Fight back on Oil Co's. Gas at almost $5.00 now.

[infinitethoughts]

Dealership in Alexandria, LA gearing up to offer installaton of Hydrogen Generator to boost Gas Mileage.

VIDEO:* Hydrogen Generator Boosts Gas Mileage | KALB - News 5, Alexandria LA

By Joel Massey - Reporter Channel 5 News KALB-TV.
June 11 2008

With gas prices rising folks are looking for a way to improve mileage.

News Channel 5’s Joel Massey takes a look at a system called a hydrogen generator.

With all the talk about alternative fuels one dealership is gearing up to offer installation of a hydrogen generator.

Hixson said, “We’ve done a lot of research we started on the internet talked to different manufacturing companies, most of them were junk. It’s very difficult to find one that actually works properly.”

Here’s how it works a container filled with water baking soda and a little bit of vinegar is electrified by a positive and negative charge. The charge creates a reaction that changes the water into hydrogen and oxygen, which is pulled into the engine through the vacuum port on the engine.

“More or less you’re running your vehicle on what used to be water it’s broken down to hydrogen/oxygen gas so it doesn’t need that much to run........."

[Brutha]

What are the fuel costs per mile in dollar with that method?

[schola]

I can't watch the video. How much do those units cost?

[Fullcrum]

He says mileage will improve 30-70%.

Quite a range. And not quite double. But I'm sure it helps. Cost is not mentioned.

[ThoughtAddict]

I call BS.

Baking soda is sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3.
Vinegar is a fermented ethanol containing acetic acid, HC2H3O2.

When combined, the acid and base combine to create carbonic acid and sodium acetate (a salt):

NaHCO3 + HC2H3O2 -> NaC2H3O2 + H2CO3

The carbonic acid then breaks down into water and carbon dioxide.

H2CO3 -> H2O + CO2

The interesting thing here is that one of the by-products of the chemical reaction, carbon dioxide, is extremely non-flammable. In fact, it is used in fire extinguishers...

The report then goes on to say that electrolysis is used to produce hydrogen and oxygen gases. The odd thing is the mention of vinegar. The reason for using sodium bicarbonate would be to improve the rate of the reaction. Water itself is a poor conductor, but using the sodium bicarbonate would provide an electrolyte, allowing for less resistance against the current and therefore speeding up the reaction. Vinegar neutralizes some of the sodium bicarbonate, creates unnecessary byproducts, and lowers the purity of the solution.

Regardless, this is simple electrolysis. The principle is 2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2, then burning the two gases, 2 H2 + O2 -> H2O (vapor). There is no way, absolutely no way to net energy in this reaction. The only possible way to break even would be to have a 100% efficient process. That would mean 0 resistance to the electrical current in electrolysis, 0 percent loss of either gas, 0 percent loss through ignition, 0 percent mechanical loss through friction or pumping the gases. No engine in existence can get that... The theoretical maximum for hydrolysis is between 84 and 90%.

Converting a gallon of water to hydrogen and oxygen, assuming maximum efficiency, would require 13.7 Kwh. One Kwh = 3413 BTU (British Thermal Units). 13.7 x 3413 = 46758.1 BTU. Burning this amount of hydrogen would net around 46758.1 BTU, assuming maximum efficiency. A gallon of gas contains 124000 BTU. The mechanical resistance from the engine will be the same for both gas and hydrogen. The only possible way this is cost effective is if ~124000 BTUs of energy provided from a wall socket or other electric power source costs less than a gallon of gas. Even then, the initial cost of the unit, the resistance of the water (which will reduces the efficiency of hydrolysis to well below the theoretical 90%), the mechanical resistance, and the resistance in recharging the battery used for hydrolysis will undermine the efficiency of the reaction to next to nothing.

There is no way to make this an energy positive reaction. The laws of physics (namely, the law of conservation of energy) apply. Energy cannot be created or destroyed through a chemical reaction. Hydrolysis and then burning the hydrogen and oxygen creates a closed system. No energy can theoretically be created. The company installing these units is not helping their customers. All they are doing is setting themselves up for a class action lawsuit, which the consumers should easily win.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by schola

I can't watch the video. How much do those units cost?

