WOW!! We are looking at the next Bill Gates.

No, no we’re not.

He’s just running a hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine. It’s already been done: Ford and BMW do it, except they use pure hydrogen from a tank, as opposed to the highly dangerous hydrogen oxygen mixture this guy keeps bottled up.

Here’s a video of the BMW H2R if nobody’s seen it already: http://www.automotoportal.com/article/Recordrun_video_of_the_BMW_H2R_BMW_CleanEnergy

Plus, he’s getting the hydrogen from electrolysis – so his car is essentially being powered by the local power company, albeit circuitously.

AES is completely correct. BMW’s modified 7-series with a Hydrogen powerplant is the way of the future; when it comes to using Hydrogen to power cars. This guy however is playing with fire. I wonder what would happen if he crashed his car? (insert images of the Hindenburg here).

Jon.

hey AES, that video doesnt work. the link took me somewhere else. but ur pretty much rite on, hes just doing wut BMW has been doing for a while now, but he just does it alittle differently. its all the same principals. but hey…give the guy credit for trying…

The link is just a youtube-shared video.

Go on motorpulse.com and search for h2r and you should be able to find it.

And yes, if this guy’s fuel tank ruptured there would likely be pretty bad results, given the oxygen that’s already mixed in. He should stick to making welding tools.

What this article really highlights is confusion over energy source versus energy carrier. Hydrogen and batteries are energy carriers, not energy sources. Even bioethanol proponents are not free from this conundrum – the plants the EtOH comes from grow using the energy of the sun. Hence it’s an indirect form of solar power.

Personally, I think we should just cut the middlemen as much as possible, so to speak, and use nuclear/solar/wind sources in either hydrogen or battery cars.

Excellent.

Wow, burning water instead of gas.
I wish I had thought of that.

I understand that Big Oil is currently purchasing all of the planet’s water rights to keep this discovery quiet.

apparently this guy claims that the alternator gets up enough power to convert the water into this magical HHO gas just as it enters the cylinder so its safe to be stored, which is impossible. he also claims to have 39 patents for the process, but if you search his name or aquygen, you won’t find any patents filed. his ideas are modified from brown’s, who has been proven to have used “brown’s gas” (HHO, aquygen, and browns gas are all the same) as a scam. now denny klein said that he had the rights to browns patents (not true), but then when asked why browns patented method wouldn’t produce the results it claimed, klein said that brown left out some important step in the process that only he knows. basically, its a huge hoax, besides that, 3 years ago (not sure if its still true) a gallon of gasoline without taxes was cheaper than a gallon of water.

waste of time. It’s nice to know that if you are one of the crazy people who wants to spend more money on electricity to get around than on gas available everywhere, you too can get your IC engine to run on hydrogen, just like every fuel cell concept and bmw hydrogen car has for years…. it’s just one more way folks… yes it exists, but it isn’t financially viable…. and this is not new…

Right. You guys are all right. Thats why Congress is having him demonstrate his technology for them in Washington. Because its no big deal, and its already been done. Right.

Hydrogen is NOT highly dangerous. Hydrogen is the perfect fuel that all cars should be powered on. It is so easy to make. Popular Mechanics recently stated that it would only cost about $100,000 to convert a gas station over to hydrogen. I read a report that they had a vehicle travel more than 900 miles on one gallon of the stuff, if I remember correctly. What I hate is when people compare hydrogen power to the Zepplin disaster. What is one or two gallons of hydrogen compared with 1,000,000 gallons plus in a vehicle? For a small car it is perfectly safe. Besides, last time I checked, gasoline is inflamible too.

Besides, last time I checked, gasoline is inflamible too.

liquid no, vapor yes. ps, why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing?

No one’s arguing the fundamental merits of hydrogen here, Marc. Just that the man in this posting is 30 years behind in his homework. And you’re correct – gasoline pools at the scene of the accident, whereas pure compressed hydrogen gas will vent into the atmosphere.

