Are Scientists Doing All They Can to Alleviate the Fuel Crisis

"Gasoline is notorious for its poor performance."

Actually, gasoline has one of the highest energy densities of any fuel.

Also, the price of average gas in 1955 was higher when adjusted for inflation and expendable income than it is today at $4.00 per gallon.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6440

Again you have completely gone away from the obvious.

Anytime one must use energy just to "prepare" for the use of energy, the previously used energy used MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM the performance of the following effort!

In plain english,--- all of the fuel/energy consumed before the piston reached TDC must be calculated separately and then deducted from the same performance after TDC. Only then can one accurately predict the results of the use of the total volume of fuel expended in that one performance.

Simple example: if 10 % of the total fuel/energy consumed was used before TDC it did no useful work. Therefore 10% of the remaining fuel must be reasonably be deducted from the remaining fuel energy calculation to compensate. 90% minus 10% leaves only 80%. All things being considered according to the !st Law of Thermodynamics and double entry balance procedures. FURTHER;

Gasoline is not completely vaporized and these tiny droplets only serve to raise the compression rate in the cylinder, like water injection does, only it just creates heat, As the droplets do not burn they are exhausted and accomplish no work. I could care less about your density comment, It is just more disinformation regarding this comparison. If you wish to make an exact comparison, completely vaporize the gasoline, combine it with the optimum quantity of oxygen, ignite the mixture and calculate the flame propagation rate, AND COMPARE THAT RESULT AGAINST A PERFORMANCE OF MACH 7.5 FOR OXY-HYDROGEN .

By the way, your comparison reflects a 250% increase in fuel costs.

Try again, this time use the complete performance calcs as applied to use in an ICE, not just some information, as opposed to issues that don't really apply.

The challenge is, are Scientist's really doing all that they can do, or they conveniently hiding behind the !st LoT. YES or NO and explain why you choose that position. Your comments were off topic.

Okay. I just pointed out two things that I felt were either wrong or misrepresented.

Energy density is an important consideration. If it wasn't we would all be driving electric cars because they are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. However, we just wouldn't be driving too far and be paying more for a car.

So, my point is that there are more things that go into the "mix" than percentage of efficiency of the internal combustion engine, which we agree is pretty low.

My second point was simply backed up with a link. If you disagree with their logic, so be it. However you look at it, gas prices are not far off of inflation adjusted prices. They have been actually below inflation adjusted prices for a long time, but most of us never give it a thought until a price increase makes us gasp. Put into perspective it shouldn't be that unexpected or outlandish.

I am not sure I buy into your simple example. I am not an expert on the workings of the internal combustion engine, but I think that the detonation time is not instantaneous, nor is the expansion time. The process is probably only part of the way there when TDC is encountered and there may be a logical explanation why you would pre-detonate versus detonate at TDC if that practice increases the efficiency of the fuel that does the work after TDC.

I feel comfortable that there is much more to the workings of the internal combustion engine than the simple description provided by you or the original poster. I also acknowledge I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the process.

However, sports like racing push the technological limits forward on what the internal combustion engine can do. We keep improving the theory and the practice and I seriously doubt that this technology is being retarded by any one or group of people.

Finally, to answer the original poster's question; engineers do what their employers ask them to do and most engineers give more than 100% effort in the process (I see this everyday). To ask the question if engineers are not doing everything they can implies that some or all engineers are impeding progress as some form of conspiracy. That, my friend, would simply be ridiculous.

I found it! A friend explained it to me. The reason we pre-detonate (before TDC) is that the detonation creates a pressure wave, which moves at a specific velocity, therefore has a delta time lag as the wave travels in the cylinder. The idea is to pre-detonate such that the pressure wave and the top of the piston meet at TDC which improves the efficiency of the combustion compared to simply detonating at a later time or even at TDC.

That was quite a mouthful of explanation, but it is well known that the fuel vapor is pre detonated. I understand that this is necessary. However the next piston must overcome this activity on its down stroke. In other words cylinder #2 is having to over come the early reaction in piston #1 before it's work can be accomplished. If it were not for the energy released by the mass moving parts the engine would stall. Ask your friend about that!

Tmf

Eh? multiple cylinder engines work on opposite strokes. When cylinder one is on an upstroke, two is on a down stroke. Cylinder one's detonation helps cylinder two's down stroke. They don't fight each other, they complement each other.

Try that again! With a multiple cylindered engine one is always on the power stroke, especially if it is only a 2 stroke, but most 2 stroke engines are timed at almost top dead center and get rotten fuel consumption ratings accordingly. With a 4 cycle 3 or more cylinder engine it just happens faster.

Tmf

That was a much better response! About your comments about the racing engines, a subject that is dear to me! the engines that are used in "stock car racing"( I say that with tong in cheek, ), as we know they are not stock cars, however the engines used to day are the same basic configuration as was used in the 1960's. an engine with a carb. and the usual stuff. Alternator, fuel pump, oil pump, radiator, exhaust etc. Internal parts have been improved to with stand the test. The fuel mileage is horrible, of course, but if you want to go fast, you do what you must.

Today's autos' have fuel injection and vaporization improving intake manifolds, along with all of the other items that are necessary to control emissions. All of these items have cost many millions if not billions to invent and develop. The scientists and engineers are to be complimented for their accomplishments.

And that brings me back to the original issue. If these same millions/billions had been invested in the oxy-hydrogen development possibility, where might we be now. Simply throwing antiquated performance figures and formulas at the subject does not answer the issue. WE, know that the burning of oxy-hydrogen produces H2O as an ash. What is wrong with that?

Why shouldn't we be trying to do this? The point I am trying to make is that I realize that we must all be doing what we are paid to do. However as an example Nylon, synthetic rubber and other products were discovered by accident, and a new use was found for these products, after the fact. We learned about oxy-hydrogen circa 1966, re patented By Dr Yul Brown 11 yrs later. Stan Meyers made his claims, Bob Boyce proved that ICE's being raced in a very large power boat could be powered by this same fuel gas in the mid 1980's, and made on demand, no storage necessary. That is more than 20 years ago. Gasoline prices have been rising while the price of things such as personal computers has been falling. Boyce was threatened when he applied his technology to an automobile, WHY? THIS IS WHAT PROMOTES THE QUESTION AND HOPES FOR A VALID ANSWER, not that no one would pay me to do it. Where did the spirit if invention go to regarding those blessed with degrees? Thanks for your response, anyway.

TMF

"Why shouldn't we be trying to do this?"

I honestly don't know the answers to that, but it is logical to guess that there are many, many reasons that sum up such that the current pathway we are on, as bad as it may seem, holds advantages over what you propose.

The only way to satisfy the argument is to put a team of experts together and create an Excel spreadsheet with one row listing all the features/attributes of each technology and multiple columns, one for each significant benefit, and assigned a weighted value for each technology based on its merit. Then sum those numbers up in the final column. In other words, a decision matrix.

I will bet that you will find that the question and problem space is far more complex than you think. Most likely the result will be exactly what we have today. However, it is easy to have tunnel vision and think that the answer is obvious until you do the due diligence process and see the bigger picture.

Nonetheless, it is good to ask the question and recheck the logic, but you can't come at it with a bias (either for or against anything).

Your response is by far the most comprehensible and to the point. It almost answers the question. We know that it takes effort and determination, so when are YOU going to start. I have already started, and so far I like what I see. For the most part I see a combination of oxy-hydrogen and at least some petroleum working to solve the problem. The cylinders of these engines do need some form of lubrication, and gasoline can fill that issue and still provide working energy.

TMF

From what I have seen, and my research into oxy-hydrogen for vehicles, I have not been able to find any credible evidence or results. The amount of free energy pseudoscience and scams surrounding oxy-hydrogen additives to the air-fuel mixture (or just plain running the engine on it entirely using an electrolyzer) is staggering (and I have looked into many of them). Is it any wonder that the scientific community wouldn't touch a "new" development in oxy-hydrogen generation and use. There is no conspiracy here, everything about it either looks like a scam or has been proven to be a scam (mostly due to the fact that hopelessly inefficient onboard hydrogen electrolysis is used which ALWAYS reduces the overall efficiency). Any claims to the contrary are easily proven to be due to shoddy lab results or bald-faced lies which are easily proven using simple fundamentals and even basic common sense. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, and there just isn't any verifiable evidence.

Now, the main KEY point is the electrolyser that kills the efficiency and therefore the idea. Now from what I have seen, engine millage and power gains are certainly possible (I am not refuting that at all), the KEY is that if you want to use oxy-hydrogen then a getter way MUST be found to produce it. Perhaps bottled scum pond hydrogen generation or bottled waste commercial or industrial process gas that would normally be vented to the atmosphere and lost, etc, etc.

If you can produce oxy-hydrogen WITHOUT using an electrolyser by some other means that is actually efficient enough to INCREASE the overall system efficiency (taking into account the energy needed to produce the oxy-hydrogen as well as the vehicles fuel efficiency) then you may be on to something good. This is the area that requires the research, but from what I have seen people still want to play with electrolysers, which guarantees failure. If you can prove some sizable efficiency gains and find efficient way to produce oxy-hydrogen then you may be on to a winner.

Hell, something similar to oxy-hydrogen may also work, but it is unlikely that you would find it and make a break-thru without a small team of chemical and electrical engineers. Still, it may be worth it if the overall gains in fuel efficiency are high enough. Just be very wary of any information you get from free energy sites (always double check thoroughly) as most of it is pseudoscience rubbish and scams.

I find that your answer is somewhat on point. However the concept that I am only interested in oxy-hydrogen as a fuel is not correct. While I am interested in further working with this idea it is not the only one I see possibilities in. I am not tunnel visioned in that respect. However I have participated in numerous threads in which the only information favorable to the points that several individuals have made taints those that were posted. The development of the ICE began more than two hundred years ago. In less than one hundred years two people managed to fly an aircraft around the world with out landing or refueling. In a single ten year period we went from last place in the race for space to sending two people to actually walk on the moon and return them safely back to earth. These actions both were nothing short of amazing. One accomplished by private enterprise the other by Govt. However it shows that a person or small group of people can make gains that compare favorably with big money. ONLY IF YOU WILL. I find that it is too easy to cop out of the effort, by quoting out dated information. The small investors make claims that they are satisfied, are worth while. No doubt that some are a stretch beyond reality. However; I have seen nothing posted by any scientist or engineer that has actually performed the test regarding the combination of low voltage with pulsed and properly timed high voltage. The only posts I have witnessed are from people with tunnel visioned opinions. It is this tunnel vision concept that has promoted the challenge. Are scientists doing all that they can do to alleviate the fuel crisis. The possible development oxy-hydrogen seems to be a most volatile subject, and there is a lot of reasons for this to be. Millions of dollars being invested in battery technology might not pay for itself and certainly would not bring the investors the millions in income they perceive. The petroleum issue we need not address any more. The auto industry is in a state of turmoil over the matter. Producing the tooling for EV's may not pay off. The masses certainly cannot afford the prices for such vehicles, Further they can not afford the current and rising prices for petrol of any kind. Not finding a solution is unacceptable. It will most certainly lead to world conflict, that is obvious to all but the most narrow minded. Wishing won't get it done! Thanks for your response, it is almost good as I would rate it, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

TMF

2nd reply to post. There has been a new transformer developed by Infolytica. This transformer allows electrodes to be excited with a non-uniform voltage, instead of creating each foil individually. Therefore I find that theoretically such a transformer of this type might even be tunable to exploit the frequencies best suited to fracture the water molecule. Maybe you know enough about this subject to inject an intelligent offering. If not your cup of tea, why not discuss it with someone who has knowledge about this subject.

I find no worthwhile reason to discontinue this kind of research, I am searching for that silver projectile.

TMF

"Multiple cylinders lifting multiple rocks,"the same idea works with the steam locomotive, multiple strokes pushing against a shaft attached to a concentric lever moves the concentric in the circular motion. Not much work accomplished by one stroke, but many strokes in a chain reaction moves tons , much like the current ICE. one ignition of fuel does no work, only many ignitions will do the work. Multiple ignitions spins the alternator providing the energy to ignite the fuel all over again and move the vehicle down the road.

I don't thing that you are really interested. Sorry I bothered you.

I understand that multiple cylinders have an additive effect to the total power output of the engine. That make sense to me.

However, even a single cylinder engine does do work. Any push mower demonstrates that.

Anyway, we digress. I want to know what was missing from my analysis in post 61.

I try to stay out of these discussions, but that was a darn good answer Hero. I especially like the economy of words.

People said man will never fly, but other people showed them it can be done.

So, WHERE'S THE BEEF?

If you have a better way, JUST SHOW ME!

Oh, ya, to stay on topic, Scientist's have to eat too, and pay off their huge college debt.

Not having Toomuchfun here!

This response is to Brickstop, Annonomus Hero, Vicini"Da Vinci", Jackass of all trades, editor Chris Lenard, et. al.

I will attempt to make this response as "FAIR AND BALANCED" as I can, understanding that the term fair and balanced is still controlled by the individual who is attempting exactly what is and what is not F&B.

It is reasonable to comprehend that Scientists cannot reasonably be expected to go the expense of running tests on hair brained ideas. And; therefore a scientist can be expected to refer to the work and conclusions having been made by others before them, for referencing their responses. After all life can be short!

However scientist do not have a monopoly on knowledge. Regarding scientific disclosures there are often as many naysayers from their own community as there are from other professions.

I can make a non-refutable statement here. I am a professional from the construction field, who has successfully been the lowest bidder for contracts valued for multi-millions in dollars. Often the lowest bidder will under bid the proposals of others, and that are well under the estimates of the engineers and scientists. To be able to do this and still turn a profit, the contractor must be able to find discrepancies between the drawings and specifications and the contract information. Further he must believe that these can be exploited enough to turn a profit. This is the obvious fact that keeps the contractor at odds with the owners advisers, the engineers, architects, and where they are involved, Scientists. Therefore I must not only know my profession, I must also have working knowledge of the other profession's general performances. Tho we are compelled to work together to achieve the expectation of the contract, we will always be on opposite sides of issues that reflect increases in the contract price. Therefore: I am qualified to challenge issues relating to opinions that refer to the results of out of date experimentation, even tho I am not a scientist nor an engineer. From time to time I have corrected these kinds of mistakes.

Scientists use information provided by other scientists to create opinions. And unless they doubt those opinions, they are unlikely to perform experimentation of their own regarding that subject. They may or may not be qualified mechanics!

Electrical engineers/ electrical contractors, professional tracks are similar to those of the scientists, only it follows their stock in trade. They likely have knowledge of general mechanics.

Mechanical engineers cannot be expected to adhere to the information posted by the scientists, as, if they did there would never be any progress nor new discoveries.

In the world of inventors, whether "sudo" or professionals, If they were not willing to challenge the limits set forth by the laws governing either the scientific or engineering professions, there are many improvements in science or mechanics that would never have occurred .

Inventors are looking for progress, and could care less about the restrictions that other professions have placed upon them and their selves. They don't care about formulas, algebra, trig., or even basic math. All they are interested in is performance. If they can find a way to make a taboo into something that can work, they will leave the explanation to others like S&E.

And; this is what brings me to challenge many of the posts provided by said professionals. Offering opinions that are not based on the exact work of the inventor, is nothing more than serving up just another bushel of road apples. It is not difficult to comprehend that two different individuals can follow the same procedure regarding experimentation of any kind and get different results. It may all depend on the quality of the work being done. It's like this; dirty glasses cloud performance that clean glasses may review. If you believe that the glass is half empty, to you it isn't half full. AND; THIS; in my fair and balanced opinion is the sticking point between the opposing opinions regarding the performance of gasoline and other petroleum products vs other fuel gases.

I propose this test; It will only take a little time for the scientists to run the calcs.

Pick a subjective amount of gasoline, and then fuel oil, individually of course, add the optimum amount of oxygen needed for ignition, increase their atomic weights by two atmospheres and ignite, and measure the explosive power of these fuels and their flame propagation rates. Compare these performances against each other and oxy-hydrogen and another vapor fuel you choose.

Remember! you are doing this according to equal atomic weights, with optimum oxygen. Recognize that hydrogen does not need a ratio of 2 to 1 hydrogen to oxygen to ignite, and allow the same consideration for your other choice of vapor gas. Note that the excess oxygen in the "hydroxy" will transfer to benefit the oxygen needed to ignite the other liquid fuel gases, and make allowances accordingly.

Last but not least compare the amount of energy needed to provide these different fuels to an ICE. You know what I mean by this , as they pertain to the 1st L. of T. Then post your truthful results.

Regarding the thread; are scientist doing all they can to help alleviate the fuel crisis, I believe that the discussion should have evolved to evaluate the merits of other forms of energy production and not centered so much on the oxy-hydrogen fuel issue. Electricity is also a form of fuel in that it provides power to many other things.

TMF

"I believe that the discussion should have evolved to evaluate the merits of other forms of energy production and not centered so much on the oxy-hydrogen fuel issue."

Maybe so, but that was not he way you initially penned it.

At any rate, I have some differences with your interpretations of the scientific method and the pathways to discovery. Engineers need the knowledge generated by science to provide a sound foundation to design from. Any engineer worth his or her salt will be able to irrefutably back up their design with facts.

However, that does not close the door on challenging the claims made in science nor does it close the door on investigating new discoveries.

As someone stated before, you are a passionate person and I deeply respect that. However, the academic challenges made against your statements is in no way a personal attack. This is just business as usual for the engineering world and can provide for some pretty entertaining and thought provoking moments in life. We use it as a mechanism to test our ideas and to learn new ones.

You should be having fun here and I hope you read this and smile. While I may not agree with all of your ideas, I can agree to say that I enjoy reading your replies.

So, lighten up, feel free to challenge us, but be prepared to back it up point by point. That is the fun part. Even if you are wrong you can never lose if you walk away with a new insight on things.

This remark will be just a little off topic. The not having toomuchfun actually has to do with all the stormy weather we are experiencing this week, not exactly referring to the forum. I have a 200 lb hog in my garage, housed trained, but difficult to roll out every evening for nightly trips but that is better than having to clean it up in the garage. This animal was about the size of a football with legs less than 5 months ago. My wife has made a pet of what some folks consider a wild hog. I need to move him the farm, but the weather is preventing me from adding a pen for him.

Just a little more pigheaded business.

TMF By the way I rated your last comment.

Please refer to my comments in post #19

"Now, the main KEY point is the electrolyser that kills the efficiency and therefore the idea. Now from what I have seen, engine millage and power gains are certainly possible (I am not refuting that at all), the KEY is that if you want to use oxy-hydrogen then a getter way MUST be found to produce it. Perhaps bottled scum pond hydrogen generation or bottled waste commercial or industrial process gas that would normally be vented to the atmosphere and lost, etc, etc.

If you can produce oxy-hydrogen WITHOUT using an electrolyser by some other means that is actually efficient enough to INCREASE the overall system efficiency (taking into account the energy needed to produce the oxy-hydrogen as well as the vehicles fuel efficiency) then you may be on to something good. This is the area that requires the research, but from what I have seen people still want to play with electrolysers, which guarantees failure. If you can prove some sizable efficiency gains and find efficient way to produce oxy-hydrogen then you may be on to a winner.

Hell, something similar to oxy-hydrogen may also work, but it is unlikely that you would find it and make a break-thru without a small team of chemical and electrical engineers. Still, it may be worth it if the overall gains in fuel efficiency are high enough. Just be very wary of any information you get from free energy sites (always double check thoroughly) as most of it is pseudoscience rubbish and scams."

Also refer to previous posts here and in other threads regarding my electrical and power qualifications and the fact I have actually looked into the research, patents and products of free-energy and perpetual motion inventors both past and present to see if there was anything there that could be used, developed or in some way develop a new way of thinking about science or energy. Also the fact that I am one of the few here that will actually discuss these topics rather than immediately resorting to name calling and make fun of them. Could you perhaps do the same if it is not much to ask.

Short answer - Oxy-hydrogen or similar as an additive to petrol = potential. Hydrogen electrolysis = not even remotely efficient and never will be. Also, there can be no foundation for scientific development built on free-energy/perpetual motion/scam pseudoscience (this is where your main problem is and is the reason why most people here are having a go at you). If you want to be taken seriously please do not refer to them as a foundation for research to be built upon. Feel free to look at the numerous previous threads where water electrolysers and the individuals behind them were discussed in depth.

I am happy to discuss real science and alternatives like producing oxy-hydrogen or similar fuel enhancing additives in efficient ways (not using the hopelessly inefficient water electrolysis).

Jackass of all Trades.

I am pleased to rate your answer as good. enough so that I would give 2 pos ratings If I were permitted.

TMF

Toomuch,

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you gotta stay inside the white lines with facts. I knew a lot of the DuPont guys - nylon was a targeted project, not an accident.

Sorry if I misquoted the product. Maybe it was kevlar, I can't remember at this time but I do remember seeing a show on TV on the history channel about this subject. The product was actually discovered by a woman scientist who did not receive credit for her work. May be you will forgive me just this one time.

Would you like to enter your vote yes or no about the subject matter. No explanation is really necessary. But if you chose to you may elaborate. Thanks for the response. I know that you must have looked the forum over.

TMF

you are so far off from reality. The air and fuel does consumes energy during the compression stroke and during the power stroke, that compression energy is given back to the system, it is not lost work. There is a lost work componet on the comprssion because it is not isentropic, but that lost work turns to heat energy and that heat energy is what is use to vaporize 99.8% of the fuel, got it 99.8%. If it didn't vaporize, you'd "slam" the engine and have a broken rod.

Water injection is used to cool the clinder so that more pounds of air can be added to the engine. An engine is an air compressor. It moves a FIXED volume of air, if the air is more dense, then more mass can be pumped by the air compressor. As the water is injected, it evaporate (just like the fuel) and the heat of evaporization cools the air and makes it more dense. I'll give you an example., why do you get cold stepping out of a shower when its 90 degrees outside?

Flame propagation rate has nothing to do with an ICE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, early engines that were designed to run on H2 (the hindinberge to be exact) had problems with fast flame speeds hurting performance, the flame traveled so fast, the exhaust vales were still open and the engines back fired, so, they had to retard the timing, at a cost in fuel efficency and power.

Everything you want to do has been done and we know all the peak efficencies, you can have all the fun you want replicating experiments, but the rest of us have the readers digest version and we know the answer. When you catch up, we'll tell the moral of the story.

JUST MORE COMMENTS NOT WORTH RESPONDING TO. Until you have tested the information that I willingly provided to The Jackass of his trade, you have nothing but the same old hot air to spout.

It's like that around here where I live, the GOOD OLE BOYS SAYING THE SAME OLE THINGS ALL OF THE TIME, that is until some forward thinking developer offers them more money than they ever imagined existed for their pastures. I take your response as a "no" scientists are not doing all that they can do to alleviate the fuel crisis.

Tally------- so for all ney's from the scientific community. This forum is beginning to sound like a horse farm, manure and all!

TMF

I took the trouble to look at the reference that you included with your first post. I don't generally bother as they are generally slanted to support the poster's opinion. The information seems to be on target. The problem I have with it is the same problem that I have with many of these kinds of research. People, many of them who live in the inner city such as N.Y. don't even own a car, many are not even licensed to drive. All of these folks are used as fodder to support average wage increases, when in fact the rest of the nation, especially in the poorer states don't see the huge, average increases in income. This distorts the results of the research, much like some of the comments that refer to hydrogen when we are discussing oxy-hydrogen. Thats like comparing steers and hogs that have been castrated. They have something in common but they are entirely different animals.

TMF

Yeah, I know the issue well. The internet is full of "facts" just like politics.

Well scientist are doing more than accountants, economists, estate agents, HR managers, footballers... get the idea?

You forgot politicians.

POLITICIANS ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION EITHER, great point, but off topic also!

Those other folks are occupied with their professions. They are not qualified to answer this question. You also get an off topic.

Perhaps the reason scientists are overlooking oxy-hydrogen is because it is quite unstable and very explosive. Sure we'd all like to see a realistic energy source replace gasoline, but no one is going to drive around with oxy-hydrogen tanks attached to their vehicles.

Since this is a non-starter, why don't we discuss other ways that scientists are working to alleviate the fuel crisis.

Sorry for the confusion, but no tanks needed for fuel that is made on demand. It seems that you have confused Hydrogen with Oxy-hydrogen. Only storage needed is water and an electrolyte making substance.

TMF

Please refer to my post above and the numerous other posts myself and others have made over the years on CR4 explaining why water electrolysis is a hopelessly inefficient way of producing hydrogen and oxy-hydrogen.

Sorry Jack, electrolysis is not the issue, you seemed to have missed the point. The question does not refer to any particular experimentation. However; at least you are looking.

Tmf

Your post 11# seemed to indicate onboard electrolysis due to on-demand generation of hydrogen to create the oxy-hydrogen mix. Could you please clarify, are you aware of another method of on-demand generation that you have not mentioned (and that I have not come across) or are you talking about an on-demand generation method that doesn't exist (yet). The efficient generation of this gas mixture is the biggest issue.

As a side note I actually looked into converting my car to run on water. Unfortunately ALL designs I ever found were erroneous at best and scams at worst. My search for practical alternative power generation sources and fuels continues, and I still perform my research in both the mainstream and pseudoscience areas (hey, you never know if you don't look). Having the knowledge, qualifications and experience in the fields of power engineering and laboratory testing really helps me to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to finding potential power solutions to our ever-growing power needs.

Jack - A Power Engineer doing what he can.

Jack I will be pleased to share my info with you in the am. I am reviewing your post this evening however it is getting late and my lovely wife who is 15 years younger than I am is calling me to bed. I think you understand the issue.

Toomuchfun

Chris, we all understand that engineers are working hard to produce electric cars. That is commendable, and scientists are working equally as hard to find solutions to the battery issues associated with powering electric cars. I see electric motors in each wheel, with energy recovering breaking systems. Wonderful inventions, great work. However as a former race car builder and racing buff, I see problems that will take a lot of work to overcome. Unsprung weight at the end of the spindles, all of those little parts that may ultimately end up on the highway if you hit a POT HOLE, millions of dollars to develop batteries that may not be needed to power cars after all, all of that lost money and disappointed investors, I also see the speculators losing their fortunes when gasoline is no longer the fuel of choice

, and I look around me and see everyday, that the middle class is falling by the way side, the retired folks on limited incomes wondering how they will pay their bills in the future, and the folks on SS only now who cannot even pay their bills now. Certainly the sale of new cars is a necessary part of the future, but there are millions of cars on the road now that can be modified to burn the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas now. We know that it exists, and we believe that if it were exploited to day it could turn the economic stability of the world on its ear. Not A good thing. However the middle class and poor are already experiencing that problem.

Beginning to convert to oxy-hydrogen or some other source of energy today is not going to destroy the petroleum industry. It will get their attention. And as for the politico's, Maybe they will get a little less donated to their cause.

Now I am getting away from the thread, so I refer back to the original question Are Scientist's doing all that they can, after this is a scientific subject also.

TMF

AND I AM ONLY RESPONDING TO THE POINTS BEING SUBMITTED BY OTHERS, I SEE THIS AS A MATTER OF COURTESY. THE ORIGINAL QUESTION STILL IS THE ISSUE.

Why don't you open your eyes and see exactly that which was placed before you. I have certainly commented about the oxy-hydrogen issue in many posts. I have no ax to grind nor am I selling anything including information. I am keeping no secrets regarding the fuel gas issue. I have questioned the common sense of those who are buying into the idea that $49.00 will buy jelly jar with a few SS plates and some plastic tubing, and a few fittings available at your local discount Auto store and wha lah, fuel economy never dreamed possible. The public is facing a real crisis. It does not stop at the local fuel pump. Check your grocery bill, your utility bill and almost every thing else that can be even remotely related to energy costs increasing. I responded to the comments initiated by others as completely as I determined was necessary. I reserve my right to do so." SOOOO! Mr Editor" what are you doing to alleviate the matter. Do you believe that chastising desperate individuals is the appropriate action to take in the current state of economic affairs. Someone, somewhere will find another way, because we must, and because we can. There is no free lunch. It need not be a Scientist nor Engineer, there are only a few restrictions. Impossibility, and Government declaration to stop. There are inventors who happen to be SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, who are having successes with developing electrical equipment that can actually produce more energy than they consume. You can run your car, truck, or tractor on wood chips being consumed on demand in a dry boiler attached to the vehicle. This was done way back before the 1st world war. In many ways, far to many than any one can even imagine, we have come a long way, but because gasoline was not expensive we did not make any gains with that technology, only band aid solutions to an emissions issue. If the responders don't wish to discuss the benefits of Oxy-Hydrogen fuel, why did they bring the subject up. You only have to go back through the entire thread and you will see that I only responded to issues initiated by others.

Pay attention to the progression of the posts, and you will have to agree with what I have stated. If you continue to jump to conclusions, one day you will have jumped into the ivory throne.

TMF

You wrote: "If the responders don't wish to discuss the benefits of Oxy-Hydrogen fuel, why did they bring the subject up. You only have to go back through the entire thread and you will see that I only responded to issues initiated by others."

Not to be picky but you mention HHO and Oxy-hydrogen a number of times in the original post, in fact, you stilted the entire post so that it would be a discussion of HHO.

You wrote: "The public is facing a real crisis. It does not stop at the local fuel pump. Check your grocery bill, your utility bill and almost every thing else that can be even remotely related to energy costs increasing."

I can't disagree with that statement, but it does not mean any alternative will do just because we wish it. Based on understood laws of the universe, what you have proposed is problematic. That said, I wish you luck with your efforts. I hope you do find a way to successfully and commercial produce fuel in this fashion. No one on this site is stopping you from your attempts. Many of us simply question your methodology. I'd be happy if you were successful and could prove us all wrong.

I thank you for the last paragraph, however I am seek nothing in return for encouraging others, Scientists and Engineers along with sudo's to at least temporarily set aside their ingrained comprehension regarding impossibility, as it relates to the Laws of Thermodynamics. I noted in a previous forum that Carnot Law, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been breeched, so why not the same for the 1st Law. Simply put, If we are satisfied to live in the dark long enough, eventually we will no longer need eyes. This goes for all subjects, Scientific included.

TMF

Dear Mr TMF,

You wrote :

"I noted in a previous forum that Carnot Law, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been breeched, so why not the same for the 1st Law."

Very interesting aspect I did not notice this break through!

Could you please indicate where this text is to be found? I would HIGHLY appreciate it.

Being of the people who think that todays physics are quite correct at our scale I would very much like to increase my knowledge with such novelties.

Thanking you in advance

Nick Name

2 Much,

Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with (and don't find) what Yale has online about Carnot. But, I think I might understand the source of the misunderstanding. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but here goes.

Scientists and engineers often talk about laws (say, Newton's) in the present form rather than in the original. Newton never wrote F=ma, yet we call it Newton's second law because he developed the best presentation of what was later refined to be F=ma.

Carnot (the man) originally missed the mechanical equivalent of heat. Both Joule and Mayer (I'm guessing Mayer is your German) refined Carnot's work and made it more accurate. We often refer to Carnot as the father of the second law of thermodynamics even though Carnot (the man) didn't get it completely right. There is a report that, after his death, his notebooks showed he had figured out his errors.

Science and engineering have to be understood in terms of a negative feedback control. There will always be errors but, as time goes by, experiment reveals those and corrections are made. I can't think of a single law that was absolutely 100% perfect the first time it was stated (or really, is ever 100% right - maybe 99.3%, but not 100%).

Cheers

Thank you for your feed back! It isn't much room to work with (.7)

but if that is all that is available I'll take it. After all I am not attempting to eliminate gasoline, just reduce consumption with something reliable.

TMF

Though both Joule and Mayer provided significant contributions, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, the physicist that I was relating to was none other than Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius. Name evokes thoughts of Greek or Roman history, however: his work was later published after being edited (1889-91) and titled "Kinetische Theorie der Gase".

The same info that provides knowledge about Carnot the Frenchman, also provides info about Joule and Mayer.

I really do appreciate your reply! My glass remains 1/2 full!

TMF

GA, that was good.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! I think that you now see where I derive my point of view. We of course use the Kelvin scale to measure the coldest of temps. beginning with absolute zero and increasing. Your cold water vs hot water supports Sterling engine technology. Issues like ammonia refrigeration has been around at least sense the mid 1800s. As we refer to these examples of changes in temp. and said changes do work, these examples are what lead me to believe that we can improve on the oxy-hydrogen fuel-gas issue. If we are satisfied to stop investigating the water electrolysis issue with the brute force input example, that was used by Dr. Rhodes and later Dr. Yul Brown, then the adverse comments being submitted by "the I know better group" will not be challenged successfully. I however am one of those persons that believe that even small changes in the way we approach an issue can have a great input regarding results. Bob Boyce, who no longer lives in Florida, now Eastern Tennessee, is still some what active with this research. He has made changes in his mini electronics construction to make better use of materials needed to replicate his work, and is still placing his knowledge in the public domain. He has openly stated that he was not aware of the Stan Meyers effort when he decided to explore the fuel gas issue. He further states that it was purely by accident that he discovered increased performance over the brute force example. I am aware that automotive alternators produce ac voltage. And converts this to dc voltage through the use of diodes. He further states that he observed an increase in performance from one of his engines that he could not account for. It was through investigation that he discovered that one of his engines alternators had burned out a diode and was inputing pulses of ac high voltage into his fuel gas generator. Thus has come the concept that a saturation of the minimum voltage vs amps needed to fracture the water molecule can be significantly improved through the addition of pulsed high voltage vs milli amps. The added energy is a minimum drain on the auto electrical system over the original input, yet I believe that it (in simple terms) tickles the electrodes and encourages the fuel gas quantity performance increase. Further design issues have already been discussed so I won't rehash them here.

Clearly additional work must be done in order to combine the oxy-hydrogen with gasoline or any other liquid fuel, to achieve the desired performance increase. We must change the electronic information that is inputted into the fuel control module to account for the change in the make up of the fuel gas. As the flame propagation rate is increased dramatically, we must adjust the ignition timing accordingly, about 10 degrees after top dead center. This reduces the loads on the piston, rods, bearings and crank shaft with out a reduction in power. As this blended fuel burns at a lower temp., less heat is induced into the system, therefore less energy is wasted through the heat/energy process.

The hydrogen that is created does not need all of the oxygen created for combustion, therefore those extra oxygen atoms are available to support a better combustion performance from the ignition process of the gasoline. Blending the liquid along with the gaseous fuel also helps to provide lubricant for the upper cylinder area. Only through thinking about the entire process from the electrical input all the way to the exhaust can one comprehend a successful performance gain.

All of the above is not the real answer. EV's are the only real answer. However: small ICE's using the above fuel technology may be sufficient to provide for battery recharge at such a reasonable rate that fewer batteries would be needed on board, and and maybe the battery technology of today would be good enough to get us by until science can develop more powerful and more efficient batteries with a longer life expectancy.

And; as none of this is going to happen immediately, the current crop of ICE's might be good enough with the addition of the above proposed technology to sustain society until we can find a better answer.

Again, I appreciate your response.

TMF

And just another thought. I believe that the two responders who provided you with the 2 good ratings for comments that are off topic really do have an ax to grind. They obviously don't like being questioned when they try to impress others with their "right out of the book responses".

Tmf

"We the un knowing" " are trying to do the impossible" " with nothing"!

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=163254

What do you suppose they were smoking.

TMF

Reality

Before this turns into a flame war, I will help clarify what the key points of the original poster (Toomuchfun) seem to be.

Use of oxy-hydrogen. However, Bob Boyce's water car has just been mentioned (in an email to me) as the starting point for further scientific development to alleviate the fuel crisis (Bob Boyce basing his design on Stanley Meyer's design).

The key points are - the use of onboard water electrolyser(s) to generate "zero point energy of vibration of the atoms in the molecule" along with "hydronium and hydroxyl ions" and "radioactive decay of deuterium in the water causing the additional energy seen", all using 20kV 5kHz pulsed DC and stainless steel electrodes.

This has all been explained before both on CR4 and on the web. Flashy websites and pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo that contradicts known laws is not going to fly here.

Electrolysers do not work this way and they never will due to known laws that totally disprove all of the above. Simple lab tests under controlled conditions using proper calibrated instruments have shown this time and time again. I have numerous qualifications and experience in the area of power and have personally looked in to these devices with an open mind and have not found anything that isn't bad lab results and/or a scam.

Please, no more mentions of Pseudoscience or known and dis-proven scammers. Please. We need to concentrate on actual science if we are to alleviate the fuel crisis. Free energy and perpetual motion devices are not the answer and never were.

The only thing perpetual about perpetual motion is the endless search for it.

No you got that wrong too! the other thing that is perpetual is the absolute denial that perpetual motion cannot be accomplished.

Never will be by those who will not look for it.

Most miners who search for a mother lode never find it, but when they do, GOLD RUSH!!!!!!!!!!!

However I find it laughable that we have witnessed so many posts and attempts to convert this thread to something about oxy-hydrogen by the non believers, and they will not say either ye or nay to the question asked. I pause to wonder why, don't you?

TMF

Well, there is a preponderance evidence that says it isn't possible and none that suggests it is.

Unless you know something everyone else doesn't know?

Your the one talking about Oxy-Hydrogen and water-powered cars.

If the original intention was to give these as an EXAMPLE only, then I am happy to let that go and answer the question using only the title of post #1 and ignoring the content.

I would have to say yes, but they could do more (tidal, wind and even solar are coming along well, and making great strides in recent years). The main thing that people in general need to do is to help save fuel (both car and grid power station) by using what little fuel reserves we have more efficiently. It wouldn't hurt for government to throw more money and support behind developments and solutions that will actually HELP rather than flashy, poorly conceived ones that are just going to make things worse. Media support for flashy (and hopeless) free energy generators (such as Steron), and the dumbing down of school science and engineering programs really isn't helping either. If it were a military problem then we would have it sorted in a flash.

for this response I gave you a good answer tho I have reservations about one of your comments. If sticking to the question----- I would have to say yes but we maybe could do more== how does one balance that statement.

no offense intended.

TMF

It was short and to the point. There is always more that can be done, but I believe we are moving in the right direction. One of the key points is to make sure that we move in the right direction and don't go rushing off building something that isn't going to solve our problems (like subsidised solar power plants using existing technology). Careful thought, research and testing is necessary for any new development.

There is no shortage of fuel. All we have to do is go get it. We have one of the worlds largest natural gas reserves off our coastline. All we need is for the US government to get out of the way and we would not be having this conversation.

I kept the response short as it is a rather large question to answer. As for natural gas, we also have a huge supply offshore that we are tapped into (and some big fields still yet to tap). Plenty of hydro, wind and geothermal here also, the problem is it is increasingly difficult to get projects approved due to resource management and political pressure. Gah, one hydro project was canceled because the freshwater byproduct that would be dumped off the salt water coastline could have potentially killed a specific type of fish. Again, no proof supplied, and as far as I am aware they didn't even know if the fish in question would be harmed by fresh water!

What are scientests doing, they are trying to do their job! How about more public education! People want their nice toys but don't want the infrastructure (such as new power plants and power lines) to support them. They would sing a different tune if the power grid failed due to overloading.

Petrol is becoming more of a concern as prices sky-rocket (again).

Heres to jack of all trades . "single finger"

"You have just provided a classic example why I have not shared performance information on this forum"

If you are going to to jump to conclusions with out providing your own tests as directed then lets get the information that you post correct. Bob Boyce did his own experimentation based on the papers provided by Dr. William A. Rhodes, and later Dr. Yul Brown. He publicly states that he was not aware of the work being done by Stanly Meyers. I have all of the Meyers patents and I can state that in my opinion they contain "tom foolery" processes designed to help keep his work from being hi-jacked. I also have copies of the Dr. Rhodes papers and copies of the free publications provided by a very unselfish Bob Boyce. Parties who would like to know the un-compromised truth can check the records of the American power boat racing association. You will find that the fine gentleman raced inboard engined power boats powered by hydrogen alone. He was not aware that it was actually oxy-hydrogen at the time. He also explains just how he found by pure accident about the high voltage benefit to the performance. Further he includes that he put 60,000 miles on a automobile that was stationed on jackstands, not under highway loads but in gear. with his experimentation. This is certainly believable as the cost of putting a power boat in and out of the water every time you would like to run a test is very expensive. Mr. Boyce further explains that he was visited by folks who made threatening comments concerning the car. Before you believe all of the information that you read posted by the naysayers on this forum, I suggest that you ask to see the results of their own experiments with the system as compared with the info that I, TOOMUCHFUN have freely provided to them. The post I am responding to right now is just some more dis-information. As this information was provided only a few hours ago there is no way that the naysayers have had time to test the system for the results. Clearly the truth is un-bearable for them. "When I get these kinds of volatile responses that include no evidence to support them, I become further discussed with these selfish individuals.

I TAKE THIS AS A VOTE OF "NO" THAT SCIENTISTS ARE NOT DOING ALL THAT CAN TO ALLEVIATE THE THE FUEL CRISIS!

THIS IS THE REAL KEY POINT. DECEPTION, DECEPTION!

TMF Bob Boyce is a retired Florida Electrical General Contractor, "NUFF SAID"

<sigh> You tell someone that you have personally looked into a development (both Bob's AND Stanley's) and give them an answer summing up what you have found, and they don't like it and jump all over you. I thought that perhaps this thread may be able to address some real potential benefits like oxy-hydrogen or other fuel additives to assist in actually helping the fuel crisis, sadly this thread has gone the way many of the previous threads that delve into pseudoscience.

Some people just don't want to listen to the truth. There is "real" evidence and then there is "smoke and mirrors / word of mouth" evidence. All I have personally found is the latter. If you actually look closely at the information that is available that is what you will find as well. This is one of the main reasons real scientists, engineers, the automotive industry and industry in general has not adopted these water electrolysis engines (that have been around for many decades). After I reviewed the technology a few years back, this was also one of the main reasons why I personally did not adopt myself or push for wider use of the technology either.

This is an engineering discussion forum. You should consider switching to posting your comments on one of the free energy and water engine sites such as http://keelynet.com/.

As I have said before, oxy-hydrogen is proven to have benefits, water electrolysis has been proven not to (one example is the television show Mythbusters). All the real evidence points to that. If you have serious doubts to this, then build your own water electrolyser and perform your own tests yourself. I am not stopping you or anyone else from doing this (I have offered explanations in previous threads as well as offering advise on how to perform tests to check to see if they get any millage gains or losses with there water electrolyser), if I and the rest of the scientific community are wrong then you will save a lot of money on gas. What have YOU got to lose by personally proving me wrong.

I am still happy to talk about generation of oxy-hydrogen another way.

I posted the question, " ARE SCIENTISTS DOING ALL THAT THEY CAN TO ALLEVIATE THE FUEL CRISIS?

Any and all responders had the option not to post an answer, or to post a yeh or neh answer with out any explanation. They also have the right to explain their reasoning for their answer. Nothing in the question nor in the rules required anything further. And; nothing in the rules deprived them from bringing up any other subject matter, even with out referring to the thread or posting an answer. Other parties who are very much aware of my position about the oxy-hydrogen fuel saw this as a chance to move the forum in a direction not included in the original question and began making the challenges and repeating the same old jargon that has been examined on CR 4 over at least the last several months. < so maybe we should look at the situation as it exists in a scientific manner>

An issue was raised (idea)

comments were made, none of which referred to the post (unbelievable theories)

Only arguments provided about non related subject matter.

No verifiable answers posted for or against the issue.

Conclusion: Scientists for reasons of there own will not admit that they, (some of them, exceptions occur) are not doing all that can do to alleviate the fuel crisis.

If you thought that this thread was going to provide you with answers of an entirely different subject, and it did not go the way you wanted it to, I refuse to accept the responsibility for the fact that you didn't under stand the question. Would you like to vote yes or no?

TMF

by the way, I anticipated the current crisis, and because I cannot change the fuel situation I did the very next thing. I filled my two 20 cu ft freezers with pork. Beef takes too long to raise to butcher. Now if I can only pay the increasing utility bill!!!!

"Conclusion: Scientists for reasons of there own will not admit that they, (some of them, exceptions occur) are not doing all that can do to alleviate the fuel crisis."

Well, I take exception to that conclusion and I directly answered that question in Post #7, last paragraph.

I modeled the system in my process simulator and an onboard H2/O2 generator losses energy.

I have the proof it will be on file in the library of Congress in 60 days. So the discussion is over.

Are you stating that you used the information that I offered to Jack of all trades.

If so then you must have created your own hydrogen generator, as I left doors open just so that no one could replicate exactly my work but provided sufficient information to help others to avoid wasting effort by doing a shabby hurried job.

You must do better than that! Sherlock just turned over in his grave. Another "Ney"

TMF

I simulated the energy and mass balance on my chemical engineering process simulator.

Vicini, " you are no DaVinci.

The accuracy of your modeling program must be horrendously inaccurate. I feel confident, based on your misunderstand if the ICE vs ignition timing, vs fuel type, vs flame propagation, etc. that you have likely been under including the obvious. Things like quality of construction, control of ignition timing that varies with compression rates when adjusting for optimum performance, the impact of various electrolytes, control of amperage input over lengthy periods of time, the impact of using optimum electrical high voltage frequencies, design of the generator vessel, the inclusion of multiple cells in a single generator, the optimum # of cells to include in a single circuit, etc./etc. You and others speak of testing and evaluating to prove that an idea works as intended and advertised. However; your posts indicate to someone who has earned a living evaluating drawings vs, specifications, vs contract requirements, to determine where the inconsistencies exist and then attempting to evaluate their impact on the ultimate contract price, that I might just find things wrong with your model. this is an example of an issue that always determines whether or not the contractor makes a profit or looses money. In short I have to know not just my business, but a whole lot about your business. My job is to find your errors and convert them into my profit.

TMF

2much,

Like I say, I admire your enthusiasm. But why do you come on here, an engineering forum, to argue your points? Take me, for example. I'm now in my fifth decade of following the company line, believing in Newton, Otto, Euler, Carnot, etc. I've designed and built and sold a ton of stuff utilizing the various principles of those and similar guys. What chance do you have of ever getting me to admit my whole professional life was a mere sham, that there was nothing behind the curtain?

Even if you were right and I was wrong, I couldn't admit it. I might not be the smartest guy you ever met, but I am honest. If I thought all that stuff I do is bunk, I'd have to return all my customer's money. I'd have to give back my various salaries. I'd be bankrupt in less than an hour. My poor wife would have to sleep under the bridge. I'd have to forage in dumpsters for slightly used op-amps. So, really, how could you ever hope to convince me?

So, propose your theories. You seem like a nice guy and full of neat experiences that I often enjoy reading about. But, please, give up on belittling what I believe to be true.

"Colt 45" Sometimes I am just a little quick on the draw. Other times I see what I believe is an opening, not to pummel but to get in just enough of a little jab so that one knows for certain that he might have been open for a pounding. I really am a nice guy. My neighbors all come to me every spring when their lawn tractors will not start or a belt needs to be replaced, etc. I always try to help, usually successfully. I never charge for my help or advice.

As for my stories, I was once asked to describe my past to friends while snowed in at the Ram's Head Lounge, when I lived in Incline Village, Nevada. It was a long two days and we were all taking turns describing our personal history. I was about 43 yrs old at that time. When I finished, one of my friends asked how old I was. I responded. He stated that I must be at least three times my stated age as no human could possibly have packed that much living in that short of time. Now with no exageration I was telling the whole truth. even left out the boring parts.

I do get enthusiastic about issues that I take a personal interest in. The reason that I chose to argue some points on the engineering/science forum is simple. Take for instance the issue of what goes up must come down. Was true until we found a way to over come earths gravity. Now we must make an exception when we make that statement. I believe that same comparison can be made about "Almost" every scientific law that exists. All that it takes is an example of one. No doubt that many subjects that may be brought to light will be examined in reference to the understood laws. Many ideas will be shot down accordingly as a waste of time, energy and funds. HOWEVER; though progress is sometimes painfully slow, if someone did not play the part of the devil's advocate, often progress would stop even though it could have succeeded. I have had a very interesting life, learned as much as life's experiences can teach me, am still learning, and challenging opposing thought. If the subject belongs on a scientific or engineering forum, then that is where it should be discussed. Free Energy, perpetual motion, wet dreams, are for the dreamers. But that remote possibility is what keeps some people with a purpose in life. Sorta like mining for gold.

The possibility that oxy-hydrogen as a fuel of the future exists as there are some uses of hydrogen blends occurring annually as we rocket humanity into space, and we have found a way to return them safely, over coming friction, spacial vacuum, and life without the things we take for granted here on earth.

I am very much aware of the explosive power of the H2O fuel gas. In spite of my knowledge of explosives, I got careless. It got my attention. I personally doubt that it is even possible to move to that fuel alone for powering to days ICE's. However I don't seem to get complete responses from most of the scientific/engineering players on the forum. I think this is a reasonable example. I have satisfied myself about the distribution of volts/amps when connecting to a 12 volt battery, with a weak electrolyte. I personally have conducted the tests. I fully understand automotive fuel management technology and what must be done to over come the pre-installed programs. This has been accomplished. I have studied the impact of high voltage on the separation of the water molecule. It takes very little electricity to create high voltage pressured by milli-amps, and this seems to be the answer. However I am not aware of anyone having paid the attention to detail that is needed to assemble such an example for testing, in order to get accurate results. The construction of such a piece of equipment must be done under the most sanitary conditions, and tested accordingly. I am working on such a system as funds are available. I can tell you that I have designed an electrode packet in which every other plate is energized pos/neg. No "floaters" as the un-connected plates are called. It exists of 11 plates. When placed in a 1 gallon container of a warm solution of distilled water and distilled white vinegar, suspended off of the bottom, and energized, within just a few seconds the entire container is snow white with tiny bubbles. This is without the application of the high voltage. As the high voltage requires so little energy in put to improve the fracturing of the water molecule, I have a good feeling that I can bring the production of the fuel gas to a quantity that is necessary make it's application worth while. Nothing that I have seen on the market is this complicated nor detailed. While some of them may be helping the current fuel consumption issue for some people, I see these devices as inefficient. Maybe even worthy of the condemnation posted on this forum. AND; I will offer my design and results for free to the public domain. I have no desire to profit from what I have learned about the subject. If someone else wishes to manufacture this idea and make it available for those who cannot or will not construct one for them selves, I don't care. Profit is not a dirty word. Thanks for your responses and to all others.

TMF

Actually, while there are technological issues that can be raised, I see the issue as an economic one, not necessarily a Scientific/technical one.

If we could find a way to amortize costs of photovoltaics sooner, then we could shift load from utilities, freeing up hydrocarbon fuel stocks. (Currently, we justify the investment using todays costs of fuel. but if everybody knows that they will continue to go up due to global consumption growth fuled by the BRICS, ,,)

Similar with shale oil and other potential sources of energy.

We can already make efficient electric motors, we're working like hell on better batteries, and the peoples republic of california is even trying to develop a hydrogen infrastructure.

But the barriers to implementation seem to me to be economic, not technical. regardless of fuel combusted. Fuel energy density is just one factor on the engineering side.

Ultimately, the barrier s always seem to be economic.

Personally, I believe in an electron economy, rather than a fuel one, as resistance losses in wires are much less than the expense and losses due to transport of mass of fuels several times before they are combusted. TRANSPORT OF MASS (of Fuels) is a huge waste in our current economy, and the ubiquity of the internet shows how much can be achieved when its all done "on a wire..."

But can we afford the capital cost of _________(Enter your favorite technology white knight here- batteries, say, or pay off the photovoltaics in reasonable period?)

To me these are the problems that if solved immediately, would create the instantaneous change in behavior.ANd pop the speculative bubble in fossil fuels, particularly oil.

So now I'm taking a Master's level economics course. Professor used to work at the Fed.

I'll let you guys know how that turns out.

milo