Original blueprints for 200 mpg carburetor found in England

Readers' Comments

Does anyone make a modern day version of the pogue carb?

Posted by: matt nowell on October 2, 2003 02:06 AM

 

Hi Matt,

thanks for comment/question. As far as I know the pogue carb never did make it into production, at least not seriously, and there is no recent developments that I know of, which would allow us to get hold of one of these "off the shelf".

Plenty of do-it-yourselfers but nothing official for now. If any reader has better news, please inform us.

Kind regards
Josef

Posted by: Josef Hasslberger on October 2, 2003 12:28 PM

 

Yeah from the research that I have done on this carb it would have work great. Note the would have, due to the additive in lead in gas there is no way this carb was ever going to make it. Now that lead is no longer a additive there are about 10 other additives that prevent this carb from working correctly. If you were to get ahold of some raw gasoline then you may be able to get it to work, other than that the pogue carb will not work.

Posted by: Cort on October 10, 2003 05:13 PM

 

So let's publish ALL the prints so more people will have a chance to built it themselves instead of burying it again. Will we ever learn that technology is a gift from God for EVERYONE'S benefit. If you don't want and/or have the ability to build it yourself, then have someone build it for you(and pay them). Are we ever going to grow up and get rid of the mentality of "I" have to build it so ultimately "I" can sell it to "everyone else"? (Just a thought)

Posted by: rich on November 20, 2003 06:36 AM

 

Yes, I have made a vaporizer for gasoline and it gets around 70mpg.
I have never seen the pogue carb blueprints but I know that it just vaporizes the gasoline
before it enters the intake. This device is simple to build also. does anyone have the blueprints to the pogue carb?
Also it was stated above that the gasoline had to be leaded to work... That is not true.

Posted by: Paul on November 23, 2003 03:58 AM

 

This device was successfully used in WWII by the U.S. Army. A study of the logistics in North Africa and how Rommell,s tank Core was defeated (by running them out of fuel) gives serious consideration to the "rumor" of this being the case. The German high command were certain the Allies would not be able to win the campaign because they did not have the rescources in place for the massive fuel consumption necessary. The fact that these carbs were used is substantiated by many WWII vets and eye witnesses and the publication technology was deemed a security threat at that time, if it was made public which it certainly would have been.
anyway
A search on the topic will bring up many credible and not so credible sources on the topic.

Posted by: Me on January 19, 2004 08:38 PM

 

Is there proof of the 200mpg
carburetor? Are there really blueprints.

Posted by: Cheyenn Moon on February 10, 2004 11:08 PM

 

I have ddeveeloped a caarburetor burning the vapor of the liquid gas drive a v8 limo. and get up to 65 miles per hour . now to increeease the power and speed

Posted by: John F. Swansey on February 18, 2004 02:59 PM

 

My father invented a carburetor that came close to the pogue carb it was installed on thousands of cars it was called the vari-vent by astron energies corp. He recieved death threats by oil companies in about 1975 and was bought out in 1978. I am trying to locate one of these if any one has any info please contact me

Posted by: Ron Rollins on February 20, 2004 02:24 AM

 

In the early 70s I had the plans to build one of these carburators, but misplaced them. If I recall correctly, it was made using a Toyota heater core and the fuel lines were wrapped around the exhaust manifold to superheat and vaporize it before entering the carb. The manual had the names of several people over the years who have invented these carbs, and were either bought out by the oil companies or disappeared. Since the media is now interested in the extremely high cost of fuel, maybe we can get them onboard to do some "Investigative Reporting" if anyone knows people in the media. Also, in the past there was a nationwide campaign to not buy fuel for one day. Nice gesture, but not good enough. How about starting the month of May 2004, we spread the word not to buy fuel from EXXON, the next month CHEVRON, next TEXACO etc. That...will put a dent in the companies big time. The power of the Internet can be used to spread the word. Do what you can.

Posted by: Craig on March 16, 2004 10:00 PM

 

I witnessed a version of the pogue carb operate on a 73 Toyota SR5. The technician, Mikky, now deceased, disconnected the fuel pump and fed heated fumes from the gas tank to the intake of the carb. It ran. To produce power you need more heat. Warning! Backfiring is a big concern. Email me if you want to make a documentary. We'll do it guerilla style like Michael Moore. Fog out the faces to protect the guilty. The oil companies do not take kindly to this subject.
I'll show you how to do it but I'm running the camera not turning the wrenches. Explosafe, a product used in 70s NASCAR to prevent explosions, works. Also, you have to flush your fuel system frequently because our fuel contains additives that leaves unwanted matter in your gas tank. One more thing to keep your valves from burning, install a water injector system. Use distilled water. Remember gas fumes can kill. You got to be careful. The Toyota got 200 mpg BTW. :)

Posted by: Samuel B. Water on March 28, 2004 02:17 AM

 

I should word this correctly.
The fumes are not heated. The gasoline is. I would be concerned about using the exhaust system for heating in that the temperature can get too high. Heater core in the gas running at rad temp is far safer.

Posted by: Samuel B. Water on March 28, 2004 02:22 AM

 

Tesla had a patent called "Coil for Electromagnet" which uses a principle that may apply to a heat engine. Specifically if the input air for a Stirling is run through a coil so that the input air is preheated by exhaust air, this might provide higher torque. The problem of overheating can then be addressed by providing only minute quantities of supermixed fuel vapor. In other words, the overheating problem is a good development if the richness of the vapor is reduced. This may be a method to give higher MPG operation of the engine. Rather than looking at overheating as a problem to be dealt with by increased cooling intensity, deal with it as a problem to be dealt with by rarefying the input fuel mixture. If the input fuel mixture is reduced so that the vapor has a lower ratio of gasoline molecules to air molecules, then the excess heating of the engine is less. Yet the heating of the engine is required for maintaining combustion temp of the fuel/air mixture. If this engine heat is maintained or increased by preheating of the input air, then the engine can have high heat/cool ratio thus maintaining high torque and high Power to weight ratio. This problem of engine overheating is a key issue which can be used to increase fuel efficiency if it is handled properly. The overexplosiveness situation can also be dealt with by making the fuel/air ratio dependent on the required torque. If more torque is required, you increase the input air heating while using fuel-line self-vacuum/vapor production, decreasing the fuel/air ratio so that the less gasoline is required--this makes for higher mpg while also keeping the uncontrolled explosion hazard under control. Something along these lines has been tested but not sure if I am on the right track. thank you for reading this.

Posted by: jay dillon on April 6, 2004 04:25 PM

 

Folks, you can obtain all of Pogues patents and blueprints at the US patent office www.uspto.gov. You have to do a search by patent number only (PN). The patents are 1,938,497 : 1,997,497 : and 2,026,798. You can only get the images in tiff format.

I downloaded them just a little while ago.

Have fun.

Steve

Posted by: Steve May on April 29, 2004 09:30 PM

 

Well thanks for the blue prints from USPTO. I was unable to get them before.
Anyone want to build a cheap carb add-on? Try Yahoo search:
"Atomizer 2000"; "get 113 to 138 mpg"; "catalyst cracking"; "hydrogen-boost system"; "water vapor carburetor, keelynet"; "newscience h2o carb"; "garrett water carb, keelynet"; etc.
Also try USPTO: US6126794, US4936961, US1750354 POGUE, US2006676 Garrett, US3963379 compressed air engine, US4099489, US4292804 comp air eng, US4344831.
Of course, Stanley Meyer: US4798661, US4826581, US4936961, US5149407.
There's a lot more out there. Please visit "IAeSR"

Posted by: LeRoy Pea on May 16, 2004 09:19 PM

 

For starters, there is plenty of NEW various types of engines that exceed 100 miles per gallon, you just have to look for them. Eventually they will come to market, possibly through popular mechanics (like H&G's vapor carb), but you will see them. The fact others may be "scared" to produce their inventions in mass quantities because of Oil cartels or the Auto industry looking at them with a sour face. This is only true if they do not get it to the public first, such as waiting until the very last minute before patenting and shoving it out on the shelf. The best idea is mass advertising and the use of paid programming on National Television when the time is right. With so much interest and public viewing it would be very hard to "scare" anyone without some sort of investigation. There is also engines that do not require fuels. Well lets just say, I heard of one that does not need any fuels or liquids of any form, it is called a GPG3. Gravity propulsion Generator that has UNLIMITED milage. I also heard the inventor will have it on National Television as it makes its way across America Coast to Coast without stopping. News has it that it will cost less than $10,000 for the engine once in production. Now how is that for cutting down the use of Fuel?
It is supposed to be out sometimes in 2005.

Afterall, this is the future and we cannot expect to live like the 19th century forever. =)

Posted by: SW RS on May 17, 2004 05:30 AM

 

A recent comment from Australia received by e-mail:

Hi Josef RE THIS POSTING below:

( Josef on 2 October 2003: As far as I know the pogue carb never did make it into production, at least not seriously, and there is no recent developments that I know of, which would allow us to get hold of one of these "off the shelf". )

There are hundreds of WW2  TANKS and TRUCKS dumped in the sea in the Philippines that RAN these devices.

Tanks trebled their range ( according to RETURNING tank drivers ) on the same Fuel quantity - when running flat out - so yes this system worked and was used.

Regards Philip BEST

Posted by: Sepp on May 20, 2004 09:48 AM

 

Why bother having a vehicle at all. Live a good life and dont pollute eating local produce etc.
Vehicles - who needs em.
Bring back the horse and cart which produces valuable usable fertilizer byproduct instead of a super heated planet.

Posted by: Colin Stevenson on June 9, 2004 01:56 PM

 

( message from Sep :
There are hundreds of WW2 TANKS and TRUCKS dumped in the sea in the Philippines that RAN these devices.

Tanks trebled their range ( according to RETURNING tank drivers ) on the same Fuel quantity - when running flat out - so yes this system worked and was used.)

Do you have any idea where did they dump it, I am from the Philippines.

Posted by: Rey M on June 14, 2004 10:19 AM

 

todays gas is a very watered down solution compared to that of 1935 therefore pogues carb worked exelently and had full power at top speed. i have found that heating the fuel is the way to go. getting it to its true vapor temp but not far enough to self ignition temp. your best chance is to develop a system with auto controls and sensors to be as safe and efficient as possible.
i would love to see your plans for your 65/70 mpg systems. hope this helps

Posted by: BRUISER on June 27, 2004 04:36 AM

 

Hello all.

Check out these sites for information on alternative fuels other than gasoline.

www.futurehorizons.net - click on alternative fuels, and they have directions on how to convert an internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen.

Also go to www.ebay.com and just type in hydrogen. I have found a few programs on there with instructions on how to convert an internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen. Beware some may be scams, I would email the seller first and ask questions, then you will have to make your own judgement if these are legitimate or not. Not all these instructions are scams but some are.

Posted by: Jesse on August 2, 2004 11:13 PM

 

THOUGHT I'D LET YOU KNOW I'LL HAVE A VAPORIZEING SYSTEM ON AN 84 S-10 BLAZER SOON AND I DO PLAN TO PUT IT ON THE MARKET SOON AS POSSIBLE..... WOULD HAVE IT ALREADY INSTALLED BUT MADE THE MISTAKE OF BUYING A 4X4 THINKING THE MOTOR CHANGE COULD BE DONE QUICKLY SO I LEARNED THE HARD WAY 4X4'S ARE A PAIN IN THE BUTT TO CHANGE...... WISH I HAD WAITED A BIT LONGER AND GOTTEN THE JEEP WAGON I RAN ACROSS A FEW WEEKS LATER BUT I'M BOGGED DOWN WITH THE ENGINE CHANGE AND YES THE VAPORIZER IS SITTING HERE WAITING FOR INSTALLATION.... RUSTY

Posted by: RUSTY on September 6, 2004 08:31 AM

 

I have been searching for somekinda blue print for weeks now. I understand how it works , but i am a visual person. I would appericate anyinformation anyone could give me. Thanks

Posted by: Nick on October 5, 2004 05:49 PM

 

herer you go a blue print to TOM OGLE device
http://www.rexresearch.com/ogle/1ogle.htm

have fun , be safe ...

Posted by: Nick on October 5, 2004 07:06 PM

 

The carb set up you guys are talking about ,plans and working models have been sold for years out of texas.To get more info check new or old popular science mags ,the back page adds.I have plans to a vapor carb purchased many years ago,it is a basic set up,fuel is feed in a large biggs $stratton lawnmower carb,then channeled into a prefab metal box, thru tubes inside of box,exhaust is flowed over these tubes and back into main exhaust pipe,vapor produced is then place into carb.it was claimed to give 65 mpg in a v-8 cad,highway only as it must be turned when car is up to speed ,a balancing act must then be performed,cutting off standard fuel flow while turning on vapor flow.if this works at all ,the next logical course is to add sensors,and computer control, flow controls to make this all automatic . Vapor carbs might work but would need money a automotive engineer and someone with computer software skills .the best type of engine to try this on is most likely one of the new acura motors some of the 4 cylinders,have varitable timming, and valves which is controled by computers,this would solve the torque problems with vapor carbs if the vapor carb could be tied in with the valve and timming with sensors and the right software and hardware it would give one of those acura rsx cars around 100? mpg, with decent torque

Posted by: roger on October 5, 2004 10:50 PM

 

Hey I have to design a car for a class that i am taking in high school and it has to meet certain standards. I have been having some major trouble on the fuel consumption issue. If anyone has a way that this could work or any data that could help me find out if this would work it would be greatly appreciated.

Posted by: Michael on October 14, 2004 08:25 PM

 

how about a bosch cis fuel injection system? if you put a vaporization system in the air box, fed by the fuel lines designed to go to the injectors, removing the injectors, and plugging the injector holes in the head. all you would have to do is to make the air box air tight. the plunger that is actuated by air suction would automaticly meter the gas coming from the lines. the only problem is that the motor would no longer need that much fuel. look at the diagrams of the bosch cis if you don't know how one works. man that could work if the amount of fuel being fed to the system could be reduced somehow.

Posted by: john on December 10, 2004 09:37 AM

 

hmm..... how about a cut off switch inside of a small holding tank that feeds the "boiller" cut off the fuel pump intermittantly as the fuel in the holding tank gets to the needed level. although that could prove hazardous if the engine was shut off then turned back on. a spring loaded vent that only lets air/vapors to travel one way would have to be in place just after the air filter.

Posted by: john on December 10, 2004 09:46 AM

 

Dear friends,

I regret that only today I have found this webpage. This is all very good stuff here!

I myself am also researching Watercar systems and High Mileage carbs! I am a member of several of the yahoo Groups on energy etc. Unfortunately there are lots of discussions but few people are actually experimenting.

As for myself, I have not come up with a lot of impressive results. My Hydrogen production has been way to little until now, but I now have the major parts required to make a Carl CELLA generator and will try this in coming months on m car.

Furthermore, I have tested a Gas Vapor System on my other car, using following principles:
1. Testengine: 1988 GM 2.8V6 TBI with 2 injectors
2. Vaporhookup: a T-connector hooked into the fuel line (13psi) taps fuel to a Bosch Injector (BI) from a junkyard that delivers about 1/4 the amount of fuel the engine normally gets from the TBI. The BI is wired directly to the ground on one side and the other wire is hooked to a pressure sensitive membrane switch (PSMS), which reacts to pressures as low as 125mm water column. This PSMS was retrieved from an old washing machine and surely not the best choice. I need to find a better more reliable switch. When there is no or pressure is below 125mm Water Column, the BI is activated and sprays fuel into a straith 8mm OD copper tube of about 50cm long. This 8mm OD tube is inserted as deep a possible into the Exhaust trough a drilled hole, as close as possible to the exhaust manifold. This 8mm OD tube again is inserted in a 12mm OD 10mm ID Stainless Steel Tube, whith the bottom end of it welded closed. Using plumbing and gas parts and T- connectors the 2 tubes are sealed tight togehter on he top side. The gas sprays into the 8mm tube, drips down to the bottom while exposed to exhaust heat, vaporises, and the only way out is trough the space between the two pipes and in the 12mm pipe upwards and out trough the T-connector. From the T-connecor, a hose goes to a T-connector with the PSMS to control the BI and the other end goes to a LPG Pressure regulator from a Car LPG system. From the LPG Regulator a hose runs to the TBI manifold, trough the PCV line.

A switch was installed to turn of the standard TBI feed from the ECM.
A switch was installed also to turn the BI on and off.
I started the engine in a normal way running it with the TBI and after about 10 minutes warming up, I tried the system. That is, I switched the BI on and waited until the PSMS switched the BI of, meaning there was some pressure buildup in the hoses and tubes. Then I switched the TBI off, but the engine died every time I switched off the standard TBI. I tried until I observed a fuel leak at the PSMS.

Then I parked the car for several weeks, being to busy with other issues. I then had to move the car, and simply started it, drove it in and out of the garage, the engine was ildeling high (1500RPM) as it was cold.
I started the car about 3 or 4 times and it ran for at least 15 minutes total but surely longer, before it died on me finally. I could not get it started after that and I then checked the switches and wires, as I could not understand what was wrong, thinking that I had been operating the car with the standard TBI and nothing else.
I then noticed that in fact the TBI was switched of and also the Vapor system with the BI was also switched off, so I had been running the car from whatever fuel and vapor was still remaining in the tubes and lines from the vapor system. I would say that this represents fuel and fuel vapors stored in a fuel line with a 10mm ID and length of 120cm and not under pressure at all.

This to me seems somewath promising, but I will have to get back to testing the system.

I just wanted to share my experience with you all, so we can concentrate our efforts.

In any case, the tube-inside-tube system is to my opinion a very effective, efficient and easy way to make the setup. The advantage of straight tubes is easy construction and more over, easy maintenance, because if the additives clogg up the tubes, then a correctly sized wire brush of 8 and 10 mm will do the job easly and even on the field. Do use Stainless steel tubes however, as the outher one is fully exposed to exhaust heat and oxidation.

Regards,
Jake

Posted by: Jake on January 19, 2005 09:43 AM

 

i have blue prints of the 200 MPG carburetor, my uncle has had them for along time and just gave them to me. not sure if any body is wanting them, i am not willing to just give them to any body, i want to keep this a secret as much as posible, my dad is working on makeing one.

Posted by: thehooky on January 29, 2005 10:08 PM

 

Well all of this reading inspired me to talk a bit about my experiments with gas vapour. I have done many tests on a rotary 1.1L NA engine from a Mazda Rx-7. I chose this engine due to it's design and combustion chamber characteristics. A vapour mixture would give even a higher efficiency than one from a piston type engine.

Ok, now for the good part! I first hooked up a coppper gas line wrapping around the exhaust before the gas went to the carburetor. This proved to give me a 2mpg increase, with very little power. Having realized that the engine was getting so much vapor it was almost flooding, I spliced the heated gas line into the gas return. I then used the vent line from the gas tank as an idle fuel source. Whilst restricting the fuel going to the engine with the idle fuel mixture screw and opening up the vapors from the tank, I was able to totally close the idle mixture screw. The engine would idle extremely smooth, and extremely low. It would pull right along as low as 300 rpm. I didn't worry about the gas getting too hot either-- With lean mixtures you get overheating, and with the hotter the gas, the leaner the mixture. The setup was self-limiting. The gas line wrapped around the exhaust was not covered, and when the engine rad fan came on fan would cool the gasoline. I ran the car like this for a summer, with no problems.

I have also done tests with the rx-7 test vehicle with water vapour injection, hydrogen/oxygen injection from a hydrogen boost, steam injection, and a catalytic cracker. I also have used a carburetor enhancer (george wiseman) and hooked up spark plug capacitors for longer sparks.
Hope this inspires some people, as other posts inspired me.

Posted by: kenny g on February 8, 2005 08:12 AM

 

I've heard all kinds of crap about 200mpg carbs for years. Let me try one more time....a measure of gasoline, or any other hydrocarbon, contains only a certain amount of energy (BTU's)so far you can't create energy out of nothing! In other words, THERE NEVER WAS A 200MPG CARB !!!

Posted by: Gerry Flood on February 10, 2005 01:54 AM

 

Dear Gerry Flood,
Your words are spoken like a true mechanical engineer. Of courese, they are BS. I have built and used a "cold vacuum" vapor system and the car averaged 32MPG when it normally got 16MPG. How do you explain that? All vapor systems work, it's only a matter of how much.

Posted by: Alfred on February 20, 2005 08:24 PM

 

I've been really looking into this for a while. I'm badly wanting to build a carburetor that can give at least 50mpg on my GM 455 V-8 engine for my 72' Cutlass.

If I could get that kind of mileage out of it, I'd never have to buy a new car. Ever. And it's a classic, so the value only goes up up up!

I'm currently looking for plans for a carberator that I can put on a holly or eddlebrock air intake manifold. I just don't want 8mpg. With the size of this engine, I would have to buy premium unleaded, so I want my money to go further.

I can't find a SINGLE diagram anywhere. Could someone post one here?

Posted by: Leu on February 25, 2005 02:32 AM

 

dear Leu, i have in my possesstion a original copies blue print and notes for the 200mpg carburetor i can send u copies if u want copies contate me at poisionhawk@yahoo.com

Posted by: Robert Mackey on February 28, 2005 09:01 PM

 

To Joe Salisbury.
In response to your post September 14, 2004 07:05 PM

You wrote
My hat is off to a team from the University of California who in 1992 set an American record of 3313 mpg with a vehicle called Shamu.

If a designer could mix current auto design with Shamu and come up with 1500 mpg I think most of us would be happy with that!

The next challenge? Get 1500 mpg from vegetable oil! Grow our own fuel and tell Corporate oil companys to rob someone else.

Joe I have searched google for the last hour looking for this car called the Shamu.
There is nothing about this car.
I emailed some people from the University of Cal.
No one knows anything about this car built in 1992.
Were you just kidding around.
If there was a car that got 3315 mpg. I can assure you there would be tons of info about this car on the net.
There is nothing.
Which tells me you must have been told a falsehood by someone.

Posted by: Dan on March 6, 2005 07:37 PM

 

Check out this Volkswagon car that gets 282 mpg.
There's also pics of the car. It looks like something from the Jetsons. It uses a diesel engine.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm

Posted by: Dan on March 6, 2005 07:52 PM

 

how about running the gas through the transmission cooler on the rad and putting in a higher degree thermostat?i think this would work very well in a fuel injection type setup as you also have the intake manifold heated by the engine coolant,but it is only heating the chamber not the fuel,just an idea?

Posted by: nathan staples on March 7, 2005 02:30 PM

 

A comment received by e-mail on the subject of Pogue's carburetor 6 March 2005:

...the Pogue carburetor was definitely sold to the public. People were starting to buy them at such a rate that it attracted the attention of the oil companies, who put tetraethyl lead in their gasoline almost immediately, which coated the inside of the carburetors, rendering their catalytic action useless, and the the oil companies capitalized on the confused Pogue, who built them but didn't really understand exactly how they really worked, while the oil companies understood perfectly, and began calling the Pogue carburetor a fraud, when in fact they had ruined his idea with their additives. Pogue started getting a lot of carburetors back from unhappy customers, and went broke. They're still doing it today, which is why you can't buy gasoline that won't "varnish up" any catalytic device that uses any real degree of heat that would otherwise yield more serious fuel economy gains. They'll allow about 10%, but anything more than that attracts their attention, and the greater the increase, the more attention they will give it.

Posted by: Sepp on March 7, 2005 07:34 PM

 

I found an old newspaper with an article about a man who turned regular auto engines into hydrolic engine. He lived in the LA area in the late 40s The mystery was , he used some type of green fluid that had an extrordinary capacity to expand by the ratio of 50 to one from cool to hot. Does anyone know about this man or his invention? mike..

Posted by: desertmike on March 7, 2005 08:25 PM

 

Hello, this guy says the carburetor story is not true.
Can anyone who knows about cars respond to what he said.

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

The following is a reprint of Chapter III from the Fish Carburetor Book by Michael H. Brown, pages 11-12 (1982):

III.
The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth

There have been numerous books and plans written purporting to "reveal the secrets" of the famous "200 mpg carburetor," a device supposedly built in 1935 by Charles Nelson Pogue of Winnipeg, Canada.

As of this writing Mr. Pogue is in a nursing home in Winnipeg, Canada. Several of our customers have visited with him. Each came away with a slightly different story.

Mr. Pogue actually did manufacture a carburetor he titled the "Winnipeg" in the late 1930s; 317 all told. One of our customers had one and claimed it delivered 35 mpg on a Ford Mustang with considerable loss of power; however, he agreed to let us have it for testing and we are still waiting.

There are two problems with the "Pogue principle," which is being touted in high mileage seminars and books all over the country.

The first is that the Pogue carburetor violates the first law of thermodynamics, a commonly accepted scientific postulate that has been with us since 1830.

The law is written as follows: U = q + w

Or, in simple English, if you have chemical energy in a system (U) in its expenditure, it must equal q (heat) plus work (w). That is, if you have 100,000 BTUs in a gallon of fuel in which you then burn the end products—in a system operating at 30% efficiency—you will have 30,000 BTUs of work and 70,000 BTUs of heat.

Anything you put inside the combustion chamber can do only one of two things during the ignition stroke.

