Hi Mark,
I have worked in the auto trade for many many years,,OF COURSE this will work. I grew up when BIG companies squashed the little man and his ideas. This kind of "stuff" has been around for a long time, if you could actually check the world wide archives(LOL), you would see just how much has been kept from us,,,
Shozzy!

Note from MJ: Hi Shozzy, we've all heard these stories, but they are usually dismissed as urban legend. Do you have any credible references to point out for folks? What's great in this case is that I was actually there and documented it. I have no reason to disbelieve these guys, but I'm going to retest. Steve showed me other stuff in his lab that is actually more profound than this ... I still don't know what to think.

There have been stories of something similar pop up here and there throughout the world but the first time I've seen a video of it.There's an old story of a carburetor invented in the 1950s that was supposed to give over 200 miles per gallon.The story goes that th oil companies tried to buy him out.When he refused his lab mysteriously burned to the ground.
Mark,I've always believed the technology is there but suppressed in the name of greed.Good luck and if this works hopefully it will get out to the public.

Hello Mark, I have seen this type of work many times in the past and there are a few questions which must be asked. These are :-
1. Was the engine running without a cooling system before this test was run. Ie was the engine red hot?
2. The unexciting metal dust mixture has interesting catalyst possibilities, would it by chance contain the metals Vanadium, Platinum, Titanium or Tungsten ? If it uses rare catalytic metals then in a hot motor where the water would instantly expand to steam a hot platinum or Titanous catalyst just might oxidise even brake fluid and then, of course, combustion is possible. The cost of this " Dust " would exceed the value of fossil fuel many times.

It would be interesting to measure the thermal and mechanical run away of the motor, find out what is it's normal operating temperature and how much power it can develop. My estimates indicate that the reaction will occur too slowly to allow the engine to run at speed and that if it's temperature is allowed to rise sufficiently high to create an efficient reaction speed then the motor will be unable to cope with the thermal stress and you will wind up with the fuel burning progressively more slowly all the way down the tail pipe

I will look forward to seeing a follow up of this project

Note from MJ: Kevin, good comments. The engine was sitting still for at least 45 minutes before we started the test. As for the metals, they won't reveal that for obvious reasons. As for duration, it ran at what was an apparently quite steady idle for the 5 or so minutes it took to burn off the 350ml of fuel that was apparently put into the injector pumps. Anecdotaly they have told me it hs run massive generators for hours. I've also been told they have several differnt mixtures and are working on one that works at 90%+ water.

I watched a Mythbusters episode (Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman) not so long ago that included this topic and something very like what I've just seen. Their verdict was 'Busted'. Looking forward to the follow up video.

Bob

Note from MJ: Hey Bob, without knowing what the mythbusters tested it would be impossible to find any relation between what they did and what the Bios Fuel guys did. I don't think it's scientifically possible to "prove that water based fuels can't work" - science doesn't do that. What it can do is look at individual cases. They may have looked at one or two specific urban legends - which is what they normally do. I doubt the MB guys looked at exactly this. I invite you to send them here! If they were to look at it, it would be great to see what they said.

Cool stuff Mark! Forgive me for saying it.... but you are a brave man.

Check this video out, for a vehicle that runs on STRAIGHT WATER, using a hybrid water hydrolosis device. Unfortunately, this idealistic man, Stan Meyers, let his patriotism lead him down a dead end path.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800&q=stan+meyers

Why do we assume because something will run on water, that water is a renewable source?
From an ecological stand point how can the water used in this presented process be reclaimed.
In the United States, there is a low appreciation for water resources and we assume that it is unlimited. Not the case in many areas of the world.
Perhaps water WILL become the next black gold.

Note from MJ: Who's making that assumption? None of our resources are renewable unless we have the technology to recycle, reuse, or use in a passive way (hydro, wind, solar). Australians right now are in a water crunch. What we need to do is to create mass desalienization plants based on wind or solar - or something along those lines. It appears the technology is there, but the "cost" is quite high.

Mark,
I am so glad to see someone of your standing to get
involved in research of this type. I have been your follower since your very early days on the internet, and have admired everything you have developed.

The fact that you are directing at least a portion of your resources to research like this continues to make me proud to know you. I believe you to be totally honest, and know for sure there is no reason for you to need or want to be anything but upfront about your findings. I am fully in support of your Construct 0, and am myself in the midst of creating a Foundation to extend the very principles on which Construct 0 is built.

I look forward to your report of the future tests.

Keep up the great work
Jonathan Myers

Note from MJ: thanks, Jonathan - please contact my P.A. at anne@markjoyner.name

Historically, I have seen versions of this during my very long lifetime. And most of the "inventors" of like products either disappeared or wound up very dead. My thinking/feeling is that if it works, let it come to the fore and aid our planet. But the powers that be seem to have other ideas.

Note from MJ: My suggestion exactly. I told them they need to release it to the planet en masse so no one could deny it. I mean, they're talking to the right guy here to do that :-) They are still considering doing that with another of their technologies. It appears they are making shrewd and intelligent moves so far. I hope Steve can do even 10% of what he appears to be able to do.

Shozzy... I agree with you.. Seen this many times, The Oil Companies and our Gov't are in control. Plus a hot Diesel will run on air.. and what is the Horsepower loss running on water... think about it, generators for testing.. not a real load... I'm Fully Certified Truck Tractor Trailer, Automotive, Gas & Diesel... So who's Blow'in Smoke now? Try running on Vaporized Gas.. 100 MPG plus! Da! Bobby J. NY

Mark,
It was obviously a jump to a conclusiion on my part.
No one made the statement that water is a renewable source.
The video seemed to present water (or percentage of it) as a beneficial alternative fuel to fossil fuel. Water seemed to be the sellable feature
and its role as an alternative, the benefit.
There appeared to be some enthusiam for the fact good old ordinary everyday water was being used in this process. I mistook this enthusiasm for an unspoken assumption. Thus my jump to an ill conceived conclusion.
Until we spend the money to find true alternatives and implement the technology to insure renewable resources our world and lives on this planet will not improve to an elevated existence.

Note from MJ: Steve, I can see how you thought that. Well, I think it is exciting regardless. Water for many parts of the world now is far more available and less expensive than fossile fuel - that's certain. I don't know where you live, but I imagine it's in the US where you're paying pennies for the gallon. How long it will remain that way, we don't know. Sure, at some point we're going to need to deal more seriously with the water issue, but this is an important piece of the puzzle, without question. If, that is, it is what it appears to be.

Mark,
It is exciting. Don't get me wrong.
We really need to nail this down and we
need to do it now. With hard facts and
science. Then we need to educate the population
and implement it. Change is hard and a lot of things get in the way. We need to clear that path.
Thank you for sharing the video.

Note from MJ: Stick around here - that's exactly what we're trying to do ...

I found your video about the water/sludge fuel very interesting, but did note that the vehicle had a diesel engine, and these are known to be able to run on fuel like cooking oil.

It would be interesting to see if you got the same results in a car that runs on gasoline.

I have been intrigued by the various claims over the past few years about cars that can run on alternative fuels, and some of them say they can run on water.

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/WaterFuel.wmv will take you to another report on power from water, including an adapted car.This was a Fox News report.

There is another video out there of a vehicle that was designed to run on water that produced hydrogen. For that one, you should check the link at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

The inventor appears to have died from food poisoning http://www.keelynet.com/energy/meyerx.htm but one always wonders when an invention appears that would have a major impact, whether the big multi-nationals will do something drastic to prevent a product getting to market.

If enough people come up with similar ideas that actually work, then one of them might actually get to market before the big industries step in and try to squash it.

John Henley
www.womensgarage.com

Note from MJ: John, that was addressed by the mechanic who was on site - according to him it should not run on 50% water. I can't speak to any of the other claims that have been made about modern fuel technologies .... I can barely speak to this one - I only know what I saw and I want to do this again under more controlled conditions.