BAMF- Nowhere was it written that Mr.Klein was demonstrating his technology for Congress. His patent filing will be denied, pure and simple.

i saw this a few days ago… thought it was pretty cool… but im surprised noone has yet quoted steven hyde…
“There is no gas shortage, man. It’s all fake. The oil companies control everything. Like there is this guy that invented this car and it runs on water, man. It’s got a fiberglass air-cooled engine and it runs on water.”
im going to miss that show…

Though it may not be the first hydrogen fueled type motor it is mor euseful seeing as it is easier to distrubute water at pumps than pure hydrogen though it may be mor edangerous it has a more realistic application for a within 10-15 year range

Actually the hydrogen in the cars is highly dangerous. Certainly not as much as the Zeppelins but more so than gasoline. It’s been cited as one of the main problems of mass producing it. However, they are coming up with quite a few ways that should fix this problem. Now don’t get me wrong I am a HUGE supporter of hydrogen engines, it’s bloody brilliant and really will revolutionize everything when it comes out massively. I for one can’t wait for it. BMW’s racer is great, racing technology quite often leads towards tech for the road.

Hey, AES, why don’t you watch the video? In one of the last lines, it says “Members of Congress have invited Mr. Klein to Washington to demonstrate his technology” or something to that affect. Why doesn’t anyone

IN FACT, Aes, the end of the video also states that his company is currently developing a Hummer for the US Military that can run on water and gasoline.

In addition, it states that Denny Klein’s water powered engines have passed all safety and performance inspections.

So what do you have to say to that?

BAMF you beat me to every point. Damn you for sharing many of the same ideas as me!

this AES guy is full of ****. so far i havent seen a SINGLE hydrogen car on the market (correct me if im wrong, please). he also needs to watch the video in full. i’ve said it before and ill say it again…some of you are just really paranoid, and obviously too cynical and proud to make sense. im 16, and i caught that congress thing, so you just kinda sounded stupid, and its just a little too clear that you just want to take the other side.

On the market is NOT the topic of discussion – and if you review past postings, you’ll notice Honda’s hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that is coming to production.

I apologize for missing the last line – I was too busy actually paying attention to the SCIENCE behind the story. Then again, it’s just him saying he’s been invited to Congress and that he’s developing something. No real proof. He could at least cite his receiving a DARPA grant or something. That’s what tech firms usually get for independent research. In addition, doesn’t it make a lot more sense to get a patent and THEN publicize your idea?

The whole concept sounds like it violates VESPR chemistry, as well as conservation of energy – both quite basic physical laws.

You weren’t “busy paying attention the science”. You were think of what to post. Tool.

Sorry I meant thinking…ignore that Tool thing too. I’m in a mood.

A tool is someone who would read this and automatically assume it to be true.

The patent itself claims that the car’s alternator electrolyzes the water to produce hho gas, which is then burned in the engine. Water which can then, in theory, be re-electrolyzed and reburnt.

Sounds like it violates conversation of energy.

Argue me on that, nothing else.

Yeah and deliberately going against the mainstream by assuming something is false to make yourself seem smart on a message board is reserved solely for cool guys who people want to listen to. Maybe while you’re at it you could find an evolution message board and preach intelligent design. Then you’d be really cool.

Sorry, I’ll clarify – water is given off as exhaust. Which can then be re-electrolyzed and reburnt.

Water + small electrical jolt -> HHO -> sparked to produce BIG energy which is then lost in the form of heat and forward vehicle motion -> water

restart.

something’s wrong here…

My BS detector is running on high….

Unless this guy has come up with a way to start low level nuclear fusion… I don’t see this being the real deal.

BTW: no need to worry about exploding. The idea behind this machine is to electolize on the fly, not to store the hydrogen.

BTW: Auto OEMs are looking into catalysts to extract hydrogen gas from normal gasoline and then introduce it into the combustion chamber, which would allow for higher compression ratios and more efficient combustion.

Still waiting for the HCCL engine and electrically spun flywheels (the holly grail). I’ll do with disel for now.

