The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Nobody For President Campaign, 1940 to Present
Adolf Hitler Baby Photo Hoax, 1933
The Crown Prince Regent of Thulia, 1954
'Solar Armor' freezes man in Nevada Desert, 1874
The Hoaxing Hitchhiker, 1941
Tourist Guy 9/11 Hoax, Sep 2001
Did Paul McCartney die on Nov. 9, 1966?
The Great Wall of China Hoax, 1899
The Berners Street Hoax, 1810
The Hitler Diary Hoax, 1983
Convert Your Car to Hydrogen
image United Nuclear is selling a Hydrogen Fuel System Kit that will allow you to convert your existing car to run on hydrogen. It's not for sale just yet, but they promise that they're "currently fleet-testing our systems and are in final preparation for sales to the general public." If they ever do manage to perfect this, I'd buy it. I'd love to never have to worry about going to a gas station again. But I have serious doubts that United Nuclear really does have a system like this nearly ready for sale to the public.

I've written about United Nuclear before, expressing doubts about whether they were really selling all the stuff they claim to sell. For instance, do they really sell super radioactive ore for the home hobbyist? Apparently United Nuclear was founded by Bob Lazar, who's known to be a bit of a crackpot scientist. He claims to have reverse engineered alien spacecrafts, for instance. This would seem to lower the company's credibility a little. (Wikipedia link via Gizmodo)
Categories: Technology
Posted by The Curator on Wed Sep 07, 2005
Comments (83)
i was thinking the same thing also. The site really had no proof whatsoever. If it was created it wouldnt be that hard to find someone willing to publish it. But i do think oil companies are not trying that hard to figure out a new way of energy, which is kind of obvious. Why switch to something new when you have been making money off it for decades.
Posted by Jared  on  Sat Jan 27, 2007  at  01:25 PM
Hi, what I don't really understand about all this, if you could make a car run on water generating the hydrogen while driving, that is impossible isn't it? The energy required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen is more than the energy returned by the engine after burning the hydrogen to water (due to energy losses). To power a 100kW car with hydrogen for say 1 hour, you will need a 100kW generator that runs for at least 1 hour. This will only be environmental friendly if that 100kWh comes from solar or wind energy. So, where is the cheap part in this process??
Posted by Michel  in  Australia  on  Sat Jan 27, 2007  at  07:22 PM
Here a link for the Nay-Sayers about a car running on Hydrogen....Voila! Presenting the true water engine!...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d7ZZAfZnvog
Posted by Laurence Lareau  in  Houston, Texas  on  Sun Jan 28, 2007  at  05:39 AM
Ok, since people seem to be missing the point here I'll restate it.


NOBODY THINKS THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!

It is very possible, and has been done many times. Nobody is denying that. The point we're trying to make (that everyone ignores) is that it costs more in the long run to produce the hydrogen then it does to produce the gasoline. Until the cost of hydrogen production drops to a comparable level with gasoline it's not cost-effective to switch over. The energy to produce that hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and right now that ultimately is still oil. It takes more oil to produce the hydrogen then it does to produce the gasoline.

Until bigger and more efficient solar, wind, or even nuclear plants are built, or a drastically more efficient method of hydrogen production is devised, it's simply not going to save us any oil to switch our cars over to hydrogen.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Jan 29, 2007  at  11:30 AM
While I can't say whether unitednuclear is legitimate or not, I can say that the ability to switch between hydrogen and gasoline at the flip of a switch is apparently very possible. BMW plans to have a hydrogen/gasoline vehicle available to the public in 2008 and they too make the claim of flipping a switch.

http://www.bmwworld.com/models/745h.htm

Several other manufacturers are working on such projects as well. While I will acknowledge there are some differences of opinions about range of travel, the concepts are at least real.