Produce energy (mechanical movement) during the reaction.

Absorb energy (leave out the exhaust as heat) during the reaction.

There has been a lot written about the "unburned particulates" furnishing the extra fuel for the extra 50 mpg or so, but if you'll check the Fish dynatune emissions levels you'll see there aren't enough of them to get you another 300 yards down the road.

The second problem encountered with Pogue-type devices is that—in some instances—they actually predate the carburetor.

Let's elaborate in both cases.

Back before the carburetor as we know it came into being in the 1890s there were several novel methods of getting fuel into the engine.

One method was using a kerosene-soaked rag to drip fuel into the engine.

Another method—that became quite common—was allowing air to pass over the surface of gasoline and then to be sucked into the engine. Sometimes a valve—called a "mixing valve"—would be positioned between the fuel reservoir and the engine. The valve would pop open when the downward motion of the piston created enough suction.

This method—and variations of it—have been touted all over the United States in "100 MPG CARBURETOR" seminars sponsored by various individuals as being the "ultimate" in sophisticated fuel systems, usually with exhaust heat or radiator water added to "vaporize" the fuel much more effectively than a standard carburetor.

There are a number of things wrong with the concept of such a "100 MPG" system.

The first is that the gasolines in use during the days of the mixing valve were far more volatile than the ones in use today. Some of you may remember when you could stand ten feet away from an open pan of gasoline, light a match, and watch the gasoline immediately catch fire.

Gasolines were changed in the 1930s with the advent of the catalytic cracker now used in petroleum refining. Carburetors like the Pogue, which depend on easily vaporized gasoline, simply will not work with today's gasolines.

The second seminar-taught error is the method of using exhaust heat or radiator water to heat the fuel to the "vapor" point to extend the mileage. Warming or preheating fuel does have some value, but it's limited.

Consider using hot water from the radiator to vaporize the fuel first.

Today's gasolines do not completely vaporize until they reach 450º Fahrenheit heat, while the maximum temperature of the water in today's pressure radiators reaches only 250º Fahrenheit. You just can't heat a substance to 450º Fahrenheit using a 250º Fahrenheit heat source.

At least, not on this planet.

Exhaust heat works a bit differently.

It is the function of an internal combustion engine to change chemical energy into heat, and then the heat into mechanical movement. If the heat is not changed into mechanical movement it simply leaves—as heat. Any time you feel heat coming off an engine you are feeling wasted energy. The exhaust ports of an engine that operated at 100% efficiency would be ice-cold to the touch since ALL the heat would have been changed into mechanical movement.

Which means that the more efficient your engine is the less exhaust heat you're going to have.

For example, if you have 600º Fahrenheit exhaust heat produced by one gallon of gas over a 20-mile trip and you use "exhaust heat" to "vaporize" the fuel and go 60 miles, what produces the 600º Fahrenheit heat for the next 40 miles?

If you answered "two more gallons of fuel," go to the head of the class!

Seriously, there are ways to go several times the distance on a gallon of fuel (none of them involving carburetors); it's just that the foregoing examples aren't two of them.

In short, Charles Nelson Pogue was a machinist with no formal training in thermodynamics and may have actually believed that what he was attempting would work.

All a carburetor can do is meter and atomize fuel in correct proportion to air.

Any further increases have to come from increasing the thermal efficiency of the engine itself (such as raising compression) or reducing rolling friction. And this last is why a diesel locomotive with steel wheels will go ten times as far on a gallon of fuel as a diesel truck of the same weight with rubber tires.

For Pogue—or any similar carburetor—to go 100 mpg on a gallon of fuel on a vehicle normally going 20 mpg, the air/fuel ratio would have to be in the neighborhood of 75 to 1 or better.

Any second-year college chemistry student knows that.

Posted by: Benny on March 9, 2005 03:51 PM

 

Joe Salisbury actually was partially correct.
I just spoke to someone who's building this solar car for Cal university.
He told me this.

He hasn't heard about the Shamu car, but it's possible that it existed.
He said the Cal Super Mileage Vehicle team built a car a couple years ago that
won the national competition with a mileage of 1068 mpg. It's important to recognize that their car doesn't look anything like a real car (it's just a carbon fiber shell with tiny suspension and a small motor, though it can go 60 mph), and certainly doesn't have any of the functionality. It could go 1068 miles on one gallon of fuel though.

Posted by: Dan on March 11, 2005 06:33 PM

 

You guys need to go back to watching the sci-fi channel, enough bullshit in here to power a small town. If someone's here has actually done this, build a site, show the results and for gods sake stop bitching about it.

Posted by: Veggie Benz on March 16, 2005 12:41 AM

 

Acetone as a Fuel Additive
Acetone reduces the unburned portion of the fuel by aiding vaporization through eliminating surface tension, thus improving combustion efficiency. Without acetone, the fuel has a higher surface tension, which increases temperature required to vaporize the fuel. Without acetone, small droplets of fuel go unburned and pass through the engine and into the environment as pollution.

Posted by: Sepp on March 21, 2005 04:21 PM

 

If you can give me an e-address I will send info on my work with gasified gasoline. Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that liquid particles are burning after the initial combustion. All the air is burned up and leaves a small ammount of fuel unburned. Pogue got 217 mpg. I have documented proof.

Posted by: Daryl Lanigan on March 25, 2005 06:22 AM

 

i'v been tring to desine a 200 mpg carborator for a 2-cycle but, i need some help.
so if anybody has some ideas, plaes let me know.

Posted by: logan on March 28, 2005 08:38 PM

 

Pouge Reality.

Its time to face a little bit of reality here people.
Pouge did build a vapor carburetor and it did get about 75 MPG. However, the engine it was attached to was not a V8. It was a small four cylinder engine having about the same cubic inch displacement as a Harley Davidson motorcycle. That's only 1200 cc's guys!! Getting 75 MPG from a 1200 cc engine is not that bid of a deal.
I agree that vapor carburetors should improve combustion efficiency resulting in improved MPG. However, Pouge never got 200 MPG using his vapor carburetor on a V8 because he never installed the carburetor on any car with a V8.
The best way to do an analyses on vapor carburetors is to CUT THE BULL SHIT AND GET DOWN TO THE FACTS!

Posted by: Scott Ksobiech on April 3, 2005 04:41 AM

 

I just found a book on THE SECRETS OF THE 200 MPG. CARB. it has about 10 different variations of the carb. all the same principle, ill scan and post as soon as i can. if anyones interested

Posted by: scott on April 5, 2005 09:35 PM

 

if you need someone to scan them, I volunteer, I am more than interested.. I am trying to find my uncle in florida right now who has my set of plans to the actual pogue carburator... but would like to see as many variations as i could where I could show him.. but because he is one of the original old 1%'s it's not always easy to track him down... might be weeks so I would for sure be interested!

Posted by: Danny on April 7, 2005 07:54 AM

 

Why cant the unburned fuel in the exaust be condensed(cooled) and put right back into the fuel tank.therfore bettering the milage

Posted by: Clayton on April 11, 2005 08:11 PM

 

A Honda Insight hybrid can get over 100 mpg during cross country highway driving. (Follow the link to check out documented hybrid milage results) This guy has ran his Honda Insight 37,283 miles on 402 gallons of gasoline which equals 92.8 miles per gallon. This is for real, with no lost blueprints or the typical "I knew a guy who remembers knowing a guy who met a guy who read about a secret 100 mpg carborator." Hybrid vehicles are in their infancy but will soon be mainstream. Many of the major manufacturers are rolling out new models from compacts and midsize to pickups and SUVs. Our society has been spoiled by decades of cheap energy. We have all been sleepwalking through our daily rountine and have become used to the availability of a never-ending supply of cheap gasoline. Currently Americans burn 20 million barrels of oil a day. Who gives a shit about fuel efficiency if gasoline is cheap. Here in Houston, gas was 97 cents a gallon only three years ago. Today a gallon costs 2.20. A near future where gasoline prices which could easily be in the 4-6 dollars a gallon range is very possible. My neighbor mentioned that he filled the tank on his Surburban SUV and it cost him 90.00. He has to fill up once a week. That adds up to 4680.00 a year for fuel. Now think of the possibility of a per gallon price of 5.00. Now you are talking 225.00 for a full tank and 11,700.00 a year fuel costs! How many SUVs would be parked because the average middle class family could not afford to drive it?Necessity creates opportunity. Since America produces very little of its own energy and has to import from increasingly dangerous and unstable parts of the world, now more than ever, it makes sense to develop vehicle technology which decreases our reliance on imported energy.

http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/car/54-little-red-beauty.html

Posted by: Larry Kalina on April 12, 2005 05:50 PM

 

It is relatively easy to get "raw" gas. I am currently looking for a secondary gas tank to turn into a "filter" tank. When I fill this tank up, the gasoline will go through a series of activated Chacoal filters before it drops into the primary tank. The filters should filter out the additives and make even a regular carburetor more efficient. But also adding ceramic heating elements to the bowl of a regular carburetor should increase the efficiency at least a little bit.
You can run a "condensetor" in your vehicle. a hose from you PCV to the condensetor and then back to the intake should help. The process is simple. It is basicly a jar that catches the sludge that would normally build up in the engine and allow the unburned fuel to return to the manifold.
I attempted this with a home made condensator but I didnt have it quite air tight enough. It did catch sludge though and allowed the unburned fuel to go back into the mainfold.

Posted by: Mark George on April 16, 2005 04:29 PM

 

Hello... Charles is my grandfathers brother. I'd love to tell you I have the true story on the carb but even he doesn't know the extent of what happened. One day im going to try and make one for myself and see what I can do. If someone out there knows soemthing more I'd really liek to know.
Thanx.

Jason Pogue

Posted by: Jason Pogue on April 18, 2005 04:53 AM

 

I have a Astron Vari Vent Carb, with adapter plates for 2 or 4 barrel, gaskets, linkage, looks 100% complete!
Looks in great shape as well!

I know nothing about it and I am also not interested in keeping it around!

Thanks

Posted by: The Butcher on April 19, 2005 06:43 AM

 

Hi, i read that all of you want to build a vaporise type carborator, but there is a propane carborator that will do the same thing, And it should work with vaporized gas. they have them out on the market and already have them on some trucks.I'v also seen them work, and they work like a regular truck. so i hope this will help.

Posted by: logan on May 1, 2005 01:58 AM

 

if you want to run a engine off vapor, just take a 3/4" id peice of clear hose, commonly found at home depot, get 2 or 3 hp briggs and stratton engine, clamp off the fuel line going to the carb, have a friend hold the hose over the mouth of the carb, and hold the other end just in the top of the gas tank and start the engine. I did this with a coleman 1750 watt generator and when loaded it put out about 3/4 of it's full load. The longest I had it running like this was about a half hour. I simply got bored and sick of listening to it and shut it off. I have been playing around with heating the gasoline on my 1940 H-D and using small carburetors, so there will be a very high vacuum signal, and to a degree it does work some, but so far nothing to really get excited about. www.muggzy.com

Posted by: muggzy on May 6, 2005 02:27 AM

 

To all those who are trying to improve your mileage, more power to you. I am too! If you find anything on the net you need to print it right away as I am finding that alot of stuff comes and goes. Maybe the oil companies do not want us to know??

To all of those who think the concept is pure snake oil, keep up the good work! After all somebody has to keep wasting money at the pumps to keep the oil companies happy!

Posted by: Hudson on May 10, 2005 05:14 AM

 

good luck to all!

I had made several different models, of carbs, but the last one which I thought would be it! feeding vapors through the propane carb, would work great for 20 minutes! then as I had the unvaporized fuel return, through the heat exchanger, only the light ends, vaporized, and the gas was converted into a varsol smelling liquid, and no longer ran the vehicle!the vehicle would lean out , burn your eyes, " nox" and eventualy quit running, until the gas was replaced in the vaporizer, same thing all over again! better luck to you guys!

Posted by: claude c on May 12, 2005 06:29 AM

 

I guess that I should of read more of the prior comments on here!as I seen a coment about the pogue, carb, that is runing on text book, it says that the purpose of the carb, is to meter liquid fuel into the engine! which is absolutly correct! but now where it fails to say is, only the vapor burns! and if anyone has seen the explanation, from charles pogue, as to why the fuel has to be vaporized, prior to entering the air stream into the intake! there is not enough time for liquid fuel to be completely vaporized,when it gets to you cylinder!

in the snap of your finger, the liquid fuel left the nozzle, or venturi of your carb, and is on its way out the exhaust!

well if you have ever spit on a hot stove, you can see it sizzle for about 20 to 30 seconds, before its all gone!

so even though your engine run s with a vacum, to help boil the gas on the way through and vaporize some of it! enough to run!

when all is said and done!
your engine canot take liquid, and completly convert it to vapors, in .02 of a second!

thats why the pogue carb vaporized the gas before it went to the intake system ,

well to the engineers who read it out of there text book! well the book was writen by someone, and was that before or after the pogue carb! it also says , in the ingeneering books that that a bumble bee, should not be able to fly, the body is to big, and the wings to small!haha,

well I'm not realy trying to pick on engineers, as you can see I can't even spell it!haha,

I'm just saying when ever you think you know it all, something happens and some old books have to be changed!

food for though!

if you think that vaporization of fuel, is not needed!

why does a cold engine need more fuel to run?

because less vapors are emited from a cold engine with cold fuel,

so in fact your engine does not realy require, more fuel to run when its cold! it just needs the same amount of vapors, it always needs to run!

so a cold engine, with cold fuel, you have to increase the volume of liquid, to produce, the same amount of vapors!

oh by the way!! I have had a 283, in my 66 pickup get in the nabour hood of 60 mpg!

but I did not get it to run under all load conditions, and would not run cold! and if you rushed it it would lean and backfire!

and why is the pickups, of this melinuim, not getting better gas milage, the the 1980 trucks with the old carbs!!

Posted by: claude c on May 12, 2005 09:52 AM

 

Just thought I'd point out that the Pogue carb is a well known urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

Posted by: John White on May 17, 2005 10:32 AM

 

Thank you John White,

but I would like to also point out to you and others that Barbara Mikkelson of Snopes does not always get her facts straight.

She recently wrote an article about Codex Alimentarius, a situation I closely follow, which just took the government (FDA) misinformation and repeated it apparently without looking into the huge amounts of serious investigation and reporting that is available not only on my site, but all over the internet.

What a pity - can't even rely on Snopes to tell the truth!

Posted by: Sepp on May 17, 2005 03:34 PM

 

If any of you want to see something quite amazing go to

www.geet.com

where you will see a new type of system that can run on ANY liquid. I know because I was trained on the technology on the scooter that you see in the pics in July 2003.

Posted by: Christopher on May 28, 2005 06:58 AM

 

An article found on the Pure Energy Systems website, which reports on new energy developments. This particular one is relevant to the Pogue Carb discussions, as it heats fuel to make it burn better.

Vaporate Aims to Maximize Bang for the Buck
A pinpoint technology eliminates a limitation of internal combustion engines with minimal intervention.  First product delivered Monday.
AUSTRALIA -- In today's typical internal combustion engines, a fuel injector discharges droplets of gasoline into the air intake just before the combustion chamber. The surrounding air helps vaporize the outer layers of these droplets, which decrease in size and weight...

Posted by: Sepp on May 31, 2005 11:15 AM

 

Does anyone know if there are any laws "preventing" us from putting these vaproization systems on our own vehicles here in the U.S.A.? The Carburetor Reseach Center, that was in Florida, would not sell their canister kits to a few states, especially California.

Posted by: BigDad on June 4, 2005 08:52 PM

 

Can i get the blue prints for such a device. Thank you .

Posted by: Nic on June 17, 2005 12:01 AM

 

This is as good as it gets for free http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm#2026

The original blueprints for a device that could have revolutionised the motor car have been discovered in the secret compartment of a tool box.
A carburettor that would allow a car to travel 200 miles on a gallon of fuel caused oil stocks to crash when it was announced by its Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue in the 1930s.

Posted by: Jim on August 11, 2005 05:53 AM

 

Here is a reference to SHAMU which Mr. Salisbury mentioned. It gives very little information and states 1990 for the record...

www.futuretruck.org/pdfs/2000workshop/uc-davis.pdf (Sorry, link gone bad - Sepp)

Cheers!

Posted by: Daniel on August 19, 2005 01:35 AM

 

I ordered the pouge plans from a pop.sci. ad in the 70's. I also mlost or misplaced them. I never got very far with the experiment, procrastination mostly. but I came to a conclusion that this was much different than changing liguid propane into a gas before combustion on propane orerated forklifts an such. propane just doesn't burn at the same temp. hope this helps some one

Posted by: randall on August 21, 2005 01:58 AM

 

Has anyone heard of the Hydro-Gen device from website savefuel.ca I talked to the father of the inventor and he sounds legit.

Posted by: Rudy on August 21, 2005 04:33 AM

 

I am trying to post all the information I can get on super-efficient carburetors - and anything else that we can use to reduce our consumption
of oil - any information anyone here can provide on a super-efficient carburetor will be greatly appreciated and posted for everyone's benefit. We now have enough for a person to build any one of several carbs as well as a new source of fuel. check us out at www.FEVj.org

Posted by: greg on August 25, 2005 03:04 AM

 

Very intersting run a mower on 75% water and 25% gas I am still confused as how this is possable unless when the water is in steam form and compressed hydrogen from the water is ignited.

Planes here http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/geet/geet.htm

Posted by: Jim on August 25, 2005 05:03 AM

 

Hello, I don't understand the water my self, So me and my cusson are doing this project on a 5.5hp pressure washer we have that the pump is cracked on it. When we got the supplys for it cost use $94 @ ACE HARDWARE (8-27-05) but you can cut the cost if you deside to use non Galvanized gas pipe (what we should have done). we are not using the 22mm / 7/8" Copper Oil Drain Plug Washers, we are going to have the pipe Tees welded to insure a good seal. We don't trust the washer because if the washer don't seal the gas fummes will mix with the exh and may cause for a big BOOM! I will keep you all posted on how it goes.

Posted by: Jim on August 28, 2005 05:41 PM

 

Hello, Got it all together today 9-01-05 and it worked like a charm on gas vapor only. I keep you all posted on how it does with the test of 75% water and 25% gas after this weekend.

Posted by: Jim on September 2, 2005 04:42 AM

 

Damien I have been thanking of try to test the joe cell myself.

Posted by: Jim on September 2, 2005 04:45 AM

 

I ran it today on 75% water and 25% gas and it runs great but it is a little harder to start but not bad.

But I still don't understand what the water does.

Posted by: Jim on September 2, 2005 11:48 PM

 

I worked on a turbin for Ford Motor in the late 60 we obtained 60 mpg on kerosine and over 300 HP.
When sent to ford they wanted the converter changed and to max of 20 mpg we came up with 10 mpg ford bought it This motor went into their large diesel tracks I was just one person but if Omega Watches would release their engineering end you would be suprised .(Josh Omega was the engineer).

Posted by: Stephanie on September 3, 2005 04:46 AM

 

What about hydro cells that just run off of water. Anyone ever look into the one mentioned earlier at http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/water.html Very interesting and I am thinking of building it for my truck. Any ideas or anyone willing to help

Posted by: Randy on September 4, 2005 05:17 AM

 

I am not for sure whats going on but i was able to get a 100% vapor gas test done at WOT for 10 mins and it used 6oz of fuel 6x6 = 36oz in an hr and 128oz (gal) \ 36 = 3 hrs and 56 min run time on 1 gal of gas. When i tryed the water/fuel mix it run good for about 3 or 4 mins then start slowing downuntill it would die, so i tryed running it 1\4 open throttle and it run longer but would still die so i went back to 100% gas and i get the same thing runs 3 or 4 mins and dies, so i am thing i am losing pressure in my bubble tank that feeds the fuel ot may be it is getting to hot with no air moving around it. so I am Back to the testing stang to find out what is wrong.

Posted by: Jim on September 5, 2005 12:46 AM

 

Vapor phase carburation systems using the present gasoline cracking system will not keep good mileage the longer they are ran. The current price for gasoline could make it possible to replace gasoline with the pure white gasoline which is lantern fuel that is becoming competitive in price that has always been available. The generators on the Coleman gas stoves and lanterns prove that a true vapor phase carburetion system is possible. I've built several of the systems and the main problem was contamination. I'd recommend connecting to Bruce McBurney's site at: http://www.himacresearch.com/letters/open.html

Posted by: Dennis on September 29, 2005 10:33 PM

 

I plan on building an entire three part engine with all of the new high tech capabilities that auto companies and oil companies dont want you to know exist. the car i am currently trying to build the engine on will be much lighter than the 2700 lb cars that car companies are making now with only 18 mpg or so. i project when all is said and done i will create a car that can get about 350MPG imagine if you had an 10 gallon tank. you would receive 3,500 Miles to an entire tank of gasoline...how amazing would that be.

Posted by: Alex D. on October 7, 2005 05:07 AM

 

There has to be lots of unburned fuel coming out those exhaust ports or we still wouldn't be using catalytic converters now would we!!!Wake the hell up you naysayers.....

Posted by: nathan staples on October 13, 2005 03:04 AM

 

HI to all!

As i read through the different experments, It made me aware, that there are many people out there looking for answers!

I started to play with all different type of vaporizing ideas in the mid seventies ;

then in the early part of the eithies i got a book by allan walace, it had the pogue carb and many others!

I had made many different type of heat exchangers! some with coolant and others with exhaust!

so ofcourse this new book was heaven to me! as it renewed my hope in the gas milage part!

I made about fourteen completly different types of fuel systems!

and ofcourse with each time being more convinced that I had all the angles covered!

I have had enough succest to know that it has possibilities! from the results I got!

I had in upwards of sixty miles to the gallon!

but the drawbacks were terible!

leaning during aceleration!

no cold start, and running!

in my last oneI was useing coolant to heat gasoline! and the system ran through a propane Imco carburetor!

it ran like a charm! with no problems through all rpm ranges!

then 15 minutes would go by! and it started to run terible until it died!

Well I know why now! but it took me awhile to figure it out!

as i was useing heat from the coolant! and recirculating the fuel which was unvaporized back into container to be rerun through the heat exchanger agian and agian!

but what happened!! was only the light ends of the fuel vapourized! and the fuel was converted to a stale smelling varsol like fluid!

and would no longer emite enough vapours to run the engine!

but after that amount of time of 15 minutes or so that half pint of gas had not demenished enough for the float to let new gas in!

so then, the engined leaned and made a terible amount of nox!1 burnt your eyes and died!

Well I know its possible from all my experiences!

to make gains which would be very aceptable!

I know that there will never be another pougue carb that will work like his did!

bacause! the gas is not now like it was then! after his carb came out!!

gas got leaded! to make sure the heat exchanger would not work for to long!

and now it has other crap in it to do the same!

if you doubt this to be true!!

try useing it in your colman cook stove and see how long it will last!!

as you are vaporizeing it there to a true vapour state!

and the crap in the gas that is intentialy put in there so it can't be cracked into a vapour state!

but that doesn't mean that it can't be heated enough as to not make some good gains!!

I wish you all the best of luck!

claude

Posted by: Claude on October 17, 2005 05:40 AM

 

I just stumbled across this site today and noticed a comment from Ron Rollins from 20 Feb 2004 stating that he is looking for an Astron Vari-Vent carburetor. If he is still interested, I may be able to help him out. Email me at bubbamike80@yahoo.com

Posted by: Mike Smith on October 21, 2005 02:54 AM

 

Hello, this is for the guy that said he would scan the book THE SECRETS OF THE 200 MPG. CARB. if yoiu can and send it to me at

Blind_hearse18@hotmail.com

i would greatly appreciate it. My friend and I are trying to build these carbs for our cars, my friend has a 77 ford Bronco and I have a 77 LTD, they both have 351s. If anyone has anything that could help us, that would be great.

Posted by: John on October 21, 2005 05:00 AM

 

Hello to all you high gas milage seekers!

Well I have checked out a lot of forums, about high gas milage,

I have to say that the response are getting preditable!

The people, who have never actualy build anything!

All seem to say from what they heard from a friend of a friend, or what they have read someplace!

That it can't be done!!

One of the forum, replies
from" cecile Adams" actualy said that the" carburetor"

Was absolete, like the buggy whip! haha!

Well! maybe so! but the piston engine was the reason for the need of the carburetor! so we are still in need of that! so the piston engine must be the "buggy!

I would like to give you a bit of food for though!

before fuel injection!

in the popular science adition of april 1983!

you would see on the cover of that magazine!
smokey yunick's 150 hp two cylinder engine,

useing heat exchanger's first coolant to bring the intake air fuel temp to 220 degress, than exhaust to heat it up to 440 degress!

through a turbo, that smokey liked to call homogenizer!

the turbo was evaloped along with the intake with the exhaust going through the involope to heat the air\fuel mixture! to 440 degress,

smokey says that when the fuel went through that turbo, the fuel particals were very small like a smoke mist! and able to vaporize more rapidly with the hot intake temperatures!

Well there's more to this! but its to much to put on here!

Ofcoure this was known thechnoligy then!

but by 1985 we know what was going to be the winning, savior as for moder technoligy!

the new adds read!! no need to look for the supper carburetors! fuel injection is here!haha!