Mazda showed off a hydrogen powered car at the 2006 NAIAS. The fuel tank was INSIDE the vehicle passenger compartment (Mazda5). If this technology is so safe and practicle why would you need to mount the tank inside the vehicle? Plus it took up alot of space. Let me see some crash test videos first before I get into one of these hydrogen powered vehicles.

The tank was so large because hydrogen is difficult to store and compress, due to its lightness.

If you’d like to learn about alternatives to compressed gas, such as solid storage mechanisms, do a search for “nickel metal hydride hydrogen storage.

http://www.ovonic.com (one of the pioneers of NiMH technology) also has useful information on the subject.

Whether it’s the big success or anything new (he claims its evolutionary not revolutinary on his site hytechapps.com) it’s still worth looking at.

They say its safe enough and are beginning dev of a military Hummer… hmm.

When married with a traditional fuel system, 4HP input into the water based system gives back 17HP… *shrugs*

Is what this guy doing anything different than an HFI (hydrogen fuel injection) system? It’s my understanding from the video that he’s burning the HHO gas along with gasonline to give him increased gas mileage. Trucks with the HFI system (here’s a link to a wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,69529,00.html) use electrolysis also to get hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen along with gasoline. However, they are only claiming the system gives them a 10% decrease in fuel use.

IN THIS HOUSE WE OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!

-Homer Simpson

To Greg, this guy is converting to gas from water, not storing the gas.

“When married with a traditional fuel system, 4HP input into the water based system gives back 17HP…”
??? You can never get out more energy than you put in.

12 volts, 30 amps is 360 watts, or about half a horsepower.
This is used to make hydrogen, at up to 90% efficiency.
The hydrogen is then burned at 25% efficiency, to give you 360×0.9×0.25, or 81 watts of useful power output.
In other words, you have added 279 watts of load to your engine.

Okay, I emailed the company. After some terse initial responses, they answered:

“regarding where the energy comes from in the auto
application—you get electricity from the alternator—it produces our gas
as you drive, our gas gets injected into the fuel-tank and bonds with
gasoline—upon combustion you get greater HP and better gas mileage and
much cleaner emissions.”

In other words, the gas’s power ultimately can be traced back to the gasoline which runs the engine, which in turn runs the alternator. So it’s a way of making use of a small amount of otherwise wasted gasoline power. Nothing more.

So why not selectively turn the alternator on and off? Hybrid cars are already capable of this (their engine shuts off at low speed). BMW has concepts that do this regardless of whether the the engine is running: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=115127

After a barrage of further terse (and spelling-error ridden) emails from the company, I finally got ahold of a peer reviewed journal. HHO as a molecule does exist, albeit unstably.

As an efficient electrolysis process, this is actually quite nice, because HHO degrades rapidly into h2 and o2. But the notion of “running on water” is completely erroneous. It runs on hydrogen bonds, NOT water. As with any other exothermic reaction, it requires an endothermic energy investment. Period.

If anyone wants a copy of the paper, let me know.

Aes, sorry for the confusion of “running on water” – I mean it uses water as the item input into the system and runs off the hydrogen bonds you mentioned… i’m no science whizz (pity because I used to enjoy this, just didn’t follow it up) but basically I think you know exactly what is meant by this whole system and you’re being devil’s advocate… still, you’ve done a good job of bringing about an in depth discussion and some well-needed scrutiny.

Its for real! Take that Oil companies.

hoax

it doesnt burn hydrogen, it burns hho which is alot more stable, since its all possible to convert h2o into hho, i dont think this idea is that far fetched it was just a matter of time to find the proper electrolysis technique to use and formulate a way to do it. im extremely glad this guy found a way to do this as fossil fuel is way to expensive, hopefully this will cure our fuel crisis, and if this idea can be applied to veihicles, then the possiblities for its uses are almost endless, power plants for one, we could get double out of our hydro-electric plants by using this method,

According to even their own research paper, HHO degrades rapidly into H2 and O2.

So no, it isn’t stable. That’s why they have to produce it on site. Otherwise they’d be selling it in tanks.