Not cheap. I think about a $1000.00 ? And I don't think that includes installation.

[infinitethoughts]

ThoughtAddict.

Believe what you want and just keep having the oil companies rip you off.

[infinitethoughts]

Here's a respected Organizaton for more info on Hydrogen as a fuel source and Hydrogen on demand.
(For those that have an open mind )

The National Hydrogen Association
Hydrogen. Clean Energy for the Future.
Why hydrogen? We're developing hydrogen infrastructure and technologies to:
Reduce our dependence on imported fuels
Improve the environment
Drive economic growth
The National Hydrogen Association is the premier source for information on hydrogen and hydrogen technologies. Since 1989, we've provided data and educational materials to the media, safety and codes & standards officials, policy-makers, and the general public.

Blog from Kevin Kantola at Hydrogen Cars & Vehicles about HHO generators.

Kevin interviewed Patrick Serfass, Director of Communications for the The National Hydrogen Association about HHO generators and got this quote, "The technology on the whole is very simple and it works. We feel incredibly positive about it. We feel it is one of the important emerging markets in hydrogen today.”

[infinitethoughts]

Green Auto Startup Shows Off Hydrogen-Powered “Scorpion” « Earth2Tech



"The Scorpion burns a mix of gasoline and hydrogen in its combustion engine. Regular tap water is split into hydrogen with electricity from two batteries that are charged by an oversized alternator. The hydrogen is produced by the G3 unit of Hydrorunner;, which makes on-demand hydrogen system available for retrofit into existing cars. A dual-processor computer will manage the flow and ratio of hydrogen, keeping the fuel at around 30-40 percent hydrogen, Ronn says.

Funding-wise, the company has taken in an undisclosed of private investment. Shares of Ronn started trading on the OTC Bulletin Board last week; the company hopes to get an IPO underwritten a year from now."

Ronn Motor Company - Home

[Fullcrum]

I do not think ThoughtAddict is being closed-minded. On the contrary, he's stating what he knows about chemistry and the laws of physics.

I do not know how accurate his statements are (I've not studied hydrolysis), but it seems he put effort into that post and I wouldn't insult him by calling it a "belief".

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

I do not think ThoughtAddict is being closed-minded. On the contrary, he's stating what he knows about chemistry and the laws of physics.

I do not know how accurate his statements are (I've not studied hydrolysis), but it seems he put effort into that post and I wouldn't insult him by calling it a "belief".

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

I call BS.

Well who's insulting whom, Fullcrum?

Part of the problem is a set closedmindedness on this new technology. That is all I am implying.

But if you feel I'm insulting, not much I can do about it.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

I call BS.

...

There is no way to make this an energy positive reaction.

There are scams out there based on net-energy-positive, electrolysis-generated, hydrogen powered cars, but from what I've read, this is different.

This is a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine using hydrogen as a "booster" to increase fuel efficiency.

The idea is to inject hydrogen into the air/fuel-vapor mix in the combustion chamber; this supposedly increases the burn temperature and reduces the amount of unburned gasoline vapor, resulting in higher engine efficiency. While generating the hydrogen is a loss energy-wise, the net gain produced by increased fuel effiency offsets the energy cost of electrolysis.

There are "hydrogen booster" kits (some of dubious design) advertised all over the internet. Proponents swear they have seen increased gas mileage, while others claim there is no effect. This may depend on the car; newer cars with better fuel injection systems may have less room for improvement and may experience less dramatic results.

It seems intriguing enough to warrant further investigation.

[Fullcrum]

Definitely enough to warrant further investigation .

Infinite, I don't think it's set closed-mindedness, he simply may have misunderstood what exactly the process is that makes this thing work. We're implying hydrolysis powers the car (and so is the news which isn't exactly a haven for good science), who;e JSB has stated another possible way that it would work that offsets the loss of hydrolysis.

