Skip to main content

Welcome! - Water and water... there is a lot of water on our small planet-Water happens to be one of the most abundant natural resources that this planet has to offer; over 70% of our globe is covered with it, and no drilling or discovery is needed

Big fundamental question ? - How can we extract some of the enormous amount of energy in form of clean hydrogen fuel out of water economically? We found the answer..

Home  About Us  New Fuel  ImPS  Technology  Research  Library  News  Press Release and FAQ  Presentations  Partners  Contact Us  Legal Notice  Links  Member Login   


Reality Check

    There is a huge misconception that is fostered and circulated over and over again and is frustrating the general public. Their opinions are clouded by never-ending lobbying, and the term "economically produced". By now it is a widely believed fallacy, and it is used extensively by fossil fuel interests in support of their product and others when comparing the cost of hydrogen to various types of fossil fuels.

     Many circles refer to hydrogen not as a fuel but as an energy carrier that does not exist in a free state here on earth. Unlike crude oil, hydrogen is always combined with other elements. For that reason, the extraction of hydrogen is very expensive. The term “is only an energy carrier” may be technically accurate, but that term is equally applicable to crude oil and electricity. In general, however, we don’t give a second thought to the cost of electricity production. Why not? Obviously we do not see the entire picture since we are comparing apples and oranges. Since the large coal burning power plants producing our electricity are located on the fringes of cities, they are “out of sight, out of mind.” For those who care to read them, there is a list of papers in our "Library" providing far greater detail regarding what is involved in crude oil recovery and fuel production.

     In the search for raw materials for our new energy needs, would you rather turn on a water tap, walk to any beach or any other water source, or just collect rain? Globally, the earth’s atmosphere averages about 2.6% water by volume or about 13 trillion metric tons of water cycling the globe about every nine days. Water is the raw ingredient for the new hydrogen-based fuel.  At the beginning of the introduction to hydrogen, we noted that there is over one billion cubic kilometers of water on this earth - no drilling, no mining, it is just here. Two toilet flushes of water per day, or about 3 gallons, would be plenty to provide you with the raw material for hydrogen-based fuel to provide you with energy for the whole day.

    Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth (as it should be), in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. However for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group such as a government, an industry or a professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal action, harassing, blacklisting, or spreading rumors.

     One would think that given the implications (defeating the second "law of thermodynamics" means nothing less than solving the human energy crisis permanently), governments, corporations and the scientific establishment would be interested. But there is very little interest. The prevailing (circular) reasoning remains that machines that violate the second law are impossible because they would contradict the second law of thermodynamics. There is widespread belief even among few physicists and non-physicists alike that physics essentially understands the universe. According to this "end of science" belief, all that remains is to connect a few dots and to do some fine-tuning. But the evidence suggests otherwise, and indicates that this presumably satisfactory state of scientific affairs is a mere illusion created by a failure of the self-correcting mechanisms of modern science. We have barely scratched the surface.

     Science is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity, open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This 'new inquisition', as it has been called by Prof. M. Kanarev and Robert Anton Wilson, consists not of cardinals and popes, but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed "skeptics", and last but not least, of corporations and governments that have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. It is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original Inquisition was. The scientists on the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published and which is not; the science bureaucrats at the patent office many times play role who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform, and which ones it does not; and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund, and not to fund, either truly believe that they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature, or they purposely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals, institutions, or economic interests. Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken is frequently rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence.

     In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, then that theory has to go - no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, how much mathematical elegance it contains, how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it.

                                                                                                       Electrolysis of Water the New Way



Ph.M. Kanarev

How much electrical power is consumed when hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water? is it really as the technical literature is telling us? how was it measured? what instruments where used? who made them? what is the exact process and how accurate  are the standard devices that are giving us the information? is there a chance that those readings may be incorrect? We examined those and many other questions with some unsettling answers, you may be surprised by our conclusions  but read on and draw your own conclusion.


This page is  not complete and is still under construction      

                                                    Old technology "Stirling Engine" for New Era
                                                          Micro-turbines in new applications

This page is under construction