Virtually all energy debate is missing the point regarding energy technologies and supplies in as far as making the United States energy independent and of relieving the consumer of ever increasing energy prices. In order to solve our energy problem, we must think and act differently.
Peak oil may or may not be a geological reality, but we really don't know. The only numbers for oil supply and reserve are produced by the very same companies that control the oil monopoly and do the discovery and recovery. Peak Oilers can only use the oil industry numbers. Even government and 'independent' energy agencies use the numbers supplied by the energy industry, so where is the check to validate the numbers?
The well-known peak oilers are on record that society is going to melt down within the next decade, but they are wrong. I believe the energy crisis (supply) is a contrived crisis created by the monopoly to keep the price as high as possible.
Peak oilers advocate using less energy, but our quality of life and standard of living are based upon high energy use. The automobile is not the enemy. It is freedom. The computer, toaster, TV, air conditioner, refrigerator, track lighting, stereo and the SUV, four wheeler, motor cycle and Corvette are not the cause of our energy dilemma.
Doing with less is not the answer to the energy problem. Doing with less is admitting defeat regarding our inability to generate all the clean and renewable energy required for our needs and wants. That defeatist attitude will not solve our energy problem. It will only kill the Internet, reduce our selections at the grocery and department stores and will curtail the personal freedom to enjoy life through travel and by living in splendid, air-conditioned comfort.
Granted, peak oil is unavoidable theoretically. Ultimately the supply of oil/gas is finite whether it was produced in the past as a one time geologic/biologic event or whether it is produced continuously geologically, but no one has the numbers independent from the oil/gas industry to make any reasonable estimate of the amount of oil/gas left. It appears the best we have to gauge how much oil is left is the Hubbert Curve(2) and the oil/gas industry supplied numbers.
Abiotic oil advocates can only claim that oil is in continuous geological production. They have not proven their contentions that oil is not the product of pre-historic biology pressed and squeezed under tremendous geologic forces although many of their arguments have merit and should be heard and taught in our schools. But abiotic oil advocates have not presented for review abiotic wells producing oil to relieve the oil 'shortage.' Neither can they prove that abiotic production keeps pace with growing demand/consumption. In fact, abiotic advocates avoid that subject altogether.
The abiotic advocates are not offering any plan to discover and recover abiotic oil. They are only telling us it occurs, pleading that we believe them. Where are the energy companies discovering and recovering abiotic oil to lessen the impact of oil/gas market shortages, real or contrived?
Peak oil and abiotic oil, at this point, are speculation on the part of those totally frustrated with the current energy production/distribution paradigm.
Coal is often mentioned, but its capacity to replace oil/gas in all its uses is seriously in question. Then there is the matter of coal supply that appears to run the gamut from seventy five years to over two hundred years, but at what rate of use and increase in use, and what happens to the land masses of Illinois, Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming and Montana in the process of mining all that remaining coal? In the final objective analysis, coal is just another fossil fuel that has its own problems, but its major short coming is that it does not change the root source of our energy problem.
For mankind to invest in nuclear fission as a means of producing the energy needed to run societies, is to hold a lighted stick of dynamite in the dark to see if there is a leak in the gas tank. Not only do nuclear fission plants have the potential of melting down [Three Mile Island / Chernobyl], but the radioactive waste is not safely storable under any condition for the amount of time necessary to render the waste inert. Any political strong arm move to store the nation's nuclear waste in anyone's backyard, such as Eureka County Nevada at Yucca Mountain, is going to be met with strong resistance from those who live there. IF there was a safe storage technology for this highly radioactive waste, it would be stored at the site of generation. This would challenge those who consume power generated by nuclear fission to live with the long term consequences of their decision. It would obviate the need to transport the waste, exposing all along the way to a nuclear accident, and it would solve the political, moral and ethical problem of forcing someone else against their will to store another's highly dangerous waste. Nuclear fission also mandates the CEDM and therefore, does not change the root source of our energy problem.
All this leaves those yearning for relief from ever higher energy prices and from the wars being fought to control energy sources looking for a viable alternative to fossil fuels in an environment of complainers and doomsayers (peak oil) and an unsubstantiated rumor mill (abiotic oil).
'Political fuels' are the fuels put forward by special interests and governments seeking public approval but which do not solve the energy problem in the least. Political fuels include coal, nuclear, ethynol, biodiesel and corporate hydrogen. Poltical fuels represent the endless grab for taxpayer dollars on the part of special interests who know how to apply the carrot and stick approach to the key committees and agencies within our governments. They represent a constituency's attempt to gain an advantage at the expense of the public treasury. In corn and sugar cane producing states, ethynol is popular, but there is no real net energy gain. Ethynol doesn't solve the energy problem. It simply subsidizes corn and sugar cane production.
