Wednesday, 14 January 2009

water engines

please click HERE to get your free copy 
of this public domain .pdf file now!

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" ~Schopenhauer.

the following letter sent to my complete email contacts list: 2009/1/12

HERE is the public domain pdf.file for

for less than £50


EDIT: (attached .pdf document available by clicking the link at top of this page)


the reply I got from government funded UK Sustainable Development team:

Please don't! The only water needed is of the cold variety as the "science" doesn't pass investigation.

Look at the Wikipedia article at:
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Hydrogen_ fuel_injection

Or consider the following:
http://www.consumer news04/2008/ 07/water4gas. html

"All of these device/schemes seem to promote adding hydrogen to improve the combustion process. There is no way it can improve fuel economy by 50%, or even 5%," said Dr. Robert Sawyer, Professor of Energy Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Sawyer said that he has been reviewing gas-saving devices since he first joined the faculty at UC-Berkeley, more than 40 years ago, and to see a change in MPG comes as no surprise.

"One would expect to see a small increase or decrease (a few percent) in fuel economy from all of these devices, purely the result of test variability. However, people will put a device on their car and automatically change the way they drive. This in itself will improve fuel economy simply because a person is driving slower, etc.," Sawyer said.

All of the experts we spoke with had serious problems with the wording on the Web sites promoting the Water4Gas concept.

"The Web sites I saw used a little bit of truth mixed in with a lot of false statements," said Dr. John Kramlich, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Washington College of Engineering. "People need to forget about all the 'testimonials' they see because the only way to know if a device helps at all is to use a dynamometer. You not only need to test the MPG, but also what is happening to the combustion process of the engine, and the test has to be done numerous times."

When we showed the instructions and claims to Dr. Andrew A. Frank, he had difficulty holding back the laughter.

"It shows the desperation people feel!" said Frank, Professor of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering at the University of California, Davis.

"This has been around for years, but it didn't work back then and it won't work now," Dr. Frank said. "It's such a very small amount of hydrogen-oxygen gas that it is impossible to have any real effect on combustion."

Frank went on to relay a story from his youth.

"Back in the 50's, water injection was a big thing because the P-51 Mustang aircraft used the process. The P-51 used a very high engine compression and on heavy loads, the engine would knock. The water injection did give the P-51 engine more power and it stopped the knocking."

"Curious people like me started to modify our own cars, and guess what? It did get rid of the knocking, but it also took a ton of water. It also messed up the timing because internal combustion engines aren't designed for these things. In short, all it did was create a negative force on the engine, even though the knocking stopped."

We asked Dr. Frank about all the positive "reviews" and "testimonials" that have flooded the Internet.

"A normal everyday driver can't accurately measure the MPG of their car. Each tank of gas might vary the MPG by as much as 20%, based on the time of day, road conditions, etc.," Frank stated.

"I saw one 'test' that showed a driver filling up the tank, driving 20 miles and then stopping to top off the tank. You can't measure anything this way because the air in the tank could easily be 100% off."

Dr. Frank also made note of what every other expert has said — a car battery can't create enough energy to have any measurable effect.

"These devices simply cannot generate enough hydrogen or oxygen to amount to a hill of beans. A 12-volt car battery might create some bubbles, but beyond that, a standard car battery isn't powerful enough to do anything," he said.
"Here's a good example that people should keep in mind," Frank said. "Even with the most expensive and sophisticated energy recovery systems, such as on some diesel trucks, you will only see about a 5% increase in fuel mileage."
In fact, some Canadian truckers use hydrogen boosters, but they shell out up to $15,000 for the technology. In addition, the Canadian government performed scientific testing on the device and found that it reduced fuel consumption by only 4%.

David Greene, energy expert and Corporate Fellow at Oak Ridge National Laboratory concurred. He said that yes, people can see an improvement, but "the potential for efficiency improvement by more rapid combustion is nowhere near the kinds of claims these Web sites make."

Side effects

Even if a person could tweak a device to get a few percent improvements in MPG, what kind of other problems might they be causing?
"You are also causing the engine to work harder, plain and simple," said Greene.
The experts also said to be wary of Web sites that use selective "studies" to promote their product. Many sites are referencing material from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

"I'm very active with that group and often times the SAE papers have a very narrow scope," said Dr. Thomas Asmus, retired Senior Research Executive with DaimlerChrysler Corporation and a current member of the Fuel Economy Panel for the National Academy of Science. "These hydrogen-on- demand Web sites are picking and choosing which SAE factoids to use, but if you added it all up, you would have nothing."

A recognized expert in fuel efficiency and engine combustion, Dr. Asmus said that these devices, "mix in a little hydrogen with fuel and can make a difference, but considering the amount of water used and that we're talking about a 12-volt battery, the maximum improvement (if any) would be no more than 2%."