Now I've been a mechanic for thirty years! and Ive seen several different things!

As the diesel john deere engines for example are now at 10,000 psi of fuel delivery pressure on there tier two engines!

which turns fuel injected through it, into basicly smoke! as the paitical are so fine!

now lets talk about the joke!1 of me laughing about fuel injection, in your car!

did you know that your kitchen tap, in your house has more pressure, then the fuel injection in your car!

and the spray pattern of your advanced fuel system, is comparible to one of a windex spray bottle!

so now you know what your "buggy whip"was replaced with!

and just maybe! you can see why the gas milage of a 1981 pickup chev, or ford five liter, with the automatic over drive, was as good if not better then one comparible one now!

useing that "buggy whip" carburetor!haha!

and what about the performance machines on the race circuit!, still a lot of carburation going on there!

more food for though the knowledge is there!

just needs to be found!

good luck claude!

Posted by: claude on October 24, 2005 07:11 AM

 

just a little info!

If you go to google search!

and put; SMOKEY YUNICK'S TWO CYLINDER ENGINE!

It will take you to more info on that one!

somthing else to think about!

if you invent somthing that is marginly better, or equivalent to fuel injection!

As fuel injection was over caburation! :out of tune:

you would be a genious!!

but if you are successfull!

in doubleing gas milage!!

you would be deemed a fraudulant idiot!

food for though! haha!

claude!

Posted by: Claude on October 24, 2005 07:42 AM

 

Hello Everyone

I am working on my vaporizer fuel system that is presently being installed on a 4x4 GMC 1 ton crew cab truck with a 454cid engine. Progress is going well so far and pictures of the system installed under the hood of the engine bay are uploaded to the group files at the alfvaporizer group link provided. If you wish to join the group you must give your name the the group owner, which is me.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alfvaporizer/?yguid=46904498

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alfenergy/?yguid=46904498

You can see details of my system at this link.
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/alfvap/

May the truth set you free...

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely
Alan L. Francoeur
Penticton BC. Canada

Posted by: Alan L. Francoeur on October 25, 2005 04:53 PM

 

Check out Vapor Systems Technology's website. They have a CD with over 900 different fuel vaporizing systems, including Pogue's, Ogle's, Caggiano's, Smokey Yunick's... Ton's of systems, the CD's $24.95.

Posted by: David Steckling on October 27, 2005 10:03 PM

 

I am trying to get intouch with KUSTOM KARBS Rockford, Il. They make a VAPORKARB which is a device that mounts under the carburetor. It consists of a turbulator, turbo vane & electro grid which is electronicaly activated to heat the gas. As the gas air is pulled therw the device by the engines own vacuum it is vaporized by the heat & turbo action of the device. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Kustom Karbs I would like to hear from you. Thank You!

Posted by: Jim on November 2, 2005 01:04 AM

 

Hi Guys,
I've seen lots of good info here, and some great ideas as well.

Some of the greatest discoveries of past centuries have been completely accidental, or put together in someones backyard or garage, so keep it up, and never let negative comments or opinions keep you from trying new ideas.

At the very least, a high milage fuel system(100mpg+) would be awesome, and it would benifit millions of people, but since fossil fuels seem to be one of the greatest contributors to pollution problems, wouldn't even a high milage system still only be prolonging the inevitable? I fully understand that this type of system would greatly reduce pollutants, but with the number of vehicles on the highways projected to increase by 25% over the next five years alone, the problem of automobile air pollution still remains.

I believe Hydrogen may well be our next "gasoline", and a system that could separate water into it's basic components(Hydrogen and Oxygen), burn the Hydrogen, and release the Oxygen into the air, would not only be a clean source of fuel, but it would actually make a contribution to our atmosphere in the form of Oxygen.

There is also research being conducted with Gravity Wave Generators, other types of Gravity propulsion, and probably a few that none of us have heard about just yet.

Of course the Oil Industries and Automobile manufacturers will try and convince us that our present fuels are the best thing going, but isn't it time we all started thinking for ourselves and believing a little less of what we are being spoon fed day by day?

Maybe it's time we started thinking "outside the box" just a little more?

Posted by: Anonymouse on November 4, 2005 03:12 AM

 

HI to you all!

I read the last post, on hear!
I have to say that I agree!

but the government, has not figured a way to put a road tax, on water yet!

and sense the government have there hands in the pockets of the oil companies,

you know which side, the government is on!

they say that the economy hindges, around oil and gas!

so how would , the water distrubitors , give kick backs to the government?

and when it comes to morals, or the ecolagy,
putting your faith in your government, is like letting the fox gaurd the chickens!!

as we would not ever be able, to get the government , to say hey!!

the oil industry, is bad for the inviroment! and we must take steps, to stop them!!

and the growth, as you say is expected to rise 25 % in the motor vehicles, in just five years!

so if the EPA of the vihicles that are on the road, could be raised,
from 21 mpg to 60 mpg!

then yes we would be buying some time!

and just one more thing!!

food for though!

the EPA for vehicles, in 1988 was 22MPG

and as 2004 it has dropped to 21MPG!

don't you think this reflects the interest of our government! in the inviroment??

claude

Posted by: claude on November 12, 2005 06:33 AM

 

Just throwing this out there. Has anyone ever though of using ultrasonics to atomize the fuel. Like those ultrasonic fog makers you see in shopping malls. Makes a very fine fog out of vapors. Might eliminate some fuel/heat issues. Food for thought.

Cheers .......Steve

Posted by: Steve on November 18, 2005 12:29 AM

 

Damien, would it be possible to get more info from you on your system you spoke about making Hydrogen? Mostly anything you will share adding digital pics too.
I have been studying about many different vaporizers to gain needed info first but now find interest in what you are doing. If you can/will share this type of information, please email to me. Thank you. Ken

Posted by: K C on December 4, 2005 09:31 PM

 

My email addy is ken55ford2001@yahoo.com

Posted by: K C on December 4, 2005 09:32 PM

 

Hello, I have built a pogue carb that worked temporarily, but due to the fact that gas at the pump today is made so it will not completely vaporize below 400 degrees the carb only worked for a short time. This is the oil companies way of preventing any back yard mechanics from building a successful vapor carb using gasoline.
Some food for thought....what if you used high pressure to spray gasoline into such a fine mist that it actualy vaporized? This could be done using the fuel pump off of a diesel. This is over 2000 psi. so only hard lines should be used. Another idea I would like to put out there is this....has anyone taken a close look at the propane fuel system? Have you noticed that the propane carb is just a vapor mixing device that would work with any type of vapor! The available BTU's in propane is far greater than the system uses! What if you added an oven expansion chamber to a propane system? This would expand the propane vapor before it enters the carb. This could expand the propane to over 200 times itself and miles per gallon would follow the same multiplication.
Years go by and many people have tried so hard and spent so much time and money trying to find a system that will work....there are many different ways that will work and for all of you who have hope and an undying devotion to succeed don't ever give up!

Jake

Posted by: jake on December 8, 2005 03:58 AM

 

I want a better carb for my boat it is a 1978 ford 302. Can you re-do my carb or sell me one that will work?
I was looking for kustom karbs and found your site. Their address is 720 Jordan Place Rockford, IL 61108

Posted by: Steve Hudson on December 10, 2005 12:23 AM

 

Jake, would it be possible to get pics emailed to me of your pogue endeavor? I am very interested in what you have built. My email address is a couple of posts back.
ken55ford2001@yahoo.com

Posted by: K C on December 12, 2005 08:23 PM

 

Ken,
I can send you pictures of the carb but it won't give you any idea of what is inside. To look at it from the outside you only see the external steel that surrounds the inner workings. If you have ever seen a picture of the pogue carb you will notice that it has a spray chamber that creates a very rich mixture of fuel by spraying it through nozzles. I created a chamber just for this and used a holley 110 fuel injection pump to provide the pressure to the spray nozzles. The idea is to make sure you create a mixture so rich that it won't burn. Now I piped the super rich mixture out of the top of this container and routed it through an oven that basically consist of a bunch of passages inside a round tube. The idea is to bring the rich mixture in contact with the heat in the oven as much as possible. This will dry the liquid droplets of fuel thus turning them into vapor. Now comes the hard part........now that you have a dry gas vapor how do you mix it with the incoming air and control it in a way that it is a calibrated mixture for the engine to use?! I suggest buying a propane carb and using it as a mixture device. I fabricated a single butterfly carb that was less than impressive.

Some things to think about before you get motivated to build.....How will you heat your oven....It needs to reach 400+ degrees to evaporate the ingredients in todays gasoline. Vapor burns so cool that the exhaust temps drop to a level that I couldnt even get to 300 degrees without increasing the rpm's to 2000. Another thing to consider......a propane carb needs 1.75psi operating pressure to work so you must find an air pump that you can use to pressurize your system with. I am sure you are noticing that there are an amazing amount of very important details that are left out of the description of these devices when you read the patent. I have been looking for a long time now for a heat source that would provide 400 degrees in an automobile......I haven't found an air pump that would work for the system either....
I don't think pictures would give you enough detail of how I built this carb but I would be happy to email you some drawings of the internal workings? Let me know if your interested.
I will always find hope where others only see failure:)
Jake

Posted by: Jake on December 13, 2005 05:17 AM

 

Hey Jake. Thanks for the answer. Yes, please email me what you have and maybe we can expand on them. Ken

Posted by: K C on December 13, 2005 07:49 PM

 

Hello Ken,
Did you get the sketchs I sent you?
Jake

Posted by: Jake on December 17, 2005 05:34 PM

 

Hey Jake. Yes I got them. Sorry to say I have been really busy. Working 12 hour days no days off since I got them. Then the holidays... Hopefully get right to this after the holidays. I do continue to research all I can about the related items we are talking about. I do have resources to do up a system, just gathering knowledge at this time. I'll get back to you later. Thanks for the info and more insight.

Posted by: K C on December 20, 2005 11:35 AM

 

Damien,

probably what you heard about it carbide, not carline. Here is a bit of information

carbide   

any one of a group of compounds that contain carbon and one other element that is either a metal, boron, or silicon. Generally, a carbide is prepared by heating a metal, metal oxide, or metal hydride with carbon or a carbon compound. Calcium carbide, CaC 2 , can be made by heating calcium oxide and coke in an electric furnace; it reacts with water to yield acetylene and is an important source of the gas. Barium carbide reacts similarly. Aluminum carbide reacts with water to yield methane. Some carbides are unaffected by water, e.g., chromium carbide and silicon carbide . Silicon carbide, almost as hard as diamond, is used as an abrasive. Tungsten carbide, also very hard, is used for cutting edges of machine tools. Iron carbides are present in steel, cast iron, and some other iron alloys.

found on http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/carbide.asp

I remember people talking about using this for lamps, but be warned - there is danger of explosions. It does not seem to be an effective fuel, probably because it costs more than what we are using now.

Sepp

Posted by: Sepp on December 22, 2005 03:09 PM

 

If you want the most power for the least amount of fuel, use a jet engine. Thats why the airforce changed away from internal combustion engines!

Posted by: Ginger on January 6, 2006 11:34 PM

 

I have thoroughly read this entire discussion. There is a lot of good info here, mostly trial and error, but hey it works. A couple of you guys mentioned hydrogen. Here is a site that I found and I plan on reproducing this unit as it seems to come from a legit source. Check out this site:

http://members.fortunecity.com/freeenergy2000/hydroboost.htm

Also, personally I think some of you guys should do research on Lean burning engines. They are mostly made of ceramic's that can withstand very high temperatures that would normally melt a cast-iron motor. Toyota has been experimenting with Lean burn ceramic Diesels for the european market, but odds are if it is developed, it won't be here in the states for another 15-20 years. I personally built a Chevrolet 396 with ceramic coated pistons, intake and exhaust valves, and a coated cylinder head chamber for durability. This is pretty strong stuff. You can put a blowtorch right up to the pistons and keep it there for a couple of minutes and it won't do anything. The Thermal Barrier works and might be something to explore in addition to vaporization. My motor should be able to take some leaning in moderation, although gains in Gas mileage would only be moderate, not 100 mpg. If I got 20 around town, I'd be happy. Just my two cents
-Cory

Posted by: Cory on January 8, 2006 10:40 PM

 

Enjoyed scrolling through and reading the various posts, but the naysayers are not far from us. I also remember reading about Smokey Yunick's homemade V-2 engine in a VW Rabbit that was in the April 1983 Popular Science and how the doubters came and drove his vehicle and wondered why it wouldn't knock when trying to start out in 4th gear. Turns out that when you fully vaporize your fuel, the knocking problems are basically nonexistent. That was the result from a friend of mine in Utah who had taken off the RH exhaust manifold from the 350 V8 engine in his full-size 1974 Chev pickup and installed a homemade heat exchanger, that had 16 feet of black pipe inside, which vaporized the gasoline when the tubes were exposed to the hot exhaust gases. He started his truck on the 4 barrel Quadrajet carburetor and when it warmed up he shut off the gas flow to the carb, let the float bowl run dry and then switched it over to the vapors from the heat exchanger, which were fed into a modified propane-mixing device on top of the carburetor. I drove the truck one time and we were on the highway when he asked me if I wanted to try his vapor system. I said "yes," so he shut off the fuel to the carb, let it run dry and switched over th the vapors and the truck picked up some speed. What was really interesting is that the acceleration was so much better than the regular carburetor. It isn't like it had the power of a supercharged street rod, but it was definitely an improvement. He claimed 30 MPG with it, and I have no reason to doubt him. We still need to ask ourselves, like someone stated above - if our modern fuel systems are so wonderful, why do we still have to have EGR valves and catalytic converters? Some people have theorized that a piece of nickel and/or platinum attached in some way to the top of a piston and the cylinder head actually helps gasoling to burn better in the combustion chamber. I don't remember if anyone above talked about the Fish carburetor by Robert Fish (he has four patents in the USPTO)
and how it improved mileage simply by providing more streams of gasoline, which would then vaporize better.
You can buy almost anything in this world for money - even good ideas and inventions.

Posted by: Leo R. Lindquist on January 24, 2006 06:33 AM

 

Use hot air from the exsaust manifold to the intake manifold. This has been a garded secret for a while as car manufacturers make us believe the opisit:

Build shrouds around the exhaust manifolds. Most engines already have a shroud on one side. V-8 engines must have two shrouds t: .? enough hot air.
Heated air works with fuel injectkn too.
If you have a thermostatically controlled, vacuum actuated flap ~ your air cleaner intake, remove the control valve and add the second (from the shroud you built) to the of the air cleaner intake. You must let NO cold air enter the air cleaner Yet you must allow plenty of air to the engine. I have found that a lot a air cleaners do not have large enough intake tubes and constrict the amou-of air going into the engines to the point that they actually lose power.
You will find that replacing the flimsy aluminum tube that came with your car with flexpipe to be a good idea. There are several different types of flexpipe, some for exhaust, some for protecting electrical cables.

If you try it you wont be disapointed and its more than safe for an engine. Temperatures are down because of better vaporisations. If you have the now how also lean the engine down as the engine will be a little richer due to more vapor.

All due credit to George Wiseman at Eagle reseach for this idea and also a local in my town did this as well with good results.

Posted by: Damien on February 5, 2006 09:49 AM

 

I am not technical but very interested in the subject. I want to mention the use of kerosine or petroleum in an engine. Is this possible? Kerosine may be less "polluted" than gasoline. The behaviour of kerosine must be considered; ignition temperature, engine pressure and so on.

Posted by: Hendrik on February 8, 2006 10:33 PM

 

Wesley Gary's magnetic motor design found at www.fevj.org/FEV-magnet-motor-by-W-W-Gary.php - as well as several other sites - is as simple as putting 2 permanent magnets facing each other so that they attract then, put a small electromagnet between them, with 2 sets of contacts mounted so that as it approaches either magnet, its poles are reversed
and it is repulsed back toward the other with a lot of force! It is a design simple enough for anyone to build with little expense!

Posted by: greg on February 11, 2006 03:53 AM

 

hey jake
have you ever thought of using gas made from corn to run the pogue carb?
i know that it is totally clean burning with no additives and it increased the gas mileage on my 93 suburban from 18 to 35 mpg.
it has 235,000 and runs better now than it ever did before.
i had the pogue plans but have since lost them.
i saw it on a 67 galaxy 500 back in 70 and it got the 200 mpg.(could never find anyone to build it for me)
it just seems to me that if you could use the corn fuel it might get even better than 200 mpg.
in ww2 the japs used this fuel to fly their planes like we used the pogue to run our tanks in africa.

Posted by: terry on February 12, 2006 03:11 PM

 

http://waterpoweredcar.com/1978camero.html

I think these are genuen watercar plans using a plasma spark simular to JLN labs. This is a totaly different approch to what i have normally seen using electrolisers but worth reading and deciding for yourself. Click on the plans and also have a good read of this entire website

Posted by: Damien on February 15, 2006 02:13 AM

 

I know for a fact that holley made a carburetor for a 82 dodge pickup with a slant 6 it got 27 mpg with all kinds of power. This carb. was not suppose to get out of the factory, Could not get a carb kit for it. It was not listed in the holley book for a rebuild kit,the carb it self was not listed in the price list. not bad for a full size truck.

Posted by: paul on February 20, 2006 07:18 PM

 

installed KUSTOM KARB KIT ON 2001 S10.INCREASED MPG BY ONLY 1 MPG.

Posted by: EDW. on February 20, 2006 11:35 PM

 

terry, question for you.
You say,
I had the pogue plans but have since lost them.
I saw it on a 67 galaxy 500 back in 70 and it got the 200 mpg.(could never find anyone to build it for me)

Did you actually drive the 67 Galaxy or know someone that drove this car that got 200 MPG.
Or the paper said it will get 200 MPG.
There is a big difference between actually seeing the car get 200 MPG and only reading that it will get 200 MPG.

Posted by: Dan on February 23, 2006 12:26 PM

 

HELP FOR PRODUCTS OR INFORMATION TO GET BETTER GAS MILLEAGE ON FUEL INJECTION 318 DODGE ENGINE IN B250 CONVERSION VAN.ALSO 318 ENGINE WITH CARBERATOR IN A 1979 COACHMAN LEPRACON RV.ALSO 1990 OLDS.SMALL CUSTOM CRUISER SW.WITH 3.0 6 CYL.FUEL INJECTED.THANKS.GARY COOKSEY 781 AARON WAY BRANSON MO.65616 PH.417-334-9593 EMAIL GARYLEECOOKSEY@YAHOO.COM

Posted by: GARY COOKSEY on February 26, 2006 09:39 PM

 

These are small differences you can make to gaining small but simple increases to better MPG.

I have tried the first one with the oxygen sensor: see below

Cover Oxygen Sensors with Aluminum Foil: Wrap your oxygen sensors in the exhaust pipe with 7 to 10 layers of shiny foil.

Advantage: The car computer system depends on the oxygen sensors to adjust the air-fuel mixture being fed to the engine. The cooler the exhaust gases, more fuel gets sent to the engine. The hotter the exhaust gases, less fuel will be sent to the engine.

Directions: To seal maximum warmth inside the exhaust pipe, insulation in the form of Reynolds Aluminum Foil is employed to insulate the oxygen sensor. Wrap five inches in front and five inches after the sensor to keep it much warmer. We double a one-foot section of foil and wrap that around the pipe and around the sensor itself. Do not remove the sensor. Then we repeat the process four more times. Finally we use .030" copper or aluminum wire to wind around the aluminum foil to keep it from blowing away and be sealed against water. The wire comes from any welding supply. The goal is to fool the car's computer into sensing too rich a mixture so it adjusts with a slightly leaner mixture and possibly a slight advance in timing. The end result is smoother engine operation and better MPG. This trick is especially important in severe winter climates.

I have tried this one and normal rules are if an oxygen sensor gets hotter it is lean and tells the computer to richen, but the oxygen sensor doesnt work unless temperatures are above 600deg in the exsaust which i found out on a site so the computer if it doesnt get a response from the oxygen sensor automaticly richens the mixture.

I found this hard to believe but have tried it and since the engine is 20% quiter and alittle bit more efficent.

When you do this just think what you can do to the intake air sensor. Me personally i would add hot air. I cant do this one cause i made a manual control to trick the computer : see below

Use Warm Air Intake:

Modify intake to draw warm air near radiator.

Advantage: Deliver warm and smooth air to the intake for best MPG.

Directions: Disconnect the cold air hose or housing from the fender well. Remove filter. Clean up the parts. Bore about 10 1-3/4 inch holes into plastic housing (if this applies) to draw air from the engine compartment directly to the air filter. Deburr the holes and clean the parts. Plug up the cold air inlet leading to the air collector box. Reinstall the air filter assembly. This will improve the engine Thermal Efficiency and mileage.

I am to try this one next week. Basicly i would just make a shroud to sux intake hot air from the radiater with out any extra cold air coming in.

George Wiseman from Eagle research has done simular to this but using heat off the exsaust manifold with good results.

When i try this next week or so ill post the results.

Posted by: Damien on February 28, 2006 06:44 AM

 

If you want to see water burn on fire check this site

www.joecell.com.au/video.html (sorry, link gone bad - Sepp)

and go to the bottom of the page and download Sols BNE download video. You will need cable or broadband for a fast download which it will still take 10 mins to do.

Know this vid goes for 10-15 min but watch it all and wait till they show you how to light water on fire.

They will say they are using negativly charged water which is a alkuline water from an irionizer.

If you dont know what a irionizer is just email me and ill send some plans how to make one as on the net there expensive ($1000 plus for something so simple) and you can build one for under $50 if ya skilled

The alkuline water from an irionizer you can drink and is very pure and it burns if ya do the right experiment same as the vid.

I would recommend you to download this vid quick cause i recond it will disapere eventually and burn a copy and keep it if your a enthusius researcher

Posted by: Damien on February 28, 2006 06:56 AM

 

dan
yes i saw and road in the car.
the guy had a device that showed the car got 200mpg.
it had lots of power.
i road in it for about a half hour.
have you ever seen one?

Posted by: terry on February 28, 2006 07:58 PM

 

i am from melbourne australia. & yrs. ago I rebuilt my 79 old wagon ( ford ) It ran on straight gas similar to camp stove gas. But for the auto industry . A 5 speed manual . 29.88 mpg on a trip & 24.5 around town . If I had been given all the secrets I have been told close 33mpg . on a trip . This fuel was a 3rd of the price of petrol at the time .

The man that told me how to do this ( john bennett ) did the same car on petrol with only some of his tricks & achieved 39.88 mpg . A friend of his that owned the car said it was an 3 speed auto . We actually belive that wec ould achieve 55 mpg using all of johns tricks .

my personal car had 20 -25 % better torque.

My old boss just passed away & he built a carby out of perspex 15 - 20 yrs ago & got 63 mpg out of a GM 6 cyl. The only problem is that it would ice up . Yes people the vapour system similar to pouges carby .

Posted by: Robert Phillips on March 6, 2006 08:51 AM

 

We're building a 100 mpg Saturn

This and other vehicles are being modified and all details will be fully disclosed. Also debunking and testing devices and products of all kinds. Follow discussions at mpgreserearch.com

Posted by: Wat R Burnes on March 9, 2006 03:45 AM

 

Sorry folks, you're all dreaming. Everyone knows that for emissions purposes todays cars are tested for unburned hydrocarbons at the exhaust. I've had 18mpg non catalytic engines showing less than 200 parts per million of hydrocarbons in the exhaust. This means that more than 99.98 % of the fuel was being burned. There's nothing left to get extra energy from. The fuel is a fine mist when entering the combustion chamber and when the pressure is increased 9 times on the compression stroke it ALL explodes. Carnot's theorem dictates the maximum possible thermal efficiency in any heat engine as being wholey dependent on the maximum temperature in the cycle. You'd need temperatures well over 10,000F to get efficiencies that would get 200mpg on a v-8. The maximum temperature you can run any engine at is limited by metallurgy and lubrication. Your pistons and valves would liquify instantly at 10,000F, you're oil would turn to carbon at 700F. This is why engines have thermostats at 180F, to keep them from frying. These phantom carburetors are all nonsense. The honda insight which got 90 mpg did it with a tiny, low friction loss engine, outstanding aerodynamics, and by running at near full throttle and then coasting a while, all at 35 mph or so. This type of driving maximizes fuel efficiency, as gas engines run their most efficient( hp per unit of fuel consumed) when running wide open (highest safe combustion temperature, and lowest losses from engine vacuum pulling against the pistons during the intake stroke). The car company that comes out with a 200 mpg conventionally sized car would make many many billions in its first year of production. They havent done it because it's an impossible dream to do it with just a carburetor. Sorry folks, but you're all dreaming.

Posted by: Ken Jones on March 11, 2006 07:48 AM

 

Ken Jones must be one of the Petroleum Company staff or sort of. Don't fool us with your words of "wishdom". I have seen a small drop amount of fuel ignited with tremendous heat and light generated. Those people died after invented something which can threaten the benefit of petoleum company will die. Aren't it that way? They will assainate who ever try to make fuel uprofitable.