Check this out: STAN MEYER in NEW ZEALAND - 1989 Listen to his ideas about manufacturing scalability, and it's easy to see how much of a threat Stan was to the Petroleum Industry. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2445602063454986281&q=stan+meyers I butchered the name of the guy, in my google video posting.... His name was Stan Meyer (mayor). There is a flourish of stuff on the net now, including quite a lot of his original patents. In regards to Steve's post, about the impact of using water resources for fuel.... using Stan's latest implementation of his water/hydrogen fracturing process, in his modified dune buggy, he estimated he could drive from NYC to LA with the energy in about 22 gallons of water. It's worth checking out, Mark and company. Just in the last few months, someone has been motivated to deseminate his patents, and a fair bit of video of Stan talking about his invention, all over the net. (Makes me wonder if someone in his estate, is trying to get his stuff more widely seen.) I would strongly encourage folks to do a search for Stan Meyer on Google Video, and Google, as well as search Stan Meyer Patents, and make copies of them, and spread them around to anyone who is interested in evolving beyond a petro chemical based world economy. Peak oil, and whether it's real is kinda irrelevant, really. It's either for real, and we're in oil's last hurrah, or it's not, and the oil comapnies will make sure we think oil's in it's last hurrah. Warm regards, Dave

Note from MJ: For what it's worth, there is some interesting counterpoint to this on the Wikipedia entry about Meyer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell ... Says he was not able to reproduce it when pushed by potential investors? Anyway, important to note that what I saw STEVE RYAN do has absolutely nothing to do with the stuff we see about STAN MEYER on the net. Two totally different people. Two totally different things.

Hi Mark

This is great that it's being publicly presented thanks to free access of information on the internet. I watched a video of a simple engine modification on a lawnmower about 5 years ago where the owner of a "new technology" website showed something very similar. In one video take, he poured 10% gas, then Coca Cola, pickle juice, oil, water and other products with the fuel line running into a bottle acting as a tank. This was one take and had it running for a few minutes on that mixture. If that video is of any interest, I can find it and you can view it for yourself. Quite amazing.

More people have to be aware of this and other technologies. This would keep the information from being buried if there is a critical mass of people having knowledge of this. This would also open up others who have fear of ridicule or physical/mental harm, to offer up their own amazing inventions.

These kind of underground advancements would surely have some of the big business giants sitting uneasy in their chairs. The potential effect on big business has to be left for discussion on a different thread.

Keep on top of this Mark. If we don't hear from you, then we know "the man" got to you! LOL.

Jack

The issue with this particular experiment has already been discussed; diesel vehicles are far more tolerant to variances in fuel, and the need for independant verification is appropriate. The real issue however is the common availability of alternative fuels. The idea of converting water for welding and for vehicle fuel has been around for years. I first saw this personally in Sydney in the 70's when a Bulgarian scientist named Yul Brown demonstrated both welding and vehicle power using hydrogen converted from water by electolysis. He regularly welded metals that conventional oxy-acetylene couldn't weld. His drive car was a Holden panel van running on hydrogen. Yul was at the time hounded by the media and critics, had several attempts made on his life and regularly had his workshop in the suburb of Concord broken into and vandalised. Of interest to Australians, the only politician willing to back him was contraversial Queenslander, Jo Bjelke-Petersen. Today BMW have a hydrogen-fuelled car available. It's problem is the lack of commercial availability of Hydrogen. Man has searched for alternatives to fossil fuels for decades; the ultimate question is this: what has to happen for those with vested interests in fossil fuel to lose their stranglehold?

Hey Mark,

glad to see you researching this - and I'd
love to take the chance to "delegate" some
related questions to you, if you like ;-)

I used to run a healing center in Santa Monica
that's somewhat of a hub for metaphysical
"scientists" & inventors of all sorts and there
are two particularly 2 technologies related to
gasoline-powered engines I have plans to
investigate in depth.

One is the "urban legend" that Nikola Tesla had
built a car that was powered solely "air", accessing the subtle energy present in every material, thus also in air (prana?).

I am currently already overloaded with launching
a large-scale platform for entrepreneurial alliances and have not been able to do any own research. I have, however, seen & experienced other, similarly hard to believe Tesla technology
that we were working with for healing purposes.

(one of them, a 6-foot monolith, putting out over
2 mio volts of radiant energy. Simply mindblowing how that thing effects body and mind! In one playful experiment we had one person touch it with one hand and hold a chain of 6 others in the other hand. I was the last person, holding a light bulb
in my hand that lit up from the energy flowing through us - healing energy, for those worried ;-)

The other is a chip that was developed in Germany in an effort to utilize quantum physics to improve the efficiency of machinery.

The company claims that it does that (e.g. improve
car effiency by almost 100%), but also improves
huge list of other things.

The principle is that in any system that integrated multiple electromagnetic enery fields,
these fields are disturbing each other and make
the whole function less efficient.

Apparently this is also true for the system called
human and they claim some pretty amazing effects.

Again, I have not studied it first hand enough to
put my name under it, but got some pretty interesting 2nd hand reports and know that some
major car and hi-fi company have done studies
with confirming results (this is according to the
company, but should be easy to verify).

As our dependency on fossil oil is the source
of so many of our main (outer) problems world wide, it is something I have the highest interest
in investigating once my business allows (within
2-3 months) and would already love to offer you
a cooperation in this regard, if you're interested.

You can email me at Raam@TheMasterMindZone.com
if you'd like me to get in touch with the inventor
of the above mentioned application of tesla technology, who I know would love to offer his
indepth knowledge of Tesla's inventions to find
ways to prove and publish it. I assume you know
the resistance this type of technology faces on
the way to any commercial application.

You may have the reach to make a difference here.

More info about the harmony chip you can get on
www.HarmonyUnited.com.

I don't have any financial staked in any of the above.

Sorry for the long comment, hope it was worth a read ;-)

Happy day!

Raam
PS: I do indeed also have vague plans to utilize our platform of online entrepreneurs to help spreading groundbreaking technologies and knowledge - after extensive in-house investigation and testing.

Note from MJ: Cures everything and fixes everything? The website even claims to fix haunted or "jinxed" buildings. I think I'll pass on this one, Raam.

Greetings
Very nice to hear such developments to serve the humanity.
It is nothing new or any such invention. It is revival of old method.
We do strongly believe such actions and we can expect more and more.
We directly having such experience which Japanese Bank and the inventors son having greed and grabbing system forced us to drag the action. In the mean time one british lady was working with us as our business development director stolen all the documents and disappeared due to all the agreement where signed on her name instead of our mentor and trying to do by themselves.
Due to the delay the inventor son utilising the action plan we extended implemented and it is currently working in african country/ies in 40/50 water and oil mixture.
Ready to share more if their is any interest to do the business
best wishes to all
So,

Note from MJ: How do you know it's nothing new if the technology behind it isn't even revealed here?

Mark, this is the type of news that needs to be aired publicly and more often. In my decades of being an advocate for renewables and alternative energies, it has always been a fight with the fossil fuel industry advocates. We are making progress, but will it be in time? The global warming issue is not seen as a threat to too many people I talk with in the US. I even get harsh reviews on my blogs, saying I am a Democratic weenie, along with Al Gore. I just say that it is wanton ignorance on the part of those who refuse to look at the evidence for the continued need of alternatives to the greed of the fossil fuel burning war mongers that care less about building a sustainable future. The water is another issue. I just previewed a documentary of the drilling for natural gas and the mining for oil shale rock here on the western slope of Colorado. What people don't see from the highway, I have seen from the air. The documentary is called, "National Sacrifice Zone". I have been given permission by the producers to show portions of it and am working on putting it on my web site. The drilling into a toxic nuclear site is sending radioactive waste into the Colorado River! The horror stories go on and on. We must continue to pound it into the thick skulls of people that just don't get it! Thank you for all of your efforts to inform as many as you can about America's need to get with the program.
http://www.carlthesolarguy.com

Differences noted, Mark.

