Energy Sources – A Survey of the Ready Solutions to the Energy Crisis

Energy Sources


A modern society needs three basic forms of energy to function:

  1. Heat energy – for steam generation, industrial processes, buildings, etc.

  2. Rotary Motion – from motors, turbines and engines of all sizes.

  3. Electrical energy – both DC and AC in widely varying amounts.


First, we have to be clear about what ‘environmentally friendly’ means. In the strictest sense, it means that nothing in the surrounding environment goes into or comes out of the generating system except the energy. If matter is used in the process, it must be returned, unaltered, when it has performed its function within the system, i.e. a truly ‘closed’ system. Furthermore, the manufacture and final disposal of the energy generating means must not cause environmental damage. This may sound too restrictive, but there are, at present, many practical methods and devices available that meet the criteria.


Part 1: Heat

Hydroxy Gas – a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases from water

First, the so-called ‘hydrogen economy’ (i.e. replacing gasoline/diesel and natural gas with hydrogen) is unworkable. The amount of energy available in a given volume of hydrogen gas is less than in an equal volume of natural gas and much less than in gasoline/diesel. Natural gas pipes can’t be used for hydrogen, so an entirely new piping system would be required. Transporting hydrogen to filling stations by vehicle is impractical. Burning hydrogen in air creates pollution from nitrogen compounds. Compressing hydrogen into liquid form requires too much input energy. And do we want a Challenger disaster at the local filling station?

There are at least three independent inventors in the US who have developed simple, working systems that produce hydrogen and oxygen gas from pure water at efficiencies that violate Faraday’s Law. That is to say, the amount of energy available in the gases exceeds the amount of energy used to create the gases from water. In all the existing methods, a small amount of pulsed DC voltage is used to separate water into its component gases.

The first system was developed by Stanley Meyer in the 1980′s. He created a means of ‘tickling’ the molecules of water with pulses of electricity in a way that pulled the atoms apart. He and others built many units and he installed at least one in an automobile. He was developing a hydroxy gas injection system for cars when he died (was killed) in 1998.

The second is Bob Boyce. Mr. Boyce uses a variation of the same basic method and is presently running cars with his system.

The third is John Kanzius. Mr. Kanzius also uses a variation of the same basic method.

In all three designs, the energy released by burning the hydroxy gas far exceeds the input electrical energy. In addition, after being burned, the hydroxy gas recombines into water and, if collected, can be used over and over again resulting in a completely closed system.

As currently configured, these systems are not ideal for widespread use in vehicles. Hydroxy gas burns at a very high temperature. Diluting it with air produces unacceptable gaseous by-products. Hydroxy gas is not merely flammable, it is explosive when ignited in a confined space. This eliminates its transportation or its general use in internal combustion engines if the gas is generated external to the engine. Also, it is not easy to create a closed system for cars because the auto engine needs lubricants which become mixed with the water exhaust. Nevertheless, as has been demonstrated, it is not difficult to use hydroxy gas as the sole fuel in existing internal combustion engines in an open system configuation.

Note: This essay does not consider the many devices developed by individual inventors that use hydroxy gas in automobile engines as a fuel booster. Most are practical, useful and enable a reduction in pollutant emissions and substantial fuel savings.

The existing processes can readily be used for fixed, on-site heat generation if the gases are burned adjacent to the gas generator in properly designed burners. This includes industrial-scale steam generators used by electric utility plants. And the system can be closed by collecting the exhausted water and reusing it. When a simple, practical method is developed to separate the two gases, the process can produce fuel for hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells.

In the 1990′s, Stanley Meyer built a hydroxy gas injection system for automobiles. He intended to generate and ignite hydroxy gas within the automobile engine’s cylinders by means of a specially designed injector in the spark plug hole. It is rumored that this was the reason he was poisoned. His patents on the process are unclear and his death stopped any further independent development. The use of such an injector is the safest way to simultaneously make and ignite hydroxy gas in closed heating systems for small-scale industrial processes, and in buildings and homes for space heating/air conditioning and water heating.

This simple, environmentally benign technology was suppressed by industry and government agencies for many years. Many experimenters were harassed or threatened; some were killed. Due to the unrestricted spread of information over the Internet, people from many countries are now engaged in developing and using hydroxy gas generators. It’s time the U.S. government recognized the value of this technology and funded its development and implementation. It’s major potential is in quickly freeing society from the use of coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear material for steam generation in power plants, and in large, industrial heat-demanding applications. This alone will yield substantial reductions in fuel costs and airborne pollution with subsequent improvements in the health and quality of life of citizens.

Note: The fact that this technology exists can be used as a litmus test for anyone aspiring to a position in government science. Show them the data, the videos, the websites and reports demonstrating its reality and its violation of Faraday’s Law. If they then say it can’t be done, they don’t belong in the new administration. If the model can’t explain a repeatable experiment, then the model needs changing. It’s called science, real science.


Leave a comment