Review of The Hydrogen Car Hoax

Hydrogen fuel cell batteries

I understand this knol is about that what is referred to as a "Hydrogen fuel cell" a kind of battery that is both expensive and a wasteful solution. This fuel cell "technology" is successfully covering up the fact there are ways to make hydrogen on demand in order to mix it with conventional fuels. A variety of inventors even managed to generate enough oxyhydrogen to call it water fueled cars.

As the knol noted the electric car (which was very popular in 1800) is up against a gigantic energy monopoly. The various oxyhydrogen technology was lost in several cases, it is archived as intellectual property and/or classified under the US national security act. Not unlike a large number of other technologies.

Sadly it looks like the hydrogen fuel cell technology is nothing but a cover up to perpetuate the petroleum monopoly. I absolutely don't want anyone to take my word for things.

An example

Lets stick to fuel saving purposes for the sake of the argument.

If we take a look what the Utah court did to Paul Pantone. We see the court recordings are here, and an engine that is real beyond any shadow of a doubt, there are thousands of replica. But the point here is that it doesn't matter. Everyone deserves a trial before he or she is institutionalised for the rest of his life. And no one deserves to be tortured by a hospital. Here are the plans , there is no proof like building it yourself, one can only conclude the motor to be for real. The plans represent a simplified proof of concept version of the GEET Fuel Processor, anyone can build it from parts available at your local Hardware store, it would take about a weekend and it's not expensive at all, such plans would be worth millions in a honest market. A used lawnmower engine is sufficient to use for demonstration purposes. Here one can see such engine The MIT plasmatron is the same kind of technology. Thus, scientific confirmation does exist.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think you understand my point.  I do agree the hydrogen fuel cell technology is not a step forwards. but I think it would be nice if your knol made it clear it is referring to this technology specifically. The last thing people like Paul needs right now is further debunking.

Given the recent market developments I think we need to figure out the truth I don't think what little hope this planet has left to be debunked. To put it blunt. Everyone knows exactly what will happen if we suppress the 100 MPG carburetor for another hundred years.

Producing oxyhydrogen on demand in order to enrich the fuel mixture is a perfectly valid technology. This is very poorly reflected by the scientific establishment. The additional oxygen content makes for a faster and cleaner burn, Ideally it can be made to endothermically implode while the cylinder is on it's way back. Lots of small things can be done to enhance mileage, tire pressure, fuel vaporizer etc "there still is hope!"

I would like to see your knol be more specific in the debunking, there are answers to the economic disaster and we need to find more of them. We need this effort rather badly.

Notes

Remember that Nicola Tesla's biggest inventions are still classified under the national security act. One cant deny such documents exist. If they deserve to be classified is not for me to decide.

If John Keely's Sympathetic Vibratory Physics was a hoax then what is this? I regret I didn't find building plans, but I'm looking for them. There are thousands of pages about him.[1][2] Keely did give up on his water hammer motor but only because he found something better. Among the hundreds of experimental models witnesses state he build a motor for a locomotive. It must have been big but no one knows what happened to it.

I plan to document the history of the water fueled cars. Most of the documentation available is of poor if not horrid quality. I have no way to determine what is real and what is not. But the same can be said about calling them hoaxes, the number of claimants and variations is of great significance. Scientific understanding is something we should expand upon, it doesn't provide a debunking podium.

Michael Faraday didn't have much academic training but discovered a large number of impressive things. Non of his discoveries present a valid excuse to reject experimental physics. Faraday was an experimentalist, it would be silly to use his discoveries to explain away his method.