Posted by: Robert on March 17, 2006 10:15 AM

 

Ken Jones

Obviously you have learned what you know from a text book. A text book tells you what you can and cant do.

Just like a water power car is imposible ay. The people that have made such a unit never read any info from a text book. They went and did it.

George Wiseman from Eagle Research built many fuel saving units and never was trained from a text book.

A text book is made from and designed to tell you what you need to know. Vested intrest (Oil companies) spend lots on helping designs on what machanics need to know. Thats why you see donations of equipement to collages so they got thier foot in the door.

They dont want the secrets to get out so they loose money.

If you believed everything that is written from a text book you deserve to be the normal idiot that will get now where in life.

Just like our doctors text books. There are plenty of cures for cancer but our docters arnt trained for this cause our governments cant afford to cure everyone. Its a fact.

Pull yta heads out of the sand and explore.

Sorry...Ken Johns how much do you get paid to write that garbage you just wrote on behalf of what ever oil intrest.

Posted by: Damien on March 17, 2006 12:42 PM

 

the problem with a 200 mile per gallon carburator is that if you want to get a patent for it it is like a free energy device which falls under the dept.of defense so if you apply for a patent you cant do anything with it for ten years.the govt.has all the info they need to produce these but they are so tied in with oil companies and big dollars that it will never happen.they just dont care

Posted by: george on March 18, 2006 01:43 PM

 

Sorry guys, I'm just a damned good mechanic/world class mad scientist tinkerer with a mechanical engineering/thermodynamics background, I'm not an oil company assassin or spokesman. Truths: yes, you can improve gas mileage by running as engine super lean (up to the point where it starts misfiring), yes you can use exhaust heat to provide heat of vaporization for your fuel and improve your mileage slightly, yes you can fool with air fuel ratios and intake temperatures to the point where your engine runs weak and thus gain the benefit of running nearly wide open just to produce half the horsepower( wide open throttle reduces losses due to engine vacuum pulling against the pistons on the intake stroke). High temperature intakes also reduce the density of the incoming mixture and keep the engine from drawing in a large volume of air, killing your maximum horsepower. It also immensely increases nitrous oxide emissions (causes smog) . You can do much better by putting a 20 hp conventional engine in your car and running it wide open all the time. You can run an engine with water injection in the intake, thus increasing the density and volume of the intake charge and get more available horsepower( the same thing happens with good old fashioned nitrous oxide setups you see at the race track) but you'll also just be using MORE fuel boiling all this water and tossing the steam ( and the energy it took to boil it) out the exhaust pipe. The sad truth is that unless you want to run with no power or fry your engine in a few hundred miles,or unless you have huge money to build an engine that can withstand super high temperatures by using ceramics, titanium, and some nonexistant miracle oil that won't degrade at high temps then you cant beat a smaller harder working conventional fuel injected engine. Believe what you want, believe in your conspiracy theories if it makes you happy, but the fuel injection computer knows far better than you guys how to get maximum efficiency without pollution. Dream on guys.

Posted by: Ken Jones on March 21, 2006 06:10 AM

 

Ken

I take it you have played or experimented with EFI vehicals or know someone that has and failed.

I can explain this and its a simple modifacation to trick the computer. If you add a fuel saver of some sort eg a vapor system, water injection or extra fuel system the computer reads it as extra vacume and adds fuel. George Wiseman over come this problem with a simple mod to trick the computer and no engine parts got extra hot or melted.

I have also proved you can run a car on vapor (experimeted with an MGB with SU carbs) as well to cut down the fuel usage on the carb as not all fuel vaporises.

EFI is a different kettle of fish to play with when adding any vapor unit such as the HYCO or what ever.

Ken you being a scientist enthusist or hobbyist or what ever, would you agree with me that only vapor burns in a engine.

If only vapor burns in an engine we can lean the engine down and run it but the engine will get hot and start doing damage.

Car manufactures overcome this by richening the fuel system which is what we know to slow down the heat process.

Ok why cant we keep the engine lean and then use water injection or a vapor unit to cool the temps down.

Would you agree by only using vapor in a engine that it would run cooler. Would you also agree that you would have more power as only vapor burns.

If we had a system with adding more vapor so we can cut back our exsisting fuel system would you agree that we can throw away the catalac converter.

Ken if your a smart man which no doubt you are what would happen id you decided to start using a pump to blow bubbles in your fuel tank. We would creater more fumes or vapor is that correct.

Lets forget the danger of a backfire as this can be overcome with a backfire arrester or one way valve.

If we were to add this vapor to our exsisting fuel system wouldnt we lean of the carb.

Ok number one Temps wouldnt be as hot cause more vapor is burning than before. You have the vapor burning from your normal carb with this extra vapor so we now have more vapor in our combustion chamber than before with more power and less polution is that correct.

We can govern how much vapor we want by how much air we blow through the tank.

Now im not considering that we could also use a water heater hose and heat up a return line if we had one to create extra vapor as well in the tank or using a heater water coil in the tank to get more vapor as well.

Ok we still need to run a carb or injecters to swirt some fuel as not all fuel can vaporise completely.

Also Ken what would happen if we started heating up our oil vapor from the breather on the cyclinder head or tappet cover that goes to the intake manifold. If we wraped a copper coil around the exsust manifold and sent the oil vapors from the engine and heated them up arnt we breaking it down into a burnable state. I have proved this on a desiel and now get an extra 28% milage by something so simple and cheap.

People say what if you got a back fire well iv been driving the van like that for months and months and havnt encounted such thing.

So Ken what we have to ask is how much fuel in our fuel system acually burns as vapor to combust considering our catalact converter burns most of it cause we need an engine to be richened up so it dont melt. Id say less than 40% actually burns in the combustion chamber if that.

We all read from a text book what we can do or cant do. But is our text book genuan.

Oil companies control car companies and also machanics are only taught how to fix something, not make it better.

Why arnt machanics taught this. You cant tell me its a conspirisy theroy.

I am currently working on the Joe cell which is a water fuel cell. Scientist say it takes to much power to create enough hydrogen to power a car.

Well the Joe cell uses water but you dont need lots of power to run it. You and others say well keep dreaming your being conned.

Well at lest 6 people i know has a working unit and im going to see one in the next week or two and will take my cell with me so i can be shown the craft of it to get it running myself.

This unit can do well over 400kms on a cup and a half of water.

No one can explain how and why it works. No text book even mentions it and denys such thing is posible.

Explain that. No comspirisy there, just a working unit that no scientist invented, a back yard guy with no scientific education invented it and many other backyard guys are getting thiers working.

Ken we have to ask our selves is the text book viable with what it says, is it genuan.

If you want to fly over and come with me to see this working unit you are very welcome.

Throw away that text book and start gain.

Posted by: Damien on March 22, 2006 01:07 AM

 

Damien, I truly wish you luck with your endeavors. I do have a couple questions though. My old carbureted 351 windsor ford van (18mpg/ pretty good for a clubwagon)) with no catalytic converter had less than 200 parts per million of hydrocarbons in the exhaust. That's less than two one hundredths of one percent of unburned fuel. If the fuel were a hundred dollars, the unburned fuel in the exhaust would be two cents. IT ALL BURNS!!!!!! On the compression stroke the temperature rises to over 200 degrees, the pressure goes to 150 psi and then when the plug fires,bang, the temp and pressure go way up in just microseconds, instantly vaporizing and burning any little miniscule bits that are left, providing there's enough oxygen. Fuel injection just works as a perfectly regulated carburetor does. Again,yes, you can get efficiency gains from recycling exhaust heat back into the intake but only by sacrificing available power,increasing pollution ( nitrous oxides) and reducing engine life if you actually get it to run well enough to use. Show me a v-8 car that gets 80 mpg on the highway (with no hidden fuel delivery devices) and I'll eat a dozen hats,without ketchup. As for the water car thing..... Also, if you had any formal college engineering education you'd know that it's ALL about making things work better,more efficiently in every way, and that most universities encourage free thinking and experimentation so the students can learn what works and what doesn't through practical experience. We did hands on labs with vaious engines from turbines to wimpy glass walled single cylinder engines where you can literally see the combustion process to old v-8s and we varied EVERYTHING to find what efficiency you get under what conditions. It's fun as hell and the students figured out the results on their own. You only understand half of what's going on. Pick up a book and learn the rest.

Posted by: ken Jones on March 22, 2006 08:25 AM

 

I appreiate your comments John and wish you luck in the future.

Look up Geoerge Wisemsn at Eagle Research and make a visit at his lab and look at some of his stuff.

Also the above comments i made on some of the vaporisers i encourage you to try them or at lest try the oil breather line bypassing with a copper line around the exsaust than returned to your intake vacume.

I at least would love you to try it to see my point. If its a V8 you have two exsaust manifolds so you can wrap more copper line around it. Try it, it wont cost you much and it will take between 1-2 hours worst case senorio to install it.

You will definatly get results.

If you have experience at thermo pysics like you say you do, you should understand the concept.

Oil vapor will burn if broken down by heat.

As for my bubbling the fuel, get a spare small tank and try it.

I could garranty you if you tried any of my concepts instaed of automaticly denying it works your V8 or truck could easily achieve double or more than you get now.

Posted by: Damien on March 22, 2006 01:40 PM

 

Well that strange. Since those Oil company take control of the automobile industries, I can see the fuel price keep rising. The internal combustion design were pretty standard. As you can see Ken now cars were equiped with engines running hotter and hotter in general, aren't you agree with me. which means that
engineers were restricted to break their rules in emission control design to make thier cars run more efficient and will never go beyond 40mpg .

And Ken, I would like to let you know that where's the unburned fuel gone. They slips thru you engine piston rings and into your engine oil. Your engine oil will get "diluted". The bore will eventually worn out and become oval shape. Take your engine apart and check if I were wrong. I bet you should know this if you are good mechanic. Conduct a simple experiment when you change your engine oil, take some new engine oil, burned it. Then test again on some used engine oil, which one burned easier. We like to hear from your answer. This is another way the oil company make $$. We do need to replace lubricant frequently. We all want to improve things. We don't want to be cheated.

Posted by: Robert on March 23, 2006 06:19 PM

 

Inherent in some recent comments on engines running hot and the need for cooling them down, here is an entry on a new-technology wiki that may be interesting:
Crower's Six-Stroke Engine
Achieving a means of harnessing engine heat, Bruce Crower's internal combustion engine adds two strokes involving the injection of water, which immediately turns to steam, expanding the chamber for another cycle. Process keeps engine running cool.

By the way, a wiki allows editing and adding-to the information by users. Check it out!

Posted by: Sepp on March 24, 2006 09:25 AM

 

A little tidbit from a recent email received, to stimulate thought:

"Im doing research on Charles Lidburg: We suspect that he used a vapor helper carb on his flight from NY to Paris. He traveled 3,600 miles and took 450 gal of gas. He had 85 gallons left upon landing. The wright whirlwind J-5c a 223 HP a 9 cylinder radial motor wt was 2,150 lbs. The motor was said to consume 10.9 gallons per hour.
it was stated that the spirit of st louis had two independent fuel systems that fed the motor.
He switched fuel tanks hourly. Over the 33 1/2 hour trip he started out consuming 13.6 GPH on the first of the trip and then burned 6.3 GPH on the rest of the trip. We think Lindburg had ties with Carter carburetor in st louis. That still must be confirmed. We may have seen drawings in 1982 of the vapor helper device that may have been on Lindburgs airplane. More research needs to be done.."

Posted by: Sepp on March 27, 2006 10:39 AM

 

I think we are looking in the wrong area for being independent of them Foreign Oil Countries and their cronies (Oil Corps). I think we could do better perhaps by looking at other alternative fuel sources, like Hydrogen fuel from water, Ethanol fuel from any organic sources, etc. This will free us of their Death Grips!

Posted by: Lee Tonga on March 30, 2006 03:56 AM

 

Hello

Some of you would have been aware that Bill Williams in the US got a joe cell running and he was openly logging posts on various forums about his experience with the cell over the last month.

I just got a phone call by a guy that has been talking to Bill Williams. Bill was suppressed this week.

Two men approached him and run him off the road while he was driving, knocked him to the ground and told him to get out of alternative energy. They were carrying guns and made sure he was aware of it. They had a file as thick as on evidence of what he'd been typing on the net and surveilance files.

They also revealed following his family and taking pics of thier moves (havnt we herd this before)

Bill has now destroyed the cell and all relevant data.

If you read George Wisemans Extreme Milage he states this tactic is their first way of scaring people.

So it is true people that suppression is happening and its up to us to let it out even if it cost us our lifes.

Damien

Posted by: Damien on April 11, 2006 03:01 PM

 

Hello

I went ans saw a working Joe cell unit and had an experiment of water turned to fire. I evenly tasted the water before it was split.

Its all about changing the frequency my friends.

Its all for real and not a hoax

Damien

Posted by: Damien on April 18, 2006 11:10 AM

 

Hi
I am 20yrs old and from a small Nebraskan town Of 50 people. I just stumbled on to this and was thinking of building some type of device to try on my 65 dodge dart and maybe on some other vehicles. With plenty of time on the wkend and custom fabrication and welding skills and access to a junk yard for free i figure i can just about build anything for nothing. If anyone could send me some plans to get better economy to try out on my cars that would be great. Thank you
Don

Posted by: Donald Gerdes on April 20, 2006 11:38 AM

 

I dont see the logic in still being able to generate the HP out of the vapor carb. Can anyone give any test results of HP produced?

211 out

Posted by: 211 on April 21, 2006 07:24 PM

 

Damien, who is this Bill Williams?
Do you have a number I can reach him at?
If Bill Williams has an alternative energy source.
I will give him the names of 2 MIT professors with connections that will work with him to get this technology on the market.

Posted by: Dan on April 22, 2006 10:15 AM

 

If you go to this forum you can biuld such a unit like Bills.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JoesCell2/

You do need to spend time having a read of the forum as being spoon feed will make you learn nothing.

The joe cell will be abit complicated for you to get ya head around but before any of you say its a hoax or it dont exsist. I saw a working unit last week and also have 2 units here nearly ready to go.

Dan Bill was suppressed not long ago and distroyed everything to do with the cell but others on the forum have working units.

Damien

Posted by: Damien on April 23, 2006 01:49 PM

 

I have tinkered with vapor over the years.I would love to talk to Damien in person.
I am a machinist abd have access to all machines I would need. manual or CNC.
Thanks Don

Posted by: Don on April 24, 2006 04:57 AM

 

Don

My email is damiencheryl@hotmail.com, Im in Australia. Feel free to drop a line.

Cheers Damien

Posted by: Damien on April 24, 2006 02:26 PM

 

send more pictorial info please thankyou,

Posted by: dave milne on April 25, 2006 11:17 AM

 

I would like to know if anybody has tried Calcium Carbide and water with compressed air regulated to the fuel ingectors.
THANKS JOHN

Posted by: john diamanti on April 25, 2006 06:44 PM

 

I'm just your average teenager with a hole in his pocket; however, I would like to increase my mpg drastically. I am by no means mechanically inclined, but I do come from a long family line of mechanics. With simple instructions by someone here and a little guidance from my family I would like to accomplish this feat. Please email me with some instructions to increase my mpg.

Posted by: Aaron S on April 25, 2006 09:42 PM

 

Btw my email is bnstg@bamfeffect.com
Again thanks.

Posted by: Aaron S on April 25, 2006 09:43 PM

 

Pitty Bill, again the Oil Corps is aftering him. Dam those guys to hell. I think the Oil corps never going to let hime roam freely.

Posted by: Robert on April 28, 2006 10:50 AM

 

When I was stationed at Offutt in 1978 a friend and i worked on a way to increase gas milage. we ended up getting 45 miles per gallon with a winabago it had a 440 chrysler and we were driving it across the flat land of NE on I 80. the device was simple we used a one inch copper pipe with a coil of 1/8 copper pipe through it. we ran heated water through the one inch copper with a manual control valve on it and ran gas through the smaller pipe this was injected below the carb. we also had a shutoff for the gas to the carb and a control valve for the gas. we were just starting with this when we were getting the 45 mpg. my friend was offerd a large sum of money to stop the testing so we did.

Posted by: Tim on April 29, 2006 05:53 PM

 

Is there anything to Tilley's claim to have an electric car that needs little or no external battery charging? His claim is that he can maintain highway speeds for an unlimited distance without recharging the system?

Posted by: CF Farlin on May 1, 2006 03:42 PM

 

A notice on the Pureenergysystems site:

Joe Cell Seminar

July 30, 2006; Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Immediately Following the ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference
12:30 pm - 5:50 pm

Peter Stevens, from Australia, will give a five-hour workshop showing how to build a Joe cell, how to install it on a car, and how to run the car on the Joe cell -- with the car's fuel line disconnected.

Posted by: Sepp on May 3, 2006 11:57 AM

 

Sepp

Iv visited Peter a couple of times over the last month and hes got one of my cells which i built to his specs to run it on a 186 holden motor for dynoing. It will run on just the cell 100% with 10000 rpm plus on my cell no probs.

Iv just fixed my second cell up that Pete checked and will have it running on my desiel by this weekend (not 100%) and ill have a play with that then transfere the cell to my MGB and run that 100% on the cell. But the joe cell isnt 100% reliable as it does stop for no reasion sometimes.

Iv videoed some special things like water burning on a table by upseting the frequency of it. (I tasted it first) as well as the does and donts of construction of it. The cell is only a capaciter and thats it nothing eles.

Somehow it is turning the incoming air into a combustable fuel which no one can explain. This cell breaks all scientific laws and scientist and engineres dont want to know about it cause it threatens what they have been taught by non scientific guys.

Iv seen it run and went for a ride in the van (smoking the tyres in the main street of the small city) and well how much better does that get.

Posted by: Damien on May 3, 2006 05:02 PM

 

Hi Damien, I have been reading up on the Joe cell and there are a few guys who say that Joe is not being frank with everyone and keeps the info to himself while laughing at the people trying to copy what he has done. Can you give us some insight into what is going on there. Is this thing really working, I do not mean to imply that you are lying and I aplogize if I have offenede you but there is alot of holabalu about this device. I hope that my apparent scepticism does not anger you. I am not trying to be a sceptic as those who obviously work for oil, car or gov agencies. I only want to get the the bottom line. I have tried to go to some of the sights that you have mentioned but there are no plan, here is the method or design, sites that just plan blurt out the truth without trying to decieve us. One guy is trying to do all he can to give us the real scoop and dispell all the false info. What we really need is for you to do the same and I hope that you are. Again, no impication of skulldugery on your part is intended. I hope that you can email me an give me the heads up on what is going on so I can enter the world of the Joe cell and create one for my humanitarian purposes. If people do not just give up the goods they are only painting a target on their heads and sooner or later, probably sooner as we have seen by the annals of history will have a small hole in the front of their foreheads and a rather large one at the back. It is only as we share the information we have that we are safe and can destroy the controlling power that is strangling our world and we as the ones who live on this planet. The process of destroying our ability to share and surf the net has already been developed and will soon be put into use. Very soon we will not be able to go to sites that have this information and they will forever be closed to the masses. Let us get the info out now to destroy the suffocating hold that the few have on us before we lose that ability forever. Believe me, they have already developed the ability to blackout websites and they will use it soon for sites like this one and every other free or alternative energy site that is on the web. Now is the time to strick before the closed door blocks out the info we could have had had we not been so selfish and greedy. I hope that everyone takes this serious as the time is coming soon. It is not a falling sky but the closing of our free info hiway that will prevent us from moving forward into a bright and free future. I hope that you can email me Damien and give me more info into the Joe cell and your experience with it. Thanks. And is any of you make such stupid comments like I do not know what I am talking about in regards to the closing of the net you should open your eyes and put your heads out of the sand before it is too late.

Posted by: Perry on May 4, 2006 07:53 AM

 

It's really quite simple. All you need is a water cell with electrodes immersed into a solution of sodium hydroxide dissolved in the water. If the cell is connected to the engine's charging system and is in series with a pendular switch to cause it to cut in during decelaration or braking, then you will recover some of the lost energy during negative torque. In this way you can test the claims of such inventors as C.H.Garrett.

Posted by: Frank Skroh on May 4, 2006 10:56 PM

 

Perry

Your right with what you say and i agree totally as iv spent time on this cell and have pulled my hair out to.

I am in the process of organising someone to upload a short video on how to do it. Its all made and ill post the site its on when the vid is uploaded.

The cell is more simple than people think. Joe has just tried to confuse us but since doing some research its comming together and i feel i just need to tell people how to make a simple cell.

Think of the cell as a capaciter only. You need as little electrolisis as posible. The smallest cathode needs to be at least 2 inches not one. Humes RRJ rubber orings are to be used as insulaters.

The cell and tube is to be mounted 4 at least 4-5 inches away from the wiring, any hoses as the invisible energy will attch itself to it and not go to the engine.

This is where people get it wrong.

Peter Stevens will be at Utah doing a seminar like Sepp said at the testla conference.

Damien

Posted by: Damien on May 5, 2006 12:49 AM

 

www.joecell.com.au/news.html (sorry, link gone bad - Sepp)

Perry if you go to this site and download interview with Peter Stevens and have a read especially at the charging process it might answer some questions.

Now when you read the charging process take note the neg goes on without the pos for 20 mins first. Strangly the neg is doing something to the cell without the pos. Science doesnt teach us this and wont.

People will be very sceptical on this an i dont blame them. Its new to most people that have never herd of it. The key to the cell is have an open mind.

If anyone says its a scam well iv meet the 2 inventers and they have never earned a cent from it and givin all these years to it and they dont want a $ from it.

I asked Peter why he chose to see me and he said i can tell by talking to you with your enthusiasm that you were determin and not a tyer kicker which is 97% of people that see him just waste his time. You need an open mind when playing with this cell.

People like Ken Jones wont succed cause they are to skeptical and only believe what the text book says.

I ask you Ken Jones this. Have you seen burning water cause i have and i tasted it before we upset the frequency of it and it was just water but at a special charge like the joe cell.

Ken science tells us we cant do this explain that. Ken iv never seen an engineere do this or invent it did i. The guy had no education but a hell of an open mind and thats why he did it. And thats why this guy can run a car without a cell or anything with no fuel. Its all in front of you. You just need to work it out. Clues-read walter russel and tesla info and if your determin youl work it out over time. Ill leave that subject alone.

Posted by: Damien on May 5, 2006 01:09 AM

 

Gasoline vapor. I belive this to be the answer to the fuel problem. I have built a carb that runs a lawn mower very well. Just havn't had the balls to hook it up to a car engine for fear of backfire. On the lawnmower engine it was simple, just used 2, 1'' check valves and never had a problem. Anyway, How it works is very simple. I know almost everyone has smoked weed from a bong. This is the best way to explain it. The bowl would be the air cleaner. The bong water would be the gas. and the top of the bong would go to the intake. Keep in mind you need to be able to inject clean air in the line just before the intake to the engine with a valve to adjust the air to air/fuel mixture or it wont run becasue it's too rich. The more air that bubbles through the gas the better vapor you get. And best of all, you don't need a regular carb to get this to start either, the vacume from the engine cranking over has pleanty of suck to draw the air through the fuel. All this is fact, now for my theory. you'll need to keep the fuel level the same in the carb all the time, or the fuel mixture will change and will run too lean or rich. This will also happen with temp. the higher gas temp, the richer it will run. This will be a constant battle. Injecting alittle water sounds like a good idea too as I think this engine will run very hot. Anyone have any ideas on the backfire problem?
P.S. I cut the grass with this mower to this day. I can't notice a power differance but, it takes longer for the engine to recover from a near stall in like foot tall wet grass.

Posted by: Brad on May 5, 2006 03:52 AM

 

One more Theory for you guys. If your looking for the most efficient car. I would use an electric motor for the power. And use a 10 or 15 hp small engine running on the "Bong" carb to power a high output alternator (300 amps). This would only have to run when the battery gets low. Therefore you would not have to worry about slow engine recovery. I would also charge this at home with a charger. I think electricity would be cheaper than generation your own with gas, even gas vapor. I sure wish I had the time to build this. Any comments? Someone please ease my mind by telling me this wont work.

