Saving the internal combustion engine industry is not too big of a challenge. Who or what is threatening the internal combustion engine industry? First this needs to be understood. Right now, almost the end of the first quarter of 2022, we’re all seeing the big push of the electric motor vehicle industry going full steam ahead. Several sectors are excited about this and encouraging this evolution: environmentalists, big media, many politicians, and of course the big electric car factories/companies. Is this really the right path forward? Sure, exhaust pollution from internal combustion engines hurts the environment if there’s too much, but are surface vehicles REALLY the guilty culprit here to be demonized, vilified and slowly replaced with electric motor vehicles? Are we missing (not being told) some information?

What information is being omitted (cut out) from the national and world-wide public conversation, about why the ozone layer keeps getting thinner? Are there other guilty culprits? Chlorofluorocarbons from un-burnt (incomplete combustion) fuel (gasoline primarily) from surface vehicles are being blamed, since these chlorofluorocarbons float up to the sky and dissolve the ozone layer. Catalytic converters were the big hero to solve this, right?

LOOK UP! Have we, or have we not, experienced and enjoyed a steady, continuous and UNINTERRUPTED expansive growth of the aviation and space industries? True or not? More and more airplanes (commercial and military), flying more and more often, to more and more airports as our world population grows. More and more rockets blasting off, more and more often, for space missions, military missions and satellite “deployment”. Hmmm. Jet fuel airplanes do NOT use catalytic converters, and, sometimes they actually dump fuel mid-air. Not to criticize the military but, mid-air plane-to-plane refueling often sees fuel being lost during these high altitude operations. And airplanes also operate MUCH CLOSER to the ozone layer than surface vehicles, therefore chlorofluorocarbons from unburnt jet fuel have a much shorter distance to travel to reach the ozone layer. And what about all these rockets? No catalytic converters on those either. Usually trust politicians to bark at the wrong cause of the problem, as well as worsen the problem. Surface vehicles are NOT the problem. The chlorofluorocarbons have too far to travel to reach the ozone layer, a large percentage deteriorate or bond with other elements and thus never reach the ozone layer. Those internal combustion engines in our skies (jets and rockets) are REALLY what is causing the most damage to the ozone layer, especially since they travel much, much closer to the ozone layer itself than surface vehicles.

Furthermore, mass-producing all the batteries necessary for a surface vehicle replacement from internal combustion to electric motor, is very, very bad for the environment. Strip mining lithium and other minerals will create more barren patches or the Earth worldwide. Toxic, hazardous and combustible used car batteries are another liability, on such a large scale as “they” are cheering it on. We won’t even discuss the computer-electronic factors of unreliability, glitches, remote hacking of electric/electronic vehicles, owner/operators of electric/electronic surface vehicles being demoted to an obedient worker-pawn new class of citizenry.

Is there a solution to this doom and gloom future potentially developing right now before us? Hydrogen (H2) burns clean, exhaust emissions are only pure water vapor. Pure hydrogen is expensive but can be made from water using electrolysis (running electricity through the water), then separating the hydrogen from the oxygen with separate chambers above the positive and negative electrolizer plates. Brown’s Gas, also known as Hydroxy, also known as Oxyydrogen (HHO) also burns equally clean with the same, only water vapor exhaust emissions, but is even more powerful/explosive as a fuel than pure hydrogen, and therefore yields even more horsepower and mileage when applied to internal combustion engines. And this is OLD technology. HHO is easily generated on-demand by “dissolving” water into its gaseous form (HHO) using simple electrolysis (running electricity through the water). And the hydrogen does not need to be separated from the oxygen.

If a couple of country bumpkins can convert a gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle (or two) to crudely run on HHO gas, generated on-board and on-demand, why WON’T GM, FORD or CHRYSLER do it? If we have been having remote control robots crawling on MARS for years now, WHY WON’T we do this? If BMW did it the difficult way, using only pure hydrogen from on-board tanks, WHY WON’T we do it the easy way with on-board and on-demand HHO? CERTAINLY, this will save the internal combustion engine industry. Surely the need for engine oil for surface vehicles will remain. And with all our technology, capabilities and resources, WHY WON’T we make on-board HHO for airplanes with the new clean-burning engines to use it? The electric/electronic surface vehicle factories are smiling as they aim to reduce Big Oil to 1% or 2% of its current size. The shareholders of Big Oil must all be asleep, because soon they’ll all be broke.

Almost 20 years ago supplemental HHO for surface vehicles became popular. It’s on-board and on-demand HHO gas production that’s ONLY used as a supplement to the gasoline or diesel surface vehicles. Its use makes slightly more horsepower, improves mileage (MPG) greatly, and reduces emissions GREATLY, eliminating the need for catalytic converters. THIS can also be applied to airplanes, both commercial and military. WHY WON’T we do it?

This can be done several ways. Using HHO rather than H2 is easier, simpler, and less expensive. Especially when used as just a supplement rather than an entire replacement. Everybody has an opinion. Some opinions are bought and paid for. However Big Oil shareholders must now wake up and smell the coffee. Shall they sit back and allow the electric/electronic car factories to wipe them out, for the most part? Or shall they fully awake from their slumber to face the current situation, embrace and enhance on-board and on-demand supplemental HHO technology for surface vehicles and work WITH GM, FORD, CHRYSLER, and all the others to implement on-board and on-demand supplemental HHO technology for surface vehicles? Not a difficult question. It’s called “Cutting your loses”.

There are lots and lots of people worldwide using this very simple technology.

This technology definitely works when used correctly. It doesn’t matter who says that it doesn’t work. It works.

Fuel cells have a nice & pretty sounding name. But they’re too expensive and complicated compared to simple, on-board and on-demand supplemental HHO. Why get complicated when it’s right there and so easy to keep it simple?

The private sector is again coming to solve the problem, with a little help/funding from the public sector (if you watch the whole video he mentions this near the end).

So, the internal combustion engine industry is being saved right now. But it’s happening much, much too slowly for a successful save. Big Auto needs to step up and BUILD these supplemental HHO systems into the new surface vehicles-emissions will be very greatly reduced-and Big Oil will be able to cut their losses rather than being wiped out. And the big challenge is to put this to use in jet airplanes.

On-board and on-demand supplemental HHO very dramatically cleans up diesel exhaust! It doesn’t matter who says it doesn’t work. It works when used correctly. Everybody has an opinion, some are bought and paid for.

Will the internal combustion engine industry be saved? Only time will tell. Big Auto and Big Oil had the opportunity to embrace and implement this almost 20 years ago, but they did not. Government fuel sales taxes per gallon bought-at-the-pump also have worked against this, higher MPG means less sales tax per gallon collected at the pump. Let’s have it go the right way this time. Internal combustion engine vehicles need not be phased-out and replaced by electric/electronic vehicles that are subject to glitches, never-ending-software-updates, remote hacking and theft (not to mention toxic battery fires, and disposal or recycling demands).

 

Electric motors are best for blenders, washing machines, vacuums and remote-control robots crawling around on Mars.  New technology internal combustion engines are and will be most appropriate and wanted by consumers for vehicles and aircraft.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.