Patrick J Kelly

##Kelly, Patrick J.:

# Captain Kelly’s download website http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/patrickkelly/Start.html

Dozens of files and hundreds of Mo of files to download ; a reference for patents and details and explanations on Electronic, ZPE, Hydroxy Electrolyzers and others…

# My opinions, from http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/patrickkelly/D7.pdf

The following paragraphs give my opinions on the advantages, disadvantages and the likelihood of successful replication by the average DIY enthusiast, of each device covered. It should be stresses that while it has been the aim to present facts in all the other areas of this set of documents, the following information is NOT fact but merely my personal opinion.

Aerial Pick-up Systems:

1/ Device: Moray’s aerial system
Inventor: Thomas Henry Moray
Power: High, several kilowatts
Advantages: Operates day and night – No moving parts – Later versions worked with internal (or no) aerial – Silent in operation – Little or no input power needed.
Disadvantages: Probably uses mildly radioactive material – May need an arial and earth.
Building: Uses valves which are not well defined – May need radioactive material – Very little specific constructional information available.
Conclusion: Might well be interesting as a long-term investigation.

2/ Device: Tesla’s aerial system
Inventor: Nikola Tesla
Power: Not known, but probably reasonable
Advantages: Operates day and night – Some versions have no moving parts – Several options for converting the energy to normal electricity – Looks to be a very simple arrangement – Little or no input power needed
Disadvantages: Needs an aerial plate and an earth – Needs a vertical space in which to operate – has to operate in a fixed location –
Building: Appears straightforward – The higher the plate and the larger the aerial, the greater the power available.
Conclusion: Might well be interesting to check out.

3/ Device: Prentice’s aerial system
Inventor: Frank Prentice
Power: Three kilowatta output for 0.5 kilowatt input
Advantages: Operates day and night – No moving parts – Silent in operation – Simple construction.
Disadvantages: Uses a very long aerial wire – Needs a location where the very large aerial may be located – Has to operate in a fixed position.
Building: Appears very straightforward – Aerial wire may be expensive.
Conclusion: Very possible for a fixed location.

4/ Device: Plauston’s aerial system
Inventor: Hermann Plauston
Power: Very high, many options, large systems over 100 kW output.
Advantages: Operates day and night – No moving parts – Silent in operation – Simple construction – Can pick up energy from the wind – Very detailed patent information with many alternative methods of construction.
Disadvantages: Uses long aerial wires and possibly metallic, spiked balloons – Needs a location where the very large aerial may be located – Has to operate in a fixed position.
Building: Appears very straightforward with lots of details provided in the patent – Aerial wire may be expensive
Conclusion: Very possible for a fixed location with many options for improvements.

5/ Device: Roy Meyer’s pick-up system
Inventor: Roy Meyers
Power: High and scalable
Advantages: Operates day and night – No moving parts – Silent in operation – Very simple construction – Detailed patent information
Disadvantages: An earth connection is recommended – Has to face North-South at all times.
Building: Appears very straightforward.
Conclusion: Very possible for a fixed location with options for increasing the output power.

6/ Device: Harold Aspden’s Electrical Power Generating Apparatus
Inventor: Harold Aspden
Power: Presumably high
Advantages: Operates day and night – No moving parts – Silent in operation – Very simple construction – Harold is still available to answer questions.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of anybody who has constructed one.
Building: Appear very straightforward.
Conclusion: Well worth an experiment.

7/ Device: The pyramid Generator
Inventor: Flavio Thomas
Power: Low
Advantages: Operates day and night – No moving parts – Silent in operation – Very simple construction – Interesting field of research.
Disadvantages: Needs exact compass alignement.
Building: Appears very straightforward.
Conclusion: Well worth building and experimenting with.