Posted by: Brad on May 5, 2006 04:12 AM

 

Hi Brad,
You need to look at the Tom Ogle vapour carb set up. It uses a system that gets rid of the carb all together and feeds vapour into a vapour exchanger that allows the vapour from the tank to mix with fresh air. The vapour comes from the tank and it goes through several other stages that keep it a vapour until it enters the engine. Many people have been going at this thing the wrong way. They are trying to improve on a carb that puts to much liquid gas into the engine and will never improve mileage like we want it to. The Ogle vapour system improves it to the max and it was all documented and reported in the news media and print in the late 70's. Of course Tom met with a tragic suicide death like his friend who happened to be under his car when it fell of the jack stands. Hi Bill Williams, at least your were not under a car when they came to talk to you. So, we know that the Ogle system works as two people who were associated with it have died by accident? or suicide? if you know what I mean. The same thing that is happening to the people who are associated with the Joe Cell including Joe X. I wish people like Mark Roger and good old Ken Jones, I just got my paycheck from Exxon or some other oil company would stop harrassing those who have more upstairs than the typical marblehead couch potato. Yes Ken and Mark, we know you know everything that you could learn from the schools and books but real thinkers think outside the box or books. We can think Einstien that he thought outside the books. Can you imagine where we would be if he did not come along when he did. Ken, you remind me of the pope who told Michaelangelo that he was infallibe and that the sun spun around the earth. Michael Angelo know it was not true but had to recant to keep his head and neck attached. Those were the dark ages and it seems you miss them so why not go back to them and leave the new Michaelangelo's alone proving that the sun is the center of the system and it gives off orgone that we can collect and use to power our cars. We can get alot more power out of our gas and it is not a hoax or farce as proved by all those that die because they stumble across this precious information that the greedy selfish and inteligence impotent powers want to bury along with those that they have murdered. Have a great life paying $20 a gallon we will be just smiling along at the tire kickers and sceptics as we travel to those far off places while the rest of you stay at home because it is just too expensive to go any where. Oh, Brad. If you make a Joecell it would power a stationary motor much easier than a car and you would have all the free electicity you would want. Also if you do a Ogle system on a generator you would probably be getting alot of power for a very small fraction of the price you would pay to whoever is stringing the lines to your house. The Ogle will get a 4 banger going 320-360 miles per your small US gallon so what could it do with a constant rpm genset. Think about that one Ken and Mark and don't come back with I am dreaming. I am thinking. There is a difference. Maybe you should try it, outside the book sometime before you get left in the past with the majority of the people who believe exxon shell ford and all the rest. Have a great day. Oh, Damien, I have been getting on to some other sites and have found alot of info. I am looking forward to your info about the easier way of putting a cell together. I like the comment made that we do not have to buy cylinders that have been cut by vestal virgins in the black forest during moonlight. I laughed for half an hour over that one. Take care all and have a great day. It is there just make it and go.

Posted by: Perry on May 5, 2006 10:08 AM

 

Damien,
The Joecell site you listed is dead. I wonder if they are already killing sites as we speak. It won't be long before the dark night decends upon us again unless you are like Ken and tow the book knowledge line and stop trying to impove the lot of the human race and let the Un just kill the 6 billion that they want to exterminate because the planet cannot exist the way it now with so many and they don't want to have it any other way. Let everyone live happy healthy and kind to each other, what are you nuts. Blood and guts Bush would never hear of it. I am getting political and this site is about getting the mileage at the least price. JoeCell and a Ogle while you work on the cup of Joe to tye you over.

Posted by: Perry on May 5, 2006 10:19 AM

 

The joecell site listed by Damien is on line. Just went there to check.

I have livened up the link to be directly clickable.

The dark times are not (yet) here...

Posted by: Sepp on May 5, 2006 11:03 AM

 

Joe cell

You dont need any stage 3 set ups for finding the right charge for the joe cell. You also dont need lots of bubbles like everyone thought.

Joes videos showed heaps of bubbles and everyone thought this was the key to a happy cell but its not. Joe and Peter later discovered that the energy wasnt poring of the bubbles, it was poring from the plates. This is why we dont need any electrolyte in a cell so its not important to have a so called stage 3 setup as Alex says.

Peter says that sometimes people have a working cell but dont know it cause they think heaps of bubbles are the go. Once the construction of the cell is correct than you have to be wery of where to mount it. Cause if its near any HT leads or water, air,fuel lines the invisable energy will jump up to 4 inches to any of those pipes and the energy wont go where you want it to. This is also where people get it wrong. Some cars it is imposible to find a good spot but you can mount the cell on the floor where the passenger sits but the tube to the manifold must not be attacted to any rubber from the firewall as the rubber shorts the cell out. Freaky ay. I use to believe this energy was orgone but now im not so sure. Iv seen this water from a cell cure artheritus (sorry i cant spell) some cancers and other disorders so water is very powerfull. What we are doing is using the universe powers to put back into our body to alline it. This cell does other things but if i told you youd think im full of .... but this energy was put on our planet for us to use. The government chooses not to let us have it as they dont want people living longer. This technology also is the answer for droughts but again people are very skeptical and governments are powerfull and dont want us to know this. Everyone who does it gets the MIB treatment. I can have rain in 2 hours but in the wrong hands this enery can be harmfull.

Ill tell you this 2 of my fiends iv talked to have been harast resently and dont want to be named cause the MIB theatened to throw acid on his daughters face and also have broken into his house and stole all sorts and his wife now has a bad heart so hes stoped for peace for her.

This stuff is real people and anyone who says they will stand up to these MIB idiots are lyers cause they win in the end. God will punish them and the bad for it one day.

The key for a working unit is only think the cell is a capaciter not an electrolisis unit. Follow the latest plans by Peter Stevens and youl have it. Have a positive aditude when working with the cell or it wont work.

A friend of mine built a cell for a friend and they were travelling around Australia with a joe cell and the guy had an arguement with his partner and the cell stoped. It happens with these cells. They are tempramental there not perfect like humans. Water does live if you let it weather you believe it or not.

Tap water is dead, distiled water is dead, Tank water can be dead unless it has a charge and the correct charge. Folks we dont understand the potentual of water because we are not told cause science and orthorities are ignorant and want us to be unhealthy and die early.

I feal Ken Jones bitting at my ankells

Alot of people in Peters area have working units but they all keep quite. They also dont have the need to search on the net for alternatives.

Posted by: Damien on May 5, 2006 02:26 PM

 

Brad your a crackup. They way you descibed vapor using a bong mate. Its funny but very true. Id like to have a beer or two and a laugh with you my friend.

Cheers Damien

Posted by: Damien on May 5, 2006 02:39 PM

 

Stop your crying and research Stanley Meyer's Water Powered Car. He has many patents.. Its not that hard to understand its alot easier than those carbuerators

http://www.lonelantern.org/h20poweredcar.html

Posted by: Freedom From Enslavment on May 6, 2006 08:03 AM

 

Is there anyone in the northern Indiana or southers Michigan who whould want to partner to make a joescell?
I own a machine shop where parts could be made. I would like to learn more but as I have read people keep silent. I would like to attend the meeting in Utah but it's a little far. Will he be in the midwest?? What are the chances of the meeting being shutdown due to some not wanting this getting out?
Thanks Don

Posted by: Don on May 6, 2006 08:31 PM

 

I think everyone seems to be sincere who has posted here. I am not technically or mechanically oriented. I cannot evaluate the likelihood that one technique will work better than another, I do not have the knowledge or experience. What I think is important for all of you, as well as for the rest of us in the "lay public" regarding Pogue carburetors, etc., is to be sure that some common sense, critical thinking and objectivity come into play, at least at some point. May I expand on this?
I'm sure that every one of you considers himself objective and full of common sense. OK. I feel that way about myself. But, there are people (well intentioned of course) who are "true believers" and have the very deep faith, akin to religious faith, that certain things are true. Reincarnation, Immaculate Conception, the Chupacabra, Life After Death---even the straight forward question of whether there is a God or not, I mean, take your pick, there are thousands of topics that fit this concept. For some people, these issues are accepted as fact, out of faith.
I have met people who believe in the Pogue carburetor in the same way a religious zealot has faith in his brand of religion. No factual proof is necessary, because they have the faith. It almost comes to fisticuffs if you trample on their "faith" by pointing out some objective facts, and putting in a dose of rationality about the whole thing.
But, does this mean that EVERYONE who touts the Pogue as reality is therefore accepting this on faith, in the sense of a religious believer, without objective proof? Well, no, that doesn't seem valid, either.
So, can we say that people who believe in the Pogue carburetor, and people that don't believe in it, are equally intelligent, sincere and (can we be generous?) open minded?
My own take on this subject goes thus: This thing was designed 70 years ago. Since then, no one has put a working model into production and on the market. All we hear are the original claims from the 1930's, and stories about someone who knows someone who heard from his barber's cousin, who stopped at a gas station once in Canada in the 1940's, etc.
Gentleman, I for one would jump at the chance to have a modern Pogue carburetor, that actually works, installed on my car. How much do you want to charge for it? I believe that millions of ordinary people, with no "faith" OR technical knowledge, would buy one if it were shown to actually work in the public arena.
We're not talking about constructing a space shuttle orbiter in your garage here. Common sense would lead one to believe that a device like this, if manufactured with metals and technology available in the 1930's, should be able to be made by one of you handy gentlemen out there, and proven to work. I hear the explanation about the difference in gasoline refining techniques, and that the gasoline itself is different these days. Boys, come on, where is that good old American (and Canadian!) ingenuity? Figure out a source for the kind of gasoline you need, contact a chemical engineer, contact an organic chemist, there must be literally thousands of people with the knowledge to help you solve THAT problem.
I think what this boils down to, is: the plans for this are available, they went off patent around 1953. Don't misplace your plans, as so many evidently have done! Keep them in a safe place. Construct the device, experiment with it. If Pogue could do it in the 1930's as a machinist, why can't you do it now? Find the gasoline you need, and why not ask if that type could be produced today in massive scale, if the decision were made to do so. (Someone here mentioned ethanol--what a great idea, is someone looking at a Pogue handling ethanol?) If you could make a device, and in an objective fashion, demonstrate that it "works" as advertised, and give this information to the press, Department of Energy, your local United States representatives---with the problems with oil we have NOW, do you really think no one will listen to you? Do you think the Chinese or Indians would not listen to you? Do you think the Europeans, with what they pay for gas, would not listen to you? Common sense dictates that stories from the 1930's and Faith alone will not do it; you will need to produce evidence that can be replicated (the scientific method, gentlemen) by others.
Many of you disparge the university trained engineers. It's almost as if they CAN'T know anything, because they have been through a formal engineering training course, and have read a textbook. That's as closed-minded as saying, without further investigation, that the Pogue carburetor is nonsense, because I can't buy one at the local parts store. Of course, look at the Wright brothers. What a shoe string operation they had, and on the cheap. No one believed what they believed. Think about it though. 11 years after their successful experiment, brave men were flying around in the skies over Europe killing each other, with the undeniable proof that "it worked" taking them into those skies everyday.
Boys, now is the time. You have never had the attention of the media and the public and I think even government representatives, as you do now. Foreign governments are competing big time for the oil. If you can actually prove this thing (or something like it) works, you'll be in the cat bird seat, and we'll all benefit from your efforts. None of us care if you have a degree in engineering or a GED and are a natural born genius mechanic. (I have a doctorate, not in the hard sciences, but so what? My money is as good as the next person's, if it comes to standing in line to buy one of these carburetors that actually works.)
I am rooting for you, as are millions of others. Good luck, and we're waiting to make you a billionaire.

Posted by: Mike on May 7, 2006 12:42 AM

 

Thanks Mike for running off at the mouth....but the cold crel hard fact of life is this >>>>>YES BIG OIL COMPANIES DON'T WAN'T THIS TO HAPPEN....WHY U ASK...THINK MAN THINK....USE THAT MELLON OF YOUR'S FOR ONE SECOND>If the rate of oil consumption drops guess what happens to the value of oil jackass!!! what a freaking moron Oh and by the way oil companies buy patents so they aren't used think about that one..einstien ....To QUOTE BILL ENGAVAL "HERE"S YOUR SIGN"

Posted by: Michael Penrod on May 7, 2006 07:01 AM

 

Mile P
Now be nice to Mike as he is your name sake. He is confused by the book sellers and acedemia and has not found enlightenment as yet. But Mike seriously, do you think that all those tank drivers etc from the wars were lying to get some sort of reaction from their stories. You have to have an open mind in some things. The powers that be do not want this stuff to hit the streets for the simple matter of losing their strangle hold on the world. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If all had this tech no one would bow down and worship them and that is what they crave most. The worship of the masses. The are demi-gods blood thirsty and megalomaniacs. Just try to piece it all together and the light will eventually come on and you will finally come to the realization that we are trying to get you to see the truth for what it is, the truth. Come to the light side and leave darth and the other's in the dark side before it is too late and you are lost forever and no use for the forces of good.
On another note, Damien. The schematics that are downloadable from the site you have here, thanks, I was able to download it and read it earlier but the diagrams depict a cell with a flat top and not the all important cone that many funnel down to in their reasoning, sorry for the pun but I just couldn't help myself LOL I had a good laugh anyway. so what about it do you have any insight about the flat top as opposed to the conehead design. I do not remember Peter mentioning it in the interview. More power to ya and keep up the faith as Mike has pegged us with. The dark days are not here yet but they are coming very quickly and most people will be like well like they are docile lambs to the slaughter.

Posted by: Perry on May 7, 2006 08:44 AM

 

Perry

Top cone isnt important but its better. Bill Williams didnt use one he had a flat plate setup. Peter Stevens earlyer cells and todays one of his still has flat plates so its not as critical as Alex says in his book.

Mate im doing my charges up today so tommorrow i can test the cell in the car.

The comments by Mike i find are fair from someone who hasnt researched much on these subjects. but Mike we dont have working Pouge carbs mate for one reasion.

Over the years oil companies keep changing the reciepie of fuel and changing it to not vaporise as much. This has been proven when Pouge had thier carb and people started buying them than the oil companies changed the blend of fuel to upset the metal in the carb and to knock out some of the vapors. This sent Pouge broke which was the objective of oil companies. This has been proven when Tom Oggle had a vapor system and 90% of vapors burned but he still had 10% of fuel in the tank that wouldnt vaporise so eventually he could have a full tank of fuel that was gunk and non vapor. If you want to understand his system type it in ya search engine.

Ethonal is put in our fuel so we burn more of it cause it doesnt vaporise as much. That is why governments push for this.

Also oil companies pay scientist and engineres to write up crap about these inventions and how they were a failure to put people off like they did with Paul Pantone and his geet system.

Im going to leave you all with a comment that some of you will take notice.

Our universe is a living forum. If we upset it, it will get the shits eventually.

This is its way in America with how they treat it by giving them cyclones or tornatos and giving people cancer at an early age. America isnt 100% of the blame at all but its a big population with power and controllment by thier government. There are healing powers there and the joe cell is one example if you know how to use it. It is grabbing the universe powers and putting it back into our bodies if we let it. This is also the reasion why this unit can make rain within 2 hours if you charge it outside.

Mind blowing and it sounds like crap but my friends science doesnt tell us how a joe cell runs a car so dont believe even 50% of science its mostly lyes anyway to keep you and i inercent. If you think its crap explain why an inventer i know can run a car without a positive on the coil and without a spark in a petrol car. Ill keep him nameless for safety reasions

Damien

Posted by: Damien on May 7, 2006 09:08 AM

 

Damien,
What is the web address of schemetics that Perry talked about? I also agree that BIg OIL has suppressed any inventions that has to do with high milage systems. A V8 engine of today does not do any better than one of 20+ yrs ago! Look at the advances in computor technology in even the past 10yrs, if our fuel system would have folowed the same rate of development then our cars would be getting great mileage. The only thing the computorized fuel injection
on todays cars do it just makes it more difficult or impossible for todays experimenter/inventer to even be able to work with it. Does any one know it peter will have another seminar here in the US?
Thanks Don

Posted by: Don on May 7, 2006 03:07 PM

 

Don

If you go to: www.joecell.com.au/news.html (sorry, link gone bad - Sepp) and go to interview with Peter Stevens there are cell drawings and also a guide.

If you build your cell you can email your pics to me and ill see if your heading the right direction. Any 316 will do the job as we have found out.(we were taught to use non magnetic but now this has changed as its not as important as we relised) so we can have magnetic in the SS Pete dont care about magnatism.

Posted by: Damien on May 7, 2006 04:49 PM

 

Tim

Thanks for sharing your story about the winnebago with the 440 chrysler. Its sounds like you were simply injecting hot gasoline into the motor. I have a 1994 chevy truck with throttle body injection. I am considering making a similiar device that would heat the gasoline with hot coolant from the engine so that the throttle body injectors would be spraying hot gasoline into the intake manifold. Has anyone ever tryed this with todays gasoline? Comments anyone?

Posted by: Brian on May 8, 2006 05:13 PM

 

Hi Damien,

Thanks so much for the tips, on the joe cell, I have
mine almost complete, quick question will run a 2 stroke mower engine? I just getting ahead of myself here.

Cheers

Mrd

Posted by: joe cell enthusiastq on May 10, 2006 12:32 PM

 

Hi Again Damien,

I forgot to mention, as we were testing our unfinished cell, that is the outer tube wasnt a cannister yet, i.e (we had the thing in a plastic bottle), my friend was trying to see what reaction was happening in the cell, by using his flash light which was almost flat, note, his garage was poorly lit. After a few minutes i can remember excatly how long we were using the torch, all ican say we werent using it that long, when the torch just got really bright for no reason at all. I did ask him if it had a faulty connection and maybe the batteries were not making good contact, but he said no it was flat.

So what we will do when we get the chance is see if we can reproduce this type of phenomenon.

has anyone possibly experienced this?

Cheers

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 10, 2006 01:04 PM

 

MRD

Mate a glass bottle with a plastic lid will work as a Joe cell with 4 inch long tubes between 2-3-4 whatever. As long as you hook it up with neg earth to the body of the car and a sperk gap tube near some area on or near the intake.

Strange phenomenon will happen with these cells cause science doesnt teach us. What we all forget and dont understand is the joe cell in my eyes doesnt put out orgone or cosmic energy. It puts out a frequency to the engine to irionise the air with of cause the correct timing.

This may become abit of a shock to people and i dont blame them if they think im full of .... cause they havnt been taught.

Petrol, desiel doesnt burn or is flamable, yes it lights but only so called vapors burn. It ironises the air in a state to burn which science doesnt teach us.

If you want to prove this to yourself get a wiper sniper motor or small 2 stroke and run it than cut of the fuel and get a hose and suck the air from inside a frezing frezer to the carb without any outside air going in to the motor and it should still run or run ruff but if it does run ruff it needs less or more timing depending on the frequency.

Back to what im pointing to the joe cell is only changing a frequency to the engine for it to run if your doing it without fuel. People dont understand this and get side tracked cause of all the crap on the net. If you dont learn to understand the joe cell or what it does you havnt got a hope in hell getting it to run.

Just remember our world govenments want us to be blind and we are. They do this by telling us what we can do in a text book and what we cant do.

See if you can read what Hitler did by using floride to feed people to help stop thier brain from thinking heaps so they couldnt challange the government or him.

Our governments tell us today that floride is good for our teeth and it probably is and they put it in toothpaste and our drinking water in some states to help our health but all its doing is killing a side of our brain to stop us from chalanging orthorities.

You dont believe everything experts tell us, dont forget they were brainwashed to.

Think outside the square and one day you will reward your self with supprises everyone eles cant do cause they have been told they cant do it hey Ken Jones.

Posted by: damien on May 10, 2006 02:54 PM

 

Sorry about the spelling but late nights do it for me.

One more comment: Why did Yull Brown and Stanly Meyer get cars running on water and not many other people did but thousands are trying. Cause they found the frequency to ironise the air in a state of explosion or implosion.

You dont need lots of amperage or current to do it. Its the frequency of changing the air structure to explode or implode. Ill keep my sources quite that showed me this for saftey reasions.

Posted by: damien on May 10, 2006 03:02 PM

 

Hi Damien,

I know I won't know until i do further testing, and thats why i can't wait to get my cell up and running, this makes sense, since the flash light did get brighter, infact it was very bright. Ill see if i can do this again.

As you said, I'm tending to agree with you that this 'orgone' isnt prob whats driving engins, and could be really a state of whats happening with the air, this i think maybe more plausible.

further testing i will do.

Also, I was trying to clean the tap water, and provide a charge, i didnt get to do it correctly, I was following Peter stevens, pdf, where he does say you can use tap water, as long as you clean it and charge it correctly, just wanted to know in that respect,if im on the right track.

The cells that youve seen working, do they goto stage 3? I think you already mentioned that this is not important.

by the way you are correct about 'floride', i didnt realize, that it was there to control the masses. bloody hell.

eat a green apple would be the way.

Again thanks

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 10, 2006 04:55 PM

 

No you dont need any stage 3 forget about that rule. Remember the water in the cell is only holding a charge and nothing eles. The cell is only a battery or capaciter.

When you filter the tap water than charge it like Pete says, let it sit for 24 hours for the heavy stuff and light stuff to settle at the top and bottom of the cell.

Tip the top of the water away and only use the middle of the water. You might have to do a couple of charges for this but dont use any of the bottom of the water in the jar. You will get some setiment. The water can sit in a bucket or glass jar to settle.

By charging the water like Pete says also cleans the water thats why we leave it to settle after a charge before we use it.

I like you enthusiasm MRD you one of the few around.

Posted by: MRD on May 11, 2006 12:50 AM

 

I have read all of these posts and want to get started on a cell. Like what has been said before it's hard to understand the princible behind the cell.
Does anyone know if Peter will be anywhere else in the US? I posted this before but maybe no one knew. Does anyone know or how to get in touch with him to find out?
Don

Posted by: Don on May 11, 2006 01:38 AM

 

Don if you go to this site youl see all the details of when Pete is heading to the US.

http://pureenergysystems.com/academy/JoeCell2006/

Cheers Damien

Posted by: damien on May 11, 2006 03:29 AM

 

Hi Damien,

I'm to enthusaistic and too excited, and so are some other people who know what i'm doing, i think I've got a group following happening, this i believe is the only way people will realize, that gov's and corporations shouldn't be dictating what energies they want us to use...pollutive and disgusting.

The problem that they don't like is because its for free, for everyone, thats why we have MIB visitors, threatening our lives. Theyve killed people in the past and continue to do so. Watch V for Vendetta, this is a great movie, where people are being cohersed into 1 lateral way of thinking, fear is a powerful tool govs use.

Its a real shame really. Anyway the news is getting out there about the Jcell, the more exposure it gets, the harder for them to contain it.
The internet is great tool to get the message out there.

Enuf of my ranting, I wanted to ask you for more advice, regarding the cleaning and charging of water, would 12volts at 1amp be ok, or should i be using something with more current and voltage?

I have people asking me questions on certain details which im not sure about, soon though i will be finding that out.
Also regarding the cell itself, I was thinking of building another test cell, using 3 cylinders only, 2, 3 and 4 inch, at 100mm length, I feel this be ok say to run a small 2 stroke motor, for demonstration, or should i make it longer?

The current cell which is almost complete, has 1,2 3 and 4 inch, Im going off the plans on the net 1,2 and 3 inch are cut to 200mm and the 4 inch is the outer cannister which is at 250mm, was going to use a pvc lid for the top, pressed in.

Another question i wanted to ask you Damien, does the joe cell cause a pressure build up while its working? I'm thinking safety here.
And how long do i charge the cell while in use, that is while motor is running, I was thinking of using a 555timer cct to switch it on for a short while then off agian, then on, while motor is running.

Sorry for busting you, I'm just to excited and want to get this to work with minimum of playing around.

Again many thanks, i'm glad i found this forum.

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 11, 2006 06:26 AM

 

Car Runs On Water

I recently received a email concerning a article by wheels24.co.za about a car that runs on water.

The gas is produced On Demand ....well close enough, only a litre is stored at anytime.

This has sparked my interest

The below is the text from this link here

www.wheels24.co.za/News/SCOOP-SA-Car-runs-on-water-20041015 (link no longer active)

Quote:
SCOOP: SA Car runs on water by John Oxley

15/10/2004 12:31
A South African inventor claims to have developed a device that allows an ordinary car or truck engine to run on water - with no air pollution. And it's relatively cheap!

BMW's expensive 7 Series hydrogen car carries hydrogen gas on board and requires special hydrogen filling stations

What's more it cuts servicing costs because the car's oil is not as easily contaminated as it is on a petrol-engined car.

Developed by Nelspruit research and development company Ku-Shan Technologies, the device uses electricity from the car's battery to turn water into a gas known as hydroxy, or Brown's Gas.

This gas is then re-aligned using Ku-Shan's process - patents have been applied for - to make it suitable for use in an ordinary petrol engine.

"It's not that the technology is new - it's how it's done," Ku-Shan CEO Danie de Beer told me.

Outside the box

"There are other people working on this at the moment. Sasol (the South African oil-from-coal giant) has been trying for four years to get it right. But it all depends on the way you are thinking.

"We think outside the box, and we have come up with the solution in 2 1/2 months."

De Beer said the main problems to date had been that it took more energy to produce the gas than could be got out of it.

"In the beginning we had the same problem," he said.

"Then we got to where we are now, where we get a lot more out than we put in.

"The amount of electricity consumed is no more than required to run one of the car's headlamps, but we can run a big Pontiac V8 fitted into a Volkswagen Kombi.

More power

"With this conversion the engine runs cooler and you have about a 5% performance increase.

"The oil stays cleaner for longer and there are no more harmful emissions, the only thing coming out of the exhaust is steam and oxygen."

He said he came up with the idea from a movie about a man who invented a hydrogen engine that could run on water.

"I did my homework on the unit used in the space shuttle - it's not high volume, but it's efficient", he said.

Apart from its low cost - De Beer expects his 22x12x12 cm device to cost between R5 000 and R7 000 - the device is much safer than current hydrogen-car technology, which requires large amounts of explosive hydrogen gas to be carried inside the vehicle, as well as a network of hydrogen filling stations.