Also, I stated that it gets energy from hydrogen BONDS, which are present in the HHO molecule. Considering the instability, the “patented” gas also likely contains a good deal of straight-up H2.

you guys are smart…almost too smart for your own good…. ah well…

With all due respect, I think some of you are missing the point. Why would you bother to add an energy transfer system to your vehicle when that system cannot provide as much energy as it uses? – Just to say you’re “sticking it” to the oil companies? If you want to run your internal combustion engine on water, you have to “crack” that water with an elecrical current via the electrolysis process. By the law of conservation of energy, the most energy you could possibly recover would be just enough to support the elecrolysis. There would be no energy left over to power the vehicle into motion. Now, consider all the inefficiencies in the process and you actually use energy, not create it. That’s just the facts of physical reality. Can somebody prove this statement to be wrong? I would love to hear it.

BUILDER: That’s exactly the question I posed to the company, and their response was:

“the issue here is that this is novel, unique and new—-the fact that it doesn’t conform to your knowledge of science and laws of physics, blah blah blah, couldn’t matter less to us—this is something new and different, it is what we say, and we are now way too busy to deal with you.
Buzz off now, back to your job at the photomat.”

At best, this company is advocating pseudoscience, and at worse, they’re flat-out white collar criminals.

Thanks Aes. Doe anyone else have a knowledge of science and physics that it DOES conform to?

I have read entries here and on other chat rooms. I am interested in his use in automobiles not welding. Here are a few observations and questions.

1. Most automobiles run their alternators all the time. This burns fuel, and the load is wasted. The car battery only needs a limited amount of electricity to recharge it. Hybrid cars solve this by selectively running their alternator (it only runs when the battery needs charging).

2. Rather than shut off the alternator, this new system makes use of this wasted electricity or load.

3. He does not store the HHO gas so there is no relative little increase in the danger of explosion. It is used on demand.

4. Some have suggested that simply shutting off the alternator would have the same effect as producing HHO. I am not sure if that is accurate. Would the two really be equivalent? You would have to calculate the load the alternator places upon the engine and the amount of gasoline it consumes. Shutting off the alternator would save gas but how much?

5. What are the relative efficiencies of his process? How much gas is produced based upon watts consumed? Is it really enhancing the performance of the engine to the point where the expense is justifiable? In other words, if the unit costs $7,000, what MPG would you need to get to make it worth your time. ($7,000 is what he’s selling his generators for) Okay, maybe with volume production he gets the price down to $1,000. I would still want to see how much gas I would be saving. What would my MPG be in order to earn it back? If it took ten years of driving, I don’t think it would be worth it.

6. Next you would have to compare that to amount of HHO produced by the same unit of electricity produced by the combustion of gasoline. According to the inventor, HHO is more reactive than simple H2 O2. If this were true, it would reduce the inefficiencies of the engine and thus yield better gas mileage. Even if he is simply producing hydrogen, how much is he producing given the amount of electricity his device consumes? Would it really be better than simply shutting down the alternator?

7. Is he really saying that he’s creating more energy than he uses, or is he proposing that HHO is more reactive than standard H2 O2? It sounds as if his theories on HHO are dubious at best.

8. How is the device producing the HHO gas? Has he invented a better method of electrolysis?

9. What volume of HHO gas is produced based upon his method of electrolysis? He must be producing something with his generator because he is selling the welding generators. I’m not saying welding with HHO is a good thing to do, but he is doing it. The video of his system working makes that clear. If they did not, he would be shut down very fast.

I’ll believe this when Big Oil buys him out just like they are buying out solar photovoltaic companies. Have you seen any Shell Oil ads for their photovoltaics? They bought out Siemens photovoltaics. I guess they got tired of paying Siemens not to advertise. BP also has them.
SO…. when the MONEY moves to this idea I’ll believe it.
Go to Changing World Technologies…. and ask yourself why Big Oil is cutting off their access to political funding. Oil from garbage… refuse…. plastic…. and perhaps someday sewage.
HHO gas….. is not something anyone wants to play with that’s why it’s not used.

