Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

AUTO ELECTRONICS: Reduce fuel useage, save money!

Not open for further replies.


New Member
Here is the url for the information on how to build an electronically controlled chamber which will allow your current auto (gasoline internal combustion engine) to use water as fuel instead of the high priced fossil fuels on the market.

**broken link removed**

The control circuit (which you can also build) , with its associated chamber, breaks down water into its elemental parts H and O. This is not steam. H and O are PREMIUM FUEL for the gasoline internal combustion engine.

This system works in the face of traditional water electrolizing ideas/methods. Instead of using wasteful amounts of electrical current and small amounts of voltage, this system uses very high voltage (10,000 - 50,000 volts) and very small current (milli amps). The trick is the way in which the voltage is manipulated to produce the breakdown of the water molecule.

I am not very knowledgeable in electronics but, here is my description the theory/function of the method.

A regular 12 DC auto battery supplies the needed electrical power. This power is manipulated by the control circuit to produce a repeated series of increasing pulses which creates growing and collapsing electrical fields, between two electrodes, (1mm - 5mm, 1/32" - 3/16" apart) submerged in water. These fields are pulsed at the natural resonance frequency of the water molecule. In this way the water molecule is so "excited" that it literally throws itself apart into its respective elemental units. The unbound hydrogen and oxygen are used immediately as vapor fuel in our commonly used auto engine.

I am not the inventor. The inventor is Stanley Meyer.
According to the inventor, all the parts for the control circuit and the chamber can be purchased at retail outlets such as electronic stores, hardware stores, automotive after market stores. The entire system can be made by and installed by persons having a little knowedge in electronics, able to use some common hand tools and have a little common sense.

Why should we be locked into the high prices for gasoline?

Will anyone join me in sharing our knowledge while making this circuit and system?



Active Member
Klaus said:
One would expect these kind of ideas to pop up on the first of April but in September :) ?

Thats not some kind of joke Klaus! The guy is serious and wants to build something useful. Be serious when someone is asking for something seriously. Such comments reduces ones interest in the subject and you have no rights to do so.
If you can't help anyone, please don't make fun of him/her. Its better you stop wasting precious board space with your expert comments. :evil:


Active Member
i think they are applications.
I think that to actually get a patent it has to work.

At least thats the rule in England.


Active Member
Hi Lann,

I received your PM.
Yes i have looked at those reference article,
'S.Meyer, Method for the production of a Fuel Gas'
U.S. Patent No 4,936,961 June 26, 1990

I had a good look through it.
Yes it is a method of getting a hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture.
Yes it can be used as a fuel.
Yes engines can be modified to run on this gas mixture.

Unfortunately the amount of work needed to get this fuel, is
rather more than the work that can be gotten from it.

Now that might be ok, if you could buy it cheaply enough.
But you cant use the fuel, to get more fuel, and do work.

Engines made to run on hydrogen, or hydrogen derivatives
don't run nicely. And they run hot.

I would be inclined to concentrate on arrangements like the
'Adams motor' these are simple enough to be made by anyone
with a reasonable practical ability, and the claims of 'over
unity' are indeed strange. Many people have looked at this
and most claim some higher than expected degree of efficiency,
although not many claim actual 'over unity'
But the claims of very high efficiency are enough to interest
me, i am most curious about it.

I do wish you well in your studies into various ways to get
use-able energy from sustainable, or freely available sources.

There are many people also looking.

Best of luck with it, John :)

RICARDO, ive just seen your post, yes they may be, but not patents
for getting more power from the gas,
than needed to get the gas from water.


Active Member
Hi Lann,

Yes, i had another look at that circuit.
It is excessively complicated for what it has to do.
I saw nothing to generate high voltages either.

If you expect to resonate the Oxy/Hydro molecules,
i think you will need very, very precise frequency control.
I don't know that large discharge currents will be necessary,
but then i have never tried this.

What i have seen is early lasers focused to a point in
the air in front of them, and this can cause the molecules
of air to explode. A single molecule causes a loud 'snap'
like a whip-crack. At least thats what they told me it was.
For all i know it could have been a bit of dust in the air
bursting. I was quite impressed.

I would expect to excite the Oxy/Hydro molecules with rapid
spikes, but as i say you would need very precise frequency
control. I saw nothing in that circuit (fig 5) to give that.