There are also the corporate alternative energy sources that include huge solar and wind farms and hydroelectic dams and wave pumps. But anyone who has seen these energy farms, hydroelectric dams and wave pumps understands right away that these are corporate or government investments that require an energy grid and a Centralized Energy Distribution Model (CEDM).
The solar array at Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah, USA
National Park Service photo by Tom Gray
Hydroelectric power... 'renewable' but dependent upon water supply and ultimately condemned by its reliance upon the CEDM.
"The upper reservoir and dam of the Ffestiniog Pumped-Storage Scheme in north Wales."
Quoted caption and photo by wikipedia.org
So with all these energy sources, there is a commonality that is the root of our energy problem. Our root problem remains with all these fuels and energy sources. This is unacceptable.
The Root Energy Problem
Above is the logo of the 11th International Conference on Transmission and Distribution Construction, Operation and Live-Line Maintenance scheduled for October 15-19, 2006 in Albuquerque, New Mexico and hosted by the Public Service Company of New Mexico. The theme of the conference, "The power is in your [the utilities'] hands," summarizes the CEDM perfectly.
The root source of the energy supply and pricing problem is a union of two current paradigms: the state of current technology combined with the Centralized Energy Distribution Model (CEDM).
• The Technology: Until the technology changes, we are stuck with utility companies and energy cartels because the energy sources are scarce and/or costly to discover, recover, refine, generate and transport. This requires temendous amounts of capital and huge investments in management, machines and manpower -- all suited for managed debt, government subsidies and creative accounting, i.e., big corporations.
• The Centralized Energy Distribution Model (CEDM): Until the CEDM business model changes energy will be transported by a grid and distributed through a network. Consumers are obliged to pay whatever is charged by the monopolies that produce this energy and the utilities that distribute hydro/oil/gas/nuclear energy. For all intents and purposes, fueling stations are utilities. If you don't like the energy company providing your energy, can you select another company with a significantly lower price?
These two paradaigms allow monopolies to control the supply and dictate the price of energy. This much is demonstrable and self-evident. To solve our energy crisis, BOTH these paradigms must be replaced.
The Oil Wars
The Oil Wars are on, and it would be naive to believe that the US/UK/Israel alliance is the only one waging the war to control access to energy and deprive others of it.
Global wars and political upheaval in the name of 'democracy' and 'liberation' are simply efforts to control the energy fields and rights-of-way in order to control the globe politically, economically and militarily. These wars and political intrigue do not represent a forced energy move. Fossil derived energy is not about to run out. Instead, these aggressive and imperialist moves are motivated by the immediate desire to control the world politically, economically and militarily, and to do that, energy supplies must be denied to those who would challenge the Pax Americana or Sino-Soviet/Pacific Rim efforts to dominate in the Twenty First Century. Terrorism will not be the reason for World War III. Terrorism will be the pretext. Efforts to control energy supplies in order to dominate the globe will be the reason for the next global conflict.
While this decade will come and go without a peak oil melt down, this is not to say we will escape an inevitable energy crisis precipitated by intentional restriction of the energy supply or the intentional destruction or interdiction of sections of the energy recovery, transport and distribution infrastructure for political, military, market and/or control pretext reasons.
While the Centralized Energy Distribution Model might serve the monopoly to extract a maximum price for energy, the model also exposes all nations that adhere to it to a devastating energy grid take-down by hostile forces. So not only must the CEDM be replaced for economic reasons, but for national security reasons as well. This is where the Peak Oilers have contributed the most by describing an energy society suddenly deprived of that energy for a long period. The description is a doomsday scenario, and a fully believable one at that.
Until the CEDM business model is replaced by a Distributed New Energy Model (DNEM) and the technology is developed and deployed to support the model, nothing in energy supply/pricing will change, and our exposure to a devastating attack on our energy grid will persist.
To break the monopoly of production and distribution and to end the Oil Wars    fought to control the supplies of oil/gas, endless supplies of clean and safe energy must be producible by the consumer on-site. Only then will the energy distribution grid, the control system that empowers the monopolies, disappear.
Until then, it is in every American's best self-interest to see that America produces as much of its own domestic oil and gas as possible. The alternatives listed above are all worse than oil and gas and much less dependable.
Oil and gas companies are not inherently evil. But they still represent the only real game in town for industrial-strength energy supplies and this makes them a de facto monopoly. Complaining about oil and gas companies is not the solution to our energy and security needs. Oil and gas companies are keeping us energized. To change the game and wean ourselves from the monopoly, we must develop new energy sources using renewable and distributed technology at the same time we keep the lights on by producing and using domestic oil and gas reserves.