Anyway, I agree that it's important to be open-minded about these things; I just saw it as an insult as what ThoughtAddict said sounded like solid science and it just sounded like you were shutting him down with "Well believe whatever you want", which just seems apathetic to me and unwilling to be open to learning how stuff actually works.

But it seems I was wrong, so carry on

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Well who's insulting whom, Fullcrum?

Part of the problem is a set closedmindedness on this new technology. That is all I am implying.

But if you feel I'm insulting, not much I can do about it.

First of all, infinite, I was calling BS to the company installing the conversion kit. My article was geared toward their exposure, including the civil liability they will be exposed to in the US legal system as a result of fraudulent claims. Nothing in my post was directed toward you.

Your post, on the other hand, was directed toward me. Frankly, even if it wasn't an insult, you haven't given me any reason to alter my beliefs in any way. My mind isn't closed. I'm skeptical not because I'm closed to new ideas, but because there is no credible evidence.

Please give me some. I'd love to have some credible evidence to hold onto. I'd love to believe in this technology. I'd love for it to be true that I could slap a $200 conversion kit in my car and save thousands in fuel costs. I don't believe it, because the laws of physics indicate that it probably isn't true. The energy efficiency in hydrolysis will probably be at 70% or lower depending on how inefficient the hydrolysis is, and the majority of inefficiency in internal combustion engines is from waste heat. Burning hydrogen gas in with gasoline vapor does not create some new reaction. Rather, it just creates an intermingled dual reaction. The gasoline oxidization is unchanged. The hydrogen reaction is the same as I mentioned before. There's no scientific explanation for higher efficiency. Octane (the best example of a combustible in gasoline) is C8H18. Burning is C8H18 + 25 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O. C8H18 + 2 H2 + 26 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 11 H2O... chemically the same as burning the two elements separately. The one possibility for improvement would be to run the reaction fuel lean, using excess oxygen. This doesn't happen, however, because the oxygen created only balances the hydrogen created...

Back during the first oil scare in the 70's, these kits popped up the same way they are now. One big difference was that internet hype wasn't the same then as it is now. Whenever there is a shock to our security, especially when coupled with feelings of economic desperation, people will look for innovative solutions. This is good. Those are also the times when people scam others, when the predators come out to prey on the new technologies... I'm reminded of alchemy in medieval countries with crumbling economies. I'm reminded of Laetrile for cancer... I'm reminded of Steorn's measurement errors... I'm reminded of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (a law school classic).

I'd love for any of this to be true. I just don't think it is, and I think a lot of people are making money off of placebo, hope, and desperation.

The thing is, I see very little peer-reviewed science backing any of this up. What I do see are a lot of people making a lot of money. Ronn motors is one of the first to get into the securities industry, but their lack of SEC filings with the necessary due diligence and class action exposure is interesting. It looks like a very pretty stock scam. Honestly, if they had published the necessary documents to take the company public legit, I'd take another look... it's just that no company that I've seen has taken the double-blind peer reviewed jump into scientific credibility.

The science is doubtful. The motives of the people behind it are self-interested. I haven't met a credible scientist (and I have asked multiple chemists and physicists smarter than I about this) who buys it. The claim itself is a wild one.

I'll stick to my general rule of requiring some proof before believing an incredible claim from salesmen. Let us know how your experiences with the kit go, infinite.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Burning hydrogen gas in with gasoline vapor does not create some new reaction. Rather, it just creates an intermingled dual reaction.

Which is my understanding of it also. There is no new reaction, it's simply the addition of Hydrogen that adds more fuel to burn.

Regarding what you said about hydrolysis, this will interest you:
Eagle-Research NEWest News about Brown's Gas

Additionally the Hydrolysis of water and hydrgoen has been around since the turn of the century.
Welding with water has been around for a long time.
Browns Gas History

Video of welding with water.
YouTube - Water power

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Let us know how your experiences with the kit go, infinite.

