What's your favorite alternative fuel?

Water vapor is responsible for global wettening, which fuels tropical storms, which lead to baby names like Katrina, etc. If you don't want natural disasters to occur, you better stop exhaling dihydrogen oxide gases
(and maybe there will be less baby diaper biomass, as a bonus).

talk about a bias rag, those of us who are able to read, have read the science and global warming is a fact. I do believe your must be related to George, and only read the lines that apply to your argument, regardless on how out of context your have to take them

You can make biodiesel in a desert or perhaps at sea.

If we figure out how to make ethanol from cellulose, cellulose is a major component of our landfills and other wast products. It can also be grown on land unsuitable for crops.

There is a process. It doesn?t use yeast, (I believe it uses a form of fungus) and turns wood into Methanol, or wood alcohol.

More agricultural land is lost each minute to urban sprawl that we could ever use for bio fuel

And urban sprawl is caused by poor people which is caused by high taxes (to pay for bio-fuel subsidies) and high cost of living (caused in part by high energy costs due to bio-fuels). Amazing how this is a feed back loop.

hydrogen as a transportation fuel is extremely inefficient to produce carbon neutral. You would have to build many mega nuke plants or massive solar arrays to do it. There are better uses of that electricity.

hydrogen as a transportation fuel is extremely dangerous.

hydrogen is the most leak prone substance possible, and corrosive.

H2O, like CO2, is a waste product of combustion and respiration and not an energy source for anyone but plants.

Plants use H2O + CO2 +sunlight = O2 + CxHxOx; and some plants go further to CxHx + O2

I call that biodiesel. liquid solar power.

Oh, and if you combust H2 + Air in an IC engine you get some NOx.

Water power is not really the water, but the hydrogen. I don't know about the car (using water for combustion), but about electricity it is unrealistic. The water is split into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. This means that you need electricity to do this. The electricity needed, because of inefficiencies and so will always be greater than the 'advantage' energy produced. This relates to the principle of energy - that it can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be changed in form. Nevertheless, I still agree that this discovery may lead to something, possibly 'save the world' for us. But there are other proved and trustworthy means of procucing electricity, so we needn't worry too greatly about water for now. Maybe in the future to make life easier.

Stan Meyer was just one of several scammers with supposed "water powered cars" that were really powered by a hidden fuel tank.

Water doesn't burn. It takes more energy to split H2 from the O than you can recover by burning the H2. Simple facts, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it.

I just love these defeatists that say impossible, because they read it somewhere or some "expert" that works for the petrochemical industry showed a "study" that says so.

Here is what I read:

Super-Efficient Electrolysis

"Water can be broken into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. Standard chemistry books claim that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only under the worst-case scenario.

When water is hit with its own molecular resonant frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyer (USA) and again recently by Xogen Power, Inc., it collapses into hydrogen and oxygen gas with very little electrical input. Also, using different electrolytes (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) changes the efficiency of the process dramatically. It is also known that certain geometric structures and surface textures work better than others do. The implication is that unlimited amounts of hydrogen fuel can be made to drive engines (like in your car) for the cost of water.

Even more amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman (USA) in 1957, which spontaneously breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical changes in the metal itself. This means that this special metal alloy can make hydrogen from water, for free, forever."

So please don't jump in with rhetoric that is realy just the spin of the industries that will stand to lose the most. The only reason we have an energy economy at all is because J. P. Morgan wanted it that way.

Fruit bats everywhere.

Tell ya what. You get that metal, make a car that uses it, and drive it here. If you do, I'll sell everything that I have and invest my life savings into making these cars. I have a number of people that I know would be willing to invest in a startup company, but you have to demonstrate this.

Even better, make a prototype, and I'll shut off grid power to my house, and connect your engine to a generator. If it works, it should power my house for free. After a month, I'll start a company with you selling them.

Instead of yack yack yack, it's time to show us something.