Still, i haven't tried it, maybe frequency control is not
as important as i think.

You will have to experiment yourself. Use stainless steel
where you can, and carbon rods where you cant, other stuff
will give problems due to the exchange of molecules from
current flow, usually shows up as a dirty mess.

As small bubbles form on the surface, you can 'pop' them
with a cigarette lighter, they pop with a light blue-ish
flame. Well mine did years ago, but i wasn't looking for
the gas, i was trying to get rid of it. Unsuccessfully.

You really should have some experience to put together
an arrangement like this, try to get the help of someone
who has done this sort of thing before. Or you could
wing it, and get help if you get stuck. You might be lucky.

Don't forget hydrogen is a highly volatile gas, and it doesn't
just float in air, it can waft around in little pockets
and give unexpected problems. Oxygen is also a troublesome
commodity, while not itself inflammable, it kinda 'soaks'
into other stuff, that then turns into 'solid rocket fuel'
so be really careful with it.

The first time you see what rate of gas comes from your
set-up, if it is more than the gas given off by a battery on
charge, then you are doing well.
After fiddling with your various settings, if you get much
gas coming off, i would be very interested. I have seen a
few assemblies like this, none of them have been any good.

This idea of 'resonating' the molecules into separation is
kinda reminiscent of the M.R.I. units. If that was possible
i would guess that a coil might do it easier.

In answer to your question 'What do i need to know ?'
You need practical experience and some understanding of the
circuit, or the close assistance of someone who has.

Thoughts on the circuit shown? ... well only fig 5 was
legible for me, the resolution was lost on the other two.
Yes, it would probably make the spikes as shown, whether or
not it would make gasses any better will have to be seen.
(better than just the battery on the electrodes)

I wish you the best of luck with it, John :)


New Member
I took a look at this and I have to add my opinions:

First I did an electrolysis experiment in high school and when we did it we had to add chemicals to the water to speed up the process and then it still took about 20 minutes to fill a small test tube with the gas.

Second nitrous oxide has been used for many years for a boost in horsepower. The reason nitrous works is that it contains a higher percentage of oxygen than the air that we breathe and thus allows a more complete burn thus creating more horsepower. With nitrous you have a chance of blowing an engine especially if it is still stock. Now if a higher percentage of oxygen is introduced more problems occur, first off you have detonation, which basically means that the fuel/air mixture ignites prematurely often causing catastrophic engine damage.

Third I would assume that the mixture of oxygen and hydrogen that when ignited would cause a greater amount of force on the engine than would normally occur with gasoline. Ignite a cup of gasoline and then ignite a cup of this vapor and see what happens.

Fourth The catalytic converter does not just cook or break down the unused fuel. First it traps NO and NO2 emissions and seperates them into N2 and O2. Second it takes the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and converts into CO2. And the third and most important function in computer controlled engines or fuel injected engines is that by computer control and O2 sensors found in the catalytic converter and the air intake the fuel/air ratio is monitored and changed instantaneously to keep the fuel/air ratio at the point where theoretically all the gasoline is burned. This point is a calculated ideal where a complete burn is taking place.


New Member
Sorry, but your points are wrong. Yes, N2O works partially by adding O2, but also by cooling the mixture therefore making it denser. I won't get into the "blowing your engine" argument, but let's just say that what you've written is not entirely accurate.

Better than igniting 1 cup of liquid and 1 cup of gas, try igniting 250 ml of H2 gas, then do the same with 250 ml of gasoline - with the *right a/f ratio and atomisation for complete combustion*. It should be a slightly more impressive bang...

Anyways, H2 seemed to work ok for BMW in their dual-fuel 7-series test hack . It wasn't generating on the fly or anything, but H2 works fine for running a piston engine. Mazda found out it's good in rotories too.


New Member

It looks realy intresting, and I will hope some think will work for a good price, if I get me some more free time then I will send some time in it and stuf,



New Member
I was just giving my opinions from an automotive standpoint. The third point I was kind of ramblin and did not think about it too much. The part about the nitrous I probaly should have left out, but I kind of generalized and left out a few things, since this is an electronics forum. I just wanted to explain what happens if a higher percantage of oxygen is introduced. I could have written a lot more, yes N2O does provide a cooling effect and it will blow a stock engine if user does not know what they are doing and uses too much.