I think point number 8 in response #46 is the key question. I think that even if the electrolysis were perfect (100% efficient), the most energy you could obtain by burning the resultant gasses, no matter what you call them or what you combine them with, would only be enough to replace the energy used in the electrolysis. That would assume the combustion was 100% efficient. Combustion is known to be much less than 100% efficient, just for the loss due to heat alone. Now if he got more energy out of the electrolysis than he put in, he would really have something, and the car could run on water alone! But, we would have to rewrite that silly law that says energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Yeah it’s a hoax. He’s making money off of licenses sold, stock in the company sold, and investors.
Welding with HHO (Brown’s gas) produces a brittle weld compared with Oxy-acetylene.
You can see his patent on the net, and there’s nothing different about his electrolysis device. Takes more energy than it produces. You can get a patent on anything that doesn’t infringe on other patents; that doesn’t mean it works. The USPO only bans perpetual motion machines, and he got around this by making it a perpetual energy machine. If it really worked, the water at the exhaust pipe could be put back in the tank, and it would produce energy without any input, hence perpetual motion machine.

If it were for real, there would be independent testing laboratory reports, and scientific articles published in reputable journals. Not to mention a Nobel prize for transcending the laws of thermodynamics.

If you google, you can find sub atomic physicists laughing at his patent, saying he did a very good job of pseudo science babble, and pointing out the flaws.
There are four or five flaws in the news video itself, but many in the patent.

P.S. alternators already are shut off when not in use; that’s what the voltage regulator does. When there is no current flowing in the windings the alternator presents no load other than the friction of the bearings and belt. It is the opposing magnetic fields that cause a load on the engine, and those opposing fields also generate electricity to charge the battery. This only happens when the regulator turns the alternator on.

As anybody considered that we have a solution now, I run my diesel car on pure vegetable oil. It costs much less than diesel and can even be recycled from restaurants. If you buy the correct car (i have an old merc) you don’t even have to warm the oil first.

You can also seperate the heavy white fats from the red fats and just burn the red fats which allows the oil to be used in any diesel engine. Please have a look at http://www.bio-power.com for more info

Sorry link is http://www.bio-power.co.uk

Paul – off topic response. I’ll respond anyway, though.

Vegetable oil is an inexpensive way of running your car, and I applaud you for having the where-with-all to do it, but unfortunately it’s inappropriate to label it as a “solution”, or more specifically, a widespread solution. The people who use vegetable oil as a fuel are able to do so because they are a very select few. If EVERYONE were to suddenly jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, it would put an immense strain on the agricultural system, and costs would skyrocket.

A more humourous downside is the smell. I had a friend who ran his old Mercedes Benz turbo diesel on used vegetable oil, and he eventually had to get rid of the car because he got incredibly sick everytime the engine ran.

I see a lot of nay saying regarding this – and its healthy I guess but imagine what a world we could leave for our kids and their kids if more and more smart fellows (and ladies) get into this technology and make it work the way we would all like it to work. It will set us up for the next ten thousand years of development. I wonder what the message board would have looked like when Ford told the world he would produce cars for everyone – or when Da Vinci told people that someday men would fly? I am a bit worried about the oil barrons though – money talks all the rest walk.

The problem with this technology is that it really is not a technology. Maybe it could set us up for the next thousand years, but it won’t. Ford didn’t invent the assembly line, but it was based on solid principles. There were people that leapt to their deaths with winged contraptions attached to their arms in the hope of flying. The problem was that the premise their technology was built on was not sound. Same with this thing. The best thing we can leave for our kids and their kids is a strong interest and foundation in mathematics and the physical sciences. That is what will set us up for the next thousand years.