As for whether the use of chemically bonded hydrogen vs liquid hydrogen is feasible, I would point out that stored in a liquid state would require extremely low temperatures (over 200 degrees F below zero) which would pose problems for long term storage of fuel in the vehicle.
Posted by Scott  in  Oklahoma, USA  on  Tue Apr 03, 2007  at  03:24 PM
An engine is basically an air pump.
This would make it impossible to mix the hydrogen with pure oxygen. The storage system he is selling is real, although I would think in a normal vehicle it would run a car for about 5 minutes. The fact is, the only real solution is to work harder on the electrolisis generation. It is the only safe method of transporting hydrogen, as water on-board the car. I have had great luck producing hydrogen with electrolosis to run lawnmowers and a motorcycle(250 cc) But nothing like a car yet.
Posted by Rob  in  Boise, Idaho USA  on  Tue Apr 10, 2007  at  04:36 AM
I have been following the Hydrogen for cars since 1974, when gasoline prices first started rising from below 30 cents a gallon toward a $1 per gallon. At that time, I read two articles: one in the Scientific American in which a physicist commissioned for the Naural Gas Institute wrote about how Hydrogen could be produced using nuclear power and piped through existing natural gas pipelines. (I still have that article on my coffee table!) The other article was about a Californis man who converted his car to run on Hydrogen for only $125 (1974 money.) He used aluminum hydrite pellets in a standardized metal "cassettes" that he envisioned "service stations" would use to "refuel" vehicles by just exchanging for a refilled one.

I saw that someone was concerned about engines rusting from the inside. First, engines now are generally made of aluminum. And, second, you're forgetting about the fact that pistons a cylinders are lubricated with oil which will prevent rust. Last, the heat in the combustion chamber and exhaust system will be enough to dry those parts enough that they would rust any more than they do today.

And, for the person who mentioned the Hindenburg, you'd better study a bit more science that play virtual reality games. Science has proved that the Hindenburg fire started from a spark igniting a very combustible component in the paint covering the skin of the lighter-than-air ship (the same component used in NASA's solid rocket boosters!)not from the Hydrogen.
If you would bother to Google "hydrogen for cars" you would see that Californis already is using Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles and has a map of all the refueling stations, and expects to have a state-wide "Hydrogen Highway" by 2012. You also find that Honda already has both a Fuel Cell Hydrogen car (the FCX) and A car with a Hydrogen internal combustion engine (ICE). Also, that GM and Dow teamed up in a joint venture to produce Hydrogen cars and distribute hydrogan for those cars world-wide.

It is coming, folks! Hybrid cars in 5 or less years will be obsolete.

Tom (MA Engineering, MBA)
Posted by Tom Burke  in  Wisconsin  on  Sat May 26, 2007  at  05:43 PM
Tom, nobody is saying hydrogen powered cars are impossible, they're obviously not. The issue is feasibility. Hydrogen requires more energy to produce than gasoline. Where is that energy coming from? Oil, for the most part.

This means that, as it stands now, gasoline is more efficient than hydrogen. Until this changes it's not going to do the average person any good to convert their cars. Hydrogen fuel cells are an attempt to produce hydrogen more efficiently, but they're very expensive to produce and maintain as well as still not equalling gasoline's efficiency.

Note that I still feel hydrogen research is desirable, even by 'garage researchers', but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to its faults like so many other people seem to be.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Tue May 29, 2007  at  12:18 PM
Im shocked at you people...You all talk as if big oil has paid you all off for support. As for the person that wrote... "I don't believe a standard car engine can safely burn hydrogen, either. I seem to remember something about a Hindenburg..." Dude..? Are you like really R'Tarded or something? Fueling your car with hydrogen does not mean we will the cabin of it with hydrogen and float it above the ground.. Hydrogen was NOT the fuel source of the I don't believe a standard car engine can safely burn hydrogen, either. I seem to remember something about a Hindenburg...
... Its just what caused it lift. Anyways.. Modern hydrogen systems are more safe to use than a typical gas engine. Why? Because there is not hydrogen stored in any form other than in the gas lines.. Your fuel tank is only a water tank... If your not for us, your against us.. If your not helping to bring hydrogen tech to the mass, your working to keep it from us and dooming us to a lifetime of being slaves to big o
Posted by Ravious  in  Indiana  on  Fri Jun 08, 2007  at  12:24 AM
Ravious, you are talking like some wild kook who "has solved the problem of" in this case car fuel and starts a rant when someone starts pointing out flaws. Nobody here has been bought off by Big Oil, or if so - Where's My Check? Using hydrogen to power vehicles has problems, one of which is storage. You CANNOT just fill your tank with water, break it apart and then burn the components to provide power, the energy costs to do so are prohibitive. Hydrogen has to be refined out and transfered from the processing plant to a local storage and again to the vehicle. If you transfer it as a gas you have extreme flamibility problems, not only technical but perception as well. As a liquid you have a lot of technical problems and as any other form there are technical problems as well. Your rants do you no favors. You are proof that Indiana is a good place to be from.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Fri Jun 08, 2007  at  01:12 AM
I somehow doubt that someone with a faulty grasp of grammar, spelling, and punctuation is just the sort of person to crack the hydrogen production problem for us. I'd rather put my faith in somebody more qualified to get his point across in a meaningful and informative manner.