There are so many skeptics, and I understand why? Hopefully, the Csc inventors club invention will make your doubts a reality. I have personally viewed the hydrogen generator, working, and hopefully, the 1991 Chevy 4x4( which I have also seen) will be running this month, on "Hydrogen". I don't think anyone thinks that there won't be modifications and adjustments, but that's part of the inventing process. The important thing is - It's real - It works - in fairness, most physics professors don't believe it, but Mr. Hunt and the club is doing it. I do understand that it will be different, when the truck is driveable - And it will.

If you would like some information about it, go to their website:

http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com

I strongly suggest listening to Mr. Hunt's explanation, on audio, in the Lindberger Report, First. It explains most, before looking at the other areas. Only a suggestion.

Also, If you don't believe that Hydrogen will be the future, then the auto company's are wasting a lot of money, preparing engines to run on Hydrogen. Ford has at least 2 Internal Combustion Engines on the road right now. Unfortunately, they want to depend on the "Bomb" Infrastrcture - with this invention, you can make it as the engine needs it. Here's a couple of Ford's info.

http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/technology/hydrogenTransport/hydrogenInternalCombustion.htm

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=21823

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26062

Hope this is helpful - I was a skeptic, too. Cautiously hoping!

It does seem that there is a lot of push for hydrogen fuel as an alternative. But it seems more about perpetrating a myth that says we have to burn something to make utility energy.

It seems to me that hydrogen as fuel cell technology was "blamed" for the failure of GM's EV1 according to the Who Killed The Electric Car? film. The technology was young and needed improvement, but could have developed into reliable transportation at least in some urban areas.

There are companies that produce H2 (hydrogen) now, and of course this would blow the market wide open, with existing companies positioned to make millions.

The primary research and development has taken place by government contracts with NASA because H2 and fuel cells are used extensively in the space program.

Problem is, a car and a space shuttle are a tad different. In the space shuttle, this makes perfect sense. You need oxygen already (to breath) and you need electricity (to power everything) and this way you don't have to store water on the shuttle (reducing lift off weight), because a by product of using a fuel cell is clean water (which they can drink).

There is no logic in using Hydrogen as a fuel for cars. One problem is that people think of H2 as a fuel, it isn't. The fuel is what creates the H2. Oil is a fuel. You pump it out of the ground, and on it's own, it is a fuel source. H2 is not found in nature at all. You must create H2. The fuel is whatever you use to create H2.

People oddly think H2 is the key to getting away from fossil fuel use. This is foolish. The mass market method for H2 is heating coal. Another method is refined oil. Finely electrolysis, but most electricity comes from coal.

But eco-nuts want to believe we can use electrolysis from solar energy to make H2 and run our cars on it. The problem is, electrolysis is about 30% efficient. It would take nearly 115 kilowatt hours to make enough H2 to go 100 miles. (a straight EV needs about 34 kWh) The largest currently available solar kit is $50,000 and it would not even come close to providing that much power in the most ideal of situation. Assuming you have the roof space for 42 solar panels, all facing south, all tilted at 33 degrees, and live in a high sun energy area like San Diego, you'd only pull in enough power to go about 9000 miles a year. Of course that ignores the fact solar panels lose 1% power production each year. So the number of miles you can travel will decrease every year until you replace all 42 panels and start over again.

As for that dumb film "who killed the electric car?". At first I was skeptical, but after watching it, I thought it had some good points. But now that I've research more of the claims, the whole film is absolute garbage. I can answer the question for you right now. No one. No one killed the electric car. There have been, and are currently, companies that make electric cars. They exist, you can buy one. Tesla Motors is making them. Other companies make them.

No they are not everywhere, but that's because as much as people talk about it, very few people want a car that can't tow anything, can't be refueled without waiting over night, can't hold more than 2 people, can't go on vacation with it, has a max range of 100 miles, and just plain isn't cool, yet costs as much as a fully loaded regular car that doesn't have any limitations.

As I looked at the claims in the movie, most are one-sided, hearsay, taken out of context, or just plain irrelevant. Like they nailed the GM spokesmen for saying they were not going to destroy the cars. So what? It was their car to begin with, what does it matter what they do with it? The whole movie was like that. Pointless crap.

First let me say that I take it all with a grain of salt. Conspiracy theories aside, NASA dos use self-powered cells in many probes and satillites. All of the technology is classified, as explained by the government for "national security" reasons. And like most of thetechnology that has come out of the space programs, this technology can be of great consumer vaue.

As for H2 not being a fuel, well let's see, fuel as defined by the Mirriam-Webster Colligiate Dictionary is "a material used to produce heat or power by burning." There are other definitions that are not in contxt here so I won't waste readers time.

If H2 is burned to provide power, by definition it is a fuel. If your numbers are vaild then it woud impossible for hydrogen to be electrolized from water to provide the on-demand hydrogen required as an alternative fuel, and the Stan Myer car is bogus, and the Canadian torch that runs on "water" is nothing but a science fiction story as well.

Based on what you state, there is never going to be a way to have free energy. Anyone that thinks electric can be had for free doesn't know anything about the "laws of physics" according to Einstein and many others that were far more intelligent than us mere mortals.

But just like those ignorant pioneers of yore, I stupid enough to think that the world is neither flat nor that energy can ever be created or generated. It merely can change form. The real innovation is to do it in a way that conforms with the subleties of nature.
Lightning does not begin with an explosion, it begins with the subtle static charges built from cool air and warm air and friction between the atoms of the two. There is no "fuel" required to produce the vast amounts of electric in a bolt of lightning.

Methernitha's DL Coverter (No, I don't remember what that means) has provided power for a small Christian community in Switzerland for 25+ years. They don't advertise, don't care to make millions with selling their device. It's based on solid science that demonstrates a "anomoly" in which electricity is produced more abundantly than the energy required as input. Conventional physics don't have an explanation, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office refuses to accept a patent that cannot show the scientific laws on which it is based. Simply demonstrating that it works is not valid according to USPTO examiners.

Nikola Tesla demonstared the capture of "cosmic radiant energy" and conversion to utility electric power. He further demonstrated the use of wireless transmission of that power to anywhere on Earth in great magnitude, without having any advers effects on animal, human, or plant life. MIT demonstrated a wireless power tranmission to liight a 60 watt bulb without adverse effects on any electronics in the area or harm to people.

There is real science being done by real scientists that say that guys like Moray and Tesla were light-years ahead oft heir time in their grasp of the universe and what powers it.

It was just as difficult for greats like Copernicus and Galileo to make their points in anarrow minded world, and today instead of a church it is politics of economy. Every time a great idea comes alomg that can make a radical difference in the world, it is years before it is accepted by the "powers that be" and that is historical fact. It is not interpretation of data as you so staefastedly use as reinforcement to your refusal to think outside the box. You believe in you science as you learned it and anything that is contray to textbook science is "out there in fruit bat land" and those that preach it and follow it our all looneys.

So you keep paying ConEdision, Arco, Exxon, or whom ever you happen to be given as your provider. Stay with the cave dwellers paradigm of burning to make heat and light. When we have no fuel to burn, you can start burning those fruit bats that found a source of energy that does not require burning or polluting. And when theyrun out, you can pray and pay homage to another set of false gods and prophets that will lead you to yet another bullpuckey exsistence that is based on the rich controlling the sheeple.

I am not selling or trying to raise money through venture capital. I offer some insight for others to seek alternatives to conventional thinking. I don't take drugs, don't believe drugs cure anything, The AMA, FDA, are both in colusion with pharmaceutical industry, and doctors just learn what drugs to give instead of learning the science of natural cures.

We have put men and women into space, sent probes into the far reaches of the solar system, and with all ofthe technology in science and medicine, still have no cures. All ofthe real nature remedies have been relgated to snake oil and people are getting ill at earlier ages and suffering longer thanks to drugs that prolong the agony just enough to raise the average life expectancy. But at what cost to the quality of life?

There are many reasons why such science is suppressed. To find the answers follow the money. I was taught to question. Question science, politics, even religion. If one "expert" tells you a fact, ask three others that do not all share the same view. And then look at all ofthe "truths" to see which one works for you. My truths are based on logic and experimentation. Many oft he unrepeatable experiments such as Mallove and brown were not done to the specifications used in the repeated experiments by the inventors. Even in the Pons-Fleischmann cold-fusion experiment there were differences in the original and the "peer review" attempts.

There was a source of energy that was experimentally being tapped on the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Early physicists called it the Ether or Aether (to differentiate from the anethetic) and it was referred to as a "sea of energy" by some.

As I have a wife on disability and still work and take care ofher, I do have little time to work on the devices that I would love to build, I have a very good friend who is like-minded and has also (independent of my influence) learned of these things that I speak of. Like me, he is an avid reader of many out of print and obscure science texts that have been omitted from the current dogma.

If you cannot see past a Big Bang (which I doubt really occured) then I am truly wasted my energy on a believer in a a false god. But if you truly seek truth, I would gladly offer a list of scientists that have demonstrated over unity energy gains and have gone so far as to formuate in mathm terms that you could enter into a computer (probably need a Cray or wait a week or so for a result) but that will demonstrate beyond any doubt that it is fact. That is unless you think its a "trick" with numbers. Which most of quantam mechanics is. They even invented virtual particles to explain what their algorithms cannot. But they refuse to accept Aether science because that would mean that Einstein et. al. did not tell the whole truth and nothing but. The unified theory was retracted and Professor Al said, "Oops, This isn't right!"
But a Unified Theory does exsist and makes gravity nothy more than an effect of the electromagnetic energy of electrons to provide the stability to matter and the forces that allow moons to orbit planets, and planets to orbit stars, and it is created by the very energy that is in all of space. It is the "dark matter" that is still as elusive as Darwin's "Missing Link".

I trust that you will no longer think that I am some couch potato that has nothing better to do than sit at the computer blogging all day. In addition to working and caring for my wife, I read several books (non-fiction) a month, am active in volunteering in community services, love cats and kids, don't attend church or mosque, nor temple, do not endorse any organized religion, vote based on wht I feel serves the highest good of all and not a special interest.

I am sure that electric IS the best alternative power for any mode of transporation based on electric's high torque and horsepower instantly. The biggest innovations on the pricey Tesla Roadster is its software and motors. Regardless of its power requirement which is not as bad as you make it seem. The performance of the engine is quite remarkable considering what most electric and hybrid motors offer. The weakness is still in the storage of electric and efficiency in recharging. Until a more effective device is used, it will limit the range of electric vehicles, Then agai, metro areas may beging to install solar/wind/co-generated electric for EVs to plug into while at work or shopping. San Francisco has new buildings that are using solar, PV and heating water, and vertical wind columns to produce electric. It Chicago did it they could probably collect enough wind energy to power everyhouse east of the Mississippi! Okay, stretching a bit but you can see my point.

Finally, if I only make and sell my product at a tens or even a few hundred per year, production costs will remain high and therefore the cost to consumers will also be high. However if I can sell thousands and bring costs down, tehn I can reduce the selling price so that return on investment in a short time, and then it actually saves the consumer. There are some rare solar PV installs that I have inquired about in my travels here in Pacific Northwest. The older onse seem to be about as efficient as you claim. Most of the newer ones seem to be pretty much self-sufficient and will payoff in a few years. A few were actually installed by the builders and they are already saving the homeowners lots on monthly utility charges. Most have surplus electric when they are away on vacation. THose that also have solar hot water save even more on heating and washing costs. I guess those fruit bats didn't read your facts either.

Sorry, I'm not a physics major, but the H2 is a fuel, and it will dominate the future. Yes, it does take energy to produce Hydrogen, but, there are ways to do this without endangering the environment.

I read all these long explanations on why or why not, and sometimes I think it gets overwhelming. We don't have to change the world to begin using hydrogen. Yes, there will be a learning phase. With 75%+ of the universe being Hydrogen, and when you burn hydrogen, it goes back to water, it will be the fuel of the future.

If you're interested in learning about an invention that produces hydrogen-on-demand, that needs NO storage, and is soon to be in a pickup truck, check out this site.

http;//cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com

I have personally seen this in operation, and it does work and the efficiency - you wouldn't believe it, anyway.

Your system, the carbon rods are the fuel. We'll buy carbon rods and run the car off them. They temporally make H2 when is used and turned back into water.

I'm not as skeptical of a chemical reaction as of electrolysis. With electrolysis, the efficiency is so low, it would be better to charge a battery and run the car off of that, than to make H2 with electricity and run on that. The only difference between an H2 fuel cell car, and an EV, is the EV would cost less on your electric bill each month, and the Fuel cell would cost more to buy (precious metals in the cell), so it just doesn't make any sense.

As for the chemical reaction carbon rod H2 production. Like I said before it sounds promising, but I came up with yet another unanswered question. If the carbon rod fuel is used up and has to be replaced (like the CSC Inventors Club suggests), then where's the carbon going? It has to go somewhere, it obviously isn't in the H2, so where'd it go?

I did find one error on the site. It said it would not contribute to global warming, yet said it's main emission is water vapor. 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor, so that is an error.

Carbon rods are what extracts the H2 from the water. Even though the rods are the replaceable element, the fuel is nonetheless from water.

The carbon naturally falls to the bottom of the reservoir, where it will be harvested for recycle at time of service (carbon rod replacement).

If water vapor is the cause of our "Warming" then we are all truly in big trouble.

The whole global warming, cooling, destroying the planet thing, is a fraud. Yes water vapor is 95% of the so-called "greenhouse effect". The Earths global temperatures are in constant flux, always changing. So try and let go of all that politically/money motivated crap, and focus on the task at hand.

I did a little research and discovered he's using plasmatic inductance to electrolyze the water into hydrogen. Electrolysis is horribly inefficient. I could find very little information regarding plasmatic inductance, so I don't know if it's more or less efficient.

This means you need an electricity source, and the site indicates the system would need a battery. This is not good because when the battery is dead, the system stops making H2 and the engine stops. This means there's a range limitation based on the battery.

Basically it all boils down to how much electrical power is needed. If it is high, then this all falls apart. If it's low, then this could be really good.

You said you saw it work, do you know this guy? What happened to the Chevy 4x4? They said they were going to do it in early June. It's now mid-July, what happened? What did GM say?

I really appreciate your input, here. I will attempt to answer some of your questions - understand, I have signed a Non-Disclosure statement, but can answer some, with no problem.

I agree completely, the global warming is Not Man Made, but I believe it's the sun spots. There's a site called "Global Warming Swindle", however when you type it in Google, you get a bunch of "Al Gore's" crap, but if you look for the UK version, it's quite interesting, and I believe most of what they say.

Yes, I do know Mr. Hunt. I've talked with him on numerous occasions. I've met with him personally, on two occasions.

The most I can say about the power is, it does use a battery, and that the efficiency with his system produces more electricity than is needed to operate the Plasmatic inductance.

You are one of the more interesting and helpful persons that I've replied to. I urge you to try and make contact with James. He will make the time to talk to you, as long as he feels you are genuine.

I have personally seen this 1991 4x4 - They do still hope to have it running, this month - the 3rd prototype generator is close to completion - Yes, I've seen that too. All of the club members have to shuffle family, jobs, and their education time, and still work on the systems.

G-M was ready?? Patents have to be finalized?? In fairness to you and me, Internal Combustion Engines must be modified to run on Hydrogen. Ford and Chevrolet already have engines modified to run on Hydrogen. If you'd like, I can give you those sites:

http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/technology/hydrogenTransport/hydrogenInternalCombustion.htm

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26062

http://www.etecevs.com/hice/main.html

God's Speed

I will follow up on this.