And what about the claims of this being "suppressed" technology?

"This stuff has been around forever and it's been researched to death. It's a simple electrolyzer that could quite possibly cause more energy to be used than if you didn't use the device. It's as 'scammish' as anything I have ever seen," Asmus said.


Roy Tindle
Creekside Forum/
London Thames Gateway Forum
Telephone 020 8141 0271
Mobile: 079 8884 7003
roytindle@gmail. com



I have yet to try it for myself, but what I can tell you is that wiki is run by NWO, as are the other sources you have used for 'evidence'

here; they all root back to the companies working hand in hand with the
petrol empire. I'll tell you what happens with my own trials into this
but I can tell you that people who I have spoken with who use water
engines already are very happy with them. none of these are people who
believe that humans need to travel at 60~100 mph, with exception of
emergency services.

there is even a company already selling portable water to electric
converters with plug sockets and usb ports, they provide 270 volts.
this is the 21st century.

people more important than money.
the next few years are going to be a time of huge global change.
getting survival kit out to people for free is our priority.
thanks for your reply


Tue, 13 Jan 2009

I always enjoy conspiracy theories! Have you thought that the oil companies could welcome this as a diversion from renewables? Unfortunately, Joe, this is about science, not Harry Potter, and the basic suggestion is that there is something for nothing in the idea. Electrolysis is well studied, the basic problem is that there is heat loss and the production of hydrogen is not 100% efficient. Thus you are using fossil fuel to produce the electricity - an alternator uses fuel in the energy that it extracts from the transmission - and using the electricity to produce hydrogen, with some fair losses of energy on route. The hydrogen is then burnt and the burning process is far less efficient than its use, say, in a fuel cell. More losses. Of course there is evidence that burning hydrogen in internal combustion engines increases efficiency and can decrease NOX emissions but the efficiency gains are small and the requirement for hydrogen high. Point me to the scientific evaluation and I'll readily retract my comments. It is, indeed, the 21st Century but far too many people are still living, as far as an understanding of basic science is concerned, back in the dark ages. Sorry, must go now, I have to send my bank details to this wonderful Nigerian bank manager who insists of giving me $100,000,000,000! Roy






Apologies if you have already recieved this link from my other email address; I had so many ‘returned ~ recipient not found’ that I looked into it and discovered that most of my ecology based contacts have been blocked from my being able to email them, whereas all of my governmental ones are still allowed. This is highly interesting because most of the eco contacts are not affiliated with each other and the chances of everybody having changed their email adresses for the new year seems unlikely since many of them are legit groups. I can only assume either my email account to have been hacked or else a smear campaign is being waged against me.

My reply to this is to laugh at the haters and to pity those who live in fear. They probably suspect me of being a terrorist, to which my reply is; ‘tyrants breed dissidents’. The theosophy and intentions behind my actions are purely twofold; 1) save nature 2) save humans from suffering. These both necessarily involve education. To which ends I am promoting ecological and community based alternatives to the old world 20th century consumer~pollution lifestyle that is still being encouraged by the haters. I am not doing this for prestige or popularity, to be honest I find popularity to be a pain in the arse and a waste of time; I am doing this because somebody has to! Given all of the information available to us about the state of the world, self~sufficient communities stand a far better chance of surviving the forthcoming changes.

A member of the UK governments sustainable development team has emailed me demanding that I stop sending people instructions on how to convert their car engines to run on petrol for £30. I openly question their agenda considering this response is adverse to their alleged target goals. A copy of this conversation is available on my blogsite.

Here are some educational youtube links you may find interesting, please take the time to watch them.
~ state repression of free energy technology
~ what NWO are capable of using ‘alternate (ahem) non~possible physics’

the attached .pdf file with this email is the public domain instruction manual for how to convert your car to run on water for £30.

peace be with us all

here's ANOTHER link showing this technology working. and don't give me the 'dont trust it if it came from the internet' crap because it counts as equally for the cynics line of argument as it does for the progressives who are actually building this stuff.

the guy cites 1 gallon (4.5 litres) of sea water getting him 50miles at 70mph

Stan Meyers, killed by the feds?

on top of which I have friends who work in a german car manufacturing company who are building water powered hybrid engines for commercial use even you read this.
so, why are the uk governments sustainable development team lying about such things? could it be that they are in the dark ages of the 20th century and out of touch with reality? or are there more sinister reasons that they don't want YOU converting your own vehicle to run on water?

here is a link to



UNFORTUNATELY a few days later my computer was taken out by hackers.

ADDITIONAL 27.1.2014: 
Advert Banner from internet

No comments:

Post a Comment