Mr. Meyer, talked pretty openly about why his "invention" (he didn't really invent it. What he worked out was an electronic pulsing of the power supply to a specific "cycle", which had a direct effect on the molecular bond of H20, liberating a lot more H than conventional electrolysis.)

I'm not suggesting that you should "believe" that Stan Meyer was doing what he says he was doing. If you look at the available material, it is food for thought, and enough information, for someone with a good physics and solid state electronics background, to ascertain it's possible merits.

All of this sort of "teeters" on, what is probably an over developed suspicion on my part, of those in positions of power and influence, to silence those who's pursuit of their natural curiosity and creativity, develop ideas which are perceived as a threat to that entrenched power.

There is a great deal yet to be discovered, and uncovered, even, in the realm of presumed scientific "law". It often takes someone who is not constrained by training, to dis-cover things that "properly trained" scientists presume to be rubbish. The odd tinkerer of things is just content to entertain their healthy curiosity, and could care less, one way or another what the scientific community thinks about it.

Pulsing power, is an area where a LOT of curious folks work, just because it's kind of fun playing with electricity. My own curiosity about that never went much beyond the first time I ventured over to an electric outlet, and stuck a paper clip into it. No, that wasn't recently :-)

Please people - proposing a consiparacy theory does nothing to advance a logical argument about whether or not this is possible. The process either stands on its own or it does not.

It would be wonderful if this were true, and I am not saying that it is or is not. However, as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Here we do not have *any* proof yet.

"But I just saw it on a video!" you say. The video is likely not faked, however there is no proof presented in it.

Mark, here are some suggestions for your further evaluation of this, which I really encourage you to continue.

1. Show a mass and energy balance on the process. Get a competent unbiased chemical engineer to explain what that is and the results of it. Compare to diesel fuel in terms of net energy production and type and amount emissions. This will reveal all and cut through any BS.

2. You are aware I'm sure that hydrogen can be made from water and a number of ways, but all of them require that you provide a lot of energy to the water. This is not something an inventor can work around--it is just a fact of chemistry. You can influence the rate of hydrogen production greatly, but you can not escape the physical limit of the need to provide energy to the water to make it split. Water *is* burned up hydrogen. When hydrogen burns it makes energy and water. Water is the "smoke" from burning hydrogen. There's nothing left there to burn. In reverse, you provide energy to water and split it back to hydrogen and oxygen. Saying your running an engine on water requires that somewhere else the energy is being expended to make fuel from the water. They don't tell us where this is. Your job is to find it.

3. The energy it takes to make the hydrogen from the water can not be less than the energy they get back from the water.

4. Be careful that the engine is not just running on 50% diesel fuel and only producing 50% of the usual energy. Is this engine simply mechanically tolerant of water in the fuel, where the water is not actually doing anything to produce energy?

I look forward to seeing more on this.

Note from MJ: Excellent points and this is why I've asked them to let me do this in a controlled environment at a certified lab. We'd take a cold engine, measure anything that we could ... As for "proof" - science never provides proof - only evidence, data, observations ... As for the conspiracy theories, I wholeheartedly agree. It's easy to jump off the deep end with this stuff as we can see by some of the replies. An intelligent comment like this makes me wish you weren't posting anonymously.

P.S. Mark, your response to my post, got me thinking about your thinking, and I must say, I appreciate your dilligence in adhering to "that which is known directly". There is a pronounced attraction, to that which is novel, in the human psyche, and that can give way to leaps of faith (belief), and a dogged certainty that there is ground underfoot, when there is not. I am often guilty of this, myself (more than I would like to admit). When I read your wikipedia reference, my initial reaction was to defend what I perceived as a challenge to what I believe about Stan Meyers. It was after that, that I started thinking about your thinking......... I admire your approach and your effort, in the apprehension of facts as they are, and I will examine and mull over my little light bulb experience through this post, and keep looking at what I do with novelty and curiosity. Thanks for your good work dude!

Note from MJ: Well done! You overcame the tendency to let cognitive dissoance force us to remain consistent with that we've said in the past. It's silly, but we're all doing that all the time. I catch myself doing it in the replies to these comments sometimes ...

Very cool! There was a series on the Discovery Channel (IIRC) recently entitled "Future Car" where they spent an entire episode talking about alternative fuel vehicles. They showed some guys who were able to run a diesel engine (in a sports car no less!) from filtered fryer oil (french fries, anyone?) and it got something like 60MPG and over 100MPH.

The most innovative one I thought was from some guys in Scandanavia who've built a small car that runs on air. Compressed air, that is. If you think about it, that's really all an internal combustion engine is -- a big mechanism that burns some kind of fuel to generate a pressure gradient that results in movement.

You should read a book entitled, "Entropy: A New World View" by Jeremy Rifkin (1980). It examined several fallacies about energy consumption and production, including that the use of shale oil could ever be profitable.

The trouble with most of these alternative fuels is that the NET-NET-NET cost to produce them, or to adapt to them, or to manage them, far exceeds the equivalent cost of fossil fuels. Your fellows in the video may be using recycled oils, but what does it take to get the metal shavings needed?

The guys with the "air car" use a small electric pump to pressurize the tanks. If you use the energy it takes to "fill" the tanks with air, in BTUs, and compare it with fossil fuel, the inventors say it gets the equivalent of 125 MPG and gets something like 75 miles per "fill up". And there's a side benefit in that the "fuel" won't burn in a collision. (Well, the tanks might explode...)

But it's great that you're looking into stuff like this! BRAVO!

Hey, Mark. DK Fynn here. We need some sort of distributable, ecological and economical alternative to the fues we're using right now. It's great to see that you're bringing this info to the forefront. I hope to hear from you soon.

PS: What do you think of this: As I was just typing this post, it occured to me that the words ecoloogical and economical have the same first 3 letters...

...interesting.

I wonder what it means.

Note from MJ: Hey DK, as a matter of fact they both share the same Greek root "oikos" meaning house.

I'm intrigued Mark,
Steve was profiled in a New Zealand version of the current affairs program 60minutes over 2 years ago. At that stage he claimed to be able to run a combustion engine (a motorbike I think) on pure tap water that had been passed through some kind of device (details secret). I was somewhat sceptical, as one has to be, given current scientific thinking that the energy required to separate water into it's seperate, combustable atoms would need to be greater than that eventually produced (given the law of entropy and that we cannot appreach let alone suppass 100% efficiency-'law of energy conservation- it cannot be created nor destroyed but only tranformed into different forms). But I consider myself open minded and awaited further developments.
The credibility of that demonstration was SERIOUSLY dented on the demonstration of high carbon emisions (more than a well tuned petrol engine) from the exhaust. Now future technology aside, I'm sorry, you CAN'T get carbon out of H20. Only hydrogen and oxygen.

I don't feel that credibility is enhanced given a further 2-3 years, where he is still working from a garage with no financial backing and, far from producing further proof, the super fuel has actually changed to a 50/50 mix of water with dense (and contaminated) hydrocarbons run in a diesel engine and is now produced when mixed with a catalyst (rather than fed though an ?electrical machine).

One revolutionary discovery I might belive but now he has two ways to produce a new fuel source??

I am all for giving revolutionary ideas a chance, and wish for nothing more than a plentiful environmentally sound form of power to improve the world. But this guy seems to have failed to live up to his claims before and i would tread with caution.
Let's just hope he proves me wrong.
ps contrary to most of the videos below Auckland is in New Zealand and we are NOT part of Australia, thank you ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyNNIDAp5dM (not complete video and carfully removes the 'debunk'section which shows carbon emissions from the exhaust)

http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/nz/60minutes_NZ_TV3_10_17_05.wmv
Whole article but big download

Note from MJ: Hey Nigel, don't feel bad - I still get American friends asking me if I've seen koalas or kangaroos since I've moved to Auckland :-) As I understand it, the fuel he uses for the bike is something completely different. Apparently there are several technologies the company has developed. I haven't seen this particular video, but I'll ask the folks from Bios Fuel to come here and respond to it. Thanks for pointing it out. It's a fair rebuttal that deserves a reply ... As for that video debunking the other fuel, I wouldn't go that far. It seemed to be a fairly level film that didn't draw any hard conclusion - much like mine.