You know, something other than "Dude..? Are you like really R'Tarded or something?".
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Fri Jun 08, 2007  at  12:34 PM
I have given this concept some considerable thought. First of all, one must be able to think outside the box. Secondly, the gentleman from Clearwater, Fl. that the news clip on youtube about the water engine has gotten more thumbs up from several engineering firms etc.. They say his invention is very plausable and seems to work. He is obviously not a mechanical or chemical engineer, but seems to me rather to be a saleman type person that has modified a Brown's gas torch.

Here is the major thought of mine on the subject....How is it that companies with virtually endless supplies of research and development money (regardless of who they are) that employ chemical engineers and mechanical engineers by the thousands, that supposedly understand all of the current theories concerning the trades, can't come up with the kind of scientific results as a Brown's gas torch salesman can?

Something else to consider: Everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and be a nay sayer trying to explain how EXPENSIVE it is to use electricity to generate hydrogen.....
First of all, when was the last time the alternator in your car or truck sent you an electric bill?
OK I know....the next thing somebody is going to tell me is that your vehicle only has one alternator.....and that is does not make enough power to decompose water into hydrogen to run a car......
How many WOULD it take? Two? Three? Five? Ten? Twenty?....Hmmm let me see, I think they might go as high as 200 amps each or is it more?
If a belt can turn the pully on one alternator, couldn't it pull two....etc? How many?

Ok so now I'm going to hear that it is too big of a drain on the engine to run multiple alternators to power numerous batteries.....

So who ever said it had to be driven by the motor?
Two wheel drive vehicles have 2 extra wheels that are not powered......does that mean that an extra 2 wheels with gear ratios modified to drive the alternator/generators?

If you think you can, or think you can't, generally speaking you are correct. If you're waiting for the right opportunity to do it, waiting for the right day, waiting for Uncle Bob and Aunt Jane to go home.....you'll be waiting forever and it'll never get done.

Don't die with the hope for mankind in you silent, it might be you,YES YOU that holds the key to last piece of the puzzle....DO IT TODAY!
Posted by Laurence Lareau  in  Houston, Texas  on  Sun Jun 10, 2007  at  09:17 PM
Geeze Laurence, it's simple high school physics here.

Alternators don't just provide free power, it has to come from somewhere else first. In a gasoline powered car the gasoline is burned in the engine to provide mechanical force, which drives the wheels. This mechanical force is also used to drive the alternator. No engine = no alternator running = no electricity.

Now, you might argue that an engine burning hydrogen would also provide mechanical energy that can be siphoned off to run an alternator, and you'd be right. You could even chain many alternators together to provide enough electricity to break the hydrogen out of water. But that requires a lot of mechanical power. So much so that you wouldn't have any power left over to actually move the car.

In fact the problem is even greater than that. Right now there is no way to get more power out of water via hydrogen than is required to get that hydrogen in the first place.

If this isn't clear then let's try an extremely simplified example.

You want to produce 100 units of power by generating hydrogen from water. Unfortunately since this is such a difficult process it turns out that it requires 120 units of power to produce that 100 units of hydrogen power. That's right, every time we produce 100 units of hydrogen power we consume 120 units of fossil fuel power, or the equivalent. That's a net loss of 20 units. More or less, this is in no way meant to be an exact demonstration.

It simply requires more hydrogen to electrolyze all that water than you get back from it. It's an energy sink.