This brings us to the question of whether these new energy technologies really exist, even in the tech bench stage, and whether they can be scaled up to become practical replacement alternatives to current hydro/oil/gas/nuclear/coal energy generation systems. This is the question that must be pursued and answered. Many are growing impatient because, just as with peak oil, abiotic oil, political fuels and corporate alternatives, new energy for too long has been dangling like the carrot on the end of the stick, just out of reach.
New Energy IS our only viable alternative to replacing fossil fuels and breaking the monopolistic economic tyranny of the Centralized Energy Distribution Model because, theoretically, energy from the vacuum is clean, endless in supply and extractable for the one time cost of an appliance. New Energy is the only viable solution to continued energy growth, ending the oil wars and restoration of our national energy security. If it isn't real yet, we must make it real.
What is New Energy? What are the technologies and theories being put forth regarding it? Why isn't America investing in New Energy research instead of subsidizing fossil fuels and granting oil executives a waiver from having to testify under oath before Congress? We'll explore these questions in future articles with our goal being to propose a course of action which will yield a solution to our energy problem.
David Sadler ran for Congress in the 12th Congressional District of Illinois in 2002 as a Republican. He advocates debates commence immediately between neo-conservatives and traditional conservatives. He maintains the neocons have hijacked the GOP, but that the neocons do not speak for traditional, liberty-minded conservatives. Energy independence through a Manhattan class national effort to develop New Energy sources is a corner stone of his plan to diminish the threat of terrorism against Americans and to reform American imperialist foreign policies.
The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.
The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
The result has been exactly as predicted in Lynch (1996) for this method: a series of predictions of near-term peak and decline, which have had to be repeatedly revised upwards and into the future. So much so as to suggest that the authors themselves are providing evidence that oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption!
Tesla Roadster: 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds, top speed over 130 mph, 250 miles per charge, 3-phase, 4-pole AC induction motor, rated at 230 HP, max torque at 0 rpm; redline at 13,500 rpm,
Costs about a penny per mile to drive, assuming a time-of-use meter and off-peak charging (about 2 pennies per mile otherwise), Zero emissions
BATTERY TECHNOLOGY SUPPRESSION INHIBITING E-CAR PRODUCTION
EXISTING battery technology, available since the 1990s, is being suppressed by this line of ownership: GM -> Texico -> Chevron. The last of the Toyota RAV4-EV [Toyota] [Wikipedia] electric car fleet is still running on these "large-format" EV-95 batteries perfected in 1997 to meet the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate. These batteries are already achieving up to 120 miles on a charge. GM is saying they are trying to ramp up development on batteries to achieve 20 to 40 miles per charge. President George W. Bush has also set the national goal for these batteries at this same 20 to 40 miles per charge goal --- far less than currently deployed state of the art.
This technology suppression threatens the America's national security by increasing our dependence upon foreign energy supplies and maintaining our dependence upon an energy grid. BOTH of these dependencies expose the US to attacks by forces hostile to the US and to intentional economic and political disruption of our energy supply. In addition, this suppression of proven, deployed and operational technology that could free us from this dependency and release us from this exposure represents a calculated and obvious conspiracy to withhold such technology from the free market for the immediate self-interest of a functional monopoly on energy.
We must forcable take the technology out of the hands of those who are withholding it at the expense of our national security and the 'general welfare.' The preferred means of doing this would be to convince the private entities to do the right thing, however, since we know that won't work, our option is to legislate the release of the patents on this technology to the public domain in the national security interest and national economic interest of the people of the United States who have subsidized Big Oil for decades and who have paid with their blood and with their national treasury the costs of war that have enabled Big Oil access to the oil fields of the world.
NiMH technology (Nickel-Metal-Hydride)
Deep Cycle, no memory effect
High energy output for acceleration
Long lifetime, longer than the life of the car
Achieve 80 mph and up to 120 miles on a charge
The conspiracy to suppress...
The battery developer sold controlling rights to GM (1)
"GM sold control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH batteries to Texaco" (1)
"Texico merged with Chevron oil" (2)
"Chevron's subsidiary sued Toyota, Panasonic and all other battery makers, forcing a settlement agreement and $30,000,000 payment from Toyota to Chevron's subsidiary. Toyota's NiMh production line was closed down, and no more EV-95 batteries are available for any purchaser at any price." (2)
"Chevron's patent rights don't expire until after 2014" (2)
"Current battery technologies used in today's hybrid-electric vehicles store only enough energy to drive the vehicle in an electric-only mode at low speed for a very short range (1-2 miles) ... [The White House vision is to] develop advanced battery technologies that allow a plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle to have a 40-mile range operating solely on battery charge ... the President’s 2007 Budget includes $31 million in new research funding to support advanced battery research, a 27% increase over 2006 levels."
-- Advanced Energy Initiative
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE, February 20, 2006
"The plug-in hybrid, they estimate, can initially go 40 miles on electricity alone ... We're going to provide $31 million to speed up research on these advanced [battery] technologies ... "
--- George W. Bush, President Discusses Advanced Energy Initiative In Milwaukee
Johnson Controls Building Efficiency Business
In the left panel, we see that the US government is giving away tens of millions of dollars to corporations to 'research' advanced battery technology. We see that the White House is saying the best battery technology we have today will yield a range per charge of only 1 to 2 miles. We see that the White House 'vision' for battery technology for a range of up to 40 miles per charge. But NOW WE KNOW that GM/Texico/Chevron is sitting on currently deployed but legally dead-ended battery technology that gets up to 120 miles per charge. Repeating... 120 mile per charge battery technology ALREADY EXISTS and IS CURRENTY DEPLOYED by Toyota but LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM FURTHER PRODUCTION.
Now read this...
"Detroit automakers have suggested that the Bush administration triple money devoted to battery research and give incentives for building electric vehicle batteries in the United States, company executives said Tuesday.
[[[comment by DSS:
1) How much are the auto makers currently receiving for battery 'research?'
2) What is the total budgeted amount for battery 'research' and who is currently receiving it?
3) All oil/gas and battery grants and subsidies must stop now! These are corporate give-aways (corporate welfare) with NO return on investment for the US taxpayer/consumer. Current battery technology already exists for 120 miles per charge. This technology MUST be forced by law under a National Energy Emergency Act into the public domain so that private developers everywhere can use and improve upon this technology and so we can continue deploying electric cars NOW. The only 'subsidy' received by Chevron for this patent will be the amount Chevron paid for the controlling interest in this battery technology. The remaining shareholders will be paid the market value of their shares and the battery patent will become public domain. This take-over will be the penalty this company and these shareholders pay for withholding state of the art battery technology while taking US taxpayer dollars to 'research' battery technology.
One can easily see that this emphasis on 'research' is totally misplaced. We need 'DEPLOYMENT' of existing but suppressed technology. It will take legislation to do this since those suppressing this technology demonstrate by their actions their contempt for the common good and the national secuity of the United States.]]]
"The suggestions were sent to the White House in December, about a month after the heads of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler Group met with President George W. Bush for an hour in the Oval Office. Officials said that conversation included a discussion of what the government could do to speed basic research into batteries.
[[[comment by DSS:
What government can do to 'speed basic research into batteries' is to release the above patent to the public domain. It is guaranteed that thousands of independent minds will begin their own research and improvement upon this existing battery technology and rapid gains will begin emerge as electric cars take to the highways of America and the world within a year of release to the public domain.]]]
"Such batteries will play an important role in the fortunes of Detroit automakers ... GM's Chevrolet Volt electric car concept uses even more advanced technology to provide up to 40 miles of electric-only driving."
[[[comment by DSS:
The immediate fortunes of Detroit automakers will most likely spike for sales but decrease for parts once electric cars become obtainable by the public at large. As to the 'advanced' technology providing 'up to 40 miles' per charge --- we already know this is a STEP BACKWARD and represents a clear conspiracy to suppress battery technology.]]]
"Plug In America advocates the use of plug-in cars, trucks and SUVs powered by cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity to reduce our nation's dependence on petroleum and improve the global environment."
EAA's Purpose: To act as a source of information for the membership, other organizations and the public, on the current state of electric vehicle technology worldwide.
To encourage experimentation in the building of electric vehicles, particularly to improve energy and resource efficiency, reduce emissions and improve vehicle safety.
To promote and organize public exhibits of electric vehicles built by members and others for the purpose of informing the public on the progress of electric vehicle technology and conducting public opinion polls.
To use all media, such as newsletters, web sites, information packages, and other paper and electronic media designed to inform the public and promote the cause of electric vehicles.
"Nanosolar coatings are as thin as a layer of paint and can tranfer sunlight into power quite efficiently ... cheaper than burning coal ... The underlying technology for these solar cells is nothing new, having been around for decades, but Nanosolar has created the actual technology to manufacture and mass produce the solar sheets."
"Your next laptop could have a continuous power battery that lasts for 30 years without a single recharge thanks to work being funded by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. The breakthrough betavoltaic power cells are constructed from semiconductors and use radioisotopes as the energy source. As the radioactive material decays it emits beta particles that transform into electric power capable of fueling an electrical device like a laptop for years."
• Part One (wmv)
• Part Two (wmv)
• Part Three (wmv) (Stanley Meyer segment)
• Part Four (wmv)
Stan Meyer, inventor
Meyer Water Fuel Cell
Sole sorce fuel
On-demand hydrogen production
Modified car engine would have cost $1,500 +/-
42 patents had been applied for.
Uses rain water, well water, city water, ocean water, snow,
Trip from LA to NY would use 22 gallons of water.
-- Statements taken from a 1998? Action News 6 video report, Ralph Robinson Reporting --
Meyer Water Cell produced hydrogen on demand in quantities sufficient to power Meyer's dune buggy. Images from documentary video "It runs on water."
Centrifugal Electro Hydrogen Generator (EHG) test platform
Image from Alambik Alfa website Russian Federation
This website is translated to English from Russian.
Learn more about EHG.
"Orbo is the brand name of our free energy technology. Orbo is a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy. It can be applied to power products ranging from portable music players to cars.
Following validation Orbo technology will be made available via our online developers forum. This forum will allow everyone from a product developer to a research organization to understand and develop products based around our technology. The Developers Forum is currently in trial with several hundred users."
Learn more about Orbo
NOTE: The live London demonstration of this device failed without a definitive explanation. Excess heat from the lights was blamed but this does not explain how it could affect magnets and circuits when the web cams were working fine. Combined with the fact that Steorn is still seeking licensing fees for the technology, one is left with the impression of a scam instead of a demonstrable technology.
I am flagging this company's claims for this 'free energy' device as a scam until we can see a consensus among the validation scientists that the claims are true.
Joe Cell: I do not endorse this technology. Initial research indicates that claims exceed demonstrable proofs to the extent that Joe Cell technology resembles a hoax. My investigation has concluded for an article on this demonstrability of this technology, but the reader can conduct their own research and make up their own mind. Some helpful links are provided.
This bubble action is nothing more than hydrogen at best. Greg Watson has done the best job conducting and documenting the science regarding Joe Cell chemistry.
The famous claims are that this cell...
• will fuel an automobile internal combustion engine,
• using only water as a fuel catalyst.
• No other fuel is required.
• Water is not the fuel.
• The water is not consumed.
• Water is the catalyst.
• Only minor engine modifications are required
consisting primarily of timing advancement.
• To fuel an internal combustion engine,
the cell must achieve 'stage 3' performance.
• Stages 1 and 2 produce only hydrogen.
• It is claimed that hydrogen is not the fuel, and
producing hydrogen is counter productive.
• Stage 3 is alleged to produce an exotic and mysterious 'primordial life' energy that Alex Schiffer calls 'Orgone.'
• Some contend the gas being produced is Brown's gas.
• Despite the debate between Orgone and Brown's gas proponents, it is claimed that energy density levels exceeding gas and diesel are produced by the Joe Cell.
These famous Joe Cell claims are without demonstrable proof, existing only as anecdotallegend.
• The claims are famous within the Joe Cell community and exist on many websites and in videos and manuals.
• No one contacted can or is willing to prove these claims.
• Asking for proof is offensive within the Joe Cell community.
• Asking for proof is met with ridicule for the person asking for proof.
• Common rebutals to the question include claims that it has already worked and been demonstrated.
• The article being written will compare claims to proof.
• It will also comment on MIB/MIW legends.
Others are trying to validate these claims, but so far, without success.
Primary excuses for failing to demonstrate working Joe Cells include...
• They do not work for everybody.
• The Joe Cell responds to positive thoughts of the user (Orgone life energy).
• The Joe Cell does not work on all engines.
• Men In Black and Men In White force people into silence who have working Joe Cells or who are close to getting cells to work.
Peter Stevens photo from PESWiki website
Peter Stevens is a Joe Cell evangelist and consultant.
"[I] have built some new inventions this one [the Joe Cell] as well ... [there] are twenty six elemnts and gases before Hydrogen..."
-- Peter Stevens, msg 4283 --
"According to Peter Joe is happy to talk cellery, no problem - the secrecy is all imagined. That contradicts what we think we know ... Peter explains that the cell's invention was a *cooperative*
effort - it was *not* Joe alone - he, Peter, was part of it! "
-- Adrian, msg 4283 --
This post (msg 4283) by Adrian (moderator of groups.yahoo.com/group/joecellfreeenergydevice) is a good history of the timeline of the relationship between 'Joe', Alex Schiffer and Peter Stevens.
June 16, 2006: "The New Energy Congress has voted that a validation of the Joe cell running a vehicle, with fuel line disconnected must take place prior to having Peter Stevens come to Salt Lake City at their invitation for the Joe Cell Seminar."
-- NEC vote results for Joe Cell seminar & pre-requisite validation, Message #2922, Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:39 am, groups.yahoo.com/group/JoesCell2 --
It is my opinion that the famous claims promoting this technology are a hoax. Whether this hoax is intentional or not does not concern the intent of this article. In no way do I endorse this technology or the promoters of this technology. The ONLY event that will change this personal opinion, to which I am entitled, is a demonstration of this technology successfully meeting its famous promotional claims, i.e., running a automobile engine as the sole fuel source on nothing but water. An appeal to suppression of technology weaves an unreasonable excuse as to why this technology is not literally proliferating private automobiles in an underground economy given that gas is now at $3/gallon in the US.
• google: Brown's Gas and this.
• google: Grove Cell technology
• google: Meyer Water Cell • Rex Research: Stanley Meyer Water Cell
"[The Joe Cell] provides all the power that the engine needs ... [and] can be used with almost any engine that normally runs on gasoline ... Practically anyone, who is careful and pays very close attention to construction and 'alignment' details, can build this cell."
-- Ken Adachi, The Joe Energy Cell, educate-yourself.org --
"Sol [Millin] Claims Car Runs On Water"
-- Byron Shire Echo, 2005.08.23, reporting on Sol Millin of byronnewenergy.com --
The logical question is, where is this car that runs on the Joe Cell? Why can't the New Energy Congress validate Sol Millin's car instead of waiting on Peter Stevens to get his working? An inquiry has been sent to the Echo for clarification on 2006.06.17.
Suppression of Joe Cell technology
or tall tales?
"Where is Joe... After the Joe videos started to get into circulation in Australia [1993-1997], Joe himself had some visitors. They intimidated him and eventually broke into his workshop and stole everything he had: all of his cells, tools, equipment, etc. He was told to disappear and stop talking or something bad may happen to him and his family. He went into hiding."
-- JoeCell DownUnder, www.joecell.com.au --
"In the first part of April, 2006, Bill Williams told a discussion list that he successfully tested a device known as the Joe Cell. It allegedly feeds off Orgone energy and uses electrically charged water as the "gate" or medium through which the aetheral energy is drawn from the surroundings and transferred to the automobile engine. He was in process of disclosing how he accomplished this when confronted on April 11 by two unidentified individuals who told him to cease all of his alternative energy work or there would be dire consequences. Williams complied..."
-- OS:Bill Williams' Joe Cell, peswiki.com/Bill_Williams --
"On May 16 , a technician who was one of a team of garage experimenters investigating a hydrogen-on-demand technology was run off the road near a rural intersection and accosted by four white, middle-aged males in black suits, carrying Glocks and Mac tens. The assailants were driving a late model, black Lincoln Town Car ... [T]he victim ... was told [to] stop work on the process immediately ... [T]he person threatened has stopped all work on the project."
-- Water Fuel Experimenter and Team Threatened, by Sterling D. Allan, Pure Energy Systems News, June 2, 2006 --
A meeting of the Netherlands Joe Cell group was held on 2006.06.10. At this meeting, a person unknown to the group appeared claiming his car was fueled by a Joe Cell. This person was invited to address the group on this matter but left before speaking. Before leaving, he told some attendees he was being harassed and was reluctant to make any public statements after having done just that. One member of the Netherlands Joe Cell group commented that, "It seems we have a Bill Williams in the Netherlands as well."
This information was included in an email dated 2006.06.11 and sent to several persons discussing the Joe Cell controversy. I was included on this mailing. The person sending the email is a member of the Netherlands Joe Cell group and indicated he was present at the meeting, but it is unclear as to whether he witnessed the stranger's claims personally or even whether he saw this individual. The sender of the email wishes to remain anonymous. Attempts to obtain clarifications have been met with abrupt hostility.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Is NUTECH2000 making false claims regarding its free energy devices?
Who owns this company?
Who profits from the sale of materials and literature to build Joe Cells and other 'free energy' devices?
"You can also make a direct payment to any Westpac Bank' or 'Bank of Melbourne' Deposit to the account from your local bank or on the internet.
Account Name 'Eco Energy Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd' trading as 'Nutech 2000'
Account details you will need - BSB- 033-057 Account No: 18-7188. 'IVANHOE BRANCH' MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA"
-- from NUTECH2000 site --
"JOE CELL KITS & MANUALS
"BOOKS, VIDEOS, KITS & ACCESSORIES. This technology has taken the underground by storm all over the world. At last a free energy device within reach of the novice."
-- from NUTECH2000 site --
"... correct construction techniques are essential [for] any chance of being successful ... Those who stuck strictly to the instructions in the published books have achieved some out standing successes."
-- OUT OF THE HORSES MOUTH - TAPE TWO, NUTECH2000
The above states quite plainly that those who follow the instructions in Joe Cell books sold by Nutech can and have achieved success. 'Success' is defined by the famous claims being made for this device, i.e., that it will run a car on nothing but water. Validation of this claim is being sought but the claims remain unproven.
"WATER AS FUEL
"Stanley Meyer MANUALS AND VIDEOS - The resonate water fuel cell that can run a car. There are many oter ways to run a car on water."
-- from NUTECH2000 site --
Schiffer does repeat the famous claims.
• Orgone is the base fuel.
• It can run a car. He has run cars using it.
• It can be used for medicinal purposes. It has a life force.
This post is well worth the read. In it, Schiffer calls out Peter Stevens and even the mysterious Joe to do as Schiffer has done and share their knowledge of the Joe Cell in writing. To Schiffer's credit, he has made his manual free of charge on-line.
This is not an endorsement of the Joe Cell at all because the technology can not be demonstrated to meet its famous claims, but this is to say that Alex Schiffer is not to be lumped into the same category as Peter Stevens, simply because Schiffer is offering his notes free on-line, wishes to use conventional scientific terminology in discussing Joe Cell behavior and specifications and seems to actually be a very courteous and professional person. However, Schiffer has not demonstrated to the New Energy Congress his claim that the Joe Cell will run a car. I'll try to contact Schiffer for an interview for the article.
"To date, Alex Schiffer has converted four car engines to run on orgone energy using the Joe Cell Method.
-- Alex Schiffer, 1999, The Joe Cell Breakthrough --
"I do not think that an unconditionally stable cell can be made, at present ... I can charge a cell to stage 3, but I cannot keep it there. The
best I managed its three days."
-- Alex Schiffer, msg 4364 --
"I am sorry that you did not get a free copy [Experimenters Guide to the Joe Cell] from the web, although sometimes a paper copy is handy. Regarding the money, I do not get a cent, Nutech gets the lot."
-- Alex Schiffer, msg 4318 --
All images from Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc
Hydrogen Tecnology Applications, Inc Mr. Denny Klein, President
Mr. Peter Dominici, Vice President of Finance & Information
Fox News channel 26
Craig Patrick reporting
• video news report www.wimp.com/fuelwater/ • video news report YouTube Fox News reports that:
a) the HHOS test vehicle, a 1994 Ford Escort, can run exclusively on water at 25 mpo (miles per ounce of water),.
b) member of Congress invited Denny Klein to Washington to demonstrate his technology,
c) Hydrogen Technologies is currently developing a Hummer for the military that can run on water,
d) his engines have passed all safety performance inspections
WARNING ... WARNING
It is my opinion at this time that the claims promoting this technology are a hoax. In no way do I endorse the promoters of this technology. The ONLY event that will change this personal opinion, to which I am entitled, is a demonstration of this technology successfully meeting its promotional claims, i.e., running a automobile engine as the sole fuel source on nothing but water. I am attempting to contact HTA for an interview and identity of the congress persons to whom HTA claims it gave a successful demonstration of this technology meeting its claims.
--David Sadler --
The following quotes are taken from the HTA web site, unless otherwise stated.
"... the Klein/HHO Gas, when combusted can cause temperatures in excess of 10,000°F from ordinary water, with no hydrocarbon effluents, and with pure water as the only by-product of combustion."
"Aquygen™ Gas produces NO toxic fumes when burned because it is pure water."
"The ability to create this stable, unique gas on demand from a water electrochemical generator is of great strategic importance, especially because (1) it offers a workable energy level per pound of fuel that is ten-to-twelve times that of gasoline; (2) when combusted/ignited, it causes no hydrocarbon effluents such as NOX, nitrites, nitrates, etc., and (3) its by-product from combustion is pure, environmentally-friendly water."
"A first basic feature in the production of Aquygen™ Gas is that there is no evaporation process at all, and, in any case, the electric energy available is basically insufficient for evaporation. This feature alone establishes that the H2O Model 1500 Aquygen™ Gas Generator produces a "new form of water" that is gaseous and combustible!"
"Aquygen™ Gas, when combusted, produces no ultra-violet radiation and does not require special protective eyewear or clothing when used."
"Aquygen™ Gas is generated on location, thus eliminating the need for gas tanks, bottles and large storage facilities that are inherently hazardous."
"The HHOS has been tested in two different vehicles (the current prototype, which is a 1994 Ford Escort Wagon, and a 1998 Ford Ranger pickup) and fuel economy increases have ranged from 22.9% to 100% depending upon the amount of electrical energy (amps & volts) that are available for the production of Aquygen™ Gas."
"The HHOS is cost efficient. The economic payback on fleet vehicles could be less than six months!"
"The HHOS is in patent pending stage with 39 claims pending."
"[The] electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen gases is well known and was discovered more than a hundred years ago. However, the problem has always been the power requirements (electrical requirements) to energize the water molecule to convert into separate hydrogen and oxygen gases. Typically the energy requirement was too great to produce an economical and efficient hydrogen fuel source. In addition, most conventional electrolyzers produced only small quantities of separate hydrogen and oxygen gas that were very explosive and dangerous if not handled properly."
Klein/HHO Gas technology
Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc (HTA) has already made the classic strategic mistake by negotiating with a major auto maker and the US Government as strategic partners in bringing the technology to market. According to the Fox News video report (linked below images), HTA is converting Hummers for the US military and members of Congress have already seen a demonstration of the appliance.
How is it then that no mention has been made by any member of congress during all the media attention given to our energy crisis and soaring gas/diesel prices? If the demonstration before members of congress worked, why is there not an emergency national effort to stabilize this process and begin the conversion of the US auto fleet to this gas saving (and perhaps gas substitution) technology?
When will these inventors learn to release the technology to the public domain? Do Denny Klein and Peter Dominici of HTA wish to become rich the old fashioned way, by becoming patented, energy moguls? They could have chosen to become rich by beginning the conversion of cars in their local community - then region then state. They could have changed the world by themselves. Now it's questionable if we will ever hear anything more about this energy source, and if we do, the energy model will be such that the CEDM will remain in place, thus ensuring a controlled supply and dictated price for the HHO gas.
The following quotes are taken from the HTA web site, unless otherwise stated.
"Aquygen™ Gas will release an estimated 3.1 times the energy levels released by pure Hydrogen or traditional Hydrogen & Oxygen mixtures."
"The [Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen System ("HHOS")] can be installed with very little modification to a standard piston engine. Water and oil operating temperatures are not affected by the HHOS."
A video on the web site says that for automobile fueling purposes the gas is not stored, but produced on demand at 55psi. But then the site text says,
"The HHOS is evolutionary, not revolutionary, as it utilizes the existing refueling infrastructure (gas and diesel stations)..."
Why would this be? What need is there for refueling stations if the fuel is water and the HHO gas is produced on demand? And why would HTA be concerned about preserving an obsolete paradigm? The only losers are those few involved in gas/diesel distribution. Did the auto makers worry about the buggy whip makers? Did digital watch makers worry about analog watch makers? We are in a national emergency regarding energy supply and price. This new technology will create many more jobs than it displaces.
Photo: School of Biosciences & School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K.
"Coupling of Bio-H2 made by fermentation of confectionery waste to the operation of a PEM fuel cell used to drive an electrical device" (text from photo source)
"Bacteria that can munch through confectionery could be a valuable source of non-polluting energy in the years ahead, new research has shown. In a feasibility study funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, bioscientists at the University of Birmingham have demonstrated that these bacteria give off hydrogen gas as they consume high-sugar waste produced by the confectionery industry." -- Sweet success for pioneering hydrogen energy project, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) --
Image from hydrogen-boost.com
"Tests have shown over 95% efficiency on some of our prototypes. Our typical hydrogen generator will produce 1.5 to 2 liters of alternative fuel gas (hydrogen and oxygen mixed) per minute using twelve volts and 20-30 amperes... Hydrogen, in combinations with other electrolyzed gases (actually Brown’s gas), introduced into the intake manifold of your engine ..."
-- Text from hydrogen-boost.com --
Hydrogen-Boost with Brown's Gas
This was the counter when I visited.
What is it for you?
We've not checked them out and aren't checking them out. If you would like to, let us know what you find out.
) J.C. Maxwell's [On Physical Lines of Force (primary)] [On Physical Lines of Force (backup)]
Maxwell was a Professor of Natural Philosophy at King's College in London.
Maxwell has achieved mythical status in the New Energy community. Tom Bearden says Maxwell in the text books is not what Maxwell actually authored. It would be VERY, VERY interesting to see someone compare Maxwell's actual papers to the Maxwell theories depicted in text books. Any takers?