Saving Money with Fuel Efficient Cleaner Vehicles

Hydrogen can be used as fuel. Of that, there is no doubt. Planes, trains, automobiles, space shuttles, you name it; they can all be powered by hydrogen. When hydrogen burns it produces nothing more than water vapor. And since the hydrogen atom is virtually ubiquitous, many have declared we are on the brink of the "Hydrogen Age" when it comes to clean energy. It is just a matter of technology finding a way to make the use of hydrogen-for-energy economically viable.

My concern is limited to hydrogen powered automobiles. The promise has been cars with tanks of hydrogen that can be swapped out at filling stations, similar to the way we can now swap out tanks of propane for our gas grills. We just pull up, disconnect and drop off empty tanks, hook up full tanks and drive off. The two primary obstacles to this scenario are as follows.

1) Problems with on-board storage.

If you want reasonable mileage between refueling, and if you want the tanks to be reasonably small and unobtrusive, the hydrogen would have to be highly compressed. For obvious safety reasons, most balk at the idea of having tanks of compressed hydrogen fuel on-board. It creates images of a compact car going up like a tanker truck in case of an accident.

Backing off on the compression in the tanks is an option, but it creates an unattractive scenario. The tanks would be far bigger and more difficult to store on-board and exchange. One prototype I examined had a compartment taking up most of the underside of the car for storing large cylinders of hydrogen. Even then the mileage between refueling was barely acceptable. But even the storage problem is solved there is number two.

2) It takes too much energy to produce hydrogen.

It takes energy to make energy. To produce gasoline, oil must be pumped from the ground, pipelined, transported, pumped, refined, pumped, pipelined, transported, stored, pumped again, etc., etc., etc.. All this processing has costs in terms of money and pollution.

As it turns out, hydrogen is even worse than oil. Though hydrogen may burn clean in a vehicle, the energy it takes to produce usable hydrogen from water is enormous. This translates to high cost in terms of money and pollution. When all this is factored in, on-board hydrogen tanks for automobiles are not a clean or cheap energy source.

There are well-funded, massive projects rolling along. Automobile prototypes abound and optimistic reports continue to come out claiming these vehicles will be hitting the streets before long. However, many former supporters of this technology are jumping ship and more and more doubters are expressing their opinions; claiming these problems insurmountable and declaring the "Hydrogen Age" over before it begins.

Cars powered by on-board tanks of hydrogen have indeed hit a wall. Fuel cells are heavily hyped and supported but do not solve the problems (not to mention they are VERY expensive). I suppose a breakthrough is possible. But there is nothing on the horizon that would lead anyone to that conclusion.

What I described above is the domain of mainstream research by big auto and big energy companies into hydrogen as automobile fuel. If you dig a little deeper you soon find alternative technologies out there that also utilize hydrogen as automobile fuel. These technologies are not mainstream but rather the domain of small, independent research and development companies and, in some cases, independent inventors.

The thing that most of these alternative technologies have in common is that the hydrogen as automobile fuel is generated as needed, or what many call "on-demand". This is accomplished with a device of some sort that produces hydrogen as it is used eliminating the need for tanks of hydrogen. The fuel for producing the hydrogen is water, good ol' H2O. The energy source for creating usable hydrogen from water is the electricity produced by the automobile's electrical system.

You may have already noticed that this takes care of the two main problems of the mainstream research.

First of all, with hydrogen on-demand there are no tanks of hydrogen. The only addition to a vehicle is a system that creates the hydrogen fuel from water and delivers it to the engine intake system.

Second of all, the energy to make energy is very, very cheap and clean. It is a system that uses water, which is cheap and plentiful, and electricity, which is produced by the automobiles electrical system. Hydrogen burns totally clean by combining with oxygen to produce water as the only emission.

IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING.

The on-demand technologies fall into two categories:
1.Water-as-fuel only. The only thing you put in the fuel tank is water and the vehicle runs on 100% hydrogen from that water..
2.Water-as-fuel-hybrid. The vehicle still uses gasoline (or Diesel fuel) which is combined with the hydrogen to produce better operation and significant increase in mileage. The vehicle does not run on 100% hydrogen, but a gasoline/hydrogen mixture.

Right now, for practical reasons, I am a big fan of #2, water-as-fuel-hybrid.

But first, I need to say a few things about water-as-fuel-only. As I write this, I do not know of any water-as-fuel-only systems that can consistently live up to their proponent's claims. Plans for do-your-selfers and, more recently, installation kits are available. But everyone I have spoken to that has attempted this has expressed significant disappointment in one or more aspects of the system. Work on this technology is fast and furious and things could change quickly. But for now, unless you are an technophile or inventor, my advice is to stay clear of any systems claiming to use water-as-fuel-only. Unfortunately, the excessive claims of water-as-fuel-only proponents has done harm to the reputation of this technology. For for a website selling this technology Click Here. You can check it out yourself, but I have been told that the people behind this web site offer little or no support.

If you truly want to be happy with this technology, I recommend being a little less greedy and go for the water-as-fuel-hybrid. Click Here. The technology is proven. There are thousands of happy people taking advantage of the fuel savings. Typical mileage increase is greater than 30%; 50% is not uncommon, and a few vehicles have gotten more than 70%. Engines run better with increased power. The gasoline burns more completely, helping mileage and reducing emissions. Carbon deposits are removed.

For a good reliable source for information or, if you are interested in a system for yourself, click here. This site is well supported.

When I first heard about this, I had to ask -- If water-as-fuel technology is available, is able to save people money, is cleaner burning and is easy-to-use, why don't we have it already?

It made no sense. If this technology was for real, it should be standard equipment, or at least available for installation, on current vehicles. So what is going on?

The quick answer, that many people seem to default to, is conspiracy. Some very powerful group(s), ___________________, (fill in the blank: oil companies, car manufacturers, the U.N., the U.S Government, the European Union, OPEC, The Illuminati, etc.) does not not want this technology out there and is suppressing it by any means necessary. Before we discuss conspiracies, I would like to submit a few suggestions that do require a conspiracy.

The world of inventions, and in particular fuel technologies, have been plagued by excessive claims, cranks and frauds. As a result, those who are legitimate, first have to prove themselves not to be a crank or a fraud before they can be taken seriously. This, of course, leads many "serious" scientists to stay clear in order to protect their reputation in the scientific community. If you are a "serious" scientist you do not want to be seen with these people.

Inventors are considered "amateurs" in the scientific community. Therefore, their work by definition cannot be considered serious science and, therefore, is not to be taken seriously. Since they are considered amateurs, they often forced to work in relative isolation from the scientific community. Though, admittedly, many inventors want to work in isolation for fear of their ideas being stolen.

Then there is the Catch-22 of accurate scientific measurement. The scientific community will not take claims of new technology seriously when accurate, verifiable measurement is not available. But small underfunded R&D companies and isolated unfunded individuals, forced to work in humble laboratories, often do not have physical or financial access to the required measuring technology. Therefore, their claims are considered anecdotal and are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Another thing that doesn't help is the shabby, poorly written, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous (remember, gasoline and hydrogen are highly combustible) information out there. Some cheaper popular books out there are bad paraphrases of existing materials that were inferior to begin with. Some other books look like college engineering term papers gone bad. Even some of the books in major book stores and on Amazon are either not that good or are too theoretical to have any practical value.

All of this helps explain why water-as-fuel technology gets placed on the back burner while less efficient, expensive technologies, like electric cars, hydrogen cells, etc., are embraced by the scientific community, big business and government. But there remains one thing that really gets under the skin of big science. That is asking a scientist to examine energy production claims that seem too good to be true, that push the laws of thermodynamics to its limit. This is akin to asking a scientist to examine claims of ghost, spirits and other supernatural activity.

To the scientist, such claims from amateurs must be assumed false from the get go and the mere perception that a scientist might take something like this seriously could be fatal to a career and render this person a laughingstock. And, of course, no one in the scientific community would take this person seriously again.

Now if you were a scientist working in private industry and you were lobbying your employer to invest in water-as-fuel research, the ridicule and catcalls of your peers would drown you out. Private industry is not going to invest in something their own scientist tell them is humbug.

What about research funded by government or private grants? Again, who is going to release funds to research a technology that "serious science" will not touch.

The following links are a great demonstration of what water-as-fuel research is up against. It is an absolutely fascinating British produced documentary narrated the author, Arthur C. Clark. I am told that it appeared on British television. I have no idea why it has not appeared in the U.S..

Especially note the attitude of establishment science toward the research. The four links add up to about 55 minutes of engrossing video.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

I suspect there a few systems available that would work well. But there are some differences in Water4Gas that could be significant in the long run.

First of all, I really like the Water4Gas system itself. The people behind the design are solid. It is based on what I believe is the most proven set up in the industry. There are thousands of cars successfully running and saving money with this type of system. It has proven to be consistent, safe and reliable. There is no danger to the warrantees of your vehicles -- the installation is totally reversible.

The Water4Gas product is well supported. They publish a phone number and they will discuss issues and answer questions. They will also answer email. They do not hide behind a website.

You get the impression they are in this for the long haul. There are many opportunist in this industry selling junk. Water4Gas is not one of them.

They are in the process of setting up a network of installers. The systems are not difficult to build and install, but if you want someone else to do it, they may be able to set you up with an installer in your area.

Water4Gas is not without its critics. They have been accused of simply repackaging and reselling information that is available elsewhere. This is true to a large degree. Neither the system or any of its components are patented. There is nothing in their literature that has not appeared in some form in the past. But that is true with virtually all the systems being presented on the market. And most components and systems that are patented are not yet on the market and are not available to the public.

There is another company I will mention only because it has been recommended to me by someone I respect. DriveWithWaterFuel.com sell their materials for less money (at least while they are on sale). Their instructions are clearly written, the system appears sound, and, according to my friend, the support is good. I do not like the fact that there is no phone number on the web site. Perhaps they supply one when you purchase the product.

It is, of course, up to you. But I would play it safe and go with Water4Gas.

. . . click here . . .
. . . click here . . .
. . . click here . . .
. . . click here . . .