No explosion risk

"We are generating the gas as we are using it, so there's only about a litre of gas in the system at any time, not enough to do any damage if it explodes," he said.

He said there was only one drawback at the moment, but this could be easily addressed.

When hydroxy is held under compression, without being ignited, it reverts back into water - and this small amount of water can cause rust inside the engine if it stands for a long period.

"The car needs to be in daily use because of the water aspect," he said.

However, special coatings, similar to those used on dragster cars adapted to run on nitrous oxide, could be applied to the engine to prevent rust build-up.

"It's not a serious problem," he said.

De Beer said he was currently looking for investors to take the device to market.

Posted by: Dan on May 11, 2006 07:42 AM

 

Well I feel that there will be another dead guy in the world very soon if this guy is so vocal about it and the thing is so cheap he will bring the wrath of the powers that be down on his head and we will be reading his obituary very soon. I would hope that this guy would just put the device on the net and realize that this is the only way that he will keep his head attached to his neck and remain in an upright and breathing condition but people just don't learn from the past or the mistakes of others. Trusting the gov or anyone and trying to get the thing to market is the sure indication that he has not let people in on his secret and it will die with him in the not to distant future. Then another one who figured it out will be on the list of those who did but didn't live to see it come to fruition. I hope Mr. De Beer will read this and realize before it is too late that the only way to stay alive is to share the teck so it is out there like the Jcell. There is only security in mass knowledge, they cannot kill all of us so they will kill none of use. To many know so the only way is to smear us and hope it will not take. Sorry charlie not going to happen with the Jcell. You know, I like the sound of that, The Jcell. In honour of Joe of course. So Damien, you are saying that you don't have to have a total SS unit that it can be glass and plastic. Have you had a plastic unit working just asking not trying to get your back up mate. Let's just get the info out before the net is bagged and tagged. I know Sepp, not yet but it coming very very soon and when it does we will be surprised at how soon when we are not able to talk to each other anymore about the Jcell adn other stuff. Mark my words. Get what you want off the net now before it closed for service. Open to sites that tow the party line and keep the peace. That means taking your daily dose of flouride and using gas or diesel like any other upstanding citizen of this dark and dying world. Remember that the powers that be are not interested in your life. They are interested in your death as they want to lower the planet pop to somewhere before half to one billion. Guess who they want to see take the voluntary pill oh did I say voluntary oooopppsssss. You get the picture. . Think I am nuts or just conspiracy theorizing. Use your mellons and smell the postum before it is too late. The use has already pulled the wool over everyones eyes as to 9/11. Lets not allow them to take the Jcell and other teck away so get it down and store it safe because it won't last too much longer. Take care and keep an eye out as big brother with his big gun is coming to visit you if you are not careful. Keep your head down Damien and the rest of you! Watch your six.

Posted by: Perry on May 11, 2006 02:34 PM

 

A galss Jar with tubes will do it as well. Peter has sujested to use a car battery as we are not using any electrolyte. When you run the tube to the manifold with the spacer tube in between you put the tube on a firm but half loose fit incase of any pressure build up but youl be safe as long as your not trying to make heaps of hydrogen from electrlisis which is what we dont want to do. Dont use any 555 timers just straight dc current only. We are not in the bussiness to make hydrogen here, we are only introducing a frequency to give the motor to run with or without fuel.

Mrd go back to the joe cell downunder site and have another read of Peter Stevens interview on the charging process.

Just remember that the Joe cell isnt 100% reliable and it will be easily upset by other frequencies like negativity, powerlines, weather ect. I dont think the oil corps are that wrorried about it unless your in the US cause not anyone can get a unit going for various reasions plus it takes a good minded person to do it and if it dont work try something eles or go over what you did.

Peter Stevens has been around it for a while and people in the BNE club play with it and they havnt been touched.

The joe cell will never be 100% due to water being so sensitive but the easiest way to have reliability is use it as a hybrid on the vehical with fuel onboard so if the cell goes down you can still drive.

Just remember fuel to an engine is only frequency, A joe cell to an engine is only frequency. What is the frequency we need to run a car without a Joe cell. Think about it.

Im going to leave you with a thought. When we run out of fuel in a fuel line and the engine momentery picks up revs than dies when the fuel runs out the engine is trying to tell us something. We are running a hot spark and the fuel gets hot and the engine dies on a lean out, what do we need, think about it. Its not the fuel burning its ironisation saturation in the combustion chamber. Dont wroory what engineers say believe me im correct on this, this is what your not supost to know. The fuel is only adding a frequency.

Why does the joe cell make an engine run, cause its only adding a frequency to the engine. Why have other inventers had fueless engines that no one can explain. Cause they have found a frequency that the engine will run at.

Why did Yull Brown and Stanly Mayer get cars running and thousands of others cant do the same cause they stubled across a frequency that the engine will run.

You dont need big electrolysers to make hydrogen just the right frequency plus not many people know this but Yull Brown found out that Hydrogen and oxygen dont mix with each other so he seperated both with 2 different outputs and youl find Danial Dingle did this but everyone goes of and tries to make mega electrolysers that dont do much and chew up mega power.

Science wont agree with me here, engineers wont agree with me, but why did these people do it, they didnt go and research info on the net or were told what they can do and cant do.

I am trying to give everyone an idea how to approch whatever your trying to make to save fuel. Also we are falsely taught about electricity to but ill go into that one other day.

Posted by: damien on May 12, 2006 01:20 AM

 

Damien,
I really enjoy reading your posts here! Very interesting.
I look forward to starting as soon as I can get a little free time. Again is there any one wanting to partner with making a Jcell??
Thanks Don

Posted by: Don on May 12, 2006 03:26 AM

 

Damien, thank you so much for your input, tonight we will be welding a base plate, (i.e using ss arc welding rods) for the cell and capping it with a pvc lid, but before capping it, we will be cleaning and charging the water, getting it ready so to speak. I will keep you upto date with our progress. Ill remember its the frequency that the device creates and not hydrogen, thanks so much here.

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: Mrd on May 12, 2006 09:36 AM

 

Hello

I went to a place today with a guy with working joe cells. When he charged the water he let it sit for a couple of days until his multimeter read negative .2 of a volt which is a negative cell but he said it will stay posative voltage for the first few days than drop negative. He says that is what you need which i had this feeling for a while and he confirmed it for me. I have only let my water sit for 24 hours and not measured it so i have to sit the water longer. So your cell has negative power for example we can go to air temp 2-1-0 deg outside but we can go negative 1-2-3 deg and so on. Our cell should do the same thing with voltage before we put it on the car. It will take a further couple of days to get the car to except the energy fields.

I just wanted to tell any joe cellers this cause iv had this feeling and in the past Alex and others said dont put a multimeter on the cell but you dont now if you have a charged cell until you know you have a negative cell. But only do a quick measurement with the multimeter as you dont want to upset the voltage to much.

Posted by: damien on May 12, 2006 10:28 AM

 

Hi Damien,

Just regarding below info from Peter Stevens:-

Water Cleaning and Charging
You can use water out of the tap as long as you largely clear it of the chemicals
put in there by the water company (alum, chlorine, flourides etc.}. To do this you
can use a cell.
Put your tap water in the cell then do the procedure described above under
"Applying Electricity�?. Put the negative of your 12volt battery, battery charger or
12 volt dc supply on for between 2 and 20 minutes at the base of the cell,
then put on the positive at the top of the cell's outer cylinder for between 2 and 3
minutes leaving the negative in place, then take off the positive and leave
negative on for up to an hour. Pour the water into a glass container or plastic
bucket. Repeat. After 24 hours what will happen is the chemicals in the water in
the bucket will have become solids; some will have dropped to the bottom and
some will have risen to the top, depending on what charge they acquired in the
process. Pour off the solids at the top, then pour the middle (clean) water into
your cell, then throw away the stuff in the bottom.

END.
does Peter actually mean this:-

1. apply negative for between 2 to 20 minutes, to centre pipe bottom.
2. then connect the positive on outer tube, leaving the negative still attached, the positive should be on no more than 2 to 3 minutes
3. take the positive off and leave the negative on for an hour
4. poor this into the bucket and wait 24 hours, then take the crap from the top.
The centre of the water should be poured into another jar, and the crap on the bottom of the bucket thrown out.
5.Then this clean water poured back into the cell, and process done again.

Is this how I should read the above info?

Also I have a 1 inch pipe, would the cell work better if i took the 1 inch out and just had, 2 3, and 4 inch?
the nuetral plate will only be the 3 inch pipe. Sorry for the questions, I hope I havent bugged you too much.

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: Mrd on May 12, 2006 04:44 PM

 

Hi Damien,

Forgot to mention, the outer cannister, we did arc weld it with ss rods, but it didnt look good so we cut it and instead glued a pvc bottom on the 4 inch diam pipe, this provided us with good insulation from the rest of the tubes. were in the process of cleaning and charging the water, I'm assuming what I stated before is correct, regarding this process.

Thanks again for your help, and I have taken note about this other guys results regarding leaving the water for 2 days. could you confirm about that one point, does he have the negative connected for 2 days?

cheers,

Mrd.

Posted by: Mrd on May 12, 2006 05:00 PM

 

All above is correct MRD. dont forget to read about sparking the tubes first by getting a small voltage of 6-12 volt at .5 to say 3 amp dc and put the neg on first on the bottom outside of the tube east and hold it there and get the positive wire on the inside top of the tube west and give it a quick short or spark as this will get rid of any frequencies from welding. This should be done regardless after each or any charge when putting any new water in the cell.

Posted by: damien on May 12, 2006 11:02 PM

 

MRD no neg is connected while he waits for his water to be connected but ill try it with the neg to see if i get a neg voltage still.

Posted by: damien on May 12, 2006 11:07 PM

 

Thanks for the advice, yeh read about the sparking. He mentions about hitting the tube with a hammer to disrupt the ions in the metal. I will do as you say.

Again thanks very much for your input, I'll contact you soon.

Cheer

Mrd

Posted by: MRD on May 13, 2006 02:00 AM

 

Hi Damien,

You are correct, the ss 4 inch pipe did magnetize after the welding was complete, we will try to demagnetize the cylinder, by striking it with 12volts. I am also getting another cylinder made up, but this time high frequency TIG welded, regardless though, everytime I change the water, I will try to demagnetize and test the tubes.

Best Rgds,

Mrd

Posted by: Mrd on May 13, 2006 09:02 AM

 

I haven't read all the posts, but if no one's posted the oringal patent diagrams for the Pogue, here there are:

http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm

Posted by: Dan Ormond on May 15, 2006 06:46 PM

 

I have a copy of the booklet:
100+ miles per gallon seminar by Richard J. Goranflo from 1981. It contains the Pogue Carburetor, Fish carb, Nay Box plan and Davies HMC installation.
Also Carb Research Center plans for the Impro 70 vapor carburetor and George Wiseman's Super Gas Saver Secrets, 1990.
Check out the new steam engine for cars:
www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/updating_the_st.html
And A-21: Alternative Fuel:
betterworld.xwire.com/BWZ/9602/product.htm
All these inventors and we should be getting 100+ MPG in our cars. Its politics and Greed.
Just like Cancer Research: www.worldwithoutcancer.com. Laetrile worked too good and is inexpensive. Branded as a quack treatment by AMA & FDA. Imagine if Laetrile cured all cancer. Billions of dollars in Chemo and Radiation treatments would be lost. Its Greed and Murder.

Posted by: Harry Rainey Jr. on May 16, 2006 05:47 AM

 

Hi Damien,

when this water settles, do you know what the sediment looks like? I have done it once, but there wasnt alot of crap on bottom and definitely nothing ontop of the water.

Could you give me hints on what the water would look like after using peter stevens procedure for charging and cleaning normal tap water.
Are we supposed to add anything in the water?

We also sparked the cylinders individually, but this really didnt make difference to the pipes, maybe were not doing it right, im not sure.
We pretty much held the tube down flat, put the negative on the outer and struck the tube on the inside with the positive, where the seams were, but before sparking the tube, we hit it with a hammer along the tube, as Peter states doing. This though shouldnt have an effect on cleaning and charging the water would it?

I noticed that the water looks like cats piss once we finish the charging process.

I'm continiung with the experiment.

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 16, 2006 04:28 PM

 

Damien,

Do you have a working cell yourself? If so are you using tap water?

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 16, 2006 04:52 PM

 

The water will look like cat piss and you have to be patent with the unit. It can take up to a week for the unit to kick in as it needs to go negative first before it will want to work.

We run the cell as a shandy setup resently but it was week due to us living next to big power lines that give power to half the town which is bad for the cell. My mate with the same setup has a working unit a couple of mins away from me but he wont advertise it or doesnt want me to if you can see my point in any way. But i understand what the cell needs to work and if your not patent its domed for failure.

Posted by: damien on May 17, 2006 02:44 AM

 

A coworker told me that his uncle had purchased a chevrolet half ton pickup that he claims to make 53 mpg with a 350 engine. He took it in to the dealer where it was purchased to get it serviced and the dealer told him he was not supposed to have this truck, it was supposed to go to Australia. The dealer said he would have to modify it to meet us emissions. The guy who bought the truck told the dealer where he purchased the truck,that is the way he bought it and that is the way he is going to drive it, keep your hands off of it. Everyone knows a 350 is a gas eater but for one to make 53 mpg, thats what we need.

Posted by: mrd on May 17, 2006 12:39 PM

 

No electrolyte is to be used which means no vinigar,costic, baking soda, acids needed.

I would recommend a straight DC car battery or power supply, no pulsed units like chargers, well thats my appionion and Peters.

Joes bollon experiment i cant do but iv since understood why and how he did it but its more than what meets the eye and when i get the right water ill have a go again.

Remmember its only a negative cell or a capaciter and nothing eles.

Damien

Posted by: Damien on May 18, 2006 11:04 AM

 

Hi Damien

Cheers, Thanks again, yeh that BNE video shows em set alight a balloon with charged water, it is pretty unbelievable, that water can do that, that is what i thought i could test if water was right, but from what your saying, its not a good test.

Anyway I went a bought a 2.5 Amp, 12volt Arlec charger, its a continous type, I saw your post but was too late as I already bought it. It was only 20 bucks Kmart job, I will give it a try with that, And if im unsuccessful, I will go out and buy a 12volt power supply.

Again Thanks,

Mrd

Posted by: Mrd on May 18, 2006 02:13 PM

 

Hi Damien,

I charged the water last night, and will wait about 48hours before doing it again. I was just checking out the magnetic swirler on Andy Graham's Replication site. Do you know much about its operation?

I'm going to replicate this as well, and see if just using the tap water as a fuel source to drive a motor, without going through the process of cleaning and charging the water scenario, Just basically wanted to know from you, if you are aware of anyone that might be using the swirler like a joe cell?

I will keep you upto date and if i am successful with starting a 2 stroke motor with my joe cell, ill send you videos, so you can post it on energy website.

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 20, 2006 05:02 AM

 

Hi Damien,

I've checked out Peter Stevens, engine block demo that he is constructing...way cool.

Just on the topic of the Jcell, sorry if i sound odd, its late...lol
Anyway after iv charged the water, can i keep it stored in a container, or do i have to put it straight back into the joe cell.

whats also the easiest way to test you think? I dont have a car motor to ty it on, so i thought of using a 2 stroke engine, which i was thinking of using.would this suffice, sory about dumb questions

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 20, 2006 04:41 PM

 

MRD, you are the man for trying out this Joe Cell technology.
Keep us posted how it continues to work.
I read your posts all the time.
Also, I would like to get your opinions on a few things about it.
Feel free to email me.
My email is
JVC1040@yahoo.com

Posted by: Dan on May 21, 2006 09:21 AM

 

thanks for the idea's, but do think the burning water is for real.

Posted by: Greg on May 23, 2006 02:32 AM

 

Is that you Greg Watson. I hope you don't fill this site with negetive things about how it is impossible to do anything. If it is not just download all you can read it and then decide before you start bringing things into question. We have all the nay sayers we need and we would just like to make our money saving devices in peace without people putting us down and telling us we are dreaming or the like. Have a great day and enjoy life.

Posted by: Perry on May 23, 2006 03:47 AM

 

Perry

If you check out Greg Watson he makes all these claims that hes successfull with different energy projects and even offers people $10000 to prove there claims. He is the kiss of death. Do ya sums and work the rest out. If you talk to this guy get him to give an address to meet him on his premmises, it wont happen.

Posted by: Damien on May 23, 2006 11:37 AM

 

Damien, Dan and All,

WOW WOW WOW, my first test run produced amazing results, Looks like the Joe cell works. I used Peters method on charging the water, i.e:-

With normal tap water
1. apply negative for between 2 to 20 minutes, to centre pipe bottom.
2. then connect the positive on outer tube, leaving the negative still attached, the positive should be on no more than 2 to 3 minutes
3. take the positive off and leave the negative on for an hour
4. poor this into the bucket and wait 24 hours, then take the crap from the top.
The centre of the water should be poured into another jar, and the crap on the bottom of the bucket thrown out.
5.Then this clean water poured back into the cell, and process done again.

AGAIN, I'M COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY.

Now I need to ask you another question damien, when i first applied positive and negative i noticed it foaming up on the first ring, ive now left the cell on for 2 hours almost and the foam build pretty much up on all the rings, my question is, :- the longer i leave this on, say for 24hrs, will this act alot better...eg stage 3, because what ive noticed is that it now reacts alot quicker than when i first tried it.

Also it takes ages for the foam or bubles to clear, once i remove the positive..

I think this is a good sign YES

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 23, 2006 02:55 PM

 

Oh just another thing i forgot to mention, I dont actually have a proper lid for the cell, and i just covered it up loosley. would this affect its operation at all?

cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 23, 2006 03:22 PM

 

MRD

you need to slow down and think sensible without getting excited. I know this can be hard but once youv done all the first charge and the water has sat and cleaned it self you can put the water in the cell.

Once its in the cell and on the car we havnt done the final charge yet.

First of all we dont need any stage 3. Second of all once the water is in the cell in the car a charge for 3 mins is more than enough while the engine is running then disconnect the pos but make shaw the neg is connected straight to the battery.

MRD dont think of any stage 3 thing like we have been told. Remember Peters and Alexes cell are 2 different cells and if you mix the ideas you are domed for failure.

Collect your thoughts and read Peters guide until you fully understand the process. I know i sound negative here but people dont have running cells cause they know better and go of a different direction only to be disapointed.

Make shaw you have a tight lid or the cell or it wont perform. We dont need big bubbles either remember we are only adding a frequency to the engine with this cell not make hydrogen and oxygen.

We had an unusuall result on the weekend which i found out today but i dont want to attract unwanted attention.

Posted by: Damien on May 24, 2006 06:42 AM

 

A coworker told me that his uncle had purchased a chevrolet half ton pickup that he claims to make 53 mpg with a 350 engine. He took it in to the dealer where it was purchased to get it serviced and the dealer told him he was not supposed to have this truck, it was supposed to go to Australia. The dealer said he would have to modify it to meet us emissions. The guy who bought the truck told the dealer where he purchased the truck,that is the way he bought it and that is the way he is going to drive it, keep your hands off of it. Everyone knows a 350 is a gas eater but for one to make 53 mpg, thats what we need.

Posted by: mrd on May 24, 2006 12:08 PM

 

Hi Damien,

Great Video of Peter Stevens there, he reinforces what he states in his pdf, Its good to see a video representation of the doco.

Thanks for that Damien. He freaked me out actually when he mentioned alot of kunk forms when using pvc, as in my cell I have a pvc bottom sickaflexed to the 4 inch pipe, this is what must have happened, therefore ill need to get the pipe high freq tig welded, perhaps i can just use a pvc lid instead.

ah well back to the drawing board.

It was good to see it working even though, it was short lived, hats to you for taking that video.

Champ,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 24, 2006 01:05 PM

 

Did I get this right: You put a wiper sniper "weedeater type" two cycle motor fuel line in the freezer and it will run? How long. Has anyone else seen this or done this? Is verification possible?

Posted by: NEWBE on May 24, 2006 05:31 PM

 

Nice website but not constructive because I am not given the possibility to contact more than 2 or 3% of the people here. Why the email addresses are not shown? How can we make these things work if we can't contact eachother? Any commercial behind that? This makes me really angry. GIve me some clues how to get in touch with all these people who say they can run their cars with a home made carb! I want to do the same and COMMUICATE some RESULTS so as more people can do the same. Thank you!

Posted by: Claude de Sainteville on May 25, 2006 07:43 AM

 

Claude, there's a joe cell forum on yahoo, if you join them, youll learn alot of things.

My email is domaga@yahoo.com.au

I've just started with the joe cell, and have a few ideas about cleaning and charging the water, this i believe will provide the success to the working cell.

I am experimenting with what knowledge ive obtained, it will take me time to gather information. When I'm confident of success, I will post my findings

Cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 25, 2006 10:09 AM

 

What ever happened with this car?
If India has this technology.
Why haven't they put this car on the market, especially with these gas prices.
Thats why I'm skeptical about this.

This article is 2 years old
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/08-26d-04.asp
Cars running with water as fuel! India's pioneering research on Hydrogen as an alternative fuel surprises the world!
Sushmita Swaminathan
8/26/04

It looks like a regular BMW 7 Series, but it runs on hydrogen -- an energy source that can be produced using sunlight and water.
BMW has developed its hydrogen-powered vehicle using its conventional 12-cylinder internal combustion engine from the 750iL. However, instead of gas, it runs on hydrogen.

The Indian Institute of Science and Indian Institute of Technology joint program on Hydrogen as an alternative fuel has surprised the world. They successfully have run cars using water as fuel. Solar energy is used to break water down into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Then Hydrogen is burnt as fuel using water to cool down the engine. The resultant superheated stem is further used to energize a second hybrid electric engine. The electricity generated through alternator of main and second electric engine further helps in breaking the water down into oxygen and hydrogen.

A standard car can be driven with water and an electric battery with circuit amplifiers. The technology is a total breakthrough and the world is totally surprised with it. Commercialization will make gasoline the thing of the past. The resultant exhaust is pure steam and is harmless for the environment.

BMW also has developed hydrogen cars but the commercial versions shown up till now are dual engine ? gasoline and hydrogen. Hydrogen engine can produced very high horsepower.

Posted by: Dan on May 27, 2006 01:32 PM

 

Hi Damien,

I was just listening to Peter Stevens audio session on a radio interview http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/JoeCell2006/
and found it very interesting, basically if you follow his pdf, the cell should work, because the critical part is that the whole thing is powered by the vacumm within the carburettor.

I am in the process in setting up a 2 stroke motor for this experiment.

cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on May 27, 2006 04:02 PM

 

Mrd,

the BMW is real. It runs on hydrogen, but is plagued by problems of having to take hydrogen with it in a tank, and by the limited availability of hydrogen re-fill stations. (They actually built special stations some years ago to do the testing). I have it on good authority that the car will become available commercially within the year.

The second part of the article about making hydrogen from water as-you-go is not so clear cut. Certainly there is research in that direction, but whether the reporter exaggerated or the Indians ran into problems - we simply don't know.

Sepp

Posted by: Sepp on May 27, 2006 06:30 PM

 

Sepp, whats your opinion on this Joe Cell technology?

Posted by: Dan on May 28, 2006 02:42 AM

 

In my view, the Joe cell is intriguing and may well be showing a real, if poorly understood effect.

The data on the Joe cell has been around for years and the fact that there seem to be many researchers who are seeing results means there is something to it.

For widespread use of the technology, it would have to be properly researched, the mechanism identified by which it works, and perhaps we would have to revise our understanding of the physics of energy and combustion.

Posted by: Sepp on May 28, 2006 12:34 PM

 

Sepp, what do you think is the best technology that could possibly replace oil for cars?

Posted by: Dan on May 28, 2006 05:40 PM

 

Dan, in the near term it will be alternative fuels - a choice of hydrogen, methane, magnegas, brown's gas - take your pick. Even nearer, we'll have biodiesel and methanol type fuels.

In the longer term, we will have direct energy conversion, either magnetic or solid state - tapping ether energies to put out electricity.

What would be the best? I think only experience will show, but on the whole, I believe we will have a gradual conversion, with the best technology emerging as we go.

Posted by: Sepp on May 28, 2006 10:26 PM

 

I'm too excited about this, joe cell, and had to let you guys know what happened:-

We charged the cell tonight, pos and neg attached, put the lid on the cell (pop on lid)
the lid has a valve on it, I went for a coffee break, about half hour, came back, and did a stupid thing, I opened the valve, and put a lighter to it, thinking i would get a flame, but instead the lid blew off and almost took my hand off with it. There was aloud bang as well. The thing is that i lit it up 3 times, and nothing happened
when i lit it 4th time, the lid just blew off, hit the ceiling hard, and scared the crap out of me.

I didnt get singed or i didnt see an explosion of any type, im suspecting here implosion.

This is what we did:- increased the voltage, to 24volts, because we could get 300ma, instead of 100mA with 12volts.
as this gave us more reaction, We also noticed that if we connected to the inner neutrals the current would go up as well, , example we put the pos on the closest neutral to the negative and got between 700 and 800 mA's draw.

