you did how it was tore apart.

Best of luck with your endeavor's,

phoenix911

Did you really surmise that the DOE which is very "heavy" with personnel intrinsically tied to "big oil" and "big utilities" would even remotely consider allowing you or anyone else to impact the contents of their wallets? Our family developed a multi-fuel engine that would adjust fuel-to-oxygen-to-compression ratio via CPU based controls back in the mid-eighties. It's fuel consumption efficiency and low cost for production was clearly superior to anything being used at that time and is superior to anything being used today although not to the same degree as in the eighties due to recent improvements. We met with the same results even to the extent that two of the "big-three" US based automakers threatened us with extensive, time-consuming litigation in a very concerted effort aimed at preventing the engine and technology from ever being introduced to the US public. Quote;"We do not have to win the suit, only prolong it to the extent to which it becomes economically infeasible for you to enter into production and marketing."

The "big-three" and "big-utilities" have warehouses and libraries full of marvelous inventions and technological "break-throughs" they have bought for basically naught over the last twenty or so years. Ever wonder why a mid-sized pickup which weighs less than 2/3 of a full-sized pickup gets about the same gas mileage? The laws-of-physics loudly scream this should not be so but indeed it is so with the smaller vehicle only getting 1 or 2 miles-per-gallon better fuel efficiency. I remember when the Nissan Sentra and the Honda Civic would get over 40 MPG. Wonder why they do not do so today? And.. is it true that in Japan there are ultra-sonic clothes washing machines which use less than 1/10 of the energy our conventional machines in the US consume and which are being denied importation into this country? Check it out and please let me know if is so.

I imagine your situation as well as ours is directly connected to the negative impact to the US economy (loss of revenues for the largest capital producing companies in the US. ie. Energy) and the resultant "fallout". I do not think any device, technology, or changes in existing energy consumption that would cause an immediate impact to our economy will ever be allowed. Instead, the needed or required changes will be slowly adopted over a schedule devised to limit "loss of revenues" to our major businesses of which the energy giants are "at-the-top".

We do so much hope you succeed. GOOD LUCK and HANG IN THERE!

SHOCKHISCAN

"Joe say it ain't so!"

The only basis they would have to sue you is infingement of their patents.

So want revenge, publish the secrets and watch the market use it.

Ageela, I am in the same situation, with a technology that is being suppressed. Contact me at xvxfuzzyxvx@aol.com for additional information

I am just wondering with all the problems that you have with the red tape of government agencies if that is what you really wanted in the first place. May be the personnel that you have know or look for any other way. They have work with or for government for so long that is what they know.

They most likely even approached investors that they knew who's businesses where tied up with governmental bureaucracy.

From the comments you have made this "red-tape roadblock" has been self created.

I you are really sure of what you have then fight the bureaucracy. You owe the government nothing because we are the government.

We due owe are children a brighter future may be what you have may help.

This sounds to me as a steam engine using ceramic to avoid losses- the feedstock is water, the energy is electricity, & the storage is either a pressure tank or a new type of device- the idea was in New Scientist 15/12/2001. If I had an alternative cheap fuel/engine, I would either say nothing, or if being pressured, release the details to public- then again I may be completely mistaken here- there are no doubts in my mind that vested interests will stop at nothing to stop an interloper, if profits are involved(& they would be!)- the interests of the Earth & humanity don't even figure!!.

Hello all...

I do not wish to be accused of "teasing" all of you, but I did want to inform you that this is not a steam engine.

As I'm sure most of you can understand, I am firmly on the horns of a dillema. My first instinct is to share this technology with interested professionals and get their inputs, but my attorney and partners feel (as do I) that until we have taken additional steps, this would be imprudent and potentially dangerous.

For those of you who have submitted and defended patents, you know that if specific information on the patentable technology is shared prior to accomplishing all of the patent actions, it is grounds to deny the patent itself.

If we were talking about only one patent here, that would be different, since we are currently in "patent pending" status. However, there are several supporting patents currently in the works that bear directly on the technology. If I was to explain more fully, these patents would be in danger.

I would like very much to be able to share information with all of you, as it becomes available, and I will continue to do so, but please don't think that I'm trying to tease or tempt you all.

Again, thank you all for your inputs.

Ageela

For those of you who have submitted and defended patents, you know that if specific information on the patentable technology is shared prior to accomplishing all of the patent actions, it is grounds to deny the patent itself.

This is not true as written, if by "all the patent actions" you mean all the actions required to get the patent issued (which can take years). Perhaps, you were trying to say something else. If you have submitted even a provisional patent application that adequately describes the invention, then you can talk about it all you want in public, and that is not grounds for "denying the patent". It may be foolish, and it may prompt another to file a patent that skirts yours, (or is a substantial improvement that renders yours useless) but it is not grounds for denying the patent. In fact, that is the reason for the provisional application process: to give you an early filing date, giving you protection from that date, and to enable you to talk about the idea to get funding. Even offering to sell and selling the patentable invention for up to a year prior to filing any application is not grounds for denying the patent. (Foolish, yes... but not grounds for denying a patent.)

If the invention is inadequately described in the application, and if, in the examination process, you change the description to what is essentially a new invention, then you no longer have the advantage of the earlier date, other than for the specific attributes that are described in the original application.