Mark
I noted that the vehicle used 350ml of the "fuel" in about 5 minutes at idle speed. That would seem to run out at about 4 litres per hour at idle. Would normal diesel fuel consumption be the same? And have they run the vehicle on the road at normal road speeds? What is the acceleration like? Is there any risk of the injectors fouling up more quickly than with conventional fuel? Be interested to know.
Don't put any money into it - yet!
John

Note from MJ: Hey John, all very good questions. Reportedly they have run mass generators on it. As for the idle speed, I didn't check it, but it didn't seem to make any shift in speed when the mechanic verified it was operating on the biosful. Certainly worthy of another look! Again, I'm hardly a partial observer - being one who really wants this stuff to work.

Many years ago I saw a petrol car that ran on 50% water but that was injected into the manifold when the engine had warmed up, the guy was getting about 50mpg in a big V8 unfortunately I don't have all the details but had thought of experimenting.

I have been playing with an electric car that has a continous recharging system to eliminate the problems of limited range and long recharging time.

Note from MJ: Get it to work and I'd be happy to do a video :)

At 5:27 on the countdown meter, the inventor makes a comment about David Copperfield and throws a black cloth over the bottle. That's a real RED FLAG! Any decent magician could make a switch of the "mixture" at that point, right before your eyes (anyone seen David Blaine's magic??) I'm skeptical! The "chain of custody" for the mixture CANNOT be broken ... and the black cloth over the bottle breaks it. Let's get the MythBusters in there. They won't allow that. http://www.internet-grocer.net

Note from MJ: Agreed! I mentioned that to them. Again, this is why I'm asking for a controlled test at a certified lab.

I think this is great. Of course we've all heard the urban legends that go along with this kind of thing. The names Nikola Tesla and the Tucker automobile come to mind for me.Of course wrestling control from any cartel is usually a challenge. Good luck with this.I'm sure I won't be the only one watching for more.

Paul

Hey Mark! Thanks for getting this video out. The concept is impressive, and I can't imagine who wouldn't want it to work. I do have a couple questions, perhaps based upon misunderstanding. First, wouldn't metal shavings (unless some sort of really soft metal) simply shred the inside of the engine? Second, why did you stop at a simple idle test? I mean, why not fill'er up and go for a spin? Also, most diesel engines won't run after air has been introduced to the fuel line. Did the guys at the garage "bleed" the air out of the line with the bio fuel? I ask, because in the video the engine doesn't skip a beat. Trust me though, I would love for this idea to work. What appears to be more demonstrable is an engine that runs on hydrogen and emits water. The trick there would be to figure out how to initially extract hydrogen from water using solar or wind power . . . just a thought.

Interesting Mark,

Hope this is for real, gets broadly applied, and doesn't create even worse problems. Can't wait to see the lab test results- why several months out?

Indeed there are alternatives to petroleum power, and this, if real, may be one.
I personally think fastfood fryer oil would be an elegant replacement for diesel fuel- right now it is hazardous waste and costs restaurants $$ to have hauled away....think of this- they pay you or me (a little) less to haul it away, we process it and put it into our truck, or motorcycle, or boat, or plane- they are now PAYING US to put fuel in our tank, the emissions are MUCH cleaner than petrodiesel, and the world begins to smell more and more like french fries- oh and other added benefits- decentralization of the fuel supply means less $$ and power to the oil companies (which will not be tolerated), no more OPEC power, no more young soldiers dying for our lust and addiction to oil.

And the attainment of Rudolph Diesel's one dream and reason he designed the diesel- an efficient engine that can run on plant waste...on the farm, wihout oil companies. Then Rudy committed suicide (maybe?), the oil companies perverted it, and petrodiesel was invented....to further line Oilco's pockets.

I'd love to convert or replace my entire fleet (cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles,etc) with waste fryer oil diesels and run and report on them in real-world conditions, if only I had the funding- less than $500K of private funding (in $10K-$25K chunks over time) would do it. Anyone out there willing and able to do some private funding?

As others have commented, other alternative fuel ideas ( and their creators) have been crushed, hidden, killed by Oilco. I remember an OLD skit about solar power development on SNL- a reporter questioning an Exxon exec about when he thinks solar technology will be widely available and his matter-of-fact answer "When Exxon owns the sun.)
Good comedy often contains stinging truth.

As another has commented about conspiracy theory above, here's another quote I find pretty spot-on: "No matter how paranoid you are (when it comes to megacorporations and governments), it's probably not enough."

Hi, Mark! Yes, this is definitely possible as a reporter I witnessed an invention that was an engine that ran on 100% H2O! He was offered literally a BILLION dollars to take this off the market and he refused. By the way he has disappeared off the planet last time I checked. I interviewed him in the mid 1980s as I recall.

He drove a vehicle across the USA on this total H2O engine invention. You might want to Google references to this if you can find them.

By the way remember interviewing my friend Robert Taylor after he wrote the book Paradigm? Well an update. He decided to offer a forum with the people that were willing to invest $129 per month to get the trends. He has over 1100 members and as of this month only ONE person had dropped out of the forum in over 17 months.

I had Gina Graves meet with him and she was blown away with his rate of retention.

Also what I just heard that we might have discussed that night is that Executive Producer Tony Romano of I Robot is ready to take Paradigm to the silver screen. In fact he has me to get in touch with Robert Townsend to see if he would like to write the screenplay.

Finally as related to Bob Taylor is that he and I have had the opportunity to be present when a Zero Point/Telsa project ran a small electric bulb with no connections. We had it tested in California where it tested at 18 times output more than input at one of the top labs in California.

Most interesting. Only downside is we'd be switching from one of our diminishing natuaral resources to a second one that is even more precious for survival - water!

Imagine increasing our consumption of clean water -- it's already over $1 a bottle.

Thank you for your continued great insights Mark. One of the very few blogs I visit regularly.

Note from MJ: That's for bottled water. Perhaps this can run on "dirtier" water? I only brought in bottled water because I knew it was water and held it in my own hands. All interesting points that need to be asked.

Mark,

just a quick comment back.

I appreciate your strong skepticism regarding
"cure-alls" and your balance between "wanting
to believe" and genuine love for the truth.

I do want to point out that over the past few
years I've seen many such "cure-all" products,
very few of whom I'd consider to be worth looking
into further - and I would not publically
suggest even the possibility of truth in such
claims, if I had not at least some of the claims
confirmed by a trustworthy source.

And while I have myself alarm bells ringing
whenever something sounds too good, I am also
firmly convinced that there are such things as
"cure-alls". Eventually all of nature is based
on the same principles applied in different
contexts - and if something has an effect on
this level, it will potentially effect everything
that's based on the particular principle.

Anyway, some of the claims made by them are
relatively easy to verify in an objective way
and I will do so myself very soon.

I will document my research and let you know if
there's a significant outcome that undoubtedly
confirms the verifiable claims.

On a last note, I do see the complete rejection
of "unbelievable" claims as quite similarly
problematic as the widespread "need to believe"
that casts aside the often so obvious contradictions and never cares demand a level of objective verification.

Just my 2 cents. I appreciate you.

Raam :-)

Note from MJ: I agree that unrelenting dismissive skeptical hubris is most certainly problematic. Absolutely. I just have to spend my time on stuff I think is going to work. With limited time, we have to choose our battles wisely. One must also balance their openness with objectivity and skepticism. My tendency is to want to believe, so I have to check myself. Why not ask the creator for an experiment that you could reproduce in a controlled environment that would prove just *one* of the claims of the device. If they tell you "it doesn't work like that" or "this is beyond what can be proven in labs" then I'd raise that red flag a little higher. I've seen thousands of devices like this that make these types of claims. Over time I've pressed the inventors and very very few will allow their stuff to be placed under even rudimentary scrutiny. Push it to the limit. Whatever you find, you're doing people a service. If it is fraudulent, and it is taking advantage of the sick and desperate, then people need to know. That's a crime in my book. If it does what it says, then shout that from the roof tops too. But stick with what you can observe and know - beyond that it's either hope or hubris.

Mark,
One of my old customers has a car that runs on the steam of water. If everything wasn't controlled by the almighty dollar, don't get me wrong money can be a good thing, there would be much faster technological advances & more options. There's plenty of resources & technology out there, but there's also some people with too much power & money that keep us from using & even sometimes knowing about them.

Note from MJ: Hi Dana, I get at least one email a day about this kind of thing. Most of them don't pass muster. If he's legit, please bring him forward.

Alternative Fuels! One of my favourite topics.

Lightbulb Runs on Ions from the Air

I can verify what Hugh Simpson and Raam experienced with the light bulb effect. I like to play with tesla coils & ionizers myself, and have also witnessed a flourescent tube light work without being plugged in to any source, but just held in hand close to a tesla coil that's emitting high frequency electric plasma. The plasma doesn't even touch the bulb, but the theory is that it's the high amount of ion output in the air.

Electric Car Runs on Ions from the Air

I've heard of the tesla car, that runs on this same electricity. Tesla's device was based on the observation of nature's lightning which happens because of the positive and negative opposite charges from both the earth's surface and the ionosphere getting excited to the point that they seek to meet each other with high voltage electric blast. Supposedly Tesla's wireless device that he created would gather the positive and negative charges similarly in a controlled box which would reroute the electric charge to the engine. Proof?! I don't have any, sorry, I really wish I did, because theoretically this sounds doable.

Diesel runs on Veggie Oil

Yep, I've seen and ridden in these vehicles too. They're well documented, and a friend of mine will convert diesel engines to run on straight veggie fry oil for $500 Canadian. I have one friend who converted her VW Golf diesel, and went travelling down the west coast, dumpster diving for veggie oil fuel, and syphoning it into a barrel through cheese cloth (To get out the odd french fry or noodle crumbs) in the back of the car. :)

Cars running on Water

I've heard of this from numerous sources and seen schematics on how to build them. Hydrolysis, yes. From what I read about it back in the day, and from dicussions I had with a friend who works in the alternative energy industries in Canada, it appeared that the hydrolysis technologies we studied would only be able to produce enough juice to run a moped or small motorcycle. We never tested it.

The Car that runs on Aether

That's Aether, not ether, yes I speak of the mystical energy that science has trouble verifying. I can't verify this idea either, as it seems quite preposterous. I read online quite awhile back about something called the Joe Cell. It claimed to run on etheric energy similar to Wilhelm Reich's orgone accumulators & cloud busters. I'm a big fan of Reich, and have built and tested orgone accumulators with success, but for charging the human bodies energy centers, and NOT powering vehicles or anything else. My suspicion is that the Joe Cell was a hoax, based on Reich's devices (Which have some credibility).

Electric Car (EV1 & other models)

If you haven't yet seen the video "Who Killed the Electric Car", then I highly recommend it. Yes electric cars have been around in the past, and then suppressed. The EV1 created by GM was a great success in California for the time that it lasted, and many reported driving them including celebrities like Mel Gibson & Tom Hanks. They took them off the market and destroyed all but one that is in a Car museum. They claimed that they aren't efficient for long distances, because they need to be recharged too often. Supposedly though, some private electric car designers claim that the newer lithium ion type laptop battery cells can be used in abundance to fuel a car for greater distances and get better mileage than the EV1 ever had.

Vehicles run on Hydrogen, Methane, Ethanol, Solar Power, & anything Else.

If you want to keep up to date on some of this stuff, I highly recommend http://KnowledgePublications.com , This is not my site, but it's all about alternative energies, and they have some videos that show tests of multi-fueled hybrids that'll run on hydrogen, methane, ethanol, & solar power.

Alright, it's obvious that there are plenty of alternative fuel sources. Thanks Mark for following up on these guys with the interesting watery mud mixture, I'll certainly be eagerly awaiting further news on their fuel's success or failure.

Hi Mark,

I don't know why my previous comment (about mass and energy balances) went out anonymously - that wasn't my intention.

Anyway, would love to discuss more.

If the balances are done correctly (and be careful-- Pons and Fleichman originally claimed cold fusion, and were able to publish based on an improper energy balance),
we would be able to answer important questions like:
is the metal consumed or is a catalyst? another way to make hydrogen from water is to react it with a reactive metal - magnesium would work. did the metal contain absorbed hydrogen when it was added? are the emissions consistent with diesel emissions? does the engine run hotter or colder? is the energy output simply proportional to the amount of diesel fuel (that is, more water just makes a less energetic fuel but the engine still runs?) Does the car contain an undisclosed reformer or electrolysis unit that generates hydrogen from water?

For me, it's fun to think about this stuff because I would like to see a way out of fossil fuel use in transportation. However, the problem is not simple, and I say that as a chemical engineer with experience in fuel cells. I think that the likelihood of the existence of a simple solution to this problem being suppressed by corporations is orders of magnitude more remote that the existence of that solution in the first place.

Hi Mark,
As you know I am a director of Bios Fuel and have worked with Steve Ryan for several of years.

My comments are obviously biased as Steve has become a good friend and I know him to be of absolute integrity.

I would like to point out that we do not seek verification from anyone by presenting the video clip or through any explanation I give, we simply appreciate the efforts you have made and would like to answer some of the more intelligent questions raised.

The most important issue for me to address having read the comments is that of our personal integrity.

One of the reasons we read don't read or respond to many blogs is that they often personally attack Steve, and include sweeping or ill informed judgements.

I ask your readers to consider what it must be like for him to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, to have dedicated a large part of his life and to have achieved one of the greatest breakthroughs in scientific history - and then be labelled a con artist or scammer.

He has (until only very recently) never even accepted any outside funding and flatly refuses to sell out to anyone for any price or compromise his ideals. I would suggest that if he is given this label it makes him one of the worst conmen in history.

Steve is adamant (as we all are at Bios Fuel) that this is technology is for real, exactly as he has stated from the beginning.

There is no middle ground here. People are welcome to their own opinion but we will not budge an inch on any of the doubt levelled at us.

We understand when people say they need to see more proof before making their minds up (and over time we will provide this), also that it is hard to believe in such a simple process with such large ramifications - but any sweeping judgement that it simply cannot be, based on whatever so called laws, immediately offends our integrity and therefore removes our respect for those who make such judgement.

Most of the great inventions in history were thought impossible, I personally will have no sympathy when the arrogant cynics who think their way is the only way, are embarrassed by their own ignorance.

With regard to independent testing, it is hard to know who to trust. For example NZ's top, supposedly independent University Lab's are commercial entities in their own right, looking to develop and commercialise exactly this type of technology for their own gain.

From the beginning they have a treated us with disdain -refusing to even come and review the technology. Nothing about who they are or the way they operate makes us feel we should trust them.

And I ask what scientist would you trust when the stakes are this high?

Why should we risk being ripped off and the technology restricted or controlled by big business as we have all seen so many times, when there are alternative approaches that will get it out there just as quickly?

I believe an independent mechanic like Dave who has hundreds of hours of real experience on engines has just as much credibility as any scientist in terms of understanding whether this technology is for real or not with regard to a basic obvious test such as this.