I would contact Mr. Hunt, but I really don't know of what use I could be. I can't even really invest at this point because I lost my job, and money is very short.

But I will be watching this.

Be well. Talk to you soon.

As the Earth heats up, more water is condensed to vapor, which contributes to large storms in summer and winter. Also the inversion from heat to cooler air masses become more pronounced and effect wind velocity which grows more powerful.

Sun activity must play a major role in this since there are periods of geologic recod showing sych warming and cooling trends. Somehow, humans got it in their large egos, that their technologies have created global warming, and that greenhouse gases are the root cause.

The sun radiates more energy in heat, light, and electrons, not to mention the gamma and other radioactive particles, in one day, than we could harness and use in a lifetime.

Perhaps when we learn to use that tremendous power, and if we don't use it to build weapons of mass destruction and totally anilhilate our species, we will have to energy to build pyramids and spaceships that can assist us in finding new planets to colonize in case the Earth will perish by cosmic cause.

The physicists of the Wright Brothers ear said that it was impossible to fly. And later those same experts deemed a rocket could never carry men to the moon. Yet we now probe far off planets and get data from those probes that science is using to rewrite textbooks, which are no longer valid truths about the universe we live in.

Modern quantum physicists also have created virtual particles to explain the anomalies that their mathematics cannot. So us looneies keep searching for the "Holy Energy Grail" that will free us from the slavery of industrial power, and that is lieral and figurative power.

I used to think the same thing about weather, and it's clear from this forum, most everyone does. But it is not actually true... or... at least the weather data does not support this theory.

Large and powerful storms actually increase when the Earth cools, rather than when it warms.

Further you are correct, as the the atmosphere gets warmer, the jet stream becomes larger, and it has faster wind speeds.

This ironically hinders storms. The best example is tropical storms, where a massive, fast moving jet stream will blow the storm apart before it can form into a hurricane.

Tornadoes are the same. This is why spring and fall are the most likely times for them. Whereas July and August, the hottest months, are not.

Bottom line: Bad weather patterns are more of an indication of global cooling, rather than warming. (again, as far as weather data indicates)

Read http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Report

2004 DoE Review of Cold Fusion
Real physicists offer real experiments and data for review nad instead get told they must be wrong or "fruit bats" but real science doesn't do such things.

I am just one person like each individual who looks for a better way of life. I was taught to always look outside the box to find real innovation. The reasons that I remain steadfast in my convictions regarding "free energy" is not because it's a science fiction dream, but because it is the truth about what makes the universe work.
These same experts in their eras ridiculed the Wright Brothers and then a space program that thought it could use rockets to get to the moon.

I am not seeking to be right, nor am I seeking to be left. I am just contributing what I feel is real science that is just outside the box.

To the editor and moderator who felt my reference to a rooster and bovine was somehow a phrase worthy of censorship, it is another indication of what is considered politically correct, regardless of the true meaning and intention of the words.

In the struggle to remain free we must sometimes sacrifice the words to enjoy the truths of conscience thought. Burning books did not make those thoughts cease to exsist. They live even now and are being used to create a new paradigm. But like every in life that changes, humanity wants everything to remain the same.

If all the oil industry and the auto industry worldwide died tomorrow, nobody but the workers and stockholders would shed a tear. And if we all had transportation that was energy cost free and non-polluting, the cost of transporting goods would not be a factor in their prices. Of course their will be transportation costs, since vehicles will have to move large numbers of people and large quanitities of product. But fuel will not be a factor.

Maybe then RFID for inventory would be cool. And robots performing the manual labor tasks will free humans to persue even more of themselves intellectually and spritually. Ah yes, the Utopian dreams of a fruit bat.

producing hydrogen for earthbound transportation is extremely inefficient, and thanks to themodynamics it always will be.

go biodiesel