Your right about this being a capacitor, as it builds up charge and i think its this more than bubbles that make this device work, I will hopefully have the 2 stroke motor rigged up shortly, and try to get that going.

I can't seem to get more current going through my cell, as I've mentioned above. maybe it's supposed to increase over time? do you have specifics on current measurements for their cells that they are running.

I have a friend helping me out and he witnessed what happened with the lid blowing off, it was loud and nasty
he also didnt see any explosion, so were assuming at this point some sort of other energy. to test this theory, we have attached a balloon ontop of the valve, its been an hour so far and there has been no build up of gas, thats why were suspecting some other form of energy.

Also strange thing happened, and i only reproduced it once, i took the pos off, and when i connected it back shortly, all the white foam ontop of the cell quickly dissipitated, and wouldnt come back until i put the lid back on it, I tried to reproduce this phenomenon, but couldnt, its as if I discharged the cell momentarily.

More testing to follow, let your colleagues know what i've done here

Oh and I thank you for your help, Ive taken notice that its frequency rather than anyhing else, that will get this going. I belive this more as I'm finding out.

Truly amazing

Posted by: mrd on May 29, 2006 12:10 AM

 

forgot the above email was sent to joe cell forum member, again this is not a gas, I believe it is a charge, frequency or something of that nature the balloon we put on the valve did not inflate at all, and this was after 6 hours, so it cannot be a gas.

Posted by: mrd on May 29, 2006 12:18 AM

 

Here are simple ways to increase mpg on carborated vehicles...

1)Lower the floats till the fuel level is just above the idle jet hole... about 1/8 to 1/4 of factory fuel bowl level. If you run out of fuel in the bowl there are only three reasons... 1) clogged inlet jet (clean jet and check fuel filter) 2) fuel level too low in bowl from float contacting bottom or sides of bowl not letting float to drop or fuel level not reaching jet (raise float to no contact or over jet) 3)heavy foot for extended periods.

2)Make a funnel out of sheet metal (used 1 gallon camping stove fuel cans work great) and attach it to the air horn on the air filter housing (hose clamp) aim the big end behind the fan ...... "redneck turbocharger".

3)Adjust idle after doing above changes (if you did #2 make sure and do it with the funnel 'on'. Also works as a good security device.. slide the funnel off and let somebody try to steal it they won't be able to start it [tuned with it on]).

My '73 dodge adventurer extended cab ASM tow truck w/318 cid 4 sp. went from a grandma driving 6 mpg to a regular driving 16 mpg with the above items done. This truck wasn't built for road racing either 5480 lbs. at about 54-55 mph the valves started floating so I settled for about 6000 rpms at 50 mph and waved back at the people on the highway that only waved at me with one finger...

And can someone tell me why my '73 ford f-100 360 cid/auto grossly overloaded averaged 16.8 mpg on a 2500 mile trip from Washington to Texas but my '86 ford ranger 6cyl efi/overdrive auto averages 15-16 mpg???

Posted by: Jeromy on May 30, 2006 11:52 AM

 

WOW, anyone heard about this battery.

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm

Toshiba Corporation today (29 March, 2005) announced a breakthrough in lithium-ion batteries that makes long recharge times a thing of the past. The company's new battery can recharge 80% of a battery's energy capacity in only one minute, approximately 60 times faster than the typical lithium-ion batteries in wide use today, and combines this fast recharge time with performance-boosting improvements in energy density.

The new battery fuses Toshiba's latest advances in nano-material technology for the electric devices sector with cumulative know-how in manufacturing lithium-ion battery cells. A breakthrough technology applied to the negative electrode uses new nano-particles to prevent organic liquid electrolytes from reducing during battery recharging. The nano-particles quickly absorb and store vast amount of lithium ions, without causing any deterioration in the electrode.

The excellent recharging characteristics of new battery are not its only performance advantages. The battery has a long life cycle, losing only 1% of capacity after 1,000 cycles of discharging and recharging, and can operate at very low temperatures. At minus 40 degrees centigrade, the battery can discharge 80% of its capacity, against 100% in an ambient temperature of 25 degree centigrade).

Toshiba will bring the new rechargeable battery to commercial products in 2006. Initial applications will be in the automotive and industrial sectors, where the slim, small-sized battery will deliver large amounts of energy while requiring only a minute to recharge. For example, the battery's advantages in size, weight and safety highly suit it for a role as an alternative power source for hybrid electric vehicles.

Posted by: Dan on June 2, 2006 04:39 AM

 

There was a guy who had an electric car that was touring around north america. I saw him in Canada and he had his car with him. He was in a wheel chair as a result of beaten to an inch of his life buy people who would not want his sort of car on the market. This was in the 90's. They fire bombed his vehicle in transit but his car was someplace else and he was going to pick it up so the trailer was empty. It was destroyed. He had a battery system that could fully charge in 15 minutes using 110 and giving the car a 350 radious. I have not heard anything from him in years. I guess they finally killed him big surprise. They probably killed his son who was working with him on the project. He was in British Columbia getting supporters. The thing really worked and had power to burn torque out the butt etc. I guess they are finally releasing his tech from years ago. What a mess we live in with the greedy who will only let us have the truth when they can make money on it and have made all they can on the old stuff.

Posted by: Perry on June 2, 2006 11:42 AM

 

Perry, do you know the name of this guy who built this electric car.
Ofcourse he might have been lying about his claims.
Was his story in any paper in the 90s?

Posted by: Dan on June 2, 2006 09:57 PM

 

Dan ( may 11,2006) have looked for info on the hydrogen gegerator you talked about from Africa. can't find the company or the research lab. this kind of program sounds more reliable than the joecell. although the joecell is intreging , and I may try one. i'll be watching for your post.

Posted by: Ron Robinson on June 3, 2006 02:23 AM

 

Hello guys iv been talking to Peter Stevens and John Carter who talked to Bill Williams a day ago about Bills visit by the MIBs or what ever you want to call the bad guys who stop any people coming up with new energy that threatens current energy companies.

Those that dont know Bill Williams has a very good working Joe cell that powers a F100 or 250 truck.

Hi Guys.

Spoke to Bill Williams this morning after he told Peter yesterday that he
had another "visit".

He says that the day before yesterday, 2 clean cut white males wearing
sport coats and slacks, came into his workshop on his property while he was
machining a part in his lathe, which incidently was not a part for the Joe
Cell but was for his normal daily work. They asked for Bill Williams
and told him that he was not supposed to be working on any more
cells. However they knew who he was! So, Bill grabbed his shotgun and told
them to "get the fuck out of his property."

He said these were different guys from the first two. Bill just wanted them
out of there as he lives out of town and the immediate neighbours were at
work so he would have been unable to call for assistance if he held them for
any length of time and they became difficult. Consequently by the time he
had shut down the lathe and gone outside they and any vehicle they were in,
had gone.

He has reported the incident to the local police and they are looking into
it. I have referred Bill to the following document and suggest he show it to
the local Sheriff in case these people are from some Federal authority.

It would seem that Federal authorities do not have jurisdiction in State
areas and must advise local law enforcement agencies of their intention to "interview" any resident of that state.

I have also suggested that he report both incidents to Judicial Watch
who recently forced the US Federal government to give up some of the 9/11
tapes on the aircraft crashing into the Pentagon. This group looks into
corruption and over zealous action by Federal authorities.

See http://www.judicialwatch.org/

If Mr. Bush is genuine in encouraging people to find alternative fuel
sources or devices, then his government agents should not be attempting to
discourage this research if indeed they are responsible. The only other
people that could be responsible are the Oil Barons.

Bill is fine and sends his regards to all members.

Cheers,

John Carter

Posted by: Damien on June 3, 2006 04:37 AM

 

Here is a page compiling much of the information on mileage and alternative fuels:

http://www.peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency

Note that this is a WIKI, which means you can contribute with more information by directly editing the page (find out how).

This page is a real resource for anyone wanting to orient themselves about what is currently available and what needs more research...

Posted by: Sepp on June 3, 2006 12:06 PM

 

I talked to him saw the pics and the car the videos and the whole shooting match. I also said hi to his body guard who was his constant companion after being beaten one to many times by the powers that be. No, he was not lying about anything. A face to face was enough to make you sure of that. I do not remember his name and yes it was written up in newspapers in Canada and I am sure in the states. I doubt he is still alive as they were really gunning for the guy to put an end to what could have been a help to man kind. Who needs to help man kind there is no money in it!

Posted by: Perry on June 3, 2006 04:19 PM

 

Hey guys
i am confused i have seen about ten vids all with different methods of conecting the cell to a motor
one was a blanked plated with the alloy pipe welded in the end conected to the carb ,?the other a rubber hose ,the other a pvc clear pipe stuck on the end of the carby air cleaner stud etc etc ,is this cell producing gas ,charge or what, how can you make a internal combustion engine run if you need a combustion to move the pistons up and down and how is it posible to retard an engine 70 deg when and average engine runs on about 10 -15 deg,my understanding is pull the dizzy out and re time the engine ??if some one on this forum has a engine running let us in on the secret ,are we all talking about one method to run and engine or 4000 methods.

s

Posted by: S on June 5, 2006 06:26 AM

 

Hi S
skeptic. Have you made a unit or are you just wondering and if you are just wondering why to you have to sound like mike and ken and the rest of the nay sayers. So many have died trying to improve the world and only having their lives ended for it. Is there any wonder that people are not coming up to the plate and letting others know who they are. give your head a shake before you ask silly ?. No there are not 4000. there are various ways of doing it but if you stick with one you will find success. Try it before you try to get people to doubt.

Posted by: Perry on June 5, 2006 06:49 AM

 

Perry
No i am not all skeptic and i have made a few cells as per p stevens plans vid etc yes they do fizz out and they do produce a gas or whatever that when you put a flame to it explodes, but is a gas that the cell makes frequency orgon what ?I have spent months on getting two cells all working as p stevens vids,
and if you have a working cell etc my question is assuming that there are members on this forum that have working cells how do you conect it to the car via what, how ,when, etc ,give me some info is this forum here to help guys get this thing out there and working to fuck the oil companies ,goverments etc yes i would love to do that,you sound like your saying to me hey try it and you will find success,there are manny ways of doing it stick with it maybe in 20 years you might come up with it ,explain to me how negitve energy from another person can stop the cell for working ,how it can change the weather pattern ,how it can cure cancer , how if you feel depressed after charging water you need to have a cold shower to wash all the energy away ,how after charging the water and puting it on the shelf in a glass jar they say blue flahes of electricity or somthing ,this is crack pot shit .just put it all on the table for all the people on this forum on a how to, step by step guide ,by a person that has a cell that works in a car not just bad vids that you cant tell if is a car or a donkey they have a tube going to ,tell me a method that works and i will try it an if it not i will get back and ask what am i doing wrong and how can i get it going .

s

Posted by: s on June 5, 2006 08:19 AM

 

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/WaterFuel/Cella hey guys look at this site atleast he has all the plans and back up you need to make it work and he is still alive to ?
yes he has tried to improve he world and is sharing his results with us all,i wonder if your wife has that shits with you or its that time of the month if the car will stop working !

Posted by: s on June 5, 2006 09:05 AM

 

there are several systems out there and you need to stick to one method and use only one method and not mix or match or it will not work. why don't you go to the joecell website and ask ? they can help. You may also send emails to peter stevens. He is more than willing to help. the problem these days is people ask all kinds of stupid things and waste time. peter just wants to get the thing up and running and then we can hagger over how it works etc.

Posted by: Perry on June 5, 2006 04:23 PM

 

I just saw this show which talked about HyFuel.
It was In Search of from 1979.
That was the show Leonard Nimoy used to moderate.
They played it on this cable channel yesterday.
The guy who invented this Hyfuel was Gerald Schaflander.
In the show, Schaflander shows a car he built that runs on Hydrogen.
Its basically Solar Fuel.
As you know, hydrogen can be explosive.
I taped this episode. I could send it to people.
Schaflander used these large solar panels which creates electricity.
The electricity then creates hydrogen from the Solar panels.
He then put the hydrogen in this machine and mixed it with amonia.
He made the Solar Fuel non flammable.
Schaflander said he just has to modify the carburettor and gas tank to make the solar fuel work in every car.
The car did not run on gas.
This sounds like the holy grail.
The TV show showed in detail how he created the Solar fuel.
It was this interesting process.
Anyone ever hear of this Hyfuel?

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2006 02:56 AM

 

It is a sad day. I just found out that Carl Cella is dead. I am not surprised. He was in prison for killing his own mother. Of course he did not kill her but was framed for it and was told to cop to the deed or a bomb would go off and kill his family and friends who were in the courtroom giving moral support. Moral, something the people who did this have no concept of. How do I know? I had these plans years ago but no finances to do anything. I wrote Carl in prison and send him stamps so he could write me back and we corresponded for a few months. He told me all that happened and how he was being harrassed in prison. He kept up with his claims and they decided to end his life because not even prison could keep him quiet about the truth. Isn't it amazing how this is nothing but a fraud, this hydrogen from water thing, perpetrated by the likes of Carl Cella, Stanley Meyer and a host of others, but it ends up in them being killed by mysterious happenings. If it is such a fraud why do the people who invented and actively promote these fraudulent things get killed. I am just tired of the naysayers who haven't a single active brain cell amoungst them poopooing these guys. Bush and his tyrants are talking about producing hydrogen from power plants that use the same old poluting fuel and selling it at stations like regular gas stations. How much will this free fuel cost us. No, you major sore on my backside. Get your skeptic mind out of this site and go soak your head in your beloved petroleum produce before you like your cigarette. Carl Cella hurt no one but made a device that would free the world. It worked but that did not matter. Not even the news wanted to report on it becuase they are just as bought as the government and the rest of them. I am just dumbfounded as too why they would be killed if they did not have something that worked. Tell me the answer you status quo skeptic whoever and wherever you are. The end is coming and this is the proof. Man will almost destroy this world and then it will end. Man, like agent smith said in the matrix, is a virus and for the most part this is true. We have a virus, sin, and it causes us to want more and more and more and not care about the rest of the world. Let them eat cake! The only cure is a relationship with someone who can end the virus in us. Carl is resting now waiting for another day. He was alive and now he is dead because he wanted to make this world a better place. Hydrogen from water onboard, yes. Too many have lost their lives to prove that it is not a fairytale. The gas moungers are shaking in their boots as the oil reserves go down. I guess killing people who have the solution is the only way they have a little fun. I suspect the list will get a lot longer before too long as Joe X, Steven Peters, et al are added to it. Watch your six

p.s. Isaac de Rivas was a Swiss inventor who, in 1805, was the first to make a car powered by an internal combustion engine. That was an accomplishment in and of itself, but what did the engine use as fuel, since gasoline wasn't invented till the 1870s? Amazingly, the first automobile ran on HYDROGEN extracted from WATER!

Posted by: Perry on June 6, 2006 06:56 AM

 

if any one on this forum can tell me how a working cell is connected to the engine via a aloy pipe in detail! from the brass tail fitting on the cell to the engine itself , i tried this via a pipe aloy to the carby fuel inlet and no was it was going to start,it is useless lokking a bad vids that explain nothing, i need the info from persons /person who have made it work(made a engine run)

s

Posted by: s on June 6, 2006 09:11 AM

 

Perry, have you seen V for Vendetta, its like a good friend of mine said, I'm afraid a good politician is a dead one, they aren't really for the people.

It's people power in the end that has to win, If we dont band together and say enough is enough, it will never happen.

The system were brought into, is corrupt and they call it democtratic, its like a chinese fellow said to me once, whats the difference if you stood on a box and said bad things about your politicians, you think they won't come after you somehow, harass you and threaten all the people you know and love.

democratic my ass, its just a word, human nature is the term that should be used.

cheers,

Mrd

Posted by: mrd on June 8, 2006 12:59 PM

 

New to post. Have invented a device to place on engine. Results: 55 M.P.G.
at 58 M.P.H.
Car: Brand New Toyota Camry 4 Cylinder, Automatic.
Am not getting this data by filling tank, but by using a scan device plugged in to the OBD II port. Gives instant MPG read-outs.
Interested? Reach me at ccm4104@yahoo.com

Posted by: Bill Farkel on June 8, 2006 07:24 PM

 

"450 miles from a gallon of gas"?

I've been searching online for the Whirlwind gas savings device from around 1931. I clicked on this chat site and there is so much written I really don't feel like reading it all but I noticed there is obviously much interest in fuel savings devices so I thought I would add my two cents of information that I found.

I was just reading a Popular Mechanics from May 1931 and came across a full page advertisement for getting 450 miles in a gallon of gas. "Startling statement of famous automotive engineers". The amazing whirlwind device saving millions of gallons of gas for auto owners. The whirlwind carberating device embodies scientific features which conserves part of the gasoline that formerly went to waste. Letters coming into the office tell of record mileages resulting in the amazing gas savings. The cost of the whirlwind is so little that, basing its gas saving features even on the most modest reports, it would pay for itself almost immediately and then save many dollars for its owner by reducing gasoline consumption. This ad also explains how in just a few minutes it can be installed on any make of car, truck or tractor. There doesn't seem to be any specifics on how this device works. It was made by the Whirlwind Manufacturing Co. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1931 or earlier.

Posted by: Jr. Johnson on June 9, 2006 01:53 AM

 

to dan
guess you are'nt on this sight much. well if anyone else wonts to jump in that is OK to. i have been looking for info on hydrogen generators . there is some good info out there but none on a generator that will gen all fuel needed to run an auto. dan reported on this site about one that would provide all the fuel needed, realibly. now while i am very interested in the JOECELL it is by all accounts tempermental, and will not always work, and we all need something that will always work!!
if any of you can shed some light on this post it to this sight or e-male me @ ronr1@nctv.com.
thanks for all your input.
Ron

Posted by: Ron Robinson on June 10, 2006 03:24 AM

 

Hi i am interested in the post about making water light on fire and how to build that device, and does anyone have a copy of that video that i can download?? i would really appreciate that.. also where can i find more information about Joe Cell? thanks for all the input!

Posted by: Bailey on June 12, 2006 07:30 PM

 

Check Out The Lone Lantern Society's Web Site.It Kick's Ass!!! They May Be Able To Help With Needed Video's. http://www.lonelantern.org/h20poweredcar.htlm Good Luck!

Posted by: Jr. Johnson on June 12, 2006 08:10 PM

 

I just got the article.
Somebody doesn't like Hy-fuel.
It was an article in 1980 about
a hydrogen powered car developed in the 70s.
Gerald Schaflander developed the technology.
You got to read how the oil companies threatened him and did everything to prevent this technology from getting on the market.
This guy had the alternative.
Email me if you want to read the article.
Its to long an article to post on here.
Dan6054@yahoo.com

Posted by: Dan on June 16, 2006 07:31 AM

 

Dan,

if you can send me the article, I might be able to post it.

Posted by: Sepp on June 16, 2006 04:17 PM

 

Just got a file with the article Dan mentions. Solar-based hydrogen fuel made into a liquid and subsequently cracked just before being used in the carburetor as a gas.

The Nation: Somebody Doesn't Like Hy-Fuel

The sender - I suppose it's Dan - also included this explanation:

The article is at 66% on Adobe reader.
Put it at 100 percent to make it larger
To read the article. 
At the top right it says, The Hydrogen Alternative
Somebody doesn't like Hy-Fuel by Fred J Cook.
Thats where the article starts.
Then read down.
After you read that part of the article.
The next part of the article is on the left side.
Scroll to the left.
It says 306 which is the page, breakthrough
that would liberate the American economy.
Then scroll down and read that part.
When your finished with this part.
Scroll up to the right side.
Thats where the article continues.
Then read down and when your finished with that part.
Scroll to the left side.
The article basically goes right to left, right to left etc.
You'll see what i mean.

Posted by: Sepp on June 17, 2006 04:09 PM

 

Gerald Schaflander:
Hy-Fuel - solar-produced hydrogen turned into liquid fuel.

This is in the 1970s.
Gerald Schaflander, with the Solar Electrlc Power Corporation of Culver City, California, and with financial help from some friends, built a pilot production facility in Menlo Park, California.
Schaflander had developed Gallium Aluminum Arsenide/Gallium Arsenide solar cells and was producing hydrogen with the cells' output, which was then chemically turned into a liquid fuel.
The fuel could be utilized in cars or trucks. It was not used as a liquid but as hydrogen gas, by cracking it and feeding the recovered hydrogen gas through a special carburetor.

Schaflander was harrassed by oil company inspired opposition, including quite "official" opposition such as the post office, and the company essentially driven out of business. The whole story is described in a very detailed article that was published in October 1980 in The Nation.
Somebody doesn't like Hy-fuel

Posted by: Ken Johnson on June 18, 2006 10:57 AM

 

Snopes says it's a flase urban legend

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

Posted by: Derrin on June 20, 2006 09:22 PM

 

snopes would say that innoculating your children is a good thing too I bet. I have a feeling that snopes is nothing more than a bunch of gov or oil maffia that put trash about the truth on the net to get guilible people to not be free from the powers that want to control and destroy us. The ulitmate end that these powermongers want for us is to lay down our lives for the betterment of the earth and leave for them so they can enjoy what it has to offer. Ofcourse only so many people can live the life they are living now on this planet without further damaging it sooo half a billion could continue their posh lifestyle with a few lakeys around to keep things going the way they want. Of course the majority will have to go besides it is for the good of the planet. Who decides guess. conspiracy! open your eyes before you are the next contestant in the end of your life.

Posted by: Perry on June 22, 2006 01:12 AM

 

I completely for the saving of our plannet and our wallets. But one question, How would this country sustain itself financially, if it didn't have all of us buying this toxic waste method of fuel? I mean, if we didn't need oil anymore, that would be sure to change things around here.

Posted by: Joseph M. on June 22, 2006 11:35 PM

 

Joseph,

Probably the greatest changes would be for those that thrive on extracting and selling us the oil, although they could and perhaps should find a better and perhaps more worthwhile occupation.

For us who use the oil, things might get actually better. Transport that does not cost astronomical amounts might make things a bit more relaxed - if we put individual transport off the roads and into the air. It would also mean that people don't have to concentrate in the cities so much.

As for the country, I guess you refer to the US. To sustain itself, it could get into production of useful gizmos to make energy that's not based on burning petrol. There are lots of possibilities.

For an overview, see this site.

Posted by: Sepp on June 23, 2006 02:36 PM

 

DON`T order any thing from savefuel.ca....i did and try to get any thing out of them...i send them emails and call but all i get is the run around...they keep sending me emails asking if i am a real person or just send them spam.....so if you read this DON`T buy any thing from them.....if you want a hydrog generator for your car or truck send an email to mastahz@verizon.net i beleive he will help you out.....

Posted by: dick wilcox on June 25, 2006 12:28 AM

 

How about forgetting Gasoline/diesel alltogether.
Alcohol is way better and it grows back! like weed

Posted by: AAA on July 23, 2006 11:39 AM

 

Hi Guys
I have had for some time been using a joe cell on my motorcycle vespa px around 1978 model and have had some great results though it is a bit unreliable at times,and seems to work only sunny days and not when it rains ,but have been using the bike on a daily basis for the last 16 months and have had to put no fuel at all and have travelled some 2000 kms,and it dose seem rather strange not to go and fill, up but the other day i was comming back on my bike from my girls place after a plate of tortelini with cream sauce and had to releive myself so i farted ,a really big one and i thought at one stage that i would have to go and change my underwear,enough of that, but my question is has anyone ever had that happen to them ,i was thinking it might have been the negative energy i put out ,though i think it was positive energy,but the bike just happen to stop and i could not re start it because there is no fuel in the tank all the conections looked fine i tried re sparking the crank etc but still could not start and two weeks later it still will not run can anyone help.

Posted by: orgon on July 26, 2006 09:34 AM

 

Anyone wanting to save fuel with a carby car this is the easiest way and the best for the amount of work. Iv tried a few ideas now and this is the best for the work and amount of money to spend. It can be done between 20-70 bucks depanding on how far you want to go with the setup.

Just suck the vapors from the top of ya float bowl of the carb. Use a tube mounted on top of the carb to suck the vapors and run it straight to ya vacume line under the carby or pvc tube going to the manifold. Make shaw you put a solinoid in to shut of vapors when the car is stopped as it can flood the intake with vapor and cause hard starting due to rich vapors sitting in the intake.

This works really well and can give you from 30-70 savings depanding on the setup and tunning. Some people have claimed a double milage.

Dont forget that these vapors can be heated by a copper tube around the exsaust as well if you wanted to go the max. If you heat the vapor it can run from the tube on top of the carb from the float bowl to the exsaust manifold to the copper tube wraped around the exsaust than back to vacume intake via a shutof soliniod. Iv tried this breifly and it works realy well.

You dont have to do the heating idea, it is only for people who want to get as much as posible saving.

Iv done experiments with this and recommend it highly.

And before anyone ask, no the fuel doesnt get sucked out of the float bowl. The float and needle and seat control the fuel level in the bowl so the fuel stays at one level.

This was tried based on George Wisemans information i have.