For example, you could start to powder polyethylene waste for use as a fuel, and begin to sell it. Even under that condition, you can still file a patent within a year. However, if someone takes that basic idea and a couple days after you offer it for sale, decides to gasify and liquefy polyethylene, making it usable in diesels and distributable by existing channels, then he could patent that idea, citing your idea as prior art, and claiming his idea as a major improvement. Your idea would still be patentable but would be effectively useless by comparison, perhaps relegated to use in things like wood stoves. So, by releasing the details of your powdered polyethylene you have not caused the patent to be denied, you've simply enabled someone else to improve upon your idea, making your idea pretty obsolete.

I'd think you are wise not to discuss details, especially if modification of existing engines is any more complicated than changing injection nozzles, etc. After all, diesels can burn a wide range of fuels (liquid and gaseous) with simple modifications. If your fuel is so different that it requires a new engine, market acceptance will be very very slow, and cars will have long since gone to electricity. If someone, by your disclosure, finds a way to make your fuel fit into the existing infrastructure and installed base of engines, then by having talked about your invention you will have obsoleted it. Perhaps, by not talking about it, and this includes not revealing it to DOE, EPA, (and especially any politician) etc., you can give yourself time to alter the fuel to fit with existing engines and distribution methods.

New engines for existing fuels (think Wankel) are a very hard sell. New fuels for old engines are easier, but not easy by any stretch -- they must at very least fit the distribution system, which means they can be pumped as slugs down the pipelines. (Consider CNG -- a great fuel -- that is now all but impossible to buy for motor vehicles.) A fuel that is new and requires a new engine sounds absolutely impossible, unless you have the resources of an Exxon and a Toyota, combined.

So if you keep quiet about it, and use your time to make it work in existing engines, then you'd be far ahead -- rather than enabling someone else to do that. Talking about it, in its current state, to DOE or EPA or anyone else, would be a big mistake, in my view.

Another example, to illustrate: suppose you decided to run an engine on sugar. You come up with an air fluidizing system, and inject confectioner's sugar, carried on compressed air, into a diesel (perhaps using a small amount of diesel fuel to time and start combustion). You talk about it, and someone thinks (obviously) that it would be better to change the sugar into ethanol so that it would burn in standard engines. (We're of course assuming this was not already well known tech). Suddenly, your powered sugar fuel and highly modified engine is useless. If you had taken time to reflect, you, instead of the other guy, would have come up with idea to make alcohol.

Consider, also, how difficult it is to market fuels for which the infrastructure and vehicles exist. E85, biodiesel, CNG, LPG are all things on which vehicles will run -- but they are all tiny niches, even with existing engines.

I agree with your comments Ken.

I am not an attorney, but I put their kids through college,

I understand that if you had the "artwork" of an idea that can be certifiable. notarized and such. And some one has a patent on your artwork working totally different paths and can be just coincidence, what would hold up in court is that oldest certifiable dated artwork.

And that is only in this country. Europe and Japan is, who patented first.

Either way, when it goes to court, you pay.

What is this about not being able to publish until the patent is granted? Once you have applied, anything in your application that is new will be protected provided that you proceed all the way to grant. You do take some risk with publishing, for example:
that what is in the original application is deemed not clear enough or not novel by the patent examiners, and that clarifications are made (not necessarily by yourself) based on what you have written; or
that you cannot gain more time or integrate additional data (with later priority) because someone else patents or publishes that first (based on your disclosures).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalus

Last I heard Methanol was superior to Ethanol as far as an alternate fuel that burns was concerned. Since burning everything up is making things hotter, the fuel cell seems superior, and the thing to commit to and build systems and infrastructure around. Hydrogen generation has recently made great strides as far as effciency of production methods requiring less and less outside imput of electrical stimulus. Over the past month on GlobalSpec there was the company that announced a fuel cell working from sewage, and then just this last Friday on NPRs Science Friday another way of making Hydrogen was discussed.

Could well be that better burning stuff is overlooked, but seems to me we are coming to a tipping point where burning things on micro levels as well as macro levels, whatever you are burning, are transitional technologies, as opposed to transformational technologies.

Hence regardless of the coolness of making something move burning something else I am coming closer and closer to saying a committment to fuel cells and hydrogen based systems, infrastructure, and machinery makes the most sence in the big picture.

As far as patents and politics are concerned, and your machine and fuel are concerned, I'd study the travails of the Wright Brothers, who eventually did win out. I read a fine book Quest for Flight, by an author with the last name Tobin you might find inspiring.

The story of the Toyota Rav 4 electric vehicle is depressing due to the fact that it does make clear major corporations have in-fact crushed competitive technologies. There is out a prize winning film called: Who Killed the Electric Car, about the Rav 4 electric vehicle story, that I plan on renting soon myself.

Engine designs mated to power sources are a fasinating history. If I was in a position to do more than pick things up and put them down, this would be what I would direct: Transformational infastructure for fuel cells and motors that worked with them.

Of course I am also for adapting and expanding the Electric Power Grid we already have, to enable long distance travel on interstate corridors using the equivalent of a "third rail".

There is better, and then there is best.

Sometimes I have run into dead ends, that truly were dead ends, and just had to turn around.

P.S.

(The movie idea was okay, but you'd probably do better with a commercial when you have it all worked out and can sell the thing, and the system together. You might study the history of the Seqway for those counts.)

ageela is it butanol, or hydrogen stored in water?

here's something I wrote on another forum, but it works here aswell.

"Great technologies need great marketing, crazy ass technologies need crazy ass marketing. People will believe, things more easily when their in a big group. Shunt marketing is now the best way to market. Get them in a group, and give them free food would work good, I think.

Also going to the patent office is like going to the government/big business."

They're all integrated.

And Ron Pual is a politician you might wanna try.