1. Anyone who thinks that aby combination of Hydrogen (pressurized or not) and Oxygen is more dangerous (likely to explode) than the gasoline currently running in automobiles has done no research, and is just plain mistaken. I once watched a video where a couple of researchers setup two identical tanks. One contained gasoline, one contained a Hydrogren mixture (the point was to disprove the fear about hydrogen that started with the Hindenburg). From 100 yards they fired a single rifle shot (for ignition) into the hydrogren tank. I little white smoke started coming out of it and that was all. They then fired a shot into the gasoline tank. Black smoke began to come out, followed shortly by flame, then a violent explosing. Which one would you rather be sitting in front of us in an accident?

2. Do a search for HyZor in google and see how this technology DOES apply TODAY. That said, this guy is a ‘claim jumper’ because this technology has been around since at least the 60’s, maybe earlier.

POINT: The guy in the story is the joke, not the technology.

HHO gas, huh? Is that anything like H2O gas (more commonly known as Water Vapor).

Water isn’t dangerous unless your head is being held under it.

HHO gas, huh? Is that anything like H2O gas (more commonly known as Water Vapor)?

Water isn’t dangerous unless your head is being held under it.

On the subject of “energy in>energy out:” From what I gather (though I’m not a physics major, just a h.s. grad), the energy in (electrolysis) is not the thing which produces the energy out; its job is to simply separate the H from the water and leave it in a burnable state, so that the energy which is already inherent in the H can be used through burning it. So, you’re not getting more out than you put in. What you’re getting is the liberation of the tremendous energy which is already stored in the H. Again, I’m not claiming to be a physics major, but that’s what I think is going on.

Addendum to my previous comment: As has been stated, the alternator is running at a continuous steady rpm while driving anyway; so except at idle I don’t think there would be an increase in rpms to run the electrolyzer; but I may be wrong. At any rate, if I wasn’t clear before, I think that the addition of H or HHO , etc. into your burn would be a positive thing, especially since doing it his way means that you don’t have to store it (storage is one of the main problematic areas of research re H, and H distribution; so producing as you use is, I think, a great interim solution).

Carun-

Do some background research on the principles of how both electrolysis and fuel cells (the reverse process of electrolysis) work. Wikipedia has some good articles. Even better, howstuffworks.com has an excellent article on fuel cells.

The energy required to split/shatter water molecules IS the energy that is eventually released by either burning or catalyzing the hydrogen gas. To advocate otherwise is to advocate a perpetual motion machine.

Klein’s paper posits that inefficient electrolysis has always been a barrier to hydrogen production – WRONG. Most of the inefficiency arises during either the production of the electricity itself, or during the burning or catalysis of the H2.

Energy is NOT inherent to H atoms. Energy is inherent to the BONDS between them.

Oil is controlled by a cartel. Whether there is a shortage or not doesn’t matter. Gas prices continue to rise because we don’t control the majority of the crude oil. Alternatives will become more cost efficient because the Middle East will continue to control the price of oil. It doesn’t matter whether gas is more efficient if gas costs $6.00 a gallon due to greed. It’s all about renewable energy sources.

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,866,756.PN.&OS=PN/6,866,756&RS=PN/6,866,756

To be honest i am a bit sceptical about this idea… (and to response to post 56 and 57… HHO is close to water vapour… but when you heat water, it doesnt change its chemical structure, water is HOH) Now it shows that its possible energy output is seemingly endless which i cant see happening… But there wouldn’t be such a hype or interest in this subject if it wasnt remotely possible that what they’re saying is true. Now with his car, he is able to go 30x further than just gasoline powered alone, with only an added 4 ounces of distilled water used. (although im sure its not really 30x) Even if this takes 50 years to complete a way to making water into a viable energy producer, it looks to at least be a way to save us a lot of money, and the way crude oil is being distributed these days, is a huge benefit to our economy no matter what you say.

I understand the skeptics on here if you want to look at it from a purely scientific point of view. I don’t know the science of it, but I’m guessing that most skeptics are saying your just trading one energy source for another (electricity for gas). But if you look at it from a political/ecological view point, what do you have to lose? Electricity is a renewable energy source. It can be made in the USA or even from solar powered batteries. It doesn’t matter if gas is cheaper. Relying on oil makes us vulnerable to foreign interests and puts billions of dollars in the hands of evil people. To me, it isn’t whether it’s more efficient, it’s whether or not it can eliminate our slavery to oil. At least electricity isn’t controlled by some foreign oil cartel. So to whoever said we are just trading the cost from paying the oil companies versus paying the power company, who cares? At least the power company is located here and provides jobs and money to Americans.