Generators:

8/ Device: Edwin Gray’s Power tube
Inventor: Edwin V. Gray Snr.
Power: Very high, can drive 80 horsepower electric motor
Advantages: Simple construction – Essentially fuel-less operation – Has been replicated by amateurs – Detailed information now available – Mobile device.
Disadvantages: Uses a spark gap which will cause wear – Needs high voltage to operate, so care is needed – Not quite silent in operation – Uses two batteries so is not particularly lightweight.
Building: Appears very straightforward with lots of details provided.
Conclusion: Realistic device to construct with a high output potential.

9/ Device: Pavel Imris’s Optical Electrostatic Generator
Inventor: Pavel Imris
Power: High, can drive 100 40-watt fluorescent tubes.
Advantages: Reasonably simple construction – Output power more than 40 times the input power.
Disadvantages: Needs constructional ability.
Building: Reasonable amount of detail provided and much test data.
Conclusion: Realistic device to construct with a high output potential.

10/ Device: The Muller Motor
Inventor: William Muller.
Power: High, output can be hundreds of amps.
Advantages: Simple construction – High output power/input power ratio – Reasonably compact – Almost silent in operation – Mobile device.
Disadvantages: Uses very powerfull and expensive magnets – Needs care to avoid injury when handling magnets of this power – Some attempts to replicate it have failed.
Building: Appears straightforward but needa good craftsmanship.
Conclusion: Realistic device to construct with a high output potential.

11/ Device: The Rotoverter
Inventor: Hector Torres
Power: About 1 kW maximum
Advantages: Reasonably simple construction – Output power considerably greater then the input power – Reasonably compact – Device is just about mobile – High probability of succesfull construction – Good for getting to undestand Radiant Energy capture.
Disadvantages: Uses two expensive motors Motors may become unavailable at a later date – Device is somewhat heavy and of fair size – Produces some noise when operating – Needs battery and inverter for mobile use – Battery needs charging from mains or via an expensive solar panel.
Building: Appears straightforward but needa considerable setting up and tuning – Hector states that the input power should never be taken from the output power.
Conclusion: Reasonable medium output device to construct.

12/ Device: The Thestatika
Inventor: Paul Baumann
Power: Under 1 kW
Advantages: The whole of the output is free-energy as it is self powered – Apparently simple construction – No input power needed – Reasonably compact – Device is just about mobile – Reasonable chance of succesfull construction.
Disadvantages: Output is not staggering – Long-term reliability is not certain – Full construction details have not yet been published – As far as I know, nobody has replicated it succesfully.
Building: With our present knowledge, it should be possible to build it – The book ‘Homemade Lightning’ by R.A. Ford should help (ISBN 0-07-021528-6)
Conclusion: Reasonable medium output device to research.

13/ Device: The HMG system
Inventor: Nikola Tesla
Power: Very High
Advantages: Compact, portable unit – Apparently simple construction – Reasonable chance of succesful construction.
Disadvantages: Generate 12,000,000 volt pulses and so calls for exceptional care – As far as I know, nobody has replicated it successfully, but it is not widely known.
Building: Construction should be straightforward – Extreme caution is needed due to the very high voltage produced.
Conclusion: High power device which is potentially lethal.

14/ Device: The Tesla coil pick-up
Inventor: Nikola Tesla
Power: Very high
Advantages: Compact, portable unit – Simple construction – High chance of successful construction – No moving parts (except possibly the Tesla Coil pulsers).
Disadvantages: High voltages are used and some parts may be expensive.
Building: Construction should be straightforward – Extreme caution is needed due to the high voltage used.
Conclusion: Probably worth investigating.

15/ Device: The Tesla longitudinal waves pick-up
Inventor: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
Power: Potentially high
Advantages: Compact, portable unit – Simple construction – High chance of successful construction – No moving parts (except possibly the Tesla Coil Pulsers)
Disadvantages: High voltages are used and some parts may be expensive
Building: Construction should be straightforward – Extreme caution is needed due to the high voltage used
Conclusion: Probably worth investigating

16/ Device: The Kawai Motor
Inventor: Teruo Kawai
Power: Low but presumably scaleable
Advantages: Output power measured at three times the input power – good constructional details in the patent.
Disadvantages: Construction calls for professional-quality metalwork – As far as I know, nobody has replicated it successfully, but it is not widely known.
Building: Construction should be straightforward for a mechanical engineer.
Conclusion: Interesting low-power device, likely to be very reliable.

17/ Device: The Lafonte Motor/Generator
Inventor: Butch lafonte
Power: Low, but presumably scaleable
Advantages: Simple construction – Designer available for queries – Can be used with an existing electrical circuit without using any additional power.
Disadvantages: The overall design is probably not over-unity.
Building: Construction should be straightforward.
Conclusion: Interesting low-power device, likely to be very reliable.

18/ Device: The MEG (Motionless Magnetic Generator)
Inventor: Tom Bearden and four others
Power: Under 1 kW
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts so likely to be very reliable – Silent in operation – Light and portable.
Disadvantages: Some replication attempts have failed while others succeeded – The best construction calls for custom materials used for the yoke.
Building: Construction should be straightforward.
Conclusion: Interesting mid-power device, likely to be very reliable.

19/ Device: The Acoustic-Magnetic Power Generator
Inventor: Dan Davidson
Power: Medium
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts – Portable and compact – Patent gives considerable detail.
Disadvantages: As far as I am aware, nobody has replicated this device.
Building: Appears simple.
Conclusion: This is a vairation on Bearden’s MEG device.

20/ Device: The Continuous Electrical Generator
Inventor: Alberto Molina Martinez
Power: Scalable
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts, so likely to be very reliable – Silent in operation – Portable – Construction should be reasonably straightforward.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of any replication attempts to date – The information comes from a patent application rather than a full patent.
Building: Construction should be straightforward.
Conclusion: Interesting device, likely to be very reliable.

21/ Device: The Solid State Electric Generator
Inventor: Graham Gunderson
Power: Medium
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts, so likely to be very reliable – Silent in operation – Portable – Construction should be reasonably straightforward.
Disadvantages: None known to daate (the information comes from a patent application rather then a full patent)
Building: Construction should be straightforward.
Conclusion: Very interesting device indeed, likely to be very reliable.

22/ Device: The PHI-Transformer
Inventor: Alex Frolov (?)
Power: Perhaps 1 kW
Advantages: Might be self-powered – Very simple low-tech construction – Easily understood – Light and portable
Disadvantages: The motor will wear out eventually
Building: Construction should be straightforward
Conclusion: Very interesting mid-power device, likely to be very reliable.

23/ Device: The Adams Motor
Inventor: Robert Adams
Power: Low to medium power
Advantages: Output power some seven times more than the input power – Simple construction – Easy to understand – Portable.
Disadvantages: Requires good quality bearings.
Building: Construction should be straightforward.
Conclusion: Interesting device along the lines of the Muller Motor

24/ Device: Faraday’s Homopolar Generator
Inventor: Michael Faraday
Power: High but at very low voltage.
Advantages: Very high current output, far higher than the input power – Simple construction – Easy to understand – Portable – has been used for electrolysis of water.
Disadvantages: Very low output voltage – Difficult to get reliable low-resistance brushes.
Building: Construction hinges on the brush construction.
Conclusion: Interesting device but difficult to make reliable brushes.

25/ Device: Sweet’s VTA
Inventor: Floyd Sweet
Power: Medium
Advantages: Self-powered – Mains power at the correct AC frequency – No moving parts – Portable and compact.
Disadvantages: Difficult to perform the initial ‘conditioning’ of the ferrite slab – Conditioning can be lost through a strong magnetic pulse nearby (lightning).
Building: Might be difficult to get the ferrite slab, otherwise simple.
Conclusion: Very interesting device with good output, but can be disrupted

26/ Device: Hubbard’s Atmospheric Power Generator
Inventor: Alfred Hubbard
Power: High
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts – Portable and compact
Disadvantages: As far as I am aware, nobody has replicated this device.
Building: Appears simple on the surface
Conclusion: lack of exact construction details makes this an investigation project

27/ Device: Brown’s Battery
Inventor: Paul Brown
Power: Patent shows low power version
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts – Portable and compact – Essentially a variation on Alfred Hubbard’s device
Disadvantages: As far as I am aware, nobody has replicated this device – Calls for obtaining radioactive salts.
Building: Appear simple on the surface
Conclusion: The 100 Watt version supposedly operated erratically.

28/ Device: The Colman/Seddon-Gillespie Battery
Inventor: Harold Colman and Ronald Seddon-Gillespie
Power: 1 kW
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts – Portable and compact – incredible 70-year lifespan – Produces no radioactivity when not in use and is shielded when in use.
Disadvantages: Calls for construction of a chemical mixture in a quartz tube.
Building: Reasonably achievable with a little ingenuity.
Conclusion: Very, very impressive device with almost unlimited potential

29/ Device: Coler’s Magnetstromapparat device
Inventor: Hans Coler
Power: Low – in the 300mA range
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts – Portable and compact.
Disadvantages: As far as I am aware, nobody has replicated this device – Very dificult to get operating – Very easy to disrupt in operation.
Building: Appears very simple
Conclusion: Proves free-energy pick-up – Not a practical device for powering essential equipment.

30/ Device: Coler’s Stromerzeuger device
Inventor: Hans Coler
Power: Medium
Advantages: Low input power – No moving parts – Portable and compact
Disadvantages: I know of only one person attempting to replicate this device – Very little constructional information available
Building: Appears simple, but not much to go on
Conclusion: Interesting, but impractical at this point in time.

31/ Device: The Romag and Mini-Romag Generators
Inventor: Not known
Power: Low: 25 watts and over
Advantages: Self-powered – Portable and compact – Reasonable constructional details available.
Disadvantages: Calls for constructional materials not usually readily to hand – Not replicated by many people.
Building: medium level of difficulty.
Conclusion: A possible research project.

32/ Device: The Cook Generator
Inventor: Danile Cook
Power: Medium
Advantages: Self-powered – Portable though long and heavy – Full constructional details available in the patent – Very simple material used
Disadvantages: Construction may be fairly expensive – As far as I know, this device has never been replicated by anyone – I can see almost no way that this device could operate as claimed.
Building: Very simple.
Conclusion: Might be worth building out of curiosity, if it worked it would be brilliant.

33/ Device: Pyramid Generators
Inventor: Flavio Thomas
Power: Low
Advantages: Self-powered – Simple low-tech construction – Few details available on converting to drive electrical equipment – Silent, no moving parts.
Disadvantages: Needs to be aligned magnetically (unless a cone shape is used)
Building: Very simple
Conclusion: Very interesting research tool for the Zero-point Energy field

34/ Device: Self-Powered Semiconductor Power Pack
Inventor: Michael Ognyanov
Power: Low
Advantages: Self-powered – Simple low-tech construction – Silent with no moving parts
Disadvantages: Requires casting of a semiconductor pad
Building: Straightforward
Conclusion: Very interesting device, worth testing

35/ Device: The OceanStar Electricity Generator
Inventor: Muammer Yildiz
Power: High
Advantages: Supposedly self-powered – Simple low-tech construction – Is said to be able to be scaled up to power a whole house.
Disadvantages: Noisy in operation – unproven device which is not well described – Weighs a considerable amount.
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: probably worth waiting to see if it gets into production or the patent granted.

Battery Systems:

36/ Device: Bedini’s Battery Pulsers
Inventor: John Bedini
Power: Low
Advantages: Charges one or more batteries while running – Portable and compact – Full constructional details available also unlimited enthusiast support – Very simple materials used – Good as a school project due to its simplicity and visual effect – John’s original device has run for years.
Disadvantages: Rotor can spin so fast that the magnets break free, causing damage unless housed – Ideally, magnetic rotor bearing are needed.
Building: Starightforward, with unlimited help available online.
Conclusion: Captures the interest of most people, but can’t power anything serious.

37/ Device: Tesla’s Four-Battery Switch
Inventor: Nikola Tesla
Power: High
Advantages: Charges itself while powering external loads – Portable – Full constructional details available – Has been successfully replicated recently.
Disadvantages: Requires four batteries – If built to the original design, the switching needs a small motor with brushes – Some attempts to replicate this with semiconductor switching have not worked.
Building: Straightforward
Conclusion: A serious device which may need careful research.

38/ Device: Bedini’s Three-Battery Switch
Inventor: John Bedini
Power: High
Advantages: Charges itself while powering external loads – Portable – Components readily available
Disadvantages: Requires three batteries
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: this is a variation on the Tesla four-battery switch above

39/ Device: Rone Cole’s One-Battery Switch
Inventor: Ron Cole
Power: Medium/High
Advantages: Charges itself while powering external loads – Portable – Components readily available.
Disadvantages: Requires large capacitors – To my knowledge, not fully proven and replicated.
Building: Straightforward
Conclusion: Tis is a variation on the Tesla four-battery switch.

40/ Device: The Bedini/Bearden Solid-state Generator
Inventor: John Bedini and Tom Bearden
Power: Medium to High
Advantages: Self-powered – No moving parts, so likely to be very reliable – Silent in operation – Portable – Construction should be very straightforward – No exotic materials or devices are needed
Disadvantages: None known
Building: Construction is very simple.
Conclusion: This looks like a practical, cheap, easy-to-build, genuine free-energy device.

Magnet Motors:

41/ Device: Howard Johnson’s Magnet Motor
Inventor: Howard Johnson
Power: Medium/High
Advantages: No input power needed – Portable and compact – Can drive a standard electricity generator.
Disadvantages: Requires powerful magnets which may be expensive – Requires custom magnets made to a special shape – Requires mu-metal which is expensive – I am not aware of anybody replicating this motor.
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: This could be an interesting research project.

42/ Device: The Camus Magnet Motor
Inventor: Nelson Camus
Power: About 300 Watts
Advantages: no input power needed – Portable and compact – Components readily available.
Disadvantages: To my knowledge, not fully proven and replicated
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: Good potential if it is made to work

43/ Device: The Bedini Magnet Motor
Inventor: John Bedini
Power: Probably low unless powerfull magnets are used
Advantages: No input power needed – Portable and compact – Components readily available – Power could be increased by using multiple rotors on one shaft – Very simple construction.
Disadvantages: To my knowledge not fully proven and replicated.
Building: Very easy
Conclusion: Good potential if it is made to work

44/ Device: The Ecklin Magnet Motor (and the Brown/Ecklin Generator)
Inventor: John Ecklin
Power: Medium
Advantages: Low input power needed – Portable and compact – Components readily available – Simple construction which does not use exotic materials.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of many replications of this device
Building: Straightforward
Conclusion: Good potential for a practical device

45/ Device: The Invention Intelligence Magnet Motor
Inventor: Invention Intelligence
Power: Medium
Advantages: No input power needed – Portable and compact – Components readily available – Simple construction which does not use exotic materials.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of any replications of this device
Building: Straightforward
Conclusion: Good potential for a practical device.

Vehicle Systems:

(A) Hydrogen Boosters:

46/ Device: Many different systems
Inventor: many
Advantages: Runs off the vehicle’s generator – Can be made without great difficulty – Cleans up previously deposited soot – Reduce pollution emissions dramatically – Raises the miles-per-gallon performance substantially – Reduce running costs substantially
Disadvantages: It may be difficult to find spare room in the engine compartment.
Building: Straightforward
Conclusion: Excellent choice for people who travel long distances each week.

(B) The RAM WING:

47/ Device: The Ram-Implosion Wing
Inventor: Robert Patterson
Advantages: Completely passive with no moving parts – Easy construction – Overcomes wind-blast from passing Heavy Goods Vehicles – Reduces fuel consumption – Reduces running costs
Disadvantages: It only works at the higher road speeds
Building: Straightforward
Conclusion: Excellent choice for people who drive fairly fast.

(C)High MPG Carburettors:

48/ Device: Various patents from 200+ Inventors
Inventor: Many different Inventors
Advantages: Adds on to almost any vehicle – Construction not particularly difficult – Reduces fuel consumption dramatically – Reduces running costs – Reduces pollution emissions
Disadvantages: Some designs may need the help of a metal-working company
Building: Not particularly difficult
Conclusion: Should be considerd seriously by people who drive long distances

(D) Pulsed Electrolysis:

49/ Device: Water Fuel Cell
Inventor: Stanley Meyer
Advantages: High volume gas production for very small power input – Several cells in parallel can produce enough gas to run a car from water alone – Uses no electrolyte, just tap water – Reduces running costs – Zero pollution emissions – Has been replicated recently
Disadvantages: Very difficult to keep a cell tuned to exactly the critical frequency – The zero pollution emissions may cause the vehicle to fail some US emission tests – Uses high voltage for maximum efficiency.
Building: Not particularly difficult
Conclusion: Probably too difficult a project for most people.

50/ Device: Mateiro’s pulsed electrolysis Cell
Inventor: Paul Mateiro
Advantages: High volume gas production for low power input – Shown powering a lawnmower – uses no electrolyte, just tap water – Zero pollution emissions – Uses low voltage
Disadvantages: The original information is no longer on the web – I am not aware of anybody replicating it
Building: Not difficult
Conclusion: An interesting system possibly worth investigating

51/ Device: Puharich’s pulsed electrolysis system
Inventor: Henry Puharich
Advantages: High volume gas production for low power input – Considerable detail presented in his patent
Disadvantages: The actual production figures are unknown although it is 115% efficient – I am not aware of anybody replicating it
Building: Medium difficulty
Conclusion: An interesting system not unlike Stanley Meyer’s system

(E) Running a Vehicle Engine on Water Alone:

52/ Device: Charles Garrett’s carburettor
Inventor: Charles Garrett
Advantages: Simple construction with good information – Compact Device – Operation of the original witnessed by several people – It could certainely act as a hydrogen booster system.
Disadvantages: It is by no means certain that this device can produce enough gas to work – I am not aware of anybody replicating it.
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: Doubtful that this will work as more than a booster.

53/ Device: Bob Boyce’s electrolysis cell
Inventor: Bob Boyce
Advantages: Easily understood system – Compact device – Known to work well – Zero fuel costs and only water vapour as an emission – Not difficult or expansive to construct – Advice still available fron Bob
Disadvantages: Running a vehicle on water alone is hated by the oil industry tycoons – There will be rust problems unless parts are replaced with stainless steel.
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: Doubtful that this will work as more than a booster

54/ Device: Peter Lowrie’s electrolysis cell
Inventor: Peter Lowrie
Advantages:Easily understood system – Compact device – Zero fuel costs and only water vapour as an emission – Known to work well – Not difficult to construct – Uses three ‘Archie Blue’ electrolyser cells in series, and so is well-proven – Advice still available from Peter – Operates self-powered with output power far, far higher than the input power – Uses standard alternator to give electrical output much higher than the input.
Disadvantages: Running a vehicle engine on water alone is hated by the oil industry tycoons – There will be rust problems unless some parts are replaced with stainless steel – The semiconductors used are expensive due to their high current-handling needs – This system is best used with stationary engines used to drive generators – The exact circuit details have not yet been released – Peter is selling these units commercially, initially in Australia only.
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: Excellent system

55/ Device: The Joe Cell
Inventor: Anonymous Australian called ‘Joe’
Advantages: Very effective in running engines – Compact device – Zero fuel costs and only water vapour as an emission – Not difficult to construct
Disadvantages: Requires careful setting up with pre-treated water – Engine timing needs to be advanced some fifty degrees, which may be difficult – Not an enormous amount ot information available on the device – It is said that the cell can be disrupted by strong magnetic fields – Stainless steel is expensive.
Building: Reasonably straightforward
Conclusion: Very interesting system worth experimenting with

56/ Device: The Nitro Cell
Inventor: Anonymous
Advantages: Very effective in running engines – Compact device – trivial or zero fuel costs and only water vapour as an emission – Not dificult to construct
Disadvantages: Requires high quality water – Stainless steel is expensive.
Building: Quite straightforward
Conclusion: Very interesting system worth experimenting with

57/ Device: Stanley Meyer’s water-injection systems
Inventor: Stanley Meyer
Advantages: No gas produced outside the cylinders – Superbly safe to use – Zero fuel costs and only water vapour as an emission – Considerable constructional details are contained in the patents.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of anybody who as replicated this – There will be rust problems unless some parts are replaced with stainless steel – Engineering metalwork will be required to construct the various components.
Building: Not particularly simple
Conclusion: Excellent system

58/ Device: The ‘s1r9a9m9’ water-injection system
Inventor: American mechanic
Advantages: No gas produced outside the cylinders – Superbly safe to use – Zero fuel costs and very little water vapour as an emission – Considerable constructional details have been provided – Fairly simple conversion – High mpg due to exhaust being passed through the water tank.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of anybody who has replicated this – I am not aware of anyone who has seen this vehicle in operation – There will be rust problems unless some parts are replaced with stainless steel – Spark plug wear is much increased, although cheap plugs are recommended – Replacements have to be found for the protoytpe’s relays as they are obsolete.
Building: Very simple
Conclusion: If genuine (becoming less and less likely), this is an excellent system.

Note: The Hydrostar and HydroGen manuals available on the web, show how to modify a vehicle to run on water alone. The consensus of expert opinion is that neither system can possibly produce enough hydrolysis gas to allow any engine to run. If you decide to follow their advice and do actually get an engine to run using either system, please let me know. Until that time, I suggest that you consider these sets of information as of general interest only.

(F) Inert Gas Engines:

59/ Device: The Papp and Britt Engines
Inventor: Josef Papp and Robert Britt (two different engines)
Advantages: No input – No exhaust – Completely self-contained and self-powered – Considerable constructional details have been provided – Fairly simple conversion of existing engines.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of anybody who has replicated this – Requires automotive engineering skills to modify the engine – It is felt that there is not quite enough information for easy replication – The Papp engine may need the gas mix replaced at frequent intervals.
Building: Requires metal-working skills
Conclusion: Incredible engine if it can be reproduced

60/ Device: The compressed Gas Engine
Inventor: Leroy Rogers
Advantages: No input – No exhaust – Completely self-contained and self-powered – Considerable constructinal details have been provided – Fairly simple conversion of existing engines.
Disadvantages: Requires automotive engineering skills to modify the engine.
Building: Requires metal-working skills
Conclusion: Very practical, non polluting engine

(G) Other Systems:

61/ Device: Cold Fusion
Inventor: Various
Advantages: Clean power ouptut with minimal power input.
Disadvantages: I am not aware of anybody who has replicated this as a practical device – The system is still in the laboratory stage of investigation
Building: Probably too early yet, with inadequate information as yet.
Conclusion: Possible future system

62/ Device: Moller’s Atomic Hydrogen Generator
Inventor: Irving Langmuir
Advantages: Clean power output
Disadvantages: The system is still in the laboratory stage of investigation – Probably a non-mobile system in the early stages of development.
Building: Probably too early yet, but check the JL Naudin site for current progress.
Conclusion: Possible future system.