Posted by: Damien on August 9, 2006 09:21 PM

 

Guys, your efforts are going mainstream. Read this article:

New device cuts gas engine air pollution

Posted by: Sepp on August 24, 2006 03:15 AM

 

What about using the fuel tank vent line instead of the carb vent? Would I get the same results?

Posted by: Tim on September 18, 2006 09:14 PM

 

hi

i was talking to my uncle before he died about the carbs on tanks during ww2 in north africa. as he was a tank comander and e told me that thay got 5 times the normal mileage. and thay had standing order to destroy the carb with a thermite if the tank became disabled.

Posted by: vooooooooddoodoodood on September 20, 2006 12:27 AM

 

I would prefere to use the carb vent due to all that vapor in the fuel tank that can blow ya sky high unless you have a good one way valve.

Posted by: Damien on September 23, 2006 08:48 AM

 

What an interesting site, over here in the UK the local councils have taken to using cooking oil waste from kitchens to replace diesel oil it works fine just smells a little different but it runs just the same as long as it is filtered before use. They are using it on coaches etc, but the Govt dosent like it because our fuel is quite expensive compared with the USA, as I believe we pay 79 percent tax so they dont want people to evade the revenue. Our 4 star petrol is unleaded and is approx 89 pence per litre which equates to just over half of one of your Dollars so you may be able to run your diesels on corn oil which I assume would be quite cheap in the USA.

Ps. Yes that is per litre approx £5.00 per gallon

Posted by: Philip on October 21, 2006 05:56 PM

 

A link from my last posting about vegeatable oils for fuel if you are interested:

Posted by: philip on October 21, 2006 06:08 PM

 

I just got this by email, and want to share it with you guys - Sepp:

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 06:36:27 -0500 (EST)
From: fredo strando
Subject: WATER as FUEL - Second launch !

Hello,
I'm still on the ground trying to fight anonymously the oil cartels ...
In august I launched www.geocities.com/waterfuel111 but it was very limited in access traffic, as tens of thousands of visitors have been refused access, for 8.000 pages viewed only. To solve this problem I found spaces with unlimited bandwith, and then I also increased the size of the website.

Now it has 480 pictures and 420 links (against 300 pictures and 250 links in August) ... enjoy!

You can access to it through the following addresses :

- http://waterfuel.100free.com

- http://waterasfuel.fateback.com

Please spread these links and safeguard these data before they suppress them.
Thanks and best regards,
MDG

Posted by: Sepp on November 10, 2006 10:17 AM

 

This is based on the Joe cell technology. If ya interested in this technology go to google video and type Joe cell and find the suzuki video. This technology will run an engine without fuel. Have fun guys:

A friend of a friend emailed me with what might be the answer to the Suzuki. Here is the message edited so names are not included of the people. But here is the message as it is without names.

Guys this was done on a carby car with a points ignition. Bare that in mind.

Message:

here comes free energy

you shorted out the regulator on your engine ?

do it

quite amazing what happens

the voltage increases with RPM?

just be warned you might not be able to shut off vehicle tho lol

i take no responsibilities

if you short regulator make sure the engines running

does it have an effect on the joe cell at all?

changes polarity of the battery

and im not talking positive and negative

that effect with the regulator and switching polarity is what you have to do inside the cell but yeah if you want your car running like joes suzuki just short the regulatr with engine running

Have fun everyone. I take no responsibility guys if you stuff up due to poor knowlage of a electrical system of the car.

Thankyou to the quite member who shared this. My friend you might have the potential to change our world to slow down the all seeing eye.

Damien

Posted by: damien on January 17, 2007 06:42 PM

 

more horsepower = better mpg to a certin extent car manufactures can get 250 horse out of a 4 cyl why only 300 out of an 8 cyl twice the engin size. Chris

Posted by: chris on January 19, 2007 07:47 AM

 

I BELIEVE THIS THING WILL WORK. IN THE LATE 1970'S
I BUILT AND INSTALLED AN ALCOHOL INJECTION SYSTEM ON A LARGE V8 FORD. IT USED PLAIN RUBBING ALCOHOL AND WATER THAT WAS TURNED TO A VAPOR. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT HAVE ANY EXACT NUMBERS ON HOW MUCH OF A mpg it got it was a very noticable difference and very easy to build!

Posted by: JACK CHASE on February 7, 2007 07:00 AM

 

why regular lpg doesnt get anything nearly to 50 mpg? it gets to cylinders vaporised?

Posted by: question on February 16, 2007 08:51 AM

 

Whats people's opinion of Francisco Pacheco hydrogen generator.
Read this article.

www.mothersalert.org/pacheco.html
The Pacheco Generator Story
From The Messenger
June 1989

Posted by: Ken Jurist on March 26, 2007 05:30 AM

 

Car that runs on Ammonia

Go to this website. http://gregvezina.com

Watch the video on the website. This guy created a fuel called Hydrofuel which ran on ammonia and alittle nitrogen in the early 80s.

Posted by: Ken Jurist on March 28, 2007 05:52 AM

 

here's an idea that may solve several problems.if everyone is so concerned with the 200 mpg carb that won't run because of the additives then has anyone thought of using either biodiesel or ethanol in this system? you could make your own either way and you could therefore be sure that there were no aditives.

Posted by: C.J. on March 31, 2007 01:23 PM

 

Inventor runs engines on 'Proton Cell'

Sterling D. Allan,
11/1/06

An inventor in the Bundaberg area has been able to operate around fifteen different engines on the Joe Cell alone, with no fuel line connected. He contacted me to begin the process of providing a demonstration as well as full disclosure of how the technology works; and has worked closely with me in the composition of this piece.

Most of his engines were outside of a vehicle, though he has gotten vehicles to run on such engines as well -- with no petrol fuel coming to the engine.

Partially due to financial restraints, it will be a month or two before he will be ready for the New Energy Congress to come in and run a full set of validation tests. So this report is merely a recitation of BJ's claims, with no other credibility than one man's word and the extent to which it resonates with what is already known from other reports that have been given.

(To read whole article, follow link in title...)

Posted by: Ken Jurist on May 11, 2007 03:52 AM

 

Mark Denise has got BJ to sign a confidental agreement to keep his details about the cell to a mininum. Mark beleieves making money on the cell is more important than sharing the info to get mankind out of this rut. You will not see this cell technology due to greed from every area. BJ has 12 kids so he will gladly take the offer. Mew Energy Congress will varify the test but you will see nothing eles.

Posted by: Damien on May 11, 2007 05:38 AM

 

A coworker told me that his uncle had purchased a chevrolet half ton pickup that he claims to make 53 mpg with a 350 engine. He took it in to the dealer where it was purchased to get it serviced and the dealer told him he was not supposed to have this truck, it was supposed to go to Australia. The dealer said he would have to modify it to meet us emissions. The guy who bought the truck told the dealer where he purchased the truck,that is the way he bought it and that is the way he is going to drive it, keep your hands off of it. Everyone knows a 350 is a gas eater but for one to make 53 mpg, thats what we need.

Posted by: Joseph Musial on May 14, 2007 08:43 AM

 

HEY EVERYBODY, okay here goes, as i have not yet been able to read all that is here, so i have Scan Copy Paste, and will get to it. i am going to fill in the missing parts, and they have not killed me yet, they can not do so, i have gotten much smarter and quicker, so good luck to "Them" and who is "them"?
They walked up to the home of Ralph Moody in St.Augustine Florida, showed their guns under their jackets, and being idiots as they really are, powerful drone workers to be sure of the power that is behind them, but they are still idiots, thusly, instead of taking the car they used a torch and cut out the engine. They simultaneously shut down the $12,500,000 investment producing factory in Oklahoma, that was the deciding factor as the Porque Vapor Carb was just about to come off the assembly line, connected to the necessary adaptive manifolds to fit different car models, and the "Guns Talked" so they came in the process with truckloads to haul everything away. Do you think it is being stored in Area 51? NOT! This is one info i do not have as i know not where they dissappeared $12.5 million of production equipment whisked away in secret, and the actual unfinished carbs, or actually they had only weeks to be finished and ready to go on the first cars. I lost recall, and Ralph Moody would have to tell me again, how many Vapor Carbs were sitting there for the last screws to be put in place. Perhaps, plus or minus, 10,000 and the other $500,000 went to the partner, who sold out, for he knew this would be big trouble for him and his family. I gave my word a long time ago, that Cosmic Dragons could not force me to say who he is, and where he teaches Auto Mechanic trade school. This meant, that Moody is in big trouble with the $13 million borrowed as the Investors were at his throat. I am not sure, he probably did the bankruptcy thing. This is a small fraction of this reality, that i am just thrilled to have found all of you alls input, BUT, WHY HAS THIS ORIGINAL SOURCE BEEN LOST, FOR IT WAS RALPH MOODY that brought this Porque Carb to be examed by the scientists in Wash\'DC and fix this world, but they instantly BlackListed him and made a report that the Malibu only got 42mpg when in all actual reality after many tests, it produced a constant 200mpg plus or minus 5mpg aye. Then mad as hell, Moody went off and got the $13mil so i have a lot to read as of yet, but a quick glance and i see no mention of Ralph Moody and his "MoodyMobile"??????
i will return and continue on this, and anybody, a real person may contact me, hehehe not the MenInBlack please, and also nobody has mention that the "Desert Fox Rommel" lost the war as all his Panzer divisions ran out of fuel over and over. Why did the Americans not????
the Porgue Vapor Carb was under the hoods, locked down, with a very real explosive bomb, written in English & German & French on the sides, "Do Not Open This or the Self Destruct Bomb WILL KILL YOU" and now you think, why did they create a mystery that hey what is under the hood, because innocents, even mechanics were already killed, so they fiqured telling is okay for nobody will get the Porque carb anyway, and of course standing orders were, if one breaks down and has to be left, BLOW IT UP TOTALLY. How amazing this knowledge is so hidden, it does not even show up in movies or like on "One Step Beyond"

Posted by: WINDWALKER on August 17, 2007 06:47 PM

 

I SENT AWAY FOR THIS GADGET CALLED THE ELECTRO KARB WEEKS AGO . THEY CASHED MY CHECK WEEKS AGO AN SO FAR I HAVEN\'T SEEN A THING. I TRIED TO FIND A PHONE NUMBER FOR THE COMPANY CALLED KUSTOM KARBS FROM ROCKFORD IL. BUT CAN\'T FIND ANY TRACE OF IT OR THE OWNER MR. G ARTHUR. I THINK I JUST GOT SCAMMED .
OR DOES THIS BUSINESS EXIST
I JUST WANT WHAT I PAID FOR
OR MY MONEY. I CAN TRACK THE MONEY BUT I DON\'T WANT TO START TROUBLE YET.
HAS ANY BODY EVER DONE BUSINESS WITH THESE PEOPLE.
DOES THIS ELECTRO KARB EXIST
HAS ANYONE TRIED IT .
I KNOW I PISSED MY MONEY AWAY ON ANOTHER SCAM. THIS SUCKs

Posted by: R METZGER on September 11, 2007 07:44 PM

 

I am also in favour of putting these oil tycoons out of my money but unfortunately we never will as our engines still need proper lubricants.I am also experimenting with a fuel cell against people warning me of the dangers involved. I have seen the videos of Stanley Meyers and the dingle car and am convinced that it is the alternative fuel. I am making my cell with the plate system and have almost blown my garage up because i lit the hose at the end without a flashback arrestor. I have just got a spare intake manifold to modify and play with and I need to play with the cell a little more to get it optimal, more gas less amps drawn.Here in South Africa we are having problems with electricity and that is my next step once my car is up and running. I will not give up until I die because we are going to meet our maker one day but it must not be without a cause, emagine all being content with their daily income and being to travel where ever they want not worrying about the cost of fuel but pity the fool with a bad engine oil leak. The oil companies will gladly stay in business thanks to him. All I say is keep up the hard work and pity those that go through life like a race horse with blinkers on as to not to let him see 360 degrees around him to all the opportunities that are available on this great planet god created for us to use to the best of our ability. Achievers achieve and slackers lose

Posted by: MGCarr on January 23, 2008 01:22 PM

 

I am interested in the Astron Vari-Vent carburetor. If anyone has one or information please contact me.

day77star@sbcglobal.net

Posted by: Bill Dornton on March 5, 2008 11:27 AM

 

I found a phone number for Kustom Karbs on web site
http://www.looboo.com/list/US/IL/Rockford/localinks The phone number listed is 815-398-7886. If it's a good nouber or not, I don't know.

Posted by: John Garber on March 18, 2008 07:18 PM

 

I know of a Astron vari-vent carburetor. Contact me for more information.

daneenlytle at aol.com

Posted by: steve lytle on April 30, 2008 11:48 PM

 

I have been Experimenting with the pogue system since 1981 have made some slight changes to the Vaper system but the carburetor gets no ware near the 200 MPH lets face it the 500 CDI CADILLAC BLOCK IS A BIG ENGINE THE VERY MOST I HAVE GOTTEN IS 72.855 M.P.G & 41.225 IN THE CITY, but i am still trying to improve on it?

Posted by: classified on May 30, 2008 04:15 PM

 

Any opinions on Liquid electricity?
I dont know if what Diggs said was true, but it definitely got my attention.

http://www.befreetech.com/energysuppression.htm
Richard Diggs - developed at an inventors workshop (I.W. international) his "Liquid Electricity Engine" that he believed could power a large truck for 25,000 miles from a single portable unit of his electrical fuel. Liquid electricity violated a number of the well known physical laws that the inventor pointed out. The inventor was also aware of the profound impact the invention could have upon the world's economy - if it could be developed.

Hi Dr. Jones!
Fascinating, yes Diggs was the man (still alive I am told), claimed a
DeWar flask the size of a thermos bottle could hold enough 'compressed or liquid electricity' to run a small city for a year.....a flask the size
of the Washington monument could power the entire US for a year...

Note; you still have to charge the durn thing...so it isn't free energy
or even remotely close....just a novel way of storing tremendously high amounts of energy. But you could use LIGHTNING! Much like the DoDs power ring using superconductors.

Posted by: Dan on June 5, 2008 12:44 AM

 

I read the post from R Metzger.I also ordered Electro Karbs from Kustom Karbs in Rockford Il. I did receive the first 2 products after waiting 2 months it was charged to my credit card. I sent another order along with a cashiers check April 28 the check was cashed May 5 as of this day I have not received any order or communication. I sent a certified letter no response to that either. Mr. Metzger or any one else who has dealing with Kustom Karbs please let me know about your experience. I do plan to file charges if I don't receive an order or my money back. They do work if you can get them.

Posted by: George Keith on June 10, 2008 05:20 PM

 

I Never heard of the Pogue Carburetor, I have read up on the FISH 18 hole spray tube carburetor, it was an updraft , it was used by guys like Barney Oldfield Race car driver back in eary 1900s It stated the carburation rating was way up there the air/gas ratio was excellent, almost perfect

Posted by: Don Westenberger on July 6, 2008 10:28 PM

 

Using vegtable oil as feul for Diesels. Works great no changes to pump setting are nessacery. Pays to filter old cooking oil well plus fit a feul tank heater. I converted a few vehicals over to vegtable oil in the early '80s to use the dregs from storage tanks that would otherwise go to landfill, down here is semi-tropical but I had real problems with some oils, especially coconut freezing at about 10 degrees C.
Also from experience adding about 5-10 percent white spirits made a HUGE difference in performance.

Posted by: Barry T on July 11, 2008 11:10 PM

 

Ha Ha those MIBSOBS can kiss my redneck but i made it work!! and theyll never get it!

Posted by: dan on July 25, 2008 08:55 PM

 

Hi, there are a lot of comments made about the pogue carbie, i would like to have a go at building one of these and see if these claims are as good as people are saying .Is there any one out there that is willing to send me the drawings for one??

Posted by: s. g keach on July 25, 2008 10:37 PM

 

Mr. S.G. keach, if you or anyone needs the drawings for this and many others, i have them. e-mail me

hondanut13@hotmail.com

Posted by: j. settle on October 14, 2008 10:29 AM

 

hi there..this would be grate to have a copy...i drive 700km a week and money saved from this would be a huge help for my pocket...Thanks :]

Posted by: travis wade on October 19, 2008 11:50 AM

 

I had the plans for building the Pogue carburator also the story about a reporter that was trying to check the authentisity of the info.He (the reporter) was told several times to FORGET everything he had foundout and to Quit researching if he valued his life,after several threats he let it go. Ford motor co. tested the carb. in the late 1950's and got 104 MPG so they then shelved it. I BOUGHT THE PAPERWORK out of a magazine article about 1975 and made the mistake of loaning it to an individual to try to build and have not heard from him for 6 or 7years but I did contact Senator Levin and asked him to check into it. LOL

Posted by: John Thompson on January 15, 2009 02:49 PM

 

excellent amount of info. :) i heard bout the carb at work. was wondering how much money id need for materials. plz note that i have a 66 mustang 289 v8. is there any way i can put this carb on the engine the size of the one that on there now without modification?

Posted by: nick willie on February 11, 2009 09:35 AM

 

Does anyone have a bourke engine or info on how they were built and if so email me at- johnij_@yahoo.com

Posted by: John on February 16, 2009 01:31 PM

 

Yeah what about HHO? Works for me it's all in the tunning.

Posted by: Doug on August 13, 2009 10:29 PM

 

The story goes that Pogue Carbs were fitted to the long range desert patrol Chevolet trucks in WW2. Has anyone else heard this?

Posted by: Jona on September 18, 2009 09:34 PM

 

my 2 cents worth,a carb is a device for mixing air and fuel into a combustion chamber,the ratio of fuel to air must be just right for a spark to ignite the mixture.Alternativly a high compression ratio is used to ignite a mixture of fuel and air,as in a deisel engine.
Hydrogen?well,in my basic chemistry class,2 platinum electrodes connected to a 6 volt battery caused water to split into hydrogen and oxygen,the chemistry teacher lit the hydrogen given off with a taper.I was amazed at the size of the flame given off,from the electrolysis,seeing as the battery had only been connected a few seconds.I asked the chemistry teacher why he could not have left it running,and he explained that the platinum electrodes would burn out.
So,will someone please hook up some solar voltaic panels to a bank/row of electrolysis tubes,and install the circuitry containing thermisters[to prevent overheating of platinum electrodes],and then please try to sell a household domestic free cooking and auto fuel domestic supply.
Suggestion.When a thermister gets to a certain temperature,it can stop the flow of small current to the base of a transister,thus preventing the flow of larger current through the collector/emmiter terminals,thus preventing your expensive platinum electrodes overheating.
cheers all

Posted by: steve on November 30, 2009 09:15 PM

 

mercedes Blue TEC diesel engines! look them up a weep boys! Gasoline is ideal for refiners profits Diesel suppression in America no secret - Europe all the while enjoying them! Now, VW has a Diesel Electric hybride plug-in! Eurpoeand enjoying the best of both worlds! All injection, can be turbo'ed successfully even super-charged at the same time! Diesels are in fact, according to the laws of thermodynamics a full 40 more efficient than lower compression gasoline, spark ignition, carburetted engines, and no significant fuel losses through evaporation - They do, in fact, run cooler! American refiners run from Diesel and supress it because they have so much capital tied up in cracking and cannot take the ROI change in their bottom line to let America go to diesel, All the while, the American Military has done so! They ai8m to use one universal fuel and have even developed a diesel motorbike! Ynakee Doodle however has been severely propagandized against diesel! poor dumb jerk! took the bait hook, line and sinker! SEE: http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/12/04/transportation-tuesday-neil-youngs-classic-hybrid/ Some folks still hot on diesel - bio diesel works the same way, except it can be homegrown - no foreign powers involved!

Posted by: Uncle B on December 15, 2009 03:10 PM

 

"Smokey" Yunick had a vapor carburator. He wrote articles in Pop Mechanics and was quite a gearhead. http://www.rexresearch.com/yunick/yunick.htm Problem was predetonation mainly. Also the SAE I think it is has a yearly student competition for highest mileage, and their cars are getting over 1000 mpg I think. But these are steamlined lightweight vehihcles.

Posted by: Rob on March 13, 2010 03:51 PM

 

[[[[I had the plans for building the Pogue carburator also the story about a reporter that was trying to check the authentisity of the info.He (the reporter) was told several times to FORGET everything he had foundout and to Quit researching if he valued his life,after several threats he let it go. Ford motor co. tested the carb. in the late 1950's and got 104 MPG so they then shelved it. I BOUGHT THE PAPERWORK out of a magazine article about 1975 and made the mistake of loaning it to an individual to try to build and have not heard from him for 6 or 7years but I did contact Senator Levin and asked him to check into it. LOL

Posted by: John Thompson on January 15, 2009 02:49 PM]]]]

email me at KEN55FORD2001@YAHOO.COM
I may have that article to send you copy.

Posted by: ken on March 15, 2010 11:14 PM

 

I have to offer information about Vaporized Gasoline technology I'd like to share. If the Big Three Auto companies are serious about staying in business, then I seriously hope this advise is heeded. Your cars engines could all increase fuel mileage significantly, over 30 with a product development you could start incorporating in 6 to 9 months if implemented with seriousness today.
These devices have been referred to over the years as 'vaporized gasoline' carburetors. You might Google search these very words. This has been an extremely controversial and suppressed technology that dates back 75 years.

For proof Vaporized Gasoline fuel systems work, read article in, The 'Seattle PI' February 20th 2008 that mentions their potential in story with a slimmed down 1959 Opel that got 376 MPG back in 1973. Shell Oil helped fund it. It made the world record for that year by a long shot, then the technology got put away. Here is the hyper link to the story.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html

This next hyper link is a research paper I wrote in 1992 on a vaporized gasoline project I completed while in college in Washington State at the time. I re-wrote it under the Nom de Plum, Frieda Mind 3 years ago when it resurfaced again while cleaning my house. Since originally writing this paper, I've learned much more about this technology and soon Olympia Green Fuels will be manufacturing after-market systems, and providing consulting services to original equipment manufacturers of new vehicles. We are currently looking for very modest development funds.
(link gone bad...)

Posted by: Mike on March 23, 2010 03:04 PM

 

I have a magazine from 1957 that I found in a storage unit that has a diagram w/o spects of the internal makeup of the pouge carb.Showed it to my neibour who was an engineer and he wanted to buy it and started out @ 1,000 and stopped at 5,000.I think that it is much more valuable than 5,0000.anyone interested in this give me a hollar @ b_hog57@yahoo.com as I wouldn't have a clue as to how to even start to build one.In this exchange for $$ I would also want In writting (noteirized)that one will be manufactured for my 1998 s10..

Posted by: Butch on April 26, 2011 10:43 PM

 

MY name is Robert Sandera an Independent running for President I built the Moody Mobile Engine and know everything about the project and who killed it etc. I am a lifelong Engine Builder Designer that started at age 10 my dad was a Pattern Maker those are the high tech mold makers that made molds for engine blocks. He worked for Lear Seaigler in Southfield of Detroit after we moved from down by Cleveland. In High School Machine Shop. I helped the teacher start a zero hr. so we came in a hr. earlier to get 3 hrs. Of vocational machines. He let me come to night school and work too I Starting building big Block Chevys at age 18 at 17 was designing and manufacturing my own engine machining it form a solid block and also always building my own carburetors contacting business and learning about business and patents. By 19 I was respected as a state Boat racing Champaign and also became a National Champion beating out a guy from Hawaii. I was also highly respected in the County as one of its top Four Color Process Printers working at Brighton High School and while in school won like3 first place and one second place state awards for printing the school handbooks. I worked at Perkins Engines for a long time and when we leaned out the first Moody mobile getting 105 MPG HI way. I am also a Federal Law Specialist practicing Law 32 years and working with Government for 24 years. I know what has to be done to make America Energy Independent. I know our entire Government and how to clean up the Country. I have the engine we built for Moody. I am working on full sized trucks to get 70 MPG with existing engines but am building a couple other things one is an engine that may see 250 MPG the other if no cooperation in driving Americas Gas Prices down I may release an engine runs for free. It has a fuel that cost nothing. Pleased support me as I am the only Candidate that knows how the Government really operates and how to fix it and create over 150 million jobs for American. I will balance the budget by growing the economy that the tax base becomes efficient because we will immediately be an employed Nation. What I need mostly in support is followers making friends on Facebook twitter yahoo groups etc. anyone that does is automatically entered to win a refund so you pay 1.25 a gallon for gas because that's what I am out to make gas be and know how to do it. I heard Iraq gas cost 14 cents and Libya Oil could be traded for 1.00 a barrel if the country wasn't lied to so bad about terrorist this and that etc. I know and understand the gas drilling and fracking process etc. and no how to make it produce and safer. I can use money donations but most of all need the word of mouth spread. The National Media does not want to report on me read the article link from my front page though on robertsandera.com to the article at livingstondaily.com with pictures of me etc. I have beat stomach cancer but was held back this spring by medical screw-ups costing me my doctor. You can Google my name Robert Sandera

Posted by: Robert Sandera For President on June 30, 2012 12:02 PM

 

Name: Email Address: URL: Comments: Remember info? Security code: Please enter the security code displayed on the above grid Due to our anti-spamming policy the comments you are posting will show up online within few hours from the posting time.

	The Individual Is Supreme And Finds Its Way Through Intuition