The point about the catalytic converter is the one I mainly wanted to point out.

By the way, If you ever get a check engine light that comes on and the mechanic says that it is a bad O2 sensor this is what he is talking about. These sensors along with a few other things help control your emissions.


New Member
Any idea ,no matter how absurd it appears to us at this moment in time, may be "granted" a patent , even in the UK, the term is tad misleading as you have to pay a good deal of money to get one and merit has little if anything to do with the process.

Search the web using the rubric "bizzare patents" for a whole bunch of sites dedicated to wierd world of the patent office.
see if you can find the "faster than light antenna / transmitter"

here is a good example care of

He is not alone, there are over 200 similiar patents worldwide, are they all barking mad/confused or are they on to something decide for yourself.

Gyroscopic reactive propulsion unit

Patent Number: GB2299857
Publication date: 1996-10-16
Requested Patent: GB2299857
Application Number: GB19940023731 19941124
Priority Number(s): GB19940023731 19941124
IPC Classification: G01C19/00
EC Classification: F03G3/00


A gyroscopic reactive propulsion unit comprises a circular platform 20,21 containing a plurality of electrically motorised gyroscopes 22 attached equally spaced around its perimeter, lying within the same plane. The platform which is also electrically motorised is made to rotate at right angles to the axial plane of the gyroscopes. Electrical power is applied to spin the gyroscopes to a suitable rpm, and to rotate the platform. Independent means for controlling the speed of the gyroscopes, which should be synchronous, and the speed of the rotating platform is provided. On reaching a suitable rpm for the gyroscopes and for the rotating platform, a reaction is produced at right-angles to the gyroscopic platform producing momentum in the opposite direction.

This invention relates to a fully electrically operated gyroscopic reactive propulsion unit.

The properties of a gyroscope are well known but not necessarily well understood. Basically a gyroscope comprises a rotating wheel whose axis is free to turn but which maintains a fixed direction in the absence of perturbing forces. The principal use of this property has been for stabilization or as a compass.

In addition, the precession of a spinning gyroscope around another axis seems to resist the effects of gravity.

Furthermore, as per the principles of this invention, an attempt to force the gyroscope to rotate around another axis produces a reaction at right angles to the spinning gyroscope.

According to the present invention there is provided a gyroscopic reactive propulsion unit comprising a number of gyroscopes, all inclined within the same plane, each powered by electric means, attached to a circular platform, which itself is made to rotate under power at right-angles to the axial plane of the gyroscopes, means for providing electrical current to all gyroscopes and rotating platform, and which can be fixed or variable to facilitate high degree of control in both axial planes.


New Member
There's some funny ones out there. I just read one where someone patented cremation by atmospheric re-entry. Really. But that one above seems easy to construct and prove or disprove. Surely the Patent Office requested a demo?


New Member
This is where it all started many years ago , with one Proff Eric Laithwaite , father of the linear motor.
From there on it got more strange , into the fray entered one alexander kidd who published a book on his version of the device , there was a even a tv documentry claiming to show his device under test. Yet according the the math the concept does not work, some say the result is produced by aerodynamics, nasa says its an illusion of vibration. Anti gravity it is not , a loophole in newtonian physics , perhaps?


New Member
questionable patents

As far as "bad" patents go, this wins my vote (the "one-click" patent's not far behind):'6368227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6368227&RS=PN/6368227

some further comments on the state of the U.S. patent system:

**broken link removed**


New Member
I saw a humerous poster some years ago showing pictures of 27 different ways a swing could be erected, and if memory serves me correctly even emoticons are subject to copyright and use of such without permission is technically theft :lol:

It's a bit of fun ,so please do not ignore the more serious posts of other members, though explaining why a circuit does not not work is still of educational value. So let us limit ourselves to electronic related patents.

See if you can find a full copy of US patent 6025810 "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna" by David L. Strom


Active Member
Hi Ricardo,

If you look up that patent on gyroscopes (GB2299857)
you will find it on page 3665 of the
'Applications terminated' Section 16(1) 25 Aug 1999

The PDF can be downloaded from:
**broken link removed**

As you suggest, it was probably checked out by the officials.

John :)
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips