Guys, there is technology RIGHT NOW to double fuel economy, which would eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. This would be a huge shot in the arm to our economy. They are just having trouble getting it out there due to lack of funding, and a lack of infrastructure of trained mechanics that can do the conversions. Check it out here www.preignitioncc.com/pm

And on roughly the same topic, people don't think of laundry detergents at petrochemicals usually, but they are. Detergents are derived almost totally from crude oil, which is why the price has been going up so much lately. Gas might cost $3.50 per gallon, but detergent has gone up to $13 per gallon! And these petrochemicals are imbued in our clothes and on our skin all day long. I found the "hydrogen fuel cell" of the laundry industry, which happens to be out right now: http://www.magneticlaundry.com

I can say after some strong initial skepticism that this is the real deal. If everybody used this thing, maybe gas prices would come down, because EVERYBODY is using these petrochemicals in their washing machines every day. God only knows what it is doing to our water supply.

Heh, tap water.  Love the comment.

OK, down to business, "laundry balls" might work well.  I can buy that one.  I use magnetic "water softener" with great results i.e. soap actually "suds" now.

PICC or pre-ignition-catalytic-converter, is bogus according to my (considerable) knowledge AT LEAST without additional significant modifications.  There is VERY little unexpended fuel that gets to the Cat in modern engines.  

I CANNOT ATTACK THE THEORY ANY FURTHER THAN THAT.  I CAN ADD HOW CARS ACTUALLY WORK HOWEVER.

In a carburetor, gas is sucked into the engine through little holes, already drilled or otherwise metered.  I do not want to go into unnecessary details but the holes are drilled or the flow is already otherwise metered.  The only gain would come by pushing the pedal LESS and then THAT is very limited because you'd get into the inefficient "idle circuit".  Very limited gain possible 10X is simply impossible.

People would be creating 1000 horsepower with these devices in their family sedans if it were possible.  Believe it when you see it with you own eyes.

In a fuel injected car (very different from carbureted), gas is squirted in at relatively high pressure according to how long the computer tells the injector to turn on which was determined by SENSOR DATA.  The main sensors in an average car would be (to make it easy) air flow, air temp, engine coolant temp, RPM, MPH, gear, perceived load calculations, throttle position, etc...  I AM abridging this a bit.

The fuel injector is simply not designed to squirt 1/10th of it's optimal capacity in an efficient manner.  In most engines this would produce almost instantly an error code that would illuminate your MIL (Malfunction Indicator Light) also known to the general populous as the "Check Engine Light".  Fuel injectors being asked to deliver LESS or MORE than the programming parameters turn on the MIL light, period.

I know that alternative energy is around the corner.  Please don't dismiss me as a skeptic

To reply to ne_plus_ultra_1, the answer is that the modern vehicle is totally inefficient by design. Less than 30% of the fuel in your tank is used as energy. If you can achieve a cleaner burn, your fuel efficiency dramatically increases. And yes, when tuning the car for this modification, the check engine lights have been coming on in some of the cars, according to some mechanics (from what i've heard). But that doesn't mean the fuel economy isn't improved. It is. The technology is there, it just needs perfecting like anything else. Do not dismiss something out of hand that you have not experienced that really does work. Especially one that can positively change the world as much as this one does.

It appears that these cars may be programmed to actually give you worse fuel economy at the factory. One source I personally spoke to formerly from the auto industry, said they witnessed collusion between the auto and oil companies. In return for Big Auto keeping fuel economy down (which saves Big Oil billions), the auto manufacturers got funding for their expensive redesigns (which drives all new sales--and kept them financially afloat), according to this source.

One interesting anecdote: I pulled out one of my "new car guides" from 1995. The new base model Honda civic was listed as getting 56 MPG EPA. Fast forward to my 2008 copy, and the 08 Civic gets 26 mpg city and 34 mpg hwy. Even their $26K hybrid only gets 40/46. Is technology in fuel economy so backward that in 13 years we can go from enormous "bag" 10 lb. cell phones to tiny phones that can take videos, surf the internet, email and catalogue our entire life--but our fuel economy actually gets WORSE as the price of the car DOUBLES! Could someone PLEASE explain this absurd technological inconsistency, and why millions of Americans are not howling to their government to force the auto industry to AT LEAST give us the fuel economy we enjoyed OVER A DECADE AGO??

Be wary of any device that claims to improve fuel economy.  After all, if it worked why wouldn't the automotive manufacturers use it and radically boost their sales?

I've been signed up on www. preignitionpc.com/pm when it first came out but haven't heard nor been able to get contacted by anyone there.  Makes me wonder what's really up?  I know there are alternatives but unless I can get more information, I just have to take governmental abuse in the form of higher gas prices with no end in sight.

Wait wait WAIT a minute here - you in the US are only paying $3.50 a gallon for gas??  In the UK, it costs MORE THAN DOUBLE that - actually closer to TRIPLE than double!

!

Gee wiz, can't we all work together?

No?

At least you can read my MySpace blog and get smarter (or stupider) depending on the entry you read.

I just wrote 2000 characters to healthiswealth but can't locate them on this slightly disjointed thread.

One of my best friend's dad's pumped gas when he was a kid.  This guy came in regularly for gas and always had the oil checked.

Once he came in and there was nothing on the dipstick.  My friend's dad reported this to him and he said "I know" and indicated that he had created something new that didn't require crankcase oil.

Next week he showed up with a VERY expensive car with oil in the crankcase.

NOW, THIS IS AN ACTUAL PERSON THAT I CAN PUT YOU IN COMMUNICATION WITH.  PLEASE ONLY REBUT WITH THE SAME.

I am shocked that a so-called "professional engineer" has written such load of rubbish.

He says: "Hydrogen is a renewable, versatile, simple, sustainable domestic energy and there is no danger of running out of hydrogen because it is the most abundant element in the universe".

What nonsense! Hydrogen is NOT a form of renewable energy at all. In fact, hydrogen, by itself, does not exist in nature in any usable quantity. Do you know of any hydrogen wells or hydrogen mines? Of course not, because hydrogen has to be MANUFACTURED, for heaven's sake. It is MADE from other forms of energy such as electricity. And, as always with energy conversion, you get less energy from the hydrogen you manufacture than the electricity you put into the manufacturing process!

The concept of a carbon-free "hydrogen economy" is deceptive because it really    depends on NUCLEAR POWER ... to make the electricity...to make the hydrogen. That is actually OK by me, but remember that the the energy comes from the atomic power plant, from URANIUM fuel, and not from water.

As others have pointed out, hydrogen is just a way of STORING energy, like a battery. The energy itself comes from elsewhere.  

Here is a final illustration: If water is energy, as he says, then so is the carbon dioxide that is causing global warming in the first place. After all, it contains huge amounts of carbon, doesn't it? So why don't we burn that carbon and get free energy for ever? Oh that's right, I forgot, carbon dioxide is the RESIDUE that is left AFTER you burn carbon. Well, likewise, water is the RESIDUE left AFTER you "burn" hydrogen. Don't confuse it with a fuel.

This is totally bogus, and anyone who took a high school physiocs or chemistry class should know it.  There is currently no proven electrolysis system that produces hydrogen in an "over unity" condition,  That means that it takes more energy to get hydrogen than can be produced by burning the hydrogen that is produced.

This system will not only not increase your mileage, but will decrease mileage, because it will take more energy to run the alternator than you can get from the hydrogen that it might produce.  Notice that they want you to use their machine to tell you how much you're saving.  If you were getting 50% better mileage, you would need a machine to tell you so.

There is simply no other form of energy that we know of today to give the amount of energy, pound for pound, that petroleum does.  This will not likely change, and hydrogen will not be a real viable energy source until oil gets too expensive to pump out of the ground, but that wont be for hundreds of years, and by then we'll have fusion or zero point technology.

to Healthiswealth: www.preignitioncc.com/pm doesn't look like a trustworthy source.  I have a bad impression it's a SCAM.  What do you know about them besides they have a website? It's too good to be true and I didn't find anything else on the Internet.  Pls, fill me in.

healthiswealth,

We all totally believe in the collusion between the oil and auto companies, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE WILL EVER SEE THESE THINGS COME TO FRUITION!!!

They have been talking about these energy saving vehicles and alternative energy sources since I was young and I have seen NOTHING in regard to that end ever become available to the masses.  Not even a slight increase in gas milage!!  There is too much $$$ involved.  

What would we do with all the unemployed oil tycoons??!!??  

Hydrogen can be cracked from distilled water. Water can be distilled from tap using solar panels. The same solar panels can then crack the distilled water for the hydrogen. Where is the downside to that, I wonder? We can power the country NOW using solar, wind, geothermal, water and algae WITHOUT using food sources AND the algae can be eaten and help with the warming of our atmosphere.

Carbon credit trades are more than a politically created gravy train for a select few.

It is also a method to control every living thing on Earth.

We exhale CO2

Got the picture?

My husband is an environmental scientist and has been saying this ever since Al Gore came up with the whole "Global Warming" lie to make a fast buck with his new corporation selling carbon credits.  My dear husband has been trying to get people to open their ears and hear the truth based on science, instead of going off half-cocked with emotions about "saving the earth."  

He is a scientist and also an outdoorsmen and an environmentalist (NOT an environmental wacko- there is a difference!)but nobody wants to hear the truth!

Most of the "alternative fuels" would actually harm the environment more in the long run but nobody wants to hear it.  They put their fingers in their ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you"  when you show them hard data.

I thought they COULD tell us the weather next week - accurately predicted by activity on the the Sun... ?

As to global warming, isn't there a lot of polar (or at least very-far-north-and-not-melted-in-living-memory) ice melting recently? Please correct me if I'm wrong - I am actually asking; it's not a rhetorical question.

I do remember looking at a study/article explaining that global warming is not really happening but it was subsequently debunked because some of the data was, reportedly incorrect - again, please enlighten me. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this.

I do agree that the carbon credit trade business stinks up the place.

This is a ridiculous position to take to say that CO2 is not a pollutant. Clearly, it is a greenhouse gas, that has the potential to heat up the atmosphere. The extreme case of this is Venus, with clouds of CO2 that lead to a very high atmospheric temepreature. It is my understanding that the temperature difference between the earth and the sun cannot be explained solely by closeness to the sun, the difference is greenhouse gases.

Of course that does not mean that the current level of CO2 emissions are contributing to significant warming of the earth. That is the scientific debate. Reasonable minds disagree on this subject, and policy-makers are left with the problem of how to proceed in the wake of uncertainty.

I would not take publications from the von Mises institute at face value, without looking at the opinions of ohter experts. The von Mises institute is a right wing economic think tank (the Austrian school). They are legitimate researchers, but they look for researchers who would support their extreme free market position.

As far as emissions trading, that is mainstream in the economics profession today, as a way of reducing the cost of control of various emissions. It has been used successfully, for instance in the reduction of SO2 emissions from coal fired power plants, a known contributor to acid deposition leading to fiorest death and the decline of fisheries.

The debate continues as to the seriousness of anthropogenic (man produced)warming form CO2 emisssions. So we are left with trying to decide whether to consciously limit CO2 emissions based on uncertainty. If we decide to endorse such an appraoch, carbon trading is certainly a cost effective way to meet those objectives, as would be shown in any introductory environmental economics textbook (but not likely any publication from the von Mises institute).

LadyPam...Here is an interesting article about factors that contribute to ice melts.  There is more good stuff in the comments to this article as well.

www.cosmosmagazine.com/.../1810

I thought that about the plants using more carbon dioxide as it became more available.  And I'm glad the plants are growing faster. I did read an article where plant's use of CO2 was studied.  Turns out excessive levels of CO2 cause the plant's pores to restrict thus reducing CO2 intake.  Let's hope that doesn't happen before the rest of the eco-mess gets solved.

I believe that certain things will enhance the warming of the earth, theorectically, but we are in a warming phase right now as are other planets in our solar system ( and I hardly think it's because of their greenhouse gases)....check out solar cycle 24...we have a little more heating up  to go...

then in solar cycle 25...we will have a MAJOR cooldown....(solar cycles are every 11 years..we just began 24 in Jan. 2008-2019)...check it out  :)

This is the first time I've replied to a post on Mercola, but this is a subject I am become well read on. First off in response to xyzsch, Venus is is not Earth's twin to use it as direct comparison to support CO2 caused global warming is a fallacy. Secondly, if the high surface temperature of Venus was caused by an atmospheric greenhouse effect, then there would very little heat radiating through the atmosphere into space. Venus probe data has proven this to not be the case.

LadyPam, this winter ice has been growing in the arctic and antarctic with the antarctic ice growing at a record rate. I think that some other glaciers around the world have grown this winter, but I'm not positive on that.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is water vapor. So are we to replace one greenhouse gas producer for another? Of course that question assumes human activity impacts global warming. Considering that the Sun is what warms our planet, it's absurd to minimize or discount increased solar activity's effect on global warming. But this is exactly what human caused global warming proponents have done.

LadyPam - Yes, you are right - predictions based on solar sunspot activity are doing well. To bad none of the major climate models includes that in it's complex calculations.

And as for polar ice - it's irrelevant to the CO2 question. Even if it completely disappeared tomorrow, the fact that it had gone doesn't tell us much about what CAUSED the warming in the first place. If cosmic rays were heating the planet, wouldn't ice melt then too?

Xyzsch - Ha. It's ridiculous to say CO2 IS a pollutant. The only evidence you give is that it is a greenhouse gas. True! Which reinforces my point. Without CO2, the world would be much colder. Hello Ice Age. Thank you CO2. But if this confuses you, I'd quite understand. It's like this; CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of light, and so the first 100ppm makes a welcome warm difference. If you add more CO2 above that it gets less and less important. Once it has absorbed all it's favorite wavelengths there is not much else the extra CO2 can do. Hence, even though the first 100ppm was warming, we're up to 380ppm now, and it's like painting the tenth layer of blackout on a window. Diddly-squat diff. It's not a linear absorption - it's logarithmic, and that's basic textbook science.

vrbaetim - Plant pores contracting with extra CO2? Got a ref? Plants survive drought better with higher CO2, their yield increases, commercial greenhouses pump up to 1800ppm of carbon in to improve growth. The only downside I've seen is that without extra nitrogen, the plants can't keep their protein % up as they pack away extra carbon. But for hungry people in sudan, a lower protein content wheat beats starving.

xyzsch - Lets pooh-pooh the Mises institute? An Ad hominem poke tells us nothing about CO2 or the weather. Even if the paper were posted on a klu klux clan site, that doesn't change the graphs of world temperature, the UN climate model data, or the lag in ice core results. Don't take it at face value, check the sources then.

Exactly.  Terrestrially, hydrogen is not an energy source at all, but rather a problematic way of storing energy.  I think the hype around hydrogen, just as with ethanol, is so that people will not be motivated to change their energy-consuming lifestyles, i.e., disrupt the profitability of the consumer economy.

jonnysmith, don't be deceived!  Peak oil is here.  It wears many disguises, such as the Neocon wolves at our door.  The social unrest that follows will be blamed on everything but peak oil.  "No, folks, it's just hooligans/Islamics/Venezuelans/(your name here).  We'll stop them with a new tougher law/surge/protracted war/torture.  It's a temporary disruption.  Go back to your shopping."  Take a hint and study up on how we lived 100 years ago.

What Judy of " Healthiswealth " says about the technologies being introduced by

Dutchman Enterprises is totally true . On March 4-5 & 6th they attended the World International Renewable Energy Conference ( WIREC )in Washington , D.C. sponsored by the Government .

They showcased two vehicles . One was a 2007 Honda 4 cylinder modified with their " Hydro Assist Fuel Cell ( HAFC )" that prior to modification as getting 33 MPG and after modification gets 85 MPG . They " GUARANTEE " a 50% improvement in fuel economy or your money back . They can do this because they have experienced an average 95% on the few hundred already modified .

The other vehicle was a Dodge van with a 318 Chrysler V-8 engine modified with their " Pre Ignition Catalytic Converter ( PICC ) " . Because this technology was not yet approved by the EPA this vehicle could not be driven on the road . They had tested it on a dynomometer . Before modification with both technologies this engine got 22 MPG and after modification got 196 MPG . That , my friends is 9 X efficiency !!

One mechanic who attended the training course returned home to modify a motor home with a 454 Chevy engine that was getting 6 MPG and now gets 22 with the

HAFC

Those of you who are skeptical should read " EVERYTHING " on the website and view the videos explaining the processes and technologies : http://shmyl.com/ojnpson .

Do any of you think that the Oil companies , Auto Manufacturers , Utility companies and Government agencies are looking out for your interest . What do you think they would do to suppress such technologies ?

This same company who has the World wide marketing rights for this and other technologies developed by Dutchman Enterprises and others has been the target of intense suppression and dirty tricks for over two decades . On July 10th they will introduce " Free Energy " for homeowners .

Hydrogen is not a fuel , it's a method of storage and transmission of fuel .

I agree and for that reason we need to look to a different technology. I have been researching this field for over ten years and I have found the answer. We could have it today but it is going to take the backing of educated, enligtened, and informed people to make it happen. Why? Because governments and the oil cartel DO NOT WANT IT RELEASED! Up to now they have been successful.

But knowledge cannot be suppressed forever. Let's all start by becoming better informed.

To start, see my posting on this Blog under NEWAGE ENERGY.

you would not want to store hydrogen inside your house ,highly flammable !!!!!! and yes its their another try to bury electric car forever

Right on target savagesteve13! As an engineer specialising in transportation alternatives to oil I fully endorse your comment. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a method of storing energy. Battery storage technology is outstripping Hydrogen now. All the top car companies agree that electric vehicles are the future!

Future4u-  are you a dealer for this scam? Because your post is basically cut and paste from the website. A lot of dealers are unhappy right now becasuse they paid a fee to be dealers and - SURPRISE- the whole thing is bogus. It's an MLM scam run by a guy named Dennis Lee. Do a search on HIM! Major scam artist from way back.  And, sorry, but shame on Mercola for accepting this nonsense to begin with!

Pat Ormsby,

I tend to agree with you about Peak Oil...The Olduvai theory and other economic theories bear it out....and it appears closer than everyone thinks....2012 was the last number I heard.....we'll have to wait and see...

I posted elsewhere -

Check out the documentary film "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

Amazing the lengths that our govts (federal & state), oil companies, even GM itself would go to to STOP production of GM's own electric cars!

A must-see film for anyone interested in alternative energies. The problem isn't finding/funding alternative energies (some are HERE already) but fighting the mega corporations (and the politicians who profit along with them).

Stanley Meyer and his water-powered car was proven in court to be a fraud in 1996!

groups.google.com/.../8ee0acb80e943e21

"One of the experts due to examine the car was Michael Laughton, professor

of electrical engineering at Queen  Mary and Westfield University, London,

but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had  known about our

visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why

the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate  it," said

Laughton.

However, the one thing Meyer had built that appeared to work was his Water

Fuel Cell, and it was this device that the Ohio judge called as evidence in

the recent lawsuit.

The cell had been the centrepiece of Meyer's sales pitches. It was a

transparent cylinder of water inside which  was a core of stainless steel

electrodes. When plugged into an electrical supply,the cell  bubbled away

merrily, producing apparently copious amounts  of gas that Meyer ignited  

through a welding torch. To the layman it was an  impressive performance and

hundreds of small investors signed up, but it did not impress three expert

witnesses in court.

They decided that there was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and

that it was  simply  using conventional electrolysis.

Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay

the investors their $25,000 (£15,000)."

--------------------

And for those of you who believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas... oh sure. Believe the global-warming fraud. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas - conveniently ignored by the Global-Warming fraud proponents.

H20 makes up 95% of greenhouse gases. C02 3.6%.

You, the human, exhale both. Watch out for the C02 boogeyman! Yeah right.

www.geocraft.com/.../greenhouse_data.html