Fortunately some people do believe their eyes and after a several similar demonstrations we now have investors and infrastructure in place to protect and distribute the technology as it should be.

In time we plan to give people the basic right to power their lives without a huge financial or environmental cost and with regard to this we fully support your objectives.

With regard to the fuel itself, the water added to the waste oil is exactly as per the motorbike featured on 60 minutes. We attempted to make the process totally transparent by using a glass beaker and metal shavings. The emissions on the motorbike came from water emulsifying with oil - exactly as Steve stated originally. We also supplied those results to 60 minutes and were well aware of the readings.

The metals involved are not particularly expensive, and do not dissolve during the process. There is no power involved. The energy content (BTU) of this "fractured" water mixed with waste oil is higher than diesel and higher than the waste oil by itself.

Our initial tests show that a Diesel generator runs longer on the water blend than with waste oil or diesel and we are conducting more tests to further verify this.

The reason we have gone to diesel engines is because they are a better platform for introduction of the water technology to current infrastructure when combined with waste oil for lubrication.

I look forward to your comments.

Kind Regards

Cam Feast

Note from MJ: Hey Cam, I really appreciate you taking the time to come by and post. I know you guys don't normally do that, so I'm sure everyone here is most grateful. I have to remain an impartial observer in all of this and can completely understand both sides. I've been the target of half-truth attacks on the net before. People don't realize sometimes that there is another human being on the other end of these attacks and how much it can hurt someone's feelings. There is a saying amongst webmasters "men are brave behind a monitor." At the same time, I totally understand the skepticism many must experience as well. There are, in fact, many con men out there who have prayed on the hopes and fears of average folks in order to make a buck. With so many fraudulent medical devices and claims of future technology that is based on trickery - people are gun shy. "Once bitten ..." Even though I personally like you guys and my gut tells me you are trustworthy (perhaps even moreso *because* of this), I need to remain open, objective, and mildly skeptical. Notice I said "mildly." I, too, don't think making sweeping judgements, unfounded conclusions, or ad hominem attacks serves anyone in any way. We should all just stick to the facts. You guys have been kind enough to let me peak into your world. I hope that you'll let me do so again soon to create another test that addresses some of the objections folks may have. I'd also ask everyone to walk somewhere well in the middle line between unbridled enthusiasm and unthinking critical hubris.

Mark , ... could you buy and test one of these ?
Tesla motors car?
If you have already discussed this then I apologize. But if not ... Check link.
http://www.teslamotors.com/customer_care/contact_us.php?section=reserve&sbl=1

Maybe with some competition this 100k price tag will go down a bit ...

Looks like a great car - 200 miles per charge.

Note from MJ: If they send me one, I'll test it.

Mark,

the video was well done and it was cool to be able to witness this...almost like being there. Thank you for sharing it.

Water is a good start, as is electricity. Why? Because it starts a mindshift toward even more possibilities. Perhaps we will arrive at a place where we can use our household compost or trash and save the land slotted for landfills.

These new developments are great and exciting. They will lead to a flurry of applied brainstorming until something is found that is practical and (very) widely available.

I look forward to the 2nd test. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Nancy

Mark,

Plausible maybe? Practicable, I wonder!

I did a search on all the comments thus far for the words "freezing, freeze, 32 F, 0 C" and found none.

In 1980 I owned a diesel car (never again). One of the problems at that time was that diesel fuel usually had water in it from the pumps. A special filters was used on most diesels to remove the water, not that it would effect the performance if injected, but because it would freeze in the winter and the car had to be placed into a heated garage to thaw. That make the use of 50% water tenuous from a practicable point of view. Even water injectors have this problem.

Now can the "factored" fuel as described overcome this, a full blown testing will reveal the truth?

Thanks for sharing the first trials, I look forward to a greater investigation.

Note from MJ: Very good point. I didn't ask what the freezing point of the emulsified fuel is ... Hopefully we can get that answer from Bios Fuel in the upcoming test or if they reply here again.

News report on a car that runs on water...
Hydrogen Technologies, Inc. in Clearwater Florida

CNN May 23, 2006
http://hytechapps.com/company/press#

newspaper articles...
http://blogs.tampabay.com/energy/2006/10/heres_a_truly_o.html

Newspaper article - Car powered by water a reality
http://wave3.com/Global/story.asp?s=4934566

Note from MJ: Raam, I deleted this as it's not really appropriate for this space ... Please contact my assistant anne@markjoyner.name if you want to discuss your proposal.

Mark,

You disappoint me with your comment above that "science never provides proof - only evidence, data, observations ..."

Science can certainly distinguish between two alternative hypotheses, and find the more valid one. In the present case, a modest application of science would go far, since none has yet been presented. If you can, Mark, let's start with:

1. independent confirmation of the "facts."
2. substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. no arguments from authority (Mr. Ryan and Mr. Feast are dismissive of science, and claim some higher authority, often quoting Henry Ford...big deal, let's see the verifiable facts)

I would encourage the many eager believers and consipiracy theorists posting here to read the following:
http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~urban/docs/baloney.html

Mr. Cam Feast makes a number of missteps in his argument above that set off the baloney detectors. The videos on the biosmeanslife web site also set off the baloney detectors. That doesn't mean the claims are not true, but (and no disrespect intended for Mr. Ryan or Mr. Feast) we have not yet seen anything to suggest that these claims are true.

Note from MJ: Bob, and your "disappointment" does not disprove my point, either. In fact, I think my statement that "science does not provide proof" is actually quite well supported in the scientific community as a whole. Here's a quite good discussion on that: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html and another here: http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html (see Myth #5 to quell your disappointment). As for the experiment, it was incomplete - that was stated at the outset in the film, and on this page. It showed what it showed under the conditions that were set. A statement like "we haven't seen anything to suggest these claims are true" is hardly an informed statement. We have some evidence from an imperfect experiment. We need more. A better experiment is being planned to rule out the things that could have slipped through the flaws of this experiment. Period. Arguments from authority by quoting Carl Sagan on baloney detection not withstanding :-) Remember that I'm just playing the role of an impartial investigator here. If you want to be the voice of impartiality, well then demonstrate it. Arguments from emotion (disappointment) and authority (why quote Sagan if they can't quote Ford?) are not appropriate - since we're sticking to facts here, yes?

Yes, the irony of trotting out Sagan to make a point about not arguing from authority... haha. However, the point is still a valid one. If one wants to make a convincing arguement, one needs to avoid the pitfalls in Sagan's baloney detection kit.

Again, these guys have got to put forth some real evidence -- and if they want to be convincing, they need a plausible explanation for the results. If it's real, and you want to scale this up, and make it work for many situations around the world, then to do that work the physical chemistry has to be understood.

I'm not trying to be the voice of impartiality here. They seem to claim they are running the chemical reaction H20 --> H2 + 1/2 O2 and doing so without the necessary expenditure of energy that is independently verifiable from other tests. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't believe it. Am I open to the possiblity? Sure - but show the new evidence. There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Finally, on "proof"... yes science does not provide "proof" in the way that math or logic does. Thanks for those references. But we disagree here on semantics. My idea of "proof" in science is to make a clear distincton between at least two alternative hypotheses, and find the more valid one. In this case some hypotheses could be: 1. this car can extract energy from water in a way that reduces fossil-fuel use per mile travelled, or 2. this car simply tolerates water in its fuel system, or 3. some previously unknown source of energy has manifested itself in these experiments for the first time.

#3 would be really cool. ...but really unlikely.

Good luck with the next experiments! :-)

Note from MJ: Bob, that science does not provide proof goes beyond math and logic - you're mixing up terms here.

A logical proof or a mathematical "proof" is a very different thing. (I'll let you scamper over to your dictionary to save space here. ;-)

We are talking about (at least I am and it was my statement you were questioning) is the epistimological possibility of "proving" something is the case.

Science, as I know it, and I'm pretty sure as most scientists know it, does not do this. Science deals with observations and sticks to them - or what can at times be ruled out - not with a grand proof of the truth of something. That's what those documents were about. Apples and organges here. Anyway, I don't make it a point to argue about stuff that can be looked up.

As for further evidence - well, we've already established that several times. You're saying this like we're not aware, but it's been said several times.

As for the statement "the physical chemistry has to be understood" - I beg to differ. If I were a scientist trying to certify it for public consumption - maybe. I'm only trying to verify their claims - and delve a little bit into the viability of it as a solution. All I care about is - can I observe what they claim they can do myself? Also: does it output enough energy to make it cost effective, and is there any harmful emission? Do I have to understand it on the chemical level? Nope. I'm not even attempting to do that, nor should I really - if I'm simply interested in verifying their claims with observations.

Further, I doubt they'd let me get that deep in order to protect their IP - that's what I'd do were I the inventor. I respect that and have no desire (other than a mild intellectual curiosity I have about how all things work) to know those details.

We'll test this in a controlled environment to determine that what is going in is what they claim (water, the "catalyst" whatever that is - don't need to know, and waste oil).

If at the end of the day they are putting pennies worth of raw material in, and getting dollars worth of the equivalent petroleum energy out - with little emissions - then I'm happy. Even if it goes beyond my current understanding of science.

If we're going to be objective, we look at the data, and only the data. If it doesn't gel up with what we know, then either our test was wrong, or our knowledge is wrong. There have been a few (being ironic here - way more than a few actually) times in history where we've had to adjust our knowledgebase on new evidence (notice how we keep talking about evidence). Is this one of those cases? Well, that's what the next test is about. If you have to make that point again it's just chest-pounding, k?

I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm just posting what I have as honestly as I can. And hoping to take a deeper look.

You should read Asimov's essay on Exoheretics and Endoheretics. You'd like his point of view.

Mark,

It has been a couple years since we last talked, do you remember our conversation in LA about biofuels specifically biodiesel? Let me Jog your memory; My name is Thatcher Michelsen I am from Vermont and my father makes woodhats www.woodhat.com

I am a biofuels pioneer; my companies www.2Renu.com and www.BioQuantum.Net are founding members of the Vermont Biofuels Association. As you can imagine I have a lot to say about this topic.

Burning waste oil in a diesel engine is bad news! Environmentally this is disastrous and it is a major health hazard. Waste Oil should only ever be burned in a High efficiency incinerator with an adequate smoke stack.

Currently there is no silver bullet solution which is going to afford us endless enjoyment of our glutinous addiction to "affordable" individual transportation. But I have my money on Biodiesel production from Algae growth in waste water which also sequesters carbon from power plants, cleans up the waste water streams, and produces high quality animal stock feed.

We must focus on renewable clean burning fuels, efficient biodiesel/electric hybrids, conservation and mass transit.

These guys are intelligent and talented� I suspect that they have more tricks up their sleeve then to add water and metal dust to waste oil and make it run in an old diesel engine.

There are free energy technologies which were discovered by Nikola Tesla in the late 1800s but he was forced by his employer to stop work on it and the designs have been covered up by the Military Industrial complex ever since. The same people that control our media control our judicial system and our money. They even own the Federal Reserve which is NOT a Federal entity.

If you are fed up and want to get involved with a peaceful Human Revolution. Please visit my website http://www.HumanRevo.com and sign-up for more information. Thank You.

Sincerely,
Thatcher Michelsen - HumanRevo

Note from MJ: Hey Thatch, of course I remember you very well. We had lunch twice at two of my favorite cafes and you told me about the book "Cradle to Cradle." You were also at the "double party." Was wondering what happened to you. I'll check out your site. You should read the stuff I wrote in the "Constructs" section. Also check out "The Venus Project" run by my dear friends Jacques Fresco and Roxanne Meadows. I'm writing a screenplay for them now. Your project may have some interesting cross-over. As for the free-energy technologies of Tesla I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to know how far he actually got - but it is quite well documented that he was sabotaged many times. Please contact my P.A. anne@markjoyner.name

Dear Mark,
it is very interesting this experiment with water ,there are many inventors preoccupied of the future and non pollution cars, but, do you think the big companies which have very big profits and other companis which make money fighting for a good and healthy planet agree this ideea?
Silvia

Just browsing the internet, very interesting.

[scurries away...]

[...scurries back]

proof, n. 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or believable.

Um... I'm not arguing that science is limitless in what it can prove, but yes, this is what science provides where it can. This is what we as scientists do. Except on that point, I think you and I are in complete agreement. No chest-pounding, honest.

The present example is not some esoteric epistemological conundrum. It's a thing of engineering that either works or it doesn't. It's like a bridge design -- if it's built on truths, the bridge stands. If it's built on lies, it falls down. Either way, you have proof of the design concept (or of its opposite).

Thanks for the Asimov reference also. I picked up a copy of "The Roving Mind" and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. Our water-car friends seem to fall into the exoheretic camp, but I appreciate Asimov's view that exoheretics are almost never right, but do serve the valuable function of continuing to challenge real science, to stir its blood and tone its muscles.

I saw a show about a car that ran on water only... back in the early 1970s. The man who was showing it off did have a different engine, but he filled it from the hose attached to his house. He couldn't get a patent on whatever that engine was and he was being threatened to sell what he had. The show was actually not about that car, but about people who invent wonderful things but are threatened until they either shut up about what they have or sell it... never to be heard of again. I've been expecting that car to come into existance at some time in my life. Good things are never kept down forever and do eventually surface again... and again.. and again... until they are finally demanded by the masses. Perhaps starting with a mixed fuel like you used in this car will eventually lead to the car we fill up using the hoses attached to our houses.

Mark:

I'd say it is almost certain that one of the metals is powdered aluminium. The other would be the catalyst which starts to act with the heat of the engine to produce hydrogen. I don't think that's really giving away a secret because the catalyst is still unknown (I can think of 2 possibles; one cheap, one expensive). Anyway, only Aluminium has the inherent energy to split the water up. However despite being a really nice trick is probably an expensive way to go for internal combustion engines owing to waste. You should ask these people the cost of the metal/catalyst relative to plain diesel because it seems to be used up quite quick. If it is too expensive then it is not a solution to anything.

Anyway our company Metalectrique (we are ex nuclear engineers). uses Aluminium in a Al-air fuel cell which is a much more efficient method than heat engines. This is not a new technology but we have a new chemistry which makes it viable at last. We will be demonstrating in Paris on the 7th June at the "Salon Europeen de la recherche et de l'innovation" at the ARITT stand. We're not showing our prototype because it is still pat pending so we rigged up an interesting demo which gets electricity simply from an aluminium beer can. We're hoping that will be novel enough to get us some attention. I have a video I can send you and a pdf file of our technology. Unfortunately the web site is under wraps until the patent goes through - my colleague is worried about copycats. Get in touch if you are interested.

Just wanted to let you know how much I support your kind of work. people have to start waking up and be more exposed to these issue's. I just hope the greed of many don't find their way to stan and other's like them.

Hi,
the Steve Ryan process is an electrolysis process using dissimular metals to generate hydrogen and the hydrogen then is stored inside the water, like CO2 can also be stored in water to get selter water. He is just storing H2 inside the water !
Please come to
www.overunity.com
to discuss his technology.
I also like very much his urine battery and would
like to know, what electrode materials he is using.
Does anybody have a clue ?
Many thanks. Regards, Stefan.
(admin of overunity.com )

Our feature page on Bios Fuel

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BiosFuel

I think getting off of oil is a great thing but I'm not so sure about using a water based fuel. I would really rather not setup future generations to be running low on water because we burned it all in our cars to get off oil. What is the chemical content of the exhaust? Will the water used be regained through the natural process of the environment or is it lost for good?

Thomas

Thomas.... I am sorry, but please think about it. If you look at the total VOLUME of the world.... and look at how SMALL the supplies of fossil fuels are compared to the TOTAL VOLUME of the world... like a BB next to a basketball. And look at how long it has supplied power to the entire world!

NOW... look at the total volume of SALT WATER compared to the total volume of the world. If you make the same comparison, now we are looking at a ping-pong ball compared to a basketball. So, not big, but still a thousand times larger than the source of fossil fuels. And, when you burn it, it goes to teh atmosphere and then returns to the ocean eventually.

Just a thought, Thomas.... have to think in perspective. Dont be afraid... get out there and think a little. :-)

Hi Mark,
Wondering if you have an update on this, as you will no doubt be aware of Biosfuel's recent success at the Panasonic World Solar Challenge 2007 running a 1989 Toyota Landcruiser on their fuel blend.

Also, James Gardiner's posting above discussed using powdered aluminium as a catalyst to produce hydrogen. I think he is on the right track, as I came across a patent that claims to use a mixture of carbonaceous fuel and water, and uses a metallic catalyst mounted within the cylinder. See:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/gunnpat.htm
Using a powdered metallic hydrogen catalyst seems like an obvious next step beyond what this patent specifies. The percentage of carbonaceous fuel (used oil) is required for 3 reasons; it provides lubrication, protects engine components from rust and initiates the reaction. I speak purely from a theoretical basis as I am neither mechanic, or chemical engineer, just a keen researcher.
Steve Ryan has obviously done a great deal of experimentation over the years and I take my hat off to him. Good on him and Cam for being ultra cautious and seeking alternate ways to bring this fantastic technology to the market despite the overwhelming giants.
Thankyou Mark for also bringing this to people's attention.

Hi Mark,
You and I go back quit a ways. Way back to the early 90's when we launched our first website and you helped me with the design and e-commerce side, so to say I have respect for you and your opinion would be an understatement.
I have been researching alternative energy for 7 years and have several working prototypes for generating HHO. Thanks for your efforts, and please feel free to contact me anytime if you are in need of an outside opinion.

Hello,

Only two questions need be answered:

What is the amortized cost per unit energy?

( $ / Joules ) or ( $ / Btu)

How does the amortized cost per unit energy compare to exisiting technology and technology on the horizion?

The quantity of water consumed (from todays economical standpoint) is essentially irrelevant.

Tim

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your efforts, the human race need people like you.
I am working on a fuel cell based on orgone energy idea ( joes cell)
After reading all the above. Great work Steve Ryan and best wishes for success, but what benefit will people of this world get from you, if you intend to become rich from this invention. If people have to pay to use your product. I am sure there is a cost somewhere; this was clear in the 60 minutes interview video when the interviewer compared you with Bill Gates.
The technology has been available for a long time whether electrolysis, Aether, electric or what ever it is that will replace fossil fuel.
The reason it is not a product on the market, is that the big players have not yet found a way they can make money from it on profitable basis. At the end of all of this what we people hope to achieve is freedom and free fuel. Not another product that will enslave us.
I do hope you would make sure this invention does not die away if anything happens to you, like Stan Mayer.
My advice is you set up a time mail that is sent to as many people that you trust as you can, in case something happens to you.
Better still is to make it available to the public as soon as you can.
Our greed is our down fall.
Please understand no offence in intended here; just shear frustration at the fact that I have to pay £60 British ponds every time I fill up my car, (60.00 GBP=121.668 USD)
Respect to all.
Zack

Hi again,
just one point I forgot to talk about.
question to Steve Ryan:
in the 60 minutes interview video 2 yaers ago. it was mentioned that you applied for a patent, which takes a year! what happened now 2 years later? did you get the patent, or did you find someone already has it?
regards
Zack

with regards to the light bulb. go put a dead light bulb in microwave and just see what happens

To Mr. Mark Joyner I would first like to say that I respect you for actually taking the time to go and look for yourself and making a video available to the general public. Secondly, I have read all through your site and I appreciate your balanced view and responses to those who have taken the time to post comments. Finally, has Mr. Ryan agreed to the second test that you spoke of? Keep up the good work. Billy Rowluck

Hi Mark, this is pretty cool. Yul Brown, www.yulbrown.org, who passed away in October 2007 invented the water fueled welder that is now being used in the UK in several large factories. Another invention he had was a 100% water fueled car. Well actually hydrogen fueled but the conversion from water to hydrogen takes place under the hood. His inventions are really worth studying. There is a story I've heard several times that Yul Brown traveled across the Nullarbor Plains (over 2500 kms) with his water fueled car using approximately 10 litres of water. I am skeptical but I have heard the same story several times by different people whom I do respect and are usually level headed. Seems crazy to me but I am trying to remain open minded.

Another man, Daniel Dingel, of the Philippines has a similar invention. Search youtube for a few videos that are very interesting indeed. http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Daniel+Dingel They're very interesting.

BMW recently released the Hydrogen7 but they're on the wrong track but forced to go this way I suppose so that one would need to fill up via a bowser and not the rain water tank or tap water.

Recent conversation I have had with a few people I know in the car industry here in Australia it seems that the possibility of water fueled vehicles is known by the industry leaders but they are unable to work with this technology due to some type of trade agreement which prevents governments supporting a competition to the 3 major fuels, petrol, diesel and LPG.

The most astonishing thing to me is this question... What could this technology do for greenhouse emissions??? or how could this improve the lifestyle for population in say, Mexico City???

I did a similar "I had to see it myself" test, about 7 years ago. I had a lawn mower run on a mixture of water and used auto bodyshop paint. It ran like a top, and clean, without any noticeable particulate exhaust. The burner tube that replaced the carburetor became magnetized, as well. There was no catalyst, either. I forget where I got the instructions. If you want to check out new technology, you really will enjoy this site: http://jnaudin.free.fr/
Good luck with your efforts!

Hi Mark,
This is concerning Stan Mayer post above. I was wondering if you have looked at his designs. As I don't know much about science maybe you can give them to people you know who can verify if it works or not. Can download all his patent and designs here:

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stan.html

Just thought might be of interest to you....and to the rest of world if it really works....

Check out todays story in LA Times Business section today on the new BMW Hydrogen 7 Series... the water car is already here.

Did anyone notice is was a Diesel engine?

Rudolph Diesel designed his engine while on a farm so it could run on veggie oil or most organic oils.
That's why is has a 17:1 compression ratio so it burns almost anything , why not just hook up a dual-feed tank to suck in 25% water that blends with the diesel fuel because based on the video it takes way too much energy to make the fuel to mix with water.

I would rather see a Over-drive box that kicks in at 60 mph and then triggers a water mixture for highway cruising where the car doesn't need too much torque or HP once the car is rolling.
Please give up on these quick-fix gimmicks because even the Hydrogen cars use massive amounts of power for making the fuel since the Hydrogen atom must be split-off by an electrical charge.
This ECO crap sounds more like a carnival Shell-game where you are tricked into save money on fuel for the car but the home electrical bill doubles because of the demand to make Hydrogen to save on the Auto bills for fuel.

Hi, I notice that many have it stuck in their head that to get energy in the form of hydrogen from water would take more energy than is produced as you dont get over unity, something for nothing.
And yet the energy released from an atom bomb does not require the same amount of energy input to get the output. Nobody can argue that atom bombs have a lot of energy and the energy used to release it is tiny to the point of being almost nothing in comparassin.
Stan Meyers achieved something that only a very few have only ever got close to, he run a car 100% on water but it is only when you look into the science in what he did and how he did it that you discover he did not use electrolisis which is what all the HHO units I have seen are using.

He was using the splitting of the water in ways never done before and or since. And in the same way that someone worked out how to release the energy in a hydrogen atom to make an atomic bomb creating far more energy than what was put in, Stan Meyers did the same in that he found a way to get the energy out of the water without needing a huge amount of energy to do so.