I will. I've just spoken to a friend that will be installing the kit that the Dealership is using. He mentioned an interesting point. He's convinced the reason there are a lot of scammers is vested interests are trying to blind and confuse, an Action that has been used countless times in history.

I'll post what happens.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Which is my understanding of it also. There is no new reaction, it's simply the addition of Hydrogen that adds more fuel to burn.

If we have two oxidation reactions, one in which hydrogen combines with oxygen and one in which octane combines with oxygen, and there is no new chemical reaction or modification of either current reaction, then how is there any more energy? The idea of running fuel lean is a noteworthy possibility (more oxygen than fuel for complete combustion), but that doesn't require relatively inefficient hydrolysis...

Regarding what you said about hydrolysis, this will interest you:
Eagle-Research NEWest News about Brown's Gas

Additionally the Hydrolysis of water and hydrgoen has been around since the turn of the century.
Welding with water has been around for a long time.
Browns Gas History

Video of welding with water.
YouTube - Water power

I always have found it odd how the main people providing claims of "Brown's Gas" are the ones seeking to make money off of it...

Oxy-hydrogen welding has been around for quite a while. It is often used on soft metals with low melting points. It is considered by welders and chemists as poor for welding steel or other alloys with a high melting point because the flame has a lower temperature than oxy-acetylene (3500 C for acetylene, 2800 for oxy-hydrogen). Additionally, oxy-hydrogen torches have the problems of flame size and loss of heat later in the flame due to steam.

The HHO structure of Brown's Gas is deceptive. In reality it is not HHO, but 2 H2 + O2. The chemical form of HHO would require one H atom to have 2 valence electrons (physically impossible, since H only has 1 electron), and O to have only 1 valence electron (again, impossible unless everything we know about chemical bonding is wrong). H2 exists because the highest valence level hydrogen has is the first. The first level is satisfied by 2 electrons, so each atom can contribute their one electron for stability. The highest valence level for oxygen requires 8 electrons. O bonds with O, sharing 2 of their 6 electrons each. The resulting bond has 4 shared electrons and 4 unshared at the ends of each, resulting in each atom having a full valence shell of 8. H2O works because both hydrogen share their one with oxygen, which shares one for each of the H atoms. The result is that both H atoms are fulfilled with 2 and the O is fulfilled with 8. HHO, on the other hand, would require either H2 to bond with O, which is inexplicable since H2 is stable, or OH to bond with H, which would make sense except that OH could not exist independently (outside of hydroxides existing as ions in a basic solution), as it would be atomically unstable and would seek stability in its valence shell. 2 H2 + O2, on the other hand, makes sense. It isn't a new compound, but just an explanation of what we already know...

A search of ACS's database of articles for HHO yields no results for any such compound. Similarly of a physics database of peer review. If this is such a revolutionary chemical compound, why so little interest in the academic scientific community? Seriously... the private college I attended jumped at any new discovery which could make waves while being credibly defended. There are hundreds of thousands of academics whose careers require articles on things like this, if they can be proven and defended...

He's convinced the reason there are a lot of scammers is vested interests are trying to blind and confuse, an Action that has been used countless times in history.

Oil companies are paying people to put out ineffective designs? LOL. Might explain why Brown's gas is on Fox news?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Oil companies are paying people to put out ineffective designs? LOL. Might explain why Brown's gas is on Fox news?

I've just glanced at what you wrote........this last part caught my eye.

Anything threatening their billions of dollars profit margins, Oil companies do just a tad more than that, amigo.......

Anyway, I've decided to not waste my time trying to convince you on Hydrogen on demand.

You have your views, I have mine. No problems there.

[infinitethoughts]

Directory of Automotive Shops Installing HHO Generators.
(To date there are 32 shops across the country. Looks like this list is growing.)

Home | HHO Installers-Waterfueling.com

[infinitethoughts]

More info on Hydrogen Fuel Injection.
Hydrogen Fuel Injection Systems Clean Up Fuel, Emissions.

Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company, Hy-Drive Technologies and HyPower Fuel, Inc.

[Brutha]

Which is my understanding of it also. There is no new reaction, it's simply the addition of Hydrogen that adds more fuel to burn.

No, it's not. Even if the whole thing works it would probably work in the way JSB described.
It just can't work the other way without violating the law of physics and without using cold fusion.

There were some claims that you can get cold fusion (I believe in the late 80' or early 90'), but after a lot of research it doesn't work. You can get >10.000 degrees in some part of the water but you can't get >1.000.000 which you would need for cold fusion.

It's also interesting that even the article says that the kid doesn't improve the milage of every car. That could well go togther with the claim that older cars burn gas less efficently and the increase of temperature increase the millage of those older cars while newer cars burn their fuel efficently either way.

Maybe the kit in total increases end methan production over CO2 which would damage the atmosphere more than a regular car.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Which is my understanding of it also. There is no new reaction, it's simply the addition of Hydrogen that adds more fuel to burn.

Originally Posted by Brutha

No, it's not.

I disagree.

[infinitethoughts]

Hydrogen on Demand is all over the news and cannot be discounted:

Man uses hydrogen to increase gas mileage
Leader-Telegram, WI - 13 hours ago

Special Assignment: Mileage Miracle
KSEE, CA - 17 hours ago

Homemade hybrid: Local man easing pain at the pump himself
West Frankfort Daily American, IL - 1 hour ago

Cicero man installs hydrogen converter on his SUV for better gas mileage
Indianapolis Star, United States - Jun 26, 2008

Adding hydrogen to gasoline to improve gas mileage
KXII-TV, TX - Jun 25, 2008

Man converts vehicle to run partly on water
Athens Messenger, OH - Jun 30, 2008

Dothan man improves gas mileage with hydrogen fuel cell | Dothan Eagle
Dothan Eagle, AL - Jun 20, 2008

VIDEO:* Hydrogen Generator Boosts Gas Mileage | KALB - News 5, Alexandria LA
KALB-TV Newschannel 5, LA - Jun 11, 2008

---------
This is just the first two pages from Google News. There are 324 more pages.

You decide.
Are all these newpapers lying?
Are all these people interviewed lying?

[Brutha]

Cicero man installs hydrogen converter on his SUV for better gas mileage | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star the site you linked to tells a different story than you do, which is more of less the one JSB described.

"Those who want to tinker and play with it is wonderful, but it's not an alternative fuel," he said.

That story might work for some vehicels that burn fuel unefficently.

Are all these newpapers lying?

Newspapers don't tell always the truth but that is another issue.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Cicero man installs hydrogen converter on his SUV for better gas mileage | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star the site you linked to tells a different story than you do, which is more of less the one JSB described.

That story might work for some vehicels that burn fuel unefficently.
Newspapers don't tell always the truth but that is another issue.

And the other 100-200 newspaper articles about Hydrogen on demand.....?

I'm curious why you feel the need to always discount this technology?

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

And the other 100-200 newspaper articles about Hydrogen on demand.....?

Most are reporting on a person who claims to get better mile. None that I've seen consulted any scientific authority or cited any scientific testing of improved mileage.

It is easy to get scammed. It is hard to admit you've been scammed.

Again, my challenge stands. Show me a peer reviewed (preferably double-blind) study by any reputable researchers, and I'll reverse my opinion. Until then, you'll likely be unable to change my opinion, just as I'm unlike to change yours. My insistence on credibly science is not for myself, but for anyone else reading this who may be conned into buying an ineffective or, worse, damaging product.

Caveat emptor, and if you've been scammed, do contact a class action attorney.

[SomeRandomGuy]

It is entirely possible to get a 20%+ improvement in fuel economy simply by changing driving habits, increasing the air pressure in your tires, removing extra weight from your vehicle, etc. It would be very easy for those marketing these products to use some of those techniques to show "proof" of fuel economy well above the EPA estimates for the given vehicle. That would convince a lot of people that the product worked, while in reality the same results could be achieved at no cost, without adding anything to your vehicle.

I do not know the details of the claims made in these reports, so am not suggesting that this is how the numbers were achieved. I just wanted to point out that this could be a possible explanation. I am sure there are dozens of other ways in which one could convince a newspaper reporter that a product was capable of doing something that is not possible.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Most are reporting on a person who claims to get better mile. None that I've seen consulted any scientific authority or cited any scientific testing of improved mileage.

It is easy to get scammed. It is hard to admit you've been scammed.

Again, my challenge stands. Show me a peer reviewed (preferably double-blind) study by any reputable researchers, and I'll reverse my opinion. Until then, you'll likely be unable to change my opinion, just as I'm unlike to change yours. My insistence on credibly science is not for myself, but for anyone else reading this who may be conned into buying an ineffective or, worse, damaging product.

Caveat emptor, and if you've been scammed, do contact a class action attorney.

Good points, Thoughtaddict, and I accept your viewpoint.

My opinion about the difficulty in getting peer reviews is that the basic infrastructure of Society is one sided. Let me explain what I mean. Look at the funding of Major Universities, it's mostly from industries interested in continuing their version of things. This version is based on continuing Profit.

Now. At first glance, you may think this is not possible. But lets take Medicine for example. We all know there are alternative cures for cancer that work. Thru the past couple of years, I've become aware that the Medical Industry does not want a cure. Why? Because it is making a lot of money for a lot of people.

There are numerous instances of People getting the word out about cures they have found. What happens? They get intimidated by the FDA and are forced out of business, or other means.

Thoughtaddict. I am hoping you get what I am saying.

Also. The sheer number of of local newspapers reporting about this, adds additional merit to this technology.

Patrick Serfass, Director of Communications for the The National Hydrogen Association The National Hydrogen Association which is a respected organization had this to say about it: "The technology on the whole is very simple and it works. We feel incredibly positive about it. We feel it is one of the important emerging markets in hydrogen today.”

I'll end with, is it not that hard to believe that if you have Multi-nationals that own the market on the worlds fuel, they would not be threatened with advances that would take away their dominance?

We are both intelligent people, and I hope you will read what I said with an open mind.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

My opinion about the difficulty in getting peer reviews is that the basic infrastructure of Society is one sided. Let me explain what I mean. Look at the funding of Major Universities, it's mostly from industries interested in continuing their version of things. This version is based on continuing Profit.

To be honest, I'm mostly clueless about the funding of universities. My understanding from working in a development office at a public university was that funding came primarily from the state, then from donors, the majority of whom were alumni. Then again, this was for a narrow humanities field, so it may be different for technological research. Could you provide me a source so I can research this? I'd appreciate it, as you've piqued my curiosity.

We all know there are alternative cures for cancer that work.

No, we all don't. I don't. This is perhaps the first time I've heard of an effective cure for cancer. A couple of my friends are aspiring oncologists (many of whom have done research with St. Jude, which receives the majority of its funding from individual donations). Whatever cure you're talking about, let me know and I'll pass it on to them. These friends are ambitious and trying to make a name. They'll probably bite.

Also. The sheer number of of local newspapers reporting about this, adds additional merit to this technology.

The deafening silence of the scientific community in response adds to my skepticism.

Patrick Serfass, Director of Communications for the The National Hydrogen Association The National Hydrogen Association which is a respected organization had this to say about it: "The technology on the whole is very simple and it works. We feel incredibly positive about it. We feel it is one of the important emerging markets in hydrogen today.”

The NHA... the same NHA that is funded by Shell, BP, Chevron, GM, and GE, among others? See http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/p...enMessages.pdf. Aren't they the ones who are suppressing this information?
I checked out the NHA site. They're focused on using hydrogen as an energy carrier rather than performing energy creating electrolysis. The focus on using some energy source (solar, air, nuclear) to perform hydrolysis. The resulting H2 and O2 are stored in tanks or fuel cells and the energy is used. Once used, the tanks or cells are recharged using the renewable source. I could not find anything about energy creating electrolysis devices in cars. Link?

I'll end with, is it not that hard to believe that if you have Multi-nationals that own the market on the worlds fuel, they would not be threatened with advances that would take away their dominance?

Not at all hard to believe. They're willing to start wars and ruin lives for their profits. However, they would only try to block technology that actually works. I'm yet to see oil companies take any action to block this technology. Again, source please?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

To be honest, I'm mostly clueless about the funding of universities. My understanding from working in a development office at a public university was that funding came primarily from the state, then from donors, the majority of whom were alumni. Then again, this was for a narrow humanities field, so it may be different for technological research. Could you provide me a source so I can research this? I'd appreciate it, as you've piqued my curiosity.

Here's a good article.
Science's Worst Enemy: Corporate Funding | DISCOVER Magazine

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

No, we all don't. I don't. This is perhaps the first time I've heard of an effective cure for cancer. A couple of my friends are aspiring oncologists (many of whom have done research with St. Jude, which receives the majority of its funding from individual donations). Whatever cure you're talking about, let me know and I'll pass it on to them. These friends are ambitious and trying to make a name. They'll probably bite.

Oxygen therapy is a biggie. Last I heard one had to go to Mexico for treatment. (This may have changed.) Cancer cells cannot live in an oxygen rich environment.

There's even a cheap way to inhale oxygen, (food grade hydogen peroxide, which is water with an extra oxygen atom attached.)
Prostate cancer cured by inhaling H202.

80 years ago in India, it was used to cure a pneumonia epidemic.

Kumbucha tea, from the Tibetan mountains. Which is green tea fermented. The fermentation process vastly increases the potency of the extreme health benefits of green tea.

This company was created because it's founder's Mother beat breast cancer by drinking it.

There's more cures that recognize what true medicine is, rather then to just cut out organs, or simply Radiate the body.

But these cures have no monetary value, (H202 costs pennies on the dollar to produce) hence are of no use to the present Financial Medical Infrastructure.

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

The deafening silence of the scientific community in response adds to my skepticism.

LOL.....The deafening silence of Corporate funded scientific community. But I'll not get into that.

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

The NHA... the same NHA that is funded by Shell, BP, Chevron, GM, and GE, among others? See http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/p...enMessages.pdf. Aren't they the ones who are suppressing this information?
I checked out the NHA site. They're focused on using hydrogen as an energy carrier rather than performing energy creating electrolysis. The focus on using some energy source (solar, air, nuclear) to perform hydrolysis. The resulting H2 and O2 are stored in tanks or fuel cells and the energy is used. Once used, the tanks or cells are recharged using the renewable source. I could not find anything about energy creating electrolysis devices in cars. Link?

Kevin Kantola at Hydrogen Cars & Vehicles interviewed Patrick Serfass, Director of Communications for the National Hydrogen Association from this blog.
Water based hybrid systems: South Korean Govt: 100,000 trucks must use HHO

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Not at all hard to believe. They're willing to start wars and ruin lives for their profits. However, they would only try to block technology that actually works. I'm yet to see oil companies take any action to block this technology. Again, source please?

But where would you see this? Would it be in the Mainstream news? The actions taken would of course be in a secretive manner.

Blocking technology, of course is a criminal act, and extremely bad publicity.
So you see the problem when you ask for a source.

But it is out there, if one looks.
Sepp Hasslberger: Pogue, Hydrogen - Stories of Suppression

Directory:Suppression - PESWiki

(Both sites are very in depth and really gets one to think things thru.)

[Brutha]

And the other 100-200 newspaper articles about Hydrogen on demand.....?

I'm curious why you feel the need to always discount this technology?

If it works it can only work through making the burning of oil more efficent. The way you suggest just doesn't match with basic chemistry.

But where would you see this? Would it be in the Mainstream news? The actions taken would of course be in a secretive manner.

It always amazing how people who have such a deep mistrust in mainstream news just believe anything that someone says on a random website that fits into their ideological agenda.