Hi Jerry,

I have long wondered why so many alternate fuel researchers seem fixated with the idea that electrolysis (in one form or another) is the only method of disassociating water into its component gases. Under the right conditions water itself can be made to burn (i.e.without using the energy input required for electrolysis). And in its subsequent recombination into water, it produces a heat and light of such intensity, that it can sublimate fire brick.

Which is why I note with interest that a new "water based fuel" invention has appeared on the block at:


The site itself provides very little useful technical information, but it does refer to an October 13th "60 Minutes " television documentary, shown recently in New Zealand.

The documentary is considerably more informative.

In it, the inventor frequently emphasizes that his invention is " . . . a water based fuel " (rather than the conventional electrolysis inferred on the web site). He also talks of the "entrainment" of hydrogen in the water.

In brief, the inventor is shown pouring a small quantity (about two or three hundred ml) of ordinary tap water into a container about the size of a standard car battery. There appeared to be two wires coming from two opposite faces of the container. The container's other faces were about half an inch thick, with some circular objects at their tops, and they were orange in colour. They also clearly have the words "HDD Cooler" printed on the edges (number 8 wire?). The interviewer confirmed that the device did not contain batteries and it was not plugged into a power source of any sort.

The inventor then connected the two wires together and it was left untouched for something like forty minutes. While the interviewer was allowed to observe the process in the container, the inventor did not permit it to be filmed.. The water was then poured out of the container into a glass beaker, and a sample of it given to the interviewer for analysis. The rest was poured into a small tank (about the size of a small thermos) mounted on a motor bike, where the petrol tank would normally be. The original tank had been removed, making the entire top engine structure and the fueling procedure clear .

The bike was then started and filmed being ridden up to 50 mph on the highway, and at lesser speed around a commercial courtyard. According to the inventor, the carburettor had been only slightly modified.

Water will burn under the right conditions, and with the right "catalyst". This invention may or may not use similar techniques. Or it may be a new method of conditioning water that somehow "entrains" additional hydrogen ?

But unfortunately, and like so many others before him, the inventor seems to have made a number of naive and seriously flawed assumptions.

He seems to believe:

(1) He will make so much money from this invention that he will make Bill Gates look like a poor relation. (2) That by applying for a patent (which is expensive, and takes about a year) the confidentiality of his invention will somehow be assured. And that with the granting of a patent his intellectual property will be protected. (3) That the demonstration of his invention publicly, on television, will somehow assure his personal protection against harm from any commercial or other interest who may feel threatened by it. (Alternatively, he has gone public in the mistaken hope that some large commercial interest with a very big cheque book will buy him out !)

Those of us who have been around for a while know where all these roads lead.



This e-mail has been transmitted using 100% recycled electrons

Reply via email to