If you can figure out how to produce 100 units of hydrogen power with 100 units or less of conventional power then you've got something.

That's the goal people are working toward. Until that goal is reached hydrogen will require more energy to run your car than gasoline, which is rather counterproductive.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Jun 11, 2007  at  12:57 PM
And I'm not even touching your '2 extra wheels' fiasco.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Jun 11, 2007  at  12:58 PM
If one wanted to find "free" energy to convert H2O to hydrogen in a car they would only have to target the vegicle's efficiency short-falls. Capturing the extra power during idling times or reusing the exhaust to run a heat engine (about 75% of all energy from gasoline is exhausted through the tailpipe as heat). That energy could then easily be used to extract hydrogen from water. Of course, it could also be used more efficiently in an electric motor.
Posted by Eric  on  Tue Jun 19, 2007  at  06:20 PM
MPG gaines could VERY roughly be calculated by multiplying the efficiency of each step in the process. Exhaust heat * Heat Engine Generator Efficiency * water to hydrogen * ICB efficiency = 0.75 * 0.30 * 0.70 * 0.25 = 0.04. So one could improve the overall fuel efficiency by 4 points. Of course these numbers are arbitrary estimates, but not too far off.
Posted by Eric  on  Tue Jun 19, 2007  at  06:27 PM
Eric, I've been told on several occasions that about 80% of the energy in gasoline is used moving the engine or wasted as heat in the engine compartment. Capturing that waste heat loss would be another "free" source of energy to use. Regardless, the point has been made previously thta it takes more energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen than you would recover to power the car. I think centeralized hydrogen generation plants with "gas stations" for providing fuel to cars would be better. If the technical problems can be worked out.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Jun 19, 2007  at  06:36 PM
Guys, unless kg-s of platinium used as electrodes any hydrogen generator is not gonna last too long. Keep your grand for other purposes, spend for chocolates for your sweethearts or smtg?
Posted by Doy  on  Thu Jun 28, 2007  at  05:05 AM
This link to a Guy named Aaron who shows his simple water fuel cell. http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1501&highlight;=&sid=5723bc040d57062de071394a20015533#1501

Link here to the video... http://s59.photobucket.com/albums/g307/imaaronhall/?action=view¤t=MVI_0127.flv

Link here will take you to page with many links to others who use this method and to Inventor's videos (before he died from poisoning) where he teaches how to make this water fuel cell... http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=416

This process is NOT Electrolysis. It is 180% out of phase with Electrolysis. Is exactly the opposite of Electrolysis. Produces much more power that is required to produce the hydrogen. Does so with tap water and no additives.

Naysayers never get anywhere, except nowhere.
Posted by KISS  on  Sun Jul 08, 2007  at  05:46 PM
KISS, I hope you read this with an open mind. Those links you provided prove nothing, all the evidence given can easily be faked. It would be more to the point if this device had undergone a series of scientific tests under controlled conditions. And do not say that science is against this guy, that is the refuge of the con artist. Since elctrolysis is the use of electrical energy to break apart the hydoren and oxygen molecules in water, the exact opposite would be to use energy to create water from free hydrogen and free oxygen. I don't know the technical term for the process but I've always heard it called "burning hydrogen" and it has been around for decades at least.

In the Middle Ages there was a chess-playing machine that beat many human players, even some very good ones. The games were public and watched to make sure that the owner of the machine wasn't making the moves himself. He wasn't. It wasn't until much later that the midget inside the machine was discovered. He was an excellent chess player.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Mon Jul 09, 2007  at  02:22 AM
I thought the exact opposite would be to combine oxygen and hydrogen into water while producing power - wait, that actually happens when the hydrogen is burned. raspberry
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Jul 09, 2007  at  12:32 PM
Well it seems that not to many took notice in the chemistry/physics lessons at school. A known fact petrol EXPLODES UNDER COMPRESSION. Hydrogen IMPLODES ON IGNITION. Now you would know the fastest burning substance in the world is HYDROGEN
If I Released 20 litres of Hydrogen into a workshop and reached into my pocket took out a box of matches an lit one I would still be here as hydrogen would be forced being the lightest material known to man to the top or ceiling instantly any small cracks etc and it would have escaped to the atmosphere with in 30 seconds NO BOOM i'm sorry but the petrol would burn for some time producing a noctious gas and smell of petrol.

Now just how do you convert a petrol engine to run on hydrogen -- quite easily --- Weather you have a cylinder of hydrogen or a Water to hydrogen/oxygen converter the same thing operates.

The Petrol Engine. Because of the slow burning speed of petrol so that a spark will detonate the petrol gas in the cylinder under compression ths spark has to be set at about 12mm/ 1/2in before TDC to allow the motor to run. Now remember the facts of Hydrogen - the fastest butning substance in the world -- needs the compressed gas to be ignighted just before TDC or at TDC - remember Hydrogen IMPLODES and produces Water in the cylinder head. Now comes the clever part. Fact Water Boils at 100deg C (a small diversion, if you have a small compressor to blow your tyres up you will find the input will be cool but the output hose will be warm to very hot - no not friction - the temperature enflicted by compression up to 450deg C. How ever let us return to the petrol engine of the common car the compression at about 8 to 9 to 1 will produce up to 300deg C. water boils @ 100deg C so we have instant steem and more but the steem bufs will tell you super heated steem is about 250deg C. and we have a compressed temp of about 350deg C. we have lift off with super heated steam. Now to those who want to run both petrol and hydrogen you have a timing problem which would have to be able to be changed at the same time as you change over. To get the Hydrogen delivered economically use the Joe-Cell system it works with less than 4 amps at 12 volts at start and will generate hydrogen to power a V8 4 litre engine with ease (130km on a cup and a half of water as described in one of the videos.) have yet to test it but it runs the honda 11hp genset 15amps at 240v over night on a cup of water. By the way the energy from hydrogen will deliver up to 60% more than petrol and leave no polutants other than water. Try it out and Join Us with free Fuel.
Posted by Darryl Thiselton  in  South Australia  on  Mon Sep 17, 2007  at  12:18 PM
Darryl, yes hydrogen will produce only water at a by-product, however, energy from hydrogen does not produce 60% more than petrol. One unit of energy is the same as any other unit of energy. Unless you were trying to say a given amount of hydrogen will produce 60% more energy than petrol. Wrong. If anything it is the other way round. The more complex the molecule the greater energy that can be released from it. Simple physics. And as far as the Joe-Cell goes, start talking about it once it passes some scientific tests. Until then, I don't believe your claims.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Mon Sep 17, 2007  at  12:55 PM
HYDROGEN Generators.

Learn Charybdis in Hell on Mon Jun 11, 2007. The Joe-Cell for Charybdis in Hell should do some research and come up to the level of 2007 not year 1807. Now he asks why the governments don't go for it, very simple they would get no money from its use no excise/taxes on water.

The oil companys control many governments around the world - they even have wars about Oil.

By the way the Joe-Cell is a very simple system utilising 316/7 stainless steel tubing and from 1.6mm to 4mm wall thickness the tubes
ranging from center pin at 12mm to 14mm and spaced evenly tubes 10mm larger in say 5,7,9,11 steps (12mm +, 22mm -, 32mm +, 42mm -, 52mm +, 62mm -, 72mm +, 82mm -,)
the interesting thing about this process is quite simple. Let us put the system together using air as the electrolite and the tubes are each insulated from each other and we connect say the negative from a battery to the center and the positive to the outer tube. you have now charged a capacitor. now whot would happen if we measured the voltage at the intermediate tubes we would have an equal voltage drop on each plate from the center to the outer tube showing an actual capacitor.
Now let us put some water in the mix and cover the plates of the capacitor and again apply the power to the center pin and the outer tube as before after a few seconds the current will drop to below 4 amps and from then on always stay below 4 amps. you will notice that a froth has formed on the top of the capasitor this gas is hydrogen and oxygen. how does it happen well if you understand that water and it has to be the purest you can get it will work , water is an insulator so whot is happening can be explained this simple.
The capacitor is subjected to a catistropic failure as the stainless steel plates cannot change like the foil wrapped capacitors in the old TV sets of yester year that used to fail caused a gooy confetty to be spread inside the TV case.
This failue in the capacitor converts water to hydrogen and oxygen. So with this free almost hydrogen being delivered to the intake of the engine you have hydrogen system powered energy.
The cylinders placed in a glass beaker which a large lid can be arrached with an outlet tube and a screw plug to top up the water level and a tube fed into the air cleaner towards the air flow valve, timing set petrol turned off, turn the key on for 5 seconds then start the engine it will run now re adjust the timing by ear you will hear the engine run sweetly lock it up, give it a few revs, watch the glass with the warer and plates they will make the water very fizzy and when it is running dis connect the battery from the cell and provided the engine is 3,500 rpm or more the engine will runwith out power to the cell - so take that for a spare alternator or two. (do a Google on Joe-Cell and get up to date and physically make one instead of pulling things to pieces with out even leaving your keyboard and computer.)
Posted by Darryl Thiselton  in  South Australia  on  Mon Sep 17, 2007  at  01:39 PM
Christopher Cole in Tucson, AZ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:55 AM

Thank you for allowing me to be critical of you who have not even tried to make it work, like the bee cannot fly and because nobody told it,it couldn't, it flys, and the 2stroke motor, those polutant motors theoretically will not work, so when you cut the lawn or hear a chain saw running tell them it is not possible, I dare you to try this out instead of waisting energy critisising what you are lacking in knowledge.

One reasearch the subject as I did 35 years ago, but it took 3 years on the internet to find out how it works, and like I was told change your idea's and make one and you will be surprised how it works. I will give you any assistance you may need, just ask me if you dare.
Posted by Darryl Thiselton  in  South Australia  on  Mon Sep 17, 2007  at  02:02 PM
Hate to tell you this Darryl, but the flight characteristics of a bee aren't a mystery to science. Maybe you should do some learning of your own first.

I'll put this in caps since people seem to miss it.

NOBODY IS SAYING HYDROGEN VEHICLES DON'T/WON'T WORK!

There, was that clear enough for you?

The argument is that it isn't efficient enough to beat the cost of oil. Will it ever? Probably. Is it worth pursuing? Definitely. But right now hydrogen powered vehicles (real ones, not the fantasy ones that people keep harping on) are just more expensive to own and operate. You haven't changed that fact with your post, sorry.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Sep 17, 2007  at  02:08 PM
Darryl Thiselton, some of my background: My father was an Electrical Engineer and I spent most of my adult life in electronics. I grew up learning about capacitors and worked with them for twenty years. A capacitor will store DC energy and filter AC energy. It isn't a miracle device. Show me some scientific proof that your Jow=Cell will work as you claim. Until then, since you do not seem to have an undersgtanding of basic electrical physics, don't blame me when I question your miracle device.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Mon Sep 17, 2007  at  05:51 PM
A car alternator only uses about one horsepower.
Posted by Tom  in  Maryland, USA  on  Mon Sep 17, 2007  at  06:55 PM
People fearing hydrogen is like worrying about cuts from a butter knife, gasoline it the sharp knife. Gasoline IS highly explosive when there are gas fumes, but in liquid state it doesn't normally burn. Hydrogen is basically the same way except hydrogen is less likely to explode than gasoline.

Oh! When I was in school (Late 70's), we studies alternative energy sources. I read numerous articles on hydorgen powered vehicles... We even saw a movie showing then driving a hydrogen powered Gremlin. So hydrogen powered cars work, but do they last???
Posted by Walter M Green III  in  Halethorpe, Maryland, USA  on  Sun Sep 23, 2007  at  01:32 AM
Actually, the question is not whether or not hydrogen powered engines work, nor if hydrogen is economical to make or not. It is easily produced with common household lye, water and aluminum (trash aluminum cans), none which has any substantial cost. The real obstacles here is how to meter the aluminum into the soloution so that hydrogen is not being produced once the vehicle is stopped, causing a release of flamable hydrogen, and exactly how to "wet" the hydrogen so that the metals do not break down due to inpingment as the hydrogen implodes as it burns. It seems that most people on this board argue rather than discuss and move forward. Doesn't it make more sense to offer positive input rather than negative?
Posted by Michael L.  in  Houston, Tx  on  Mon Oct 22, 2007  at  10:11 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.