Hhhhmmm…..

Most of you are talking Frog****.
Runing a car on Hydrogen is not new. It has been done 60 years ago in Hungary and Germany.
I have experimented with it over 30 years ago. I have successfuly managed to run a small aeroplane engine on a self produced Hydrogen. Not to mention I have blown my self up due to Hydrogen’s violent explosion. Due to my primitive knowledge: I have come to the conclusion that I can not produce enough Hydrogen on board the vehicle what the engine requires: It runs then stops, wait for more gas to be produced then runs again. It was unreliable. I have never patented anything, because if you patent something then everybody knows it, or you may disapear. With a modification it can be copied, and you get nothing. While the smart is thinking, the stupid already doing it.

Has anyone thought that maybe the key here is releasing the oxygen from the H2O and mixing it with the fuel? Now you have oxygenated fuel which should burn more completely than Gasoline alone. Therefore he may actually be releasing energy that would have previously gone out the tailpipe as hydrocarbon emissions. That being said, this still sounds a little fishy to me and I would still like to see some peer reviewed journals on the subject as better evidence that combining HHO or H2 and O2 with Gasoline can allow that gasoline to release more energy than it would have otherwise.

Any ten year old can put the end of a hose into a tank of water that is elevated put the other end at some lower elevation and then by inputting only one little suck, start a flow of water that will continue for as long as the earths weather refills the tank for him. And all of you skeptics know that the flow he created can be used to perform work. He doesn’t have to violate the laws of thermal dynamics. And he doesn’t have to create or destroy energy. He is simply focusing the effects of static energy {that of gravity in this case} already present in his enviroment to produce many more times the potential for work to be performed than the energy it took for him to suck on the hose. So quite arguing about perpetual motion and start trying to figure out how to focus a little of the massive amount of potential energy to use to produce work that already exists all around us everywhere. I think a lot of you skeptics could benefit from the use of a little common sense and some time spent thinking about the positive rather than the negative.

I smell a rat. Back in 1976, someone came out with a water injection unit, which was said to make a car with a V8 get 66 miles per gallon of gas improvement.

GM was suppose to have bought it from the inventor and paid him 5 million dollars, then never produced it. Being that was 30 years ago it seems that they thought I would not remember this.

So if anyone did some research they will find this tobe another hoax.

There are great observations and statements being made here. It seems “We” are on the right track here, by trying to find a solution for the ever increasing price for transportation. The BIG OIL guys have all the backing financially to buy up the little guys ideas,whether they are 100% accurate or not. If they are close in their calculations it doesn’t matter. They are quickly silenced. And if the are some how original in their formula’s, the Big Oil guys are the sole owners of this idea….. Solution!!! Start a group to buy up or research these ideas instead of selling them to BO guys..

The goverment seeks to elimate alternative full sources that they themselves cannot control or profit from. Anyone who has invented a process and went public has been killed, disappeared or sold their patents/work (obviously against their will) and have become hermits.

I’m not a conspiracy nut. I only speak up because I witnessed this first hand.
I lived next door to a nice fellow who in the late 80’s made such claims, a few months after going public, he was killed. His killer has never been found. Many men in suits came into his house, and unloaded all his “work” and I never heard anything about it again.

What does the goverment do when a company tries to bypass our need for oil? Check it out at http://www.switchtohydrogen.com

The goverment has issued an injuction, stopping them from obtaining a chemical critical in generating your own hydrogen harmlessly and best of all FREE.

Hydrogen based cars are nothing new, but the solar powered hydrogen generators they were/are prepaired to sell us are.

Open your eyes people. There is alot of misinformation out there, and I believe the